I think the strength of sim racing as a tv show is also its biggest weakness. Everybody can do it. Why would I watch sim racing when I can go do it myself?

In the end though the type of real racing doesn't really matter as much as it being real racing does. Formula E sounds pretty dull concept but it is still real racing. By real I mean not virtual. While the cars will sound exactly like the cars in gran turismo it doesn't really matter that much in the end. Of course the purist in me wants to see those v12 screamers but it is not really what tips the scales.

I don't think it is the danger aspect either. If there was a similarly high end racing series in both virtual and in real life the consequences for crashing for the driver are pretty similar. Your race is ruined and you score no points. I don't think the death and injury is what makes real motorsports exciting as some say. Sure some people want to see big crashes and cars doing cartwheels and barrel rolls 29 times before coming to rest only to be driven over by a monster truck in a fiery spectacle of fire and lasers but for the driver the main pressure when you are on the track comes from finishing the race and not about dying.

Where the line does get more blurry is when we have real cars going around the track and the drivers sitting in sim pods driving the cars using radio signals. But if the comparison is between sim racing and real racing I really don't see sim racing as equal competitor.

There are lots of reasons other than the differences in the actual sports that are important as well. Sim racing has still long ways to go to get to the same professional level as the top level motorsports tv shows. Sim racing also needs to do a lot of work to get people to get excited about and emotionally connected to sim racing like they are connected to and excited about real sports. Atm only people who watch sim racing are sim racers.

Nice pics from inside a honda 2,4 litre f1 engine
http://www.racecar-engineering ... ondas-f1-engine-revealed/

Double points for the last race. Just dumb. Dumb dumb dumb. Nobody wanted the season to end in abu boring dhabi and even less I'd imagine anyone wanted double points for it. I really hope it backfires horribly and instead of vettel winning by 100 points he will win the championship by 125 points.

Driver numbers, meh. I'd guess I need to prepare for all the touchy stories about how some driver really wanted that number... wonder how many drivers want the number 2 just because it was the last number senna used

Personally I'd pick 13 just because I could.

Quote from Mustafur :

Physics are much improved and a noticeable improvement in all areas

Is it really noticeable difference? Do almost all of the cars have tons of understeer by default, is abs 0 usable and do you still need to put softer compounds on the front to get somewhat neutral handling? Do kerbs upset the car? If it is noticeably better to drive than gt5 I might get it for online racing but the academy demo felt kinda slightly improved but not enough imho. Does the modern skyline for example still drive like a strange diarrhea of underteer with random snap oversteer? Do you need to rotate the car into the turn by coming off the brakes abruptly to get a snap oversteer to not understeer like in the academy demo?

Quote from Mustafur :

Keep in mind a full tank in 2012 in australia compared to near empty tanks for the rest puts things into perspective.

Also in 2013 the drivers could use drs only on the drs areas of the track during sessions but in 2012 the drivers could use drs everywhere on the track during practise and qualifying. So that slowed the cars down as well. Plus the floor tweaks and exhaust-diffuser rules changes at the end of 2011 season.

It is essentially gt5.5. Only real difference is the bigger amount of tracks+rain and night racing for all tracks. Ai is still 100€ the same. I could post some replays just like cooolcol's from gt5 where I drive a car with poorer tires and poorer pp points than the ai and the "fights back".

GT5 will probably lose its online mode soon though so I would not buy gt5 for offline racing. But for purely offline racing I'd not buy any gt game anyways. The offline mode in forza is so many ways superior that is not even a choise which one to get for purely offline racing. Honestly I think it is really tough choise even choosing which one to buy gt5 or gt6. Gt5 is little bit worse and has little bit less content but also costs something like 10€ where gt6 costs 60€. In direct comparison gt6 is of course better but is there enough to pay 50€ more for it?

Maybe a couple of months from now gt6 is a decent purchase when it can be had for 10-20€.

Quote from CodeLyoko1 :

explain please why you think it's the dumbest thing ever. I think it's better for certain race lengths. if it's a 20 minute race, I dont want to wait 15 minutes if I join a server right at the beginning. Also, if I want to skip qualifying (in lets say rfactor) I want to know when the race starts so I know when to join the server. LFS with 3 laps races doesn't need that tough. Mainly also because you dont qualify before.

