Aris seems to think console users will buy a sim.

They will not ! Even if it's hidden under a layer of crap to make their controller feel ok-ish, proper physics make console users unhappy.

You have to dumb it down so that they are able to drive at all, not to make their controller ok-ish. PCARS with a wheel feels like shit, even on PC.

Quote from lfsrm :

the gamepad support is already way better than pcars, maybe some UI optimisation and done.

Then console gamers won't buy it. They think Forza and Gran Turismo are sims.

They dumb it down like PCARS, then console crowd buys.

Yup. I'm not seeing proper league racing in AC before....ever.

Yess! Really enjoyed that one

Just to clarify some things...I understand that sinbad was saying that current "top pro" drivers should move into historic racing.

What I was trying to say is once you have driven an insanely quick modern car, racing a 60s touring car will be boring. It might be fun on a random event with no preparation and a less than ideal setup... but put them in a serious historic championship and they will somehow stop fooling around, make the cars behave, find the (boring) limit and the fun of historic cars sliding all over the place will be gone. The fact that bias-ply tires operate at a higher slip angle is not enough to impress me and it certainly doesn't impress current best drivers in the world.

I didn't mean normal as in my-mom-normal, they are impressive drivers of course

If somehow all the current top drivers are already in historic events then nothing changes...the videos are great to watch because it is not a serious championship and it is okay to fool around. Make that a serious international series and no more fun, just slow cars.

Edit: Oh and yes....modern GT is ridiculously too easy to drive. Agree 100% on that

Last edited by PhilS13, Fri 24 Apr 2015, 23:24.

Quote from sinbad :

I feel like we're missing out because of the perception that "faster is better".

Imagine a world where the top pro drivers were competing in an International series running 911s like we see in the video there.

Top drivers would get to the absolute laptime limit of these cars within 20 laps and then get so bored they'd want to throw themselves into a wall. These videos are most often fun to watch only because the drivers in it are normal drivers making a bunch of mistakes on relatively easy cars to drive.

You know when you go to a kart rental place where the karts have these big plastic/rubber bumpers all around them?

Indycar drivers need that.

Quote from Flotch :

A part from this, I have a question for the experts : I find strange the difference in performance between cars of the GT3 'class' : yesterday I had a quick look to the mclaren and the mercs, and I find them more performant in corner than the nissan ... looks like tons of grip on the back. So they have 100hp less (are they really in the same class ? ), but they feel like having bigger rear tires, more grip on the front (iirc you can tune very slightly the front downforce, while on the nissan it is not the case ... it may be the answer). For example, I have used vallelunga club, and in the slowest corner, without TC, the nissan was very very difficult to avoid the spin, while the mclaren and the mercs : pedal to the metal without sweat (and again : yes there is 100hp less, but at 50-60km/h we are not at 8000rpm with full power) ...
So : is it realistic ? (nissan = beast, mercs and mclaren = baby beast, easier to drive in the end).

I had a quick look to the 458 gt2 ... but without ABS, unfortunately ... I will need more practice to finish a lap.

That's pretty much how the GT3 balancing works in real life. The manufacturers come up with a car within a certain envelope and the FIA adjusts engine and ballast following tests. The Nissan is quite heavy and has relatively poor aero efficiency so I guess they are allowed more power.

The turbo lag doesn't help with the slow corner exits but it'll be strong in other areas...I can tell you it'll be on top of the GT3 class in AC at Spa. I'm matching reference times of the Z4, SLS, MP4 after driving it only for half an hour.

1.079 here

I tried your car with E92 specs

0.52 Weight dist
1580 kg
2.76 wheelbase
1.8,1.43,4.62 box

Gave me a DI 1.275

Then I found out that changing HUB_MASS changes DI...nice. As long as we don't how DI in assetto is calculated trying to match a real life DI with this obscure value is worthless

Quote from JackDaMaster :

Quote from PhilS13 :

Changing box length, box height and mass(wtf? it really shouldn't) affect its value. That means the DI we see in AC is based on mass and pitch inertia alone. Not yaw, not roll.

Mass does affect the yaw dynamic index...

e.g. Yaw DI = k^2 / ab, given that k^2 = Iz / m

As far as I can tell AC wants the input for car.ini as INERTIA=width,height,length (whole vehicle values i.e. not track,height,wheelbase).

At least that's what every good mod seems to use (except in cases like the AC Cobra which uses a lower height value in car.ini. I assume that this is due to the fact that it doesn't have a roof and the windowscreen would only count for 1% of the cars overall mass or something).

Mass is already in the Iz. You divide by m to get k. Both masses cancel each other out.

No it has to be something on top of that.

What I mean is the way you calculated the box dimensions cannot work in AC. For AC the box dimensions are not the dimensions of a box that has the same inertias and mass as the car. This is what you calculated, a box(x,y,z) that weighs 1450 kg and has 2130,469,1738 inertias. AC does not want that as an input.

About the Dynamic Index, changing box width does not affect its value. Changing box length, box height and mass(wtf? it really shouldn't) affect its value. That means the DI we see in AC is based on mass and pitch inertia alone. Not yaw, not roll.

Aris : - The car inertia in the car.ini is calculated as a box. The calculations inside AC are made in a way that if you put the rough dimensions of the car, you get a pretty good inertia values.

So it isn't as simple as take the known inertias and size a box to match that. There is a multiplier or another calculation built inside AC.

Still he is saying that Dynamic Index is a very good tool and the only way to get close to 0.72 yaw DI on your car is to have a small box

I'd go with the tiny box you calculated and I'd bring the tires DX DY closer to each other. See how that feels

I get a yaw DI of 0.72 and the tiny box gets a DI close to that in AC.

I get the same results.

This makes no sense...

