Quote from Glenn67 :

I also know or know off many that have died because they were very comfortable with speed and haning the tail out, these are mostly kids in there 20s although one prominate example which happened not less than 10km from where I live was Peter Brock who had vast experience. While it can be done irl and often can feel easy or look easy if you take it for granted it can also kill, so perhaps is not as easy as it feels or we believe.

The fact is if you are well within the traction limit of a car and you hang the tail out its a whole different kettle of fish to being at or near the limit of adhesion before the tail steps out.

Some other facts are that road cars are designed to be 'safe' i.e. to have more predictable and controlable responses in emergency situtaions than race preped cars, even race engineers set up cars with their drivers ability in mind.

We also know that to detect a slide and react in a sim is never going to be as quick reaction as we can irl. Every hundreth of a second delay in reacting is a step closer to not being able to recover the slide, hence why in sim racing to be fast I am constantly pre-empting slides by semi correcting before they even happen.

Another fact is irl most drivers start well below the grip limit and slowly work up to the limit of adhesion, in Sim racing most tend to do the opposite we drive too hot and reduce our pace until we can stay on the track. That alone gives the impression of funcky physics compared to real life simply because our behaviour is so different.

These points all have been brought up in the past with LFS physics and aply to any sim physics. With all these things in mind I find that the physics are pretty good. I mean once you are in the right ball park with speed and line in a corner, if you do slide it is entirely catchable and if you spin it will not end up in a wall it will be semi controlable/predicatble.

I mean if you drive at 9/10ths on a track your familiar with you can drive it all day and control any slides that may happen, if you try do a whole race at 10/10s then the chances of you making an error of judgement and spinning are probably 10x higher. LFS physics and track environments are a little more predictable than iRacing atm and therefore will allow you to drive closer to 10/10s.

Irl I do not believe that drivers are able to drive that close to the limit as the 'limit' is different for every lap they do and so they can't get it perfect, which is why you do see the odd lap which is sometimes refered to as an 'lap of the Gods' as with Greg Murphy at Bathurst 2003 where he put it on pole by a second! If you look at that video that is how most Sim drivers try drive all the time then they wonder why the tyre physics are funky and they spin out more than irl

Were the reality is when a driver drives that close to the edge for an entire lap and pulls it off (i.e. it is actually quick and he doesn't crash) everyone shacks their heads in disbelief, were if you can't do that in Sim racing your slow

Seems to be well said, but not always correct. Im not sure if for example iracing is so spot on with the physics of car behaviour. What i can is, for example, ive been driving 2 seasons in the Mégane Trophy now, in this season i think i've spun out 1 time. And i'm sure i'm on the limit, im winning races and if you check my onboards you can clearly see it.

And never when i hit a cerbstone my car inmediatly spins out to be never recovered! It's just less hard IRL. Same if i touch the grass. Iracing seems a bit to hard in those things.

And i have to agree with you, maybe LFS is to forgiveable. Maybe they build it knowing that we don't feel with our body in a simulation. But just with our sights and hands. Maybe Iracing is more realistic, but you can't do anything with it because behind your pc you dont feel a thing :P!

I'm not sure which one is the better, but for sure i can say LFS feels better. And in both sims i'm quite ok i think. (just started with iracing again)

I don't for a moment think iRacing tyre physics are perfect or even close to perfect for that matter, but neither do I think that about LFS's tyre physics. Both Sims have a way to go and both we know are working on these things specifically which can only mean good things going forward.

The area of physics were the race driver mostly focuses (limit of adhesion) is the least understood but most noticable aspect to the driver of tyre physics! If Adrian Newey of RBR says that it's 'the one area' of Formula 1 that is the most dificult to get good data and understand correctly then how much more so for a Sim developer even a developer like iRacing let alone Scawen!

I just think that iRacings physics aren't as wrong as some think. I think LFS and iRacing both have their strong points and weak points and that in the long run as they both develop further that the tyre models will most likely become more similar to each other in feel. But I also believe that without the additional sensory input we get in rl that it will always be more dificult to catch a slide in a Sim.

The point I make about drivers not driving on the absolute limit was maybe poorly worded, I don't doubt for a minute that every race driver drives to their full capabilities - what I was trying to convey though is that the limit of adhesion in rl is not as precise as in a Sim and a little fuzy if you like. This in itself would mean that you would be driving very close to the limit in rl and often a little over the limit but that it is far more dificult to drive precisely on the limit repeatedly in rl where in a sim it is easier to do (not saying its easy by any means, just easier).

