Assetto Corsa PC Mods General DiscussionPC 

  • Thread starter Thom Lee
  • 86,515 comments
  • 16,226,824 views
495
Germany
Germany
hey mates..

anyone else got massive fps issues with the VRC indycars?

same track with others 100+ fps

with vrc indycars below 50...

any fix for this?

happens on all csp versions for me
 
4,912
Iceland
Iceland
Thanks for this; it fixed the BAC Mono mirrors for me (which have always annoyed me a little!) You should put this little tip in the Discord mate :cheers:
I'll do it with a disclaimer that it might not be required if it's fixed in a future CSP update, otherwise someone might spend a day updating their cars unnecessarily. :irked:
 
90
Israel
Israel
Here you go @moyletra and @Sun Solaris - Final requests til after the weekend - Zip File below Hope you enjoy them
View attachment 992785

View attachment 992784
All skins updated to reflect country code on the rear flank
Link to the original post and GDrive downloads: https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...ral-discussion.307899/page-2242#post-13354041
Man you made a great job! Thanks for that !
Any chance for the Israeli flag on it ? I know there is no many clients for that but still .
 
So much interest in JDM out there, and I still haven't seen this beast being made into AC. One day, hopefully...

Yamaha OX99-11

yamaha-ox99-portada_1440x655c.jpg
 
660
United States
United States
Lightweight with proper plates. Also been messing about with the mighty long nose D Type. These are not ready for release yet unfortunately.

I would appreciate feedback as to whether the blue stripes on the lightweight seem too light in game. I am minded to darken them if so,

View attachment 992836 View attachment 992837

Thank you, but why would a D-Type in Cunningham livery carry a Brit roundel? Maybe a RRDC sticker would be more apropos.
 
Last edited:
526
Argentina
Argentina
Eastern Creek Raceway is the First (converted) Mod for Assetto Corsa. Rather unfinished. The asphalt is very hilly. Played with 360 controller without driving aids. Fun to drive! Unfortunately no longer available.

Can download some other tracks like Top Gear Test Track here: http://www.racedepartment.com/forum/resources/categories/ac-tracks.8/




@DaBaeda , your recent track update brings memories of the first post of this thread, as well as the first converted mod, as claimed by such post.
 
Last edited:
306
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
Thank you, but why would a D-Type in Cunningham livery carry a Brit roundel? Maybe a RRDC sticker would be more apropos.

Because they did carry the roundels in real life. I am only interested in authenticity. I don't have any fictional AC content.

But I need a colour photo as I have a suspicion it was the French roundel with colours reversed.

e34810052ff20622157b0872fb05d377.jpg
 
Last edited:
306
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
Ah, I just found this, so an edit was needed.


Roundel Circles

If a marque/model of car completed the Le Mans 24-hour race at (or above) a pre-set average distance/speed, it qualified to compete in the Rudge-Whitworth Biennial Cup competition (originally Triennial) and was bestowed with a small red/white/blue roundel. Thus, if you saw a marque/model of car in the race bearing such a roundel, it had qualified to compete for the Biennial Cup in the previous year’s race; it did not have to be the exact vehicle that competed in the previous year’s race.

The last occasion on which the competition was held was 1959-60, and that was the 26th Biennial Cup competition. Even though Rudge-Whitworth was a British company, the roundel colors were reversed from the traditional British “blue-white-red” to the French “red-white-blue” probably due to the fact that initial support for the prize was provided by Emile Coquille, Managing Director of the French subsidiary of the Rudge-Whitworth Company.

__custom_showroom_1613834890.jpg
__custom_showroom_1613834900.jpg
 
Last edited:
20
Serbia
Serbia
1,062
For those that haven't seen this yet, Legion's take on the Beck 904 Replica. See "their" Web site for more details.

Adversely to the other recently-released and revised Beck 904 Replica, this is a left-side-drive--but it has no shifting animation. Otherwise, it's pretty good.

Direct Download Link

preview.jpg


Remember the real car is a replica that can still be bought today. Whether it's turn-key or assembled by a third-party shop or the owner, the engine and suspension can vary widely. It can have an air-cooled 911 engine to a water-cooled turbo-charged Subaru boxer. The ride can be soft and pitchy to firm with modern sticky tires, or it can be set up to drift. So the performance can be whatever the owner chooses. Check out the Youtube videos below for variations of the Beck 550 Spyder as an example.

I'd actually like to see the "authentic" 904 mod by AssettoPedia be updated to the original Porsche specs, as this mod is waaay too tight and sticky
for a vintage Porsche.

I'm really enjoying driving it with my new "vintage" Nardo wheel that I've adapted to mount on my Thrustmaster wheel bases. It adds so much to the "experience" of driving this and other mods with this type of rim. The current 3D-printed adapter (black part) doesn't fit quite right into my quick-release (red part), or the stock collar. I tweaked the 3D model this morning (again), its' now printing, and the updated adapter will be ready for testing this evening. I already have my eyes on a similar red-laced leather-covered wheel rim on eBay, and I may order and adapt a few other rims of various designs that I've seen.