That Dynamic Index in AC...is it supposed to be for yaw inertia only? Maybe it's an average of yaw + pitch + roll indexes ??

if you want send me your data I can run the calcs on my side to check for errors

Quote from sinbad :

To me it feels like there's very little or no caster angle- is that set independently or simply a result of the locations of suspension attachment points?

It's calculated with the attachment points.

open Steam\SteamApps\common\assettocorsa\sdk\dev\ksSusEditor\knSusEditor.exe and load any suspensions.ini file into it

caster is 4 degrees on the jaguar iirc (actually 3 degs)

Quote from Hyperactive :

Quote from PhilS13 :

Hyperactive I think your lateral/longitudinal grip ratio is too high. I tried to lower the DY0 and the car felt more like it should IMO. It also helped with the wandering while going straight.

Those peak values come from my only source of info about the tires. Historix mod. Comparable tires (3.0 csl) which raced same times (in the same races even: http://touringcarracing.net/Pages/p%201977%20Zandvoort.html). The csl in rf had something like 1.5lat, 1.3long.

Was that type of ratio common in Rf in general ? Cause it might just be a specific thing that worked well on the Rf physics. I have never seen higher than 1.08 ratio in AC.

Hyperactive I think your lateral/longitudinal grip ratio is too high. I tried to lower the DY0 and the car felt more like it should IMO. It also helped with the wandering while going straight.

Quote from Hyperactive :

The way inertias work in ac is that you just try to create a box that matches the dimensions the car. Then make the box longer if the cog is far away from the geometric center. For example a 4 metre long porsche would have inertia of something like x,y,4.5 meaning its yaw (and pitch) inertia is bigger than the car dimensions would produce. The jag length is 4.8metres. The inertia for the box is 5.2. I have not calculated the reverse of the 3 dimensional box kunos uses so I could use the inertias I've calculated for the jag. Maybe I should do that. But I don't think the problem is there. The tires have inertias and weight as well. Those are probably the heaviest parts in any ac apart from the race truck.

In real life you can have two cars both with mass CG right at the geometric center but with very different rotational inertias. Has to do with how far every unit of weight is from the mass CG. Still I think the box method is good. Do you have the bmw e92 box length?

Quote from Hyperactive :

I'm thinking the dampers need more work. But also in the tires there could be something that makes the super wide tires handle too well. But I don't know what it is. The tires are not easier than the kunos tires. The xmu, load sensitiveness, camber gains. All those are very close to the 312t tires that I used as a base. Same make (dunlop), same construction (biasply) and same era. I've tried 90s slicks. The car handles even better. I tried the grpA tires from m3. Handles really really well.. On the first version of the car I made a mix of those 3.

When you tried 90s slicks and grpA where they of normal width or you made them super wide as well?

Quote from Hyperactive :

I won't just start changing things randomly to make the car drive harder. I want to understand what is wrong. This is the best I can at the moment

Pretty sure you'll figure it out.

Something is off for me on your car. It's like you can see the weight moving around but it's not actually there. Feels like there's zero rotational inertia. It's a 1500 kg car with a quite soft suspension, I shouldn't be able to get into a corner with massive oversteer and correct it instantly like it was nothing before I even get to the apex. No tank slapping, nothing, just boom back on rails as I wish, then back in oversteer if I want to, then not, all in the same corner.

Certainly is fun to drive...It's a big boat floating around on its springs but rotates like a lotus exos at the same time. If it's like that in real life I want one !

Quote from kars19 :

Quote from PhilS13 :

Hiding the steering wheel won't change input lag with V-sync on. I wanna be able to catch slides..

I am catching slides easily with the Vsync on. I can't feel the difference, yes there is a tiny lag, but the only way I can notice it, is when the virtual wheel is on, when I switch it off my brain just adapts, because there is no visual reference.

I'll drive for a while with the lag and see how it goes. What do you do when you have shift LEDs on the steering wheel ? The 458 GT2 for example has very low rpm optimal shift points and the in-game apps are useless in telling you when to shift in that car.

Setting FPS cap below panel refresh rate didn't help in getting things to move smoothly.

I still don't know why the AMD card was better at hiding the stuttering. Maybe it had an inherent blurriness that covered things up a bit.

Thanks everyone for the help

Last edited by PhilS13, Mon 22 Dec 2014, 23:24.

83 fps isn't smooth enough. Trees in the background jerking in their left-right motion in long sweeping corners. Three 60hz panels. I'm not very sensitive to tearing.

Hiding the steering wheel won't change input lag with V-sync on. I wanna be able to catch slides..

I will try to cap FPS at a lower rate than 60Hz. I dont mind wasting some frames. I just want things to move at a constant rate.

Last edited by PhilS13, Mon 22 Dec 2014, 15:21.

Quote from lfsrm :

Quote from PhilS13 :

Anyone here had to deal with microstuttering on an Nvidia card?

I just switched to GTX 970 from a HD7790...Why is it that I need at least 180 fps for the game to feel smooth now??

40 fps on the 7790 was smoother than 120 fps on the 970.

try to limite fps's to 60.

Yes it makes everything much more fluid but since it's not pure vsync I always get a huge tear which will stick at the same height for a very long time or move slowly up/down. Right now I'm resigned to use Vsync and deal with the input lag that comes with it.

Somehow with the AMD card I didn't need vsync and the GPU was able to smooth things out to the eye even with much poorer FPS.

Anyone here had to deal with microstuttering on an Nvidia card?

I just switched to GTX 970 from a HD7790...Why is it that I need at least 180 fps for the game to feel smooth now??

40 fps on the 7790 was smoother than 120 fps on the 970.

One page about someone complaining that keyboard and mouse driving are not SIM enough ??? Is this for real?