Quote from PMD9409 :

This might seem stupid, but try driving it with a car on the OTM, might feel more bumps. Just a theory.

You know I tried it feels like the right track with OTM...... guess the NTM was a step back..

Seems like iracing is going to add european server farm.

Quote :

Infrastructure may not be as sexy as new cars, tracks and features, but it’s what enables iRacing to continually deliver online racing of unsurpassed quality. So we are adding a third server farm in The Netherlands near Amsterdam complimenting those already online in Boston and Sydney. The new servers should be online shortly.

Deffo some cloud computing right there.

Quote from BlueFlame :

You know I tried it feels like the right track with OTM...... guess the NTM was a step back..

I found that the FFB on cars with the NTM is just numb compared to the OTM. All the subtle detail in the track surface is gone with the NTM. I hated it, It was a big factor in me leaving iRacing.

I was hoping to hear that things had improved. Doesn't sound like it has.

I've tried the NTM1.1 on the following:
Ford GT, Corvette, SRF, MX5 Cup and MX5 Roadster.

I am pretty impressed with the NTM so far, and think it is a big step forward! (from a roadies perspective)

There is still known issues such as the tyres do need to be run with higher pressures than real wolrd setup (although this has been improved greatly over the last version) so that might be why the FFB feels more dead to some

On the NTM I run about 30-40% more FFB as well, what level are u guys running your FFB?

Quote from BlueFlame :

Jesus Christ, Oulton Park is a let down. Laser Scanned my arse.

Lodge is too open, and there's almost no bumps on that section of track when you disable the brittens chicane.
Shell Oil hairpin (i know this sounds anal but it's supposed to be a LASER SCANNED TRACK) doesn't have a thick enough kerb on the inside..
Also, the Fosters circuit never runs with the knickerbrook chicane so don't know why it's even in the game.

I've only watched videos of Oulton from iRacing, as there isn't a cat in hell's chance I'll pay so much for such a poor simulation, but:

The track is pretty damn accurate by the looks of it. Lodge is like that. Shell hairpin's inner kerbs are exactly like that. You're right about the last bit though - as far as I'm aware the Knickerbrook chicane is always used on the longer configs except for sighting laps to the grid (before the green flag lap).

I was racing there two weeks ago.

However, I still doubt that laser scanned makes a track 'accurate', as the videos show the track as far more forgiving and easy than it actually is. I blame the physics engine (and not just the crappy new tyres).

Quote from tristancliffe :

as far as I'm aware the Knickerbrook chicane is always used on the longer configs except for sighting laps to the grid

This is true, but when they asked on the England forum about which configs we'd like the answer was unanimously "every possible permutation"

..and here's a comparison. looks spot on

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJJfCYbNDp0&feature=share

Quote from The Moose :

This is true, but when they asked on the England forum about which configs we'd like the answer was unanimously "every possible permutation"

It's not like I mind! I'd love to drive the proper Knickerbrook in real life, although it would be hard on my sphincter!

It does look like they've made it far too smooth though. Almost as if they've got the data from the circuit back to America and said "this must be wrong - no circuit can be this bumpy. Lets multiply all the bump magnitudes by 0.4 to correct it".

Quote from tristancliffe :

It does look like they've made it far too smooth though. Almost as if they've got the data from the circuit back to America and said "this must be wrong - no circuit can be this bumpy. Lets multiply all the bump magnitudes by 0.4 to correct it".

"It has too many corners too. And some of them turn right?! No, no, no, this won't do at all..."

Quote from The Moose :

..and here's a comparison. looks spot on

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJJfCYbNDp0&feature=share

Thank you. It does look like they've ironed out some of the bumps.

Looking at that video won't help compare the track. As said before, cars with NTM drive on glass like LFS. Why? I don't know. It has to be the tire though, as sebring feels smooth as well, which obviously is not correct.