I mostly have only driven the Solstice, Spec Racer Ford and V8Supercar on Road Courses in iRacing and at least in the SRF and V8S I find it quite ok in most circumstances with curbs and grass when my line is only marginly off (as I mentioned earlier even more forgiving than LFS in some circumstances). Maybe its different for other cars I don't know, I do find that I struggle in those same circustances a lot more while I'm going through the process of learning or relearning a track and/or making a new set, so iRacing is definately less forgiving when you don't get it right than LFS and most likely rl. There are numbers of anomalities though where certain curbs throw you more than they should or the grass in certain spots is less forgiving but overall I don't think it is terrible and is/will be improved as we go along the same is true for LFS also.

Well i tried i-racing a few months ago by purchasing a 3 month subscription and a couple of tracks and well to be honest it is really not the game everybody keeps praising..Well before starting any fires the physics are really top notch and i would not exept anything less from Craemmer as if it wasn't for him maybe there would not be a car simulation genre altogether today...
And that leads to i-racing being absolutely astonishing on some things and completely abysmal on some others...
Physics are great and coupled with the laser scanned tracks really bring racing a notch up from gtr games and rfactor and for me even...lfs.Thats not to say lfs physics are inferior -actually quite the opposite- but coupled with the laser scanned tracks were you feel every pothole the road feeling is very alive.On this subject its not impossible to replicate the feeling of laser scanning tracks -even on fantasy tracks- if enough time is given to allocate very subtle elevation changes on even straight flat surfaces to emulate real road surfaces,potholes etc..Some tracks in rfactor really come close to this.
Then come graphics.They are not by any means incredible by they are a notch better than lfs,gtr games and the older content of rfactor tracks/cars.That said some tracks and cars in rfactor really are way better looking with more detail than i-racing.I-racing tracks are very accurate but feel very sterile-empty...(basically nothing is moving or animated on them...No bouncing when hit tyre barriers/no 3d crews,no 3d /2d spectators/no flags or trees that that sway with wind etc...)
About sound i found it actually quite good.Espeasially with a surround system you will love it.
i hoped i had that device they are advertising lately a lot butkicker...I can only imagine how better it would feel with the bass vibrations....
Damage is a half baked deal...There is mechanical damage and you can completely destroy or make undrivable your car some times but often nothing will happen after a big collition or roll over(it is supposed to be improved with the latest patch through i have not raced lately).Also visual damage is almost none existant for that matter....

And what about actual racing ? Well i found this to be more of a personal choice.
As a lot of people already said I-racing is a more "serius" sim.Its not serius in the way ultra realistic but in the way that every race counts.If you try driving 100% you will crash and after many crashes you will be punished by having your "safety rating lowered" .That will stop you from getting to the more advance races with the more powerfull cars and the more complex tracks..You start racing mostly in oval tracks and to be honest i personally hate ovals..Racing in an oval from time to time would have been nice but 60% of i-racing tracks are ovals and most rookie tracks races are in ovals....If you are patient and carefull enough you will advance but again if you are not carefull enough and cause many accidents you will be thrown back to the lower class events...Thats from the one hand builds a lot of tension on every race as you would think twice to attempt passing a car or give 100% on a turn....but at the same time sometimes you just want to race as fast as you can and this concept stops you from doing that....

So now lets go to the actual content witch was the BIGGEST dissapointment for me...I love simulations because i can drive real cars i could never afford to or real cars in a matter i would never dare in real life...
In I-racing there are NO real life cars at ALL.ZERO/NADA....OR well there are 2...a insect like track specked pontiac solstice and a vw golf zetta....witch turned out to be the BEST car in i-racing.....And when the best car in a sim turnes out to be one of the most boring cars in real life then something is not right in my book...
I mean ok there are a ton of open wheelers,funny cars,nascar stock cars,australian v8....But where are the normal cars...Even 2 amazing cars ended up to be gtr cars like the mustang and the corvette...
And on the content subject lets go to tracks...There are very few of them....Sure there are 41 laser scanned tracks but more than half of them are actually ovals....(there are variations through to some ovals and they get more interesting through).And there are very few international tracks.