TS-WheelModB20.jpg

Though not the same replica, some wild variations of the Beck 550 that could also be applied to the 904.

...and these would be COOL as AC mods!


 
Last edited:
300
United States
United States
Thanks so much for people doing grass and rain reworks. It's cool seeing all these old tracks come to life. Unfortunately there are a few things that some of the modders aren't doing that they could to make managing all of these reworks easier for everyone involved. Here's what I see happening, what I do, and hopefully what other people can do to keep things from conflicting.

Check to see if it's already been done
There's a lot of rain/grass configs that exist in the official CSP configs github. These can be set to automatically download in content manager, and if automatic downloads are turned off, they can still be done manually within content manager. These are updated quite often too. These config files are the same as the ones you'd find in the extension folder of the track, but download to assettocorsa/extension/config/tracks or assettocorsa/extension/config/tracks/loaded

There's also a CSP discord where even more configs are floating around, although I think most of these end up in the github.

Consider the scope
Is the rework confined to just a CSP config? If so, why not just build the CSP config file and submit it to the CSP configs github? https://github.com/ac-custom-shaders-patch/acc-extension-config

Is it new models, and removal of models? This doesn't always have to be a KN5 change. CSP allows you to hide or replace models. The github listed above doesn't just take ini files, it can take kn5 model replacements too. Just about the only thing you can't remove or replace with CSP are timing objects, starting grid / pit slots, and the driveable road mesh. These restrictions are built into CSP to prevent cheating. Everything else can be hidden and replaced from within your CSP config. Look here for more info: https://github.com/ac-custom-shaders-patch/acc-extension-config/wiki/General-–-Model-replacements

Finally, textures can be changed with skin packs instead of editing the textures directly into the KN5. Material attributes can all be edited in the CSP config. Unless you're changing things like the timing spots, optimizing the objects, the way the materials are mapped to the objects, or the road mesh there is very little reason to change the KN5s.

Pitfalls of exporting to FBX with 3dSimEd
3DSimEd is a great tool for exploring a kn5, making changes, messing with materials and exporting an FBX you can mess with in tons of other tools. Unfortunately it doesn't know about all of the shaders and attributes that can be baked into materials in a KN5 file, and when you export to FBX you can lose some of that data. Some of this is problems with ALPHA_TEST vs ALPHA_BLEND materials, things that use custom shaders like ksEmissive or stFlow. It doesn't export things that use those shaders properly, and if you're not intimately familiar with the materials in the track you might not even realize they are using those shaders and you'll get things where once the track is reworked where things aren't looking quite right. Using a CSP config to change shader and material properties instead of messing around in 3dSimEd is a lot better for this because it doesn't remove anything from the kn5 that was there before.

GrassFX and old 3D Grass
I see a lot of people editing the KN5s to remove the old 3D grass and this step is almost always not needed. CSP provides a way to do this in the INI. A few ways in fact. For one, if a material has the ksGrass shader applied to it, grassFX will make that material transparent if that material is added to "grass materials". If the 3d grass object has that shader applied to it (which it most likely does), you can add that material to the grassfx materials and that will make sure it's hidden. If the 3d grass object doesn't have the ksGrass shader applied to it, but some other shader, simply add it's material to original_grass_materials or it's mesh to original_grass_meshes and that 3d grass will be hidden. Finally, you can use the model_replacement stuff mentioned above to hide the 3d grass objects if for some reason the other two grassfx specific methods aren't working for you.

There are some tracks where the actual grass surface is wrongly set with the ksGrass shader. I've seen this in a lot of codemasters conversion tracks. For this when I've done grass reworks of these I've done shader replacements and material adjustments with CSP instead of messing with the track's kn5, with great success.

Folder Names
If the above stuff just isn't enough and editing the KN5s is needed, please consider releasing the track with a different folder name. Releasing a track rework with the same folder name as the one you're reworking can cause conflicts. PLEASE, people, if you release a rework of a track, change the name. I always put "gb_" in front of the original track name to make sure I'm not stepping on any toes. For one, it's a matter of respect for the original track author, so you're not just taking over their work. Second, there are practical, functional reasons for it to. For one, when you use content manager it can be set to automatically download CSP config files and VAO patches for tracks and the way it identifies tracks is the folder name. If you keep the name of the old track you can get inconsistent results between different users who have the automatically downloaded configs that can conflict with the configs you include in your track. CSP will prioritize the configs in the track's extension folder first, but will then apply the configs from the downloaded configs for things your config doesn't touch. Then you've just got a mess.

Also another good reason to not overwrite existing tracks is racing online. A user with a CSP config can race with other people who have the same track without a CSP config. A user with a reworked track where the track kn5 was modified can only race with other people who have the same rework. This is a selling point for doing everything you can in a CSP config and a selling point for not overwriting original tracks.