Set times for race start = wait for the races to start.

The way I see it there are now three kinds of online racing "systems".

There is the iracing system which has progression so in a way you need to earn safety rating to progress to higher level stuff. The main point though is that the races are scheduled to start at certain times and outside of the official races the only thing you can do is to practise (or drive in leagues). Or drive some other car/track combo else. I got into iracing as early as the doors opened and for me it took something like half a year to get bored. I log in, I choose a car I want to drive and the next race is 2 hours from now. I don't like waiting.

That being said there are pluses and negatives in every type of sim racing. The strongest points of the iracing system are: 1) every car and track is used 2) there is a race happening for every car, at least on popular hours. You can race every car. 3) there is skill metric and a system that tries to provide equal opponents for every skill level. The races are also longer but that is imho not an automatic plus. Also generally you race against unknowns most of the time. Learning to know the other drivers is difficult.

Then there is the traditional lobby system. Races are generally shorter and there are basically no restrictions who can enter and race. There is no skill based matchmaker, there is no schedule for cars nor tracks. There could be active host on the server who keeps the racing clean, most of the time there isn't. Driving quality generally is lower, both as in driver speed and safety.

The races are going on all the time. During one hour you can do 3-5 races easily. If you find an active server. Generally the waiting times are non existent. The problems are that certain tracks and cars are unproportionally popular while some other cars are rarely used. Biggest positive is that you get to do lots of races. You learn the racecraft and the peculiarities of the cars at faster rate because you get to do more races. Out of all time you spend on the server you spend a much bigger portion racing.

When I was trying the oval racing in iracing it was practically impossible to practise tracks like lowes (charlotte?) because on practise servers everybody drove the normal racing line but in races it was superspeedwayracing. Driving in single line and hugging the bottom of the track all the way around the lap. To learn that it takes quite a few races and as a result you end up causing lots of accidents because everything is new. On normal servers you get to practise flying starts, safety cars, pitting and tire strategies multiple times during one hour but on iracing you get only one chance every 2 hours to get it perfect.

Then there are leagues. Very competitive, generally very little racing for the time invested. Lots of practicing, long races with special rules. Very fun but also demanding. Races once per week or less. You learn to know the other drivers and over the time you will very likely find some other driver who has similar pace.

There is nothing more than I'd want more than to spread the players to use all the content more evenly. But I don't want to do it at the cost of waiting. I still want to race when I want and not when the clock says I can. For ultimate solution I think the real answer is somewhere between the traditional model and the iracing system. For less popular cars and tracks a scheduled system might be the way to go. But not for everything

Any racing car made before 1993 or earlier is teh sex. Audi 90 imsa gto, imsa era corvettes, mustangs, mazdas, mercuries. Early 90s dtm and atcc racing cars like sierra rs500, group A skylines, mercs, holdens. From 60s some minis and mustangs could make an interesting pairing.

For road cars a caterham r500 should be better than perfect.

I think it is the dumbest thing ever to set race start at certain time online lobbies. If i want to wait hours for a race to start I can pay iracing for that.

Quote from JJ72 :

the first hour doesn't look good, extra easy AI, forced Fit, I wonder how long you have to sink in before you get AI that are semi challenging.

and oh now the standard and premium cars are all together in the dealership, must be fun flipping through 3 pages for standard miatas to get to the car you want?

Ai looks like it is the same shit as in gt5. Even on this nordschleife vid the ai still makes all the exact same mistakes as it did in gt5. At 0:55 it does the exact same left right left movement across the track. It brakes on a staightaway that is flatout even in spacerocket... Still brake checks in the exit of the 2:50. And the ai is still dumb as *** as well. How can it be so bad it takes so long to pass a gt corvette in a freaking peugeot 905 lemans prototype.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaSzflCyTkg

It is imho just mind blowing how pd managed to take the worst parts of gt5 and make it worse. Force players to start with nissan fit. WHY? How could anyone at all think it is a good idea? Best part of the whole gt series is finding your first car with the little money you have. I still remember all the first cars I've bought in every gt game. First game I bought a mazda demo. In the 2nd I bought crx. In the fourth one I bought wv lupo or beetle. Didn't play gt3. And in fifth I bought a mitsubishi fto. Now the game forces you to buy a car that is way too fast and expensive for the novice races... and is a car nobody wants.

