|
Post by Richard Wilks on May 6, 2020 17:53:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Gabriele Maruca on May 6, 2020 18:21:44 GMT
Alright, I have something to say about the stuff Niels said.
First off, it's not impossible to calculate the longitudinal and lateral slips: sure, the main approach is to take a strip of an abrasive material that is really close to what a fresh tarmac is. Then, you do the same test with a less abrasive strip that resembles a road that has been used for at least 10 years, so you have a good idea of what 90% of the time the tire will behave like. Usually you don't go over 6-7° of slip because the tire manufacturers always put a certain degree of faith in how someone will drive: if you end up with, say, 12° you'll be pushing up daisies in the worst case. So, by empirical test, they have no interest to go that far with angles.
About the models... there's an important caveat to his discourse: no matter the numbers you plugged in, if the model is shit it will remain shit. Also, the empirical models are quick and easy to fix, but they are imprecise by nature because you necessarily "have to fly with the seat of your pants" to a certain degree. Physical models (as intended by Kaemmer and ISI) are an utter joke because NOBODY, and I mean NOBODY, knows how a tire exactly works withing an acceptable range of error when using only data like what materials you took, how you prepared them, how they're used and so on. Even tire manufacturers do "fib" with coefficients and use empirical models mixed with physical ones: all of it mus be proved on the track and checked for accuracy.
P.S.: Niels, we're still waiting on the TREX, you little... [bites hand]
|
|
|
Post by Gabriele Maruca on May 6, 2020 18:24:42 GMT
I had a FIAT Uno (well, my uncle had...) and you completely f**ked everything. It rolls like a boat, the steering is too soft and engine is vitually dead on low revs. Also "Complicated Aero": IT'S A BRICK! You can literally set a CFD quick simulation on your PC and have a fairly accurate result because of how simple it is! Hell, we got College Theses about those back in Italy!Also, "No data". Are you joking? What about weight, the engine's power and torque maximum values, at least the top speed in a certain situation... Niels, hell, for some cars you can go to a scrapyard and measure them yourself! Sorry for the "blowing up", but Neils literally looks like a cultist that never saw a mechanic's shop in his own life when he speaks like this.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Wilks on May 6, 2020 18:35:02 GMT
I think you are missing the point of why he says that, and why i posted.
It is to dispel the belief or notion that devs get some big fat data file from manufacturers when they put a car in a game. The truth is, they don't, and like he himself admits, there are cars classified as "official content" that were made just by the power of guessing, with no data whatsoever.
The fact that he freely admits that is a huge blow to the cultists that always swore at the devs feet about accuracy, and "real data", that mod teams could never get.
|
|
|
Post by Gabriele Maruca on May 6, 2020 18:41:11 GMT
Richard, there's a big difference between having "some" data and "no" data.
"Some data": You have at least the basic parameters of the car, how powerful the engine is, how much torque, how much it weights, how much fuel it carries and, if you're lucky, the weight distribution in certain situations. That's the situation most modders find themselves in. With a bit of brain power and some footage research you can understand a lot on how car behaves and have a really educated guess on what values to put in... which will be in a realistic ballpark because of the research method you used.
"No data": you have LITERALLY NOTHING. How can you make an existing car from literally nothing is beyond me: are you tossing values until it "feels right"? Then you're not simulating the car at all.
|
|
|
Post by Richard Wilks on May 6, 2020 18:51:34 GMT
You don't have data for the formula V10 for example. Even assuming that the car is a 2002 Williams in all but name. At least not reliable data. You know "more or less" how much this or that is, but not for sure. I think this is what he means by no data, no ABSOLUTE data. Such cases are very common in simracing, again, even for devs.
|
|
|
Post by Gabriele Maruca on May 6, 2020 19:00:00 GMT
You don't have data for the formula V10 for example. Even assuming that the car is a 2002 Williams in all but name. At least not reliable data. You know "more or less" how much this or that is, but not for sure. I think this is what he means by no data, no ABSOLUTE data. Such cases are very common in simracing, again, even for devs. Again, even "educated guesses" for data is still data. You can do something with it: it won't be exactly the same, but it will be in the right ballpark more or less. Having "no data" on a car and model it in sim is literally impossible: even when you are the one designing a car you have some parameters you account for when doing it. And don't get mes tarted on the walking IP infringement that is AMS: I still remember Niels and Co. at Reiza saying that their cars weren't exact copies because they changed some details... when you could literally superimpose their cars to the 2013 F1 ones and get an exact match in shape and liveries (minus the sponsors and names).
|
|
|
Post by Richard Wilks on May 6, 2020 19:04:35 GMT
Well i dont want to discuss semantics, but educated guesses are not data. They are guesses.