And now i left the worst and most controvertial thing in i-racing for last.Craemmer always made games that would last and give simmers months and years of fun.But now you have to pay a subscription to play the game.If it was only that somehow i could let it slip...I mean there are many mmo games out there where you pay monthly.But I-racing is not a mmo my friends...PLEASE TAKE CARE OF WHAT I AM GOING TO SAY :

In a mmo you pay monthly but you continue your adventure on new places and locations.

In I-racing you pay montly FOR THE SAME CONTENT that is 3 "cars" and 7-8 tracks...The devs sure add steadily new content BUT you have to buy it.Physics do get improved but the cars and tracks you already have stay the same ofcourse...IF you stick on the main suscription you may spend from 100 to 170$ just to play only online for a year those same 3 cars and 7-8 tracks......You can have a great online experience with lfs for years with 6 times the amount of cars for 40$ or with the latest gtr evo/on bundle for like 50$ and have 3 times the tracks and 20 times the cars of the I-racing basic subscription.......And i don't even mention rfactor were nowdays there may be over 30-40 very high quality cars and 20-30 very high quality tracks to race....

So lets say you pass the rookie events and want to continue playing i-racing what you have to do is buy more tracks and cars...Granded you don't have to buy them all but we are speaking eventually for an additional cost of 100 up to 300 $ easily....

Thats my friend is a lot of money if you think about it...If i-racing was perfect,If it had perfect physics and ultra realistic car damage with deformable body,detachable body parts and always registering mechanical damage,If it had weather effects,If it had a nice bunch of real world normal cars,If it had better graphics,If it had more international tracks and a couple of roads,If it had more alive tracks with wind,moving 3d spectators,deformable barriers etc and if it had some ofline mode with some basic ai to practice or do a quick race without fearing you are going to loose your safety rating then and only then i-racing would worth all this money given....


As a closure that was my personall experience with i-racing....The game does have potential through and may get better.And definetely for anybody that loves open wheelers or nascar stock cars i-racing IS the definite simulation with its ambudance of ovals and incredible modeled stock cars and open wheelers...

Good post I see where your coming from and agree with much of it, especially about sterile-empty track environments and half baked damage model.
Like you say though it is a matter of perspective.

Taste in cars will dictate a lot if someone will like a Sim, LFS has a good selection of sedans so I like it, I've never given nkpro a go simply because I am not interested in driving open wheelers and iRacing I did put off for a long time because the content was too much centered around ovals of which I have little interest.

I have driven less than half a dozen laps on one oval and that's it, there are plenty of drivers even in Pro level road that haven't done much in ovals so it is feasable to use iRacing for road content only.

iRacing doesn't pretend to be a driving simulator and as such it's content is all racing related, the cars are based on real cars just real race cars. It has a good amount of V8 sedans which is what all Aussies want so it appeals to Aussies a lot. It's something many in LFS have lemented there being a lack of over the years. The LX8 would have been great and/or a car similar to the XRR but V8 would have been very welcome to us Aussies, I get the impression that in Europe people aren't so keen on these style cars, but here and in the USA V8 cars are a big part of our culture so very desirable to have in our Sims. Some will not like it because of this others will love it. As to tracks I have confidence that we will continue to get new content and international content in iRacing including Aussie tracks which will certainly keep me interested going forward.

There is ways to race in iRacing to overcome most of your concerns/experiences, week13 for example has races were you don't have to worry about your ratings, there are hosted sessions and of course open practise sessions where if you get to know people you can have casual races or make up games like I do with a few guys where we take turn being in the lead defending with the follower trying to overtake or just do laps together. But you are right it want be for everyone.

As to the cost again a lot seem to get hung up on it, the reality is it isn't cheap and so many will not buy into it, that's life. For many though their perspective will be different, I recall buying games at $100 a pop to play for three weeks then never touch again and in a year probably buy four or five. These days I don't buy or play any other games so even if iRacing cost me $300 a year it is less than what I used to spend and as a bonus I get much more usage out of it, again you see it's perspective and again some will be ok with the cost while other will not...

@ PMD, I started running what could be called a luaghable setup on a my sportsman car in 2002, and the car was insanely fast.
At a track where 57% crossweght is the norm, I was under 47%
It simply comes down to the right combination and giving the car and driver what each wants.
But you're experienced enough to know that.....

Quote from z-ro 8 :

@ PMD, I started running what could be called a luaghable setup on a my sportsman car in 2002, and the car was insanely fast.
At a track where 57% crossweght is the norm, I was under 47%
It simply comes down to the right combination and giving the car and driver what each wants.
But you're experienced enough to know that.....

did you win Kevvy, or how many incident points did you receive?