Then force the player to go though the a-spec without giving any choise what to do. Instead of exp you now collect stars. And nothing was done to improve the three major problems with the game. Sound, ai and a-spec. The more I learn about the game the less sense any of the design decisions make and the more the game looks like a total let down.

Imho this is a 60€ patch to gt5.

Yeah. Black and white. And little bit of grey.

Quote from Matrixi :

Once you use a proper FFB wheel, I just can't imagine anyone going back to a feedback'less control device when you're driving seriously.

Seriously as in
- more realistic or
- trying to be faster or
- just having more fun?

What is a proper ffb racing wheel?

I know for a fact I'm faster without ffb. In iracing when I tried my fanatec 991turbo s wheel I could not get within 1s of my non ffb wheel lap times (mustang in vir long). It was easier to be faster and more consistent with a non-ffb wheel. It is easier to hold car on the limit through a turn when the steering wheel doesn't fight you. It is much easier to get back in control after getting a tank slapper or after sudden change in the car with non ffb wheel. With ffb the steering wheel tries all the time steer you away from the perfect line you are taking once you have rotated into a turn. Or that how it has to me everytime I'm using a ffb wheel.

Ffb is definitely more realistic. That's not even debatable imho.

But fun for me is about control. For some people it might be immersion. A ffb wheel is an immersive tool where a non ffb wheel probably isn't. But if fun is about competitive racing and doing my best then I'd pick non ffb wheel every time over ffb wheel.

Maybe I have my standards set too high. I feel my 911 turbo s is way too slow and has too much resistance. It turns too slow and it resists too much when I need to make quick correction. The ffb feels like it is coming late and more often than not the ffb is actually giving me conflicting information. Maybe I need a better ffb wheel.

Quote from Crashgate3 :

Just a heads-up; there's a bonus code to be had, works on existing accounts. Be quick though, there's a limited number of keys.

https://eu.alienwarearena.com/ ... nks-bonus-code-giveaway-2

300 gold + 1 day premium.

There are more codes there now. But this new code won't work if you already got a code last time.

Quote from smove :

Maybe console heroes on Speed?

Maybe just a sonic avatar month?

So, new avatars for december 2013? I was thinking about making december a console theme. Pictures of gaming consoles, anyone?

Quote from Hyperactive :

Here are the predictions for the 2013 season. When the season ends I'll check them and announce winnars.

So here are the early results. Of course I have not yet checked them so I thought I post them first just in case there are tons of errors:


I just think it is plain hilarious the closest answer to seb's total points is still 91 points off .

Anyways, grats to me, Iginla and teppo.jr for getting most question right (8/12). And grats for IsaacPrice being closest with his wdc points winner guess with just 91 points off.

One thing I just noticed (I think!). I thought in gt5 the game picked the other drivers when racing against ai based on my own nationality but it seems it doesn't. I always thought I have one or two finnish drivers in races against ai because of that reason but apparently you guy see finnish drivers in every race as well in gt5?

Quote from atledreier :

Wow.

AI that actually pass and even try to pass you back if you mess up a corner, instead of driving through you... Novelty.

GT500 car passing you in a vw scirocco. That's a power difference of 500 vs 350...

Last edited by Hyperactive, Fri, 22 Nov 2013 16:08.

Quote from kars19 :

Just did some performance testing.

AC vs LFS (both equal as possible)
0-100km/h and 50-120km/h @ 4' gear

http://www.s14motorsport.de/0047/05.jpg

AC = 0-100km/h = ~6.3 s (spot on) 50-120km/h @ 4' gear = ~16.5 s (~4.4 s to slow)
LFS = 0-100km/h = ~6.2 s (about the same) 50-120km/h @ 4' gear = ~12 s (spot on)

My conclusion is that the AC' e30m3 lacks mid range torque, maybe that is one of the reasons of bogging down

Using some telemetry you could easily see where the differences come from. Does ac have any kind of telemetry like motec, atlas or replay analyzer?