I suspect the apparent lack of bumps is more to do with iRacings's crappy suspension/tires than defects in the track modeling.

edit: beaten to it

Has this been taken into account:

Quote :

Known issues:

- The carcass lateral stiffness is a bit low at typical real world pressures - you will need to run 5-10 psi higher pressures than you might expect to get the tires to feel predictable.

Quote from tristancliffe :

Shell hairpin's inner kerbs are exactly like that.

On the game it's a very low profile but jagged kerb, in reality it's a thick yet smooth kerb. That's what I meant Tristan.


Also, pause that comparison video at 0:23 , you'll see the game version looks about half a meter too thin.

Whether that is due to resolution or whatever I don't know, but how you see it on the real-video is how the real thing looks to the naked eye. (hopefully tristan will back this up)

Quote from anttt69 :

Has this been taken into account:

Higher pressure seem to make things even smoother, so no, I don't believe that has anything to do with it.

Quote from BlueFlame :

Also, pause that comparison video at 0:23 , you'll see the game version looks about half a meter too thin.

You really are clutching at straws. It obvious the FOV of the sim car is different to the vid from the real car. That's what is making it look different.

Quote from BlueFlame :

On the game it's a very low profile but jagged kerb, in reality it's a thick yet smooth kerb. That's what I meant Tristan.


Also, pause that comparison video at 0:23 , you'll see the game version looks about half a meter too thin.

Whether that is due to resolution or whatever I don't know, but how you see it on the real-video is how the real thing looks to the naked eye. (hopefully tristan will back this up)

Both Shell kerbs looks smooth to me. The game one is obviously heavily simplified /optimised for use in a sim, so has lost some of the detail, but that applies to all sims and all tracks.

The track width looks spot on too, even at 0:23 to me. Clearly, some lost detail and low resolution don't help, but I don't think that aspect is wrong.

I still don't think it'd help a real driver learn the track, other than the general flow and the direction of the corners. And any old version of Oulton can teach you that.

Quote from The Moose :

You really are clutching at straws. It obvious the FOV of the sim car is different to the vid from the real car. That's what is making it look different.

Well whatever it is, it ain't right is it?

Quote from BlueFlame :

Well whatever it is, it ain't right is it?

What are you on about?

There a good 5 degrees difference on the FOV from the sim car, which naturally makes everything look a bit narrower.

As Tristan was driving there recently i'll take his view that it looks fine as correct.

I'm no iRacing fanboy, but when it comes to the tracks they have always got it spot on. I fail to see how the track could be incorrect in width when it's been laser scanned. That's the whole point of the process.

I could accept it being a couple of centimeters out, but there's no way it could be 50cm out as you are claiming.

I'm not an advocate of laser scanning as a way of recreating the nuances of a track - bumps, surface changes, and all the subtle things that turn a length of tarmac from a length of tarmac into a challenging race track - but they do at least get track width and elevation correct.

Quote from The Moose :

There a good 5 degrees difference on the FOV from the sim car, which naturally makes everything look a bit narrower.

So this is what's not correct.

Quote from tristancliffe :

I'm not an advocate of laser scanning as a way of recreating the nuances of a track

Would you mind elaborating on why? I know with the gear they use they can easily get sub-cm accuracy, and I'm not sure of a better or more efficient way of doing it.

Quote from BlueFlame :

So this is what's not correct.

Your choice of FOV will determine how the track looks. Bigger FOV=Stretched track/Shallower turns/less look of elevation.

The track is fine. End of story.

Quote from The Moose :

Your choice of FOV will determine how the track looks. Bigger FOV=Stretched track/Shallower turns/less look of elevation.

The track is fine. End of story.

I like how people think Laser Scanned means instantly uber-accurate though.


No, I really don't.

Why do you change the subject every time you're wrong (which seems to be more often than not; but I digress)?

FFS, just once I wonder if you could muster the balls to say "Oh yeah, you're right I never thought of that".