You can guess pretty close, but unless you get real numbers from a team or a manufacturer, or you got them from a book written by someone with access to those, you are still guessing. This is what he means.
|
|
|
Post by Gabriele Maruca on May 6, 2020 19:22:16 GMT
Well i dont want to discuss semantics, but educated guesses are not data. They are guesses. You can guess pretty close, but unless you get real numbers from a team or a manufacturer, or you got them from a book written by someone with access to those, you are still guessing. This is what he means. From an engineering standpoint it's not semantics, but I'll leave it there. Moving on.
|
|
|
Post by François Remmen on May 6, 2020 21:31:54 GMT
love this conversations with 2 brilliant people and both are right in there way but we have a saying in life form a quote of Rober Mcnamara "fog of War" and one of his 10 guides people faces every day Seeing and believe are both often wrong, that's why people start argue and even started big wars because they starting to beleive it. In this case its "feeling and believing is often wrong" because most cars we and many modders made over the past we never been able to drive them only what is in the books or by some average drivers giving little information of there handling Till today making mods and suppose we had all telemetry of the car and put it straight into a simulator that is available to us it can give you crazy results which cause you headaches, sounds formuliar? how can this car act so weird , we put in the data we gather from the books etc etc. now , and admins im NOT promoting here anything but sometimes you are stuck like we are now adding soft, med, and hard packers ( bumpstops) because in real life they fill them up to maxium ammounts to get 1cm of groundclearence and drive on the skids, what give ams /rfactor as result a car that bounch sky high. what to do now .. change change and work around it to "FEEL" it the same or in the worsed case , just crap it. realistic no, drivable yes. main problems we all facing also here im sure.
The MAIN problem is and that is the KEY we don't have a simulator that can handle all correct data 1 v 1 . and this i lateley discussed with duke , why not building a simulator ourselves like a flightsim which he did and convert into a race sim we are brainstorming now and then , how to fund this what features must be in it , wearing skidblocks, Lubricant leaks, you name it.
Anyway, we have to deal what we have now and WORK AROUND it despite the correct data , we , ISO , care more about realism then the commercial companies , its a fact. This story maybe could make us thing about what we thinking , why not building a damn sim ourselves, with all possible feature in it, we have the brains here for sure even to startup a company I name you Gabriele , Richard Wilks, Brain Janik, Jason White, ALberto Ibanez, and im sure many more. 15 years ago we could never thought the tv broadcast rf2 races live , it was a niche market for geeks like us who loves to drive cigars and f1 with big fat tires . now its becomming big. so think big and live the dream i say again ,this fantastic forum has the brains to do it!
|
|
|
Post by Richard Wilks on May 7, 2020 12:23:31 GMT
As you may have noticed, Austin was asked to take down his videos about iracing. Seems iracing believes that harassing people for critisizing is still the best way to handle things.
|
|
|
Post by Gabriele Maruca on May 7, 2020 15:18:52 GMT
Wow. Just... wow.
Austin's Youtube has privated all of the videos, his tweets and Facebook profiles are privated too... if it's true that iRacing asked him to shut everything down, I have only a question to ask.
Mr Kaemmer... Dave... what the actual jumpinjacking HELL are you trying to achieve with this?
|
|
|
Post by Richard Wilks on May 20, 2020 18:08:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by François Remmen on May 20, 2020 19:49:15 GMT
Curious In "What sim" he put that data in , and from which cars, "Single seater". these tires came from and in what stage those tires were
|
|
|
Post by Alberto Ibanez on May 31, 2020 15:55:47 GMT
Do "sim alien exploits" work in real life? Or is it just the gifted ones discovering what conventional wisdom was ignoring?
|
|
|
Post by Richard Wilks on Jun 2, 2020 0:49:06 GMT
|
|