Longitudinal acceleration vs engine revs should tell exactly where the differences in the engines are if you do a 50-120kmh run using just 4th gear in both sims. Or if it is aero issue or tire pressures or some other wonky stuff which probably shows up if you do a 100kmh-50kmh run coasting on 4th gear.

Did you have same tire dimensions for both cars? I take it that you had flat piece of track for both tests.

camera under teh car pointing at the rar axle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-VBN9fIcPk

Innovation in gt5: leveling system
Innovation in gt6: microtransactions

I don't really mind or care if players can buy credits in gt game. What I care is that if the game has been ruined by making the prize payouts smaller to "encourage" players to buy those credits... not that gt5 wasn't grindy enough already. I'd guess this is one way to fix the bad a-spec ...

Quote from Töki (HUN) :

Oh please. That sounds like you want to blame it on the team or other drivers.

No. I just want to hear the facts before I crucify the guy. The start was poor. The first laps were poor. But what wrecked his race looks like it wasn't his fault at all.

Whether heikki drove good or bad is impossible to tell atm.

Quote from Töki (HUN) :

Care to explain? Don't think anyone saw Valsecchi driving, so I dunno why everyone thinks he sucks. But what would it matter if he did worse? Epic amount of experience 0 pts vs. no experience 0 pts, not a big deal.

Front wing damage, poor pitstops. Bad result but whose fault it really was? Did he break his front wing or did it break on its own? Was this your first ever F1 race you watched?

Reading from the autosport forums the lotus deal with quantum looks like a total scam:
http://forums.autosport.com/to ... he-cheque-is-in-the-post/
(it is hilarious to read too)

Also it seems lotus f1 is in serious financial troubles. And let's not forget lotus f1 team did make 56£ millions loss in 2012:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/spo ... -motorsports-biggest.html

At this point it looks more and more the future of lotus f1 is about survival than it is about driver lineups and r&d to stay in top 3-5. 2014 is shaping up to be incredibly expensive season and it looks pretty bad for lotus imho. If I was maldonado I'd think really hard bofere going to lotus...

I thought heikki drove really really well in 2011 for caterham and definitely deserved another title. Problem was that his 2012 season wasn't as good which eventually made him look much worse than he is.

Caterham and marussia are both living in their totally own f1 world and when driving those cars it is practically impossible to impress anyone. 4 seasons in F1 and not even the slightest chance to even score one point tells everything about those turd cars. And even being so bad their only possible direction is down (hrt).

I think heikki is still a different and better driver than he was in his mclaren days. His problem never was qualifying though but the race pace. While he did fine yesterday I think the truth will be revealed in the race. Has he got the speed. Personally I'm carefully optimistic. Grosjean is definitely driving at his peak now and looking at the long stints grosjean was faster than kovalainen:
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/201 ... friday-practice-analysis/
How much of that is down to fuel I don't know but looking at that graph heikki was about 0.6s slower per lap than grosjean on his long stint.


Oh and it does not look good for hulkenberg:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/111351
Lotus needs to build more factories for 2014 if they are going to have grosjean&maldonado driving. The amount of spare parts those two will go though, bernie needs to buy another jumbo too I think .

Quote from The Moose :

As far as I'm concerned when it comes to physics

Kunos>Niels Heusinkveld>DK

As far as I've understood those 3 people have all different jobs. Kunos (just like todd wasson I think) does both coding and putting in the numbers the physics engine uses for the car. DK does just physics engine coding and I'm farily sure iracing have people whose job it is to put the numbers in when the physics engine comes from dk (some kind of vehicle dynamics experts I don't remember the correct term). And niels doesn't code anything (except excel) and uses ready made rfactor physics engine to put his own numbers.

So as far as I know there are 3 people "in sim racing" who do both the code and put in the numbers to create cars. Scawen, todd and kunos.

And so far what niels has achieved with rfactor I'd imagine the problems with every sim are more on the number side than the physics engine side of things. If rfactor today can do all the awesome things it can do with the same physics engine that was used to create the icy spinning floating bumper cars back in 2005 then I'd be really surprised if iracing for example was truly limited by the physics engine and not the data.