Lol.

Quote from z-ro 8 :

@ PMD, I started running what could be called a luaghable setup on a my sportsman car in 2002, and the car was insanely fast.
At a track where 57% crossweght is the norm, I was under 47%
It simply comes down to the right combination and giving the car and driver what each wants.
But you're experienced enough to know that.....

Full nose weight, 50-75lbs more on RF than LF, no track bar, front springs adjusted to make a tight set. Only thing to make the car turn is the rear spring split. Car shouldn't even want to turn, and sure as heck should get epically tight on the long run, however it does none of that. If anything the setup is loose!

It's crazy how you can make a crazy tight setup and make one thing counteract it, and that will make virtually a completely different setup. Each 'build' the sets change dramatically, this is the first time this type of setup is fast. I'm not really figuring out how it works just yet.

It's another feature... Dynamic setup engine keeps you on your toes!

Quote from PMD9409 :

Full nose weight, 50-75lbs more on RF than LF, no track bar, front springs adjusted to make a tight set. Only thing to make the car turn is the rear spring split. Car shouldn't even want to turn, and sure as heck should get epically tight on the long run, however it does none of that. If anything the setup is loose!

It's crazy how you can make a crazy tight setup and make one thing counteract it, and that will make virtually a completely different setup. Each 'build' the sets change dramatically, this is the first time this type of setup is fast. I'm not really figuring out how it works just yet.

Yeah. What doesn't make sense works. The first time we rolled that set across the scales the inspectors thought they had the cables mixed up. 1100 pounds on the LF tire, 8 deg caster split, lol. And this was years 8 years ago. Now its the norm.

Quote from z-ro 8 :

Yeah. What doesn't make sense works. The first time we rolled that set across the scales the inspectors thought they had the cables mixed up. 1100 pounds on the LF tire, 8 deg caster split, lol. And this was years 8 years ago. Now its the norm.

Noooo its not the norm. Thats how we WANT to setup the car because it is supposed to be the norm, instead all the weight instead of being on the LF is on the RF. The caster split is a wopping 2 deg. Just a radical change from anything we have tried, and anything we would think would be realistic is all.

Quote from PMD9409 :

Noooo its not the norm. Thats how we WANT to setup the car because it is supposed to be the norm, instead all the weight instead of being on the LF is on the RF. The caster split is a wopping 2 deg. Just a radical change from anything we have tried, and anything we would think would be realistic is all.

If I'm understanding you correctly then what you describe is the same or similar issue to what has been the case in LFS with tyre load sensetivies (i.e. outside tyre has too much grip compared to inside tyre)

Sorry phil, I meant its the norm at my local track, and a few others. Haven't tried it online yet.
And tbh, I've run 62% crossweight at the same track, so who really knows what is "correct"?

Quote from z-ro 8 :

Sorry phil, I meant its the norm at my local track, and a few others. Haven't tried it online yet.
And tbh, I've run 62% crossweight at the same track, so who really knows what is "correct"?

There is a lot of variables involved! I can't say I've got my head around all the terminology commonly used in oval racing, one thing that stands out imediately though is what you see in the set up screen is on flat ground and what you race on is mostly banked corners - so that would mean that what you view in the set up screen really can only be used as a reference point and has little resemblance to what the actual balance of the car is at speed in the middle of a banked turn?

Yeah I understand that you can do different things, I've been doing ovals all my life, I found that out fast . The weird part is that each update makes the setups change dramatically, there is never any consistency. As soon as you get use to how the car reacts, a new build comes out, and you have to learn all over again! You wonder what is actually realistic, and thats what pisses me off the most about iRacing.

Quote from Glenn67 :

There is a lot of variables involved! I can't say I've got my head around all the terminology commonly used in oval racing, one thing that stands out imediately though is what you see in the set up screen is on flat ground and what you race on is mostly banked corners - so that would mean that what you view in the set up screen really can only be used as a reference point and has little resemblance to what the actual balance of the car is at speed in the middle of a banked turn?

A reference point is correct.
For instance in the Late Model in iRacing, you can set your typical static setup parameters, but you have no idea where your front and rear roll centers are, where your CG height is, actual track width, pinion angle (and you have to assume it is a standard 3-link, with no spring-loaded 3rd member, with an aft-mounted panhard bar). Not to mention the lack of accurate ackerman settings or knowing how much bump-steer you have. You also have no measurement or adjustability in the lower trailing arms to induce or reduce rear-steer.
Which, in my eyes, begs the question of how so many people can say the tire-model is incorrect, when in all actuality it could be absolutely perfect, but the geometry in the suspension is wrong. We don't really even know if the tires are based on a radial or bias-ply design (at least i haven't seen that determination as of yet).
As I have said before, we are given a computer generated representation of what should be, and the setups need to be as such to make that representation fast. Until we are given every possible piece of information available ingame that we get on real cars, noone will ever really know if tire models are right or wrong.

This discussion makes me glad to be a road racer exclusively!

Though I did sort of mess around in the legends for a couple practices; I can see how oval would be fun.

Quote from z-ro 8 :

A reference point is correct.
For instance in the Late Model in iRacing, you can set your typical static setup parameters, but you have no idea where your front and rear roll centers are, where your CG height is, actual track width, pinion angle (and you have to assume it is a standard 3-link, with no spring-loaded 3rd member, with an aft-mounted panhard bar). Not to mention the lack of accurate ackerman settings or knowing how much bump-steer you have. You also have no measurement or adjustability in the lower trailing arms to induce or reduce rear-steer.
Which, in my eyes, begs the question of how so many people can say the tire-model is incorrect, when in all actuality it could be absolutely perfect, but the geometry in the suspension is wrong. We don't really even know if the tires are based on a radial or bias-ply design (at least i haven't seen that determination as of yet).
As I have said before, we are given a computer generated representation of what should be, and the setups need to be as such to make that representation fast. Until we are given every possible piece of information available ingame that we get on real cars, noone will ever really know if tire models are right or wrong.

Soooooooo, you're saying it could be the suspension model and not the tire model? I could live with that.

Quote from PMD9409 :

Soooooooo, you're saying it could be the suspension model and not the tire model? I could live with that.

Pretty much, yeah.......now who wants to throw the aerodynamics section in?

i suspect the reason cars in iracing (some more than others) respond strangely or react well to strange setups is the same reason why scanwen decided he needed to produce the new tyre model before releasing the scirocco, namely that when real life suspension design and setups are fed into the tyre model it exposes the limitations of the model, i seem to recall that scanwen stated that the reason why he had held back the VW was because the faults were exposed when they had a real car to compare the results against

I racing is better than lfs but i dont think its worth the money. Iracing name Joseph C. Richardson. One major drawback to iracing is if i like running the Radical it might be a month of sundays before i get a full grid to race. the flow in iracing goes to the "hot" cars i remember when they released the corvette everyone was trying it for a couple weeks then it died off. What if you payed for tracks to run that series and for the car and noone runs it, it sucks. cars like the Skippy stay populated. Oval racers have it made its popular road racing you better spend your money on a popular series or your gonna get burned.

The new content that comes out is cool you see things happen fast. BUT that also is a drawback new content comes out then your series dies off becuase everyone and their momma are trying the new content.

I also despise the "no fault system". Lfs i despise the slow development broken promises same content im jsut not racing at all until lfs gets something new or iracing sends me a welcome back free trial.


Oh also Iracing did let people try for free and that didnt work it opened the flood gates for morons. The pay to play keeps the idiots out( most not all) since they want a serious platform it keeps it that way. Even though Gooden won the jetta (congrats) Modoff shouldve won IMHO he won more races. Ohh that brings another point IN a series it goes buY strength of field to see how many points you will get alot of times the higher irated poeple will run one race get max points and never race again till next week that sucks arse. because even if you win 6 races that week for a track youll never get max points if the field isnt strong. its annoying to say the least and when your paying you want to own the game not rent it you cant even test offline if you dont pay that is crazy.

Im looking for a new company small like lfs with a good product that they work on and deliver when they said they will. it that too much to ask? maybe dec 25 or new years will bring the content anounced eons ago.

Quote from ANAMENOONEHAD :

Lfs i despise the slow development broken promises same content

Examples?

Don't forget that "plan" and "promise" are two very different words.

touche they said plan not promise. it been almost 2 years since that plan was announced its disappointing .

Yeah, it definitely is but they stated good and understandable reasons whether we like it or not.

As you all know plans don't go always the way you want/think, sorry to disappoint you fanboys.