Use Version Numbers
In the track's .json files there is a field for version number. Please use it! So many modders neglect it. It's very useful for people who maintain a large library of mod tracks to know if they already have this version. Also, changelogs are nice. They can be added to the description field in the json file, or they can be a readme file, or even just in the post where the mod is shared or on the racedepartment page if it's released that way.

Closing Thoughts
Please consider using these methods as they make it easier for you. They make it easier for people who are downloading to know what they are getting and troubleshoot issues when they come up. They are more respectful to the original authors because their work isn't just being taken over by some random person on the internet.

I love that AC is still alive. I love that people are making some great mods even better with reworks. Reworks done with bad practices are sometimes better than no reworks at all, but with the stuff I've mentioned above it can make those reworks even better because they won't have conflicts and they can co-exist with the originals.

Thanks for listening to my TED talk.
 
214
Canada
Canada
Howdy all, hope you're all well!

Has anybody made new cameras for any of Legion's Monaco tracks ? A new view would be appreciated :)

Come to think of it, better AI lines would help a lot too.

They're great tracks, just need a tiny bit of love :)

Correction a few minutes later: The AI actually seems much better than I thought. I was using a crappy group of cars. Once I switched to better cars the AI did very well - the only car crashing was the one prone to committing "stupid human tricks"... er... that's me...
 
Last edited:
274
United Kingdom
United Kingdom

Attachments

  • RTW_ISR_21.zip
    4.4 MB · Views: 17
Last edited:
4,912
Iceland
Iceland
Thanks so much for people doing grass and rain reworks. It's cool seeing all these old tracks come to life. Unfortunately there are a few things that some of the modders aren't doing that they could to make managing all of these reworks easier for everyone involved. Here's what I see happening, what I do, and hopefully what other people can do to keep things from conflicting.

Check to see if it's already been done
There's a lot of rain/grass configs that exist in the official CSP configs github. These can be set to automatically download in content manager, and if automatic downloads are turned off, they can still be done manually within content manager. These are updated quite often too. These config files are the same as the ones you'd find in the extension folder of the track, but download to assettocorsa/extension/config/tracks or assettocorsa/extension/config/tracks/loaded

There's also a CSP discord where even more configs are floating around, although I think most of these end up in the github.

Consider the scope
Is the rework confined to just a CSP config? If so, why not just build the CSP config file and submit it to the CSP configs github? https://github.com/ac-custom-shaders-patch/acc-extension-config

Is it new models, and removal of models? This doesn't always have to be a KN5 change. CSP allows you to hide or replace models. The github listed above doesn't just take ini files, it can take kn5 model replacements too. Just about the only thing you can't remove or replace with CSP are timing objects, starting grid / pit slots, and the driveable road mesh. These restrictions are built into CSP to prevent cheating. Everything else can be hidden and replaced from within your CSP config. Look here for more info: https://github.com/ac-custom-shaders-patch/acc-extension-config/wiki/General-–-Model-replacements

Finally, textures can be changed with skin packs instead of editing the textures directly into the KN5. Material attributes can all be edited in the CSP config. Unless you're changing things like the timing spots, optimizing the objects, the way the materials are mapped to the objects, or the road mesh there is very little reason to change the KN5s.

Pitfalls of exporting to FBX with 3dSimEd
3DSimEd is a great tool for exploring a kn5, making changes, messing with materials and exporting an FBX you can mess with in tons of other tools. Unfortunately it doesn't know about all of the shaders and attributes that can be baked into materials in a KN5 file, and when you export to FBX you can lose some of that data. Some of this is problems with ALPHA_TEST vs ALPHA_BLEND materials, things that use custom shaders like ksEmissive or stFlow. It doesn't export things that use those shaders properly, and if you're not intimately familiar with the materials in the track you might not even realize they are using those shaders and you'll get things where once the track is reworked where things aren't looking quite right. Using a CSP config to change shader and material properties instead of messing around in 3dSimEd is a lot better for this because it doesn't remove anything from the kn5 that was there before.

GrassFX and old 3D Grass
I see a lot of people editing the KN5s to remove the old 3D grass and this step is almost always not needed. CSP provides a way to do this in the INI. A few ways in fact. For one, if a material has the ksGrass shader applied to it, grassFX will make that material transparent if that material is added to "grass materials". If the 3d grass object has that shader applied to it (which it most likely does), you can add that material to the grassfx materials and that will make sure it's hidden. If the 3d grass object doesn't have the ksGrass shader applied to it, but some other shader, simply add it's material to original_grass_materials or it's mesh to original_grass_meshes and that 3d grass will be hidden. Finally, you can use the model_replacement stuff mentioned above to hide the 3d grass objects if for some reason the other two grassfx specific methods aren't working for you.

There are some tracks where the actual grass surface is wrongly set with the ksGrass shader. I've seen this in a lot of codemasters conversion tracks. For this when I've done grass reworks of these I've done shader replacements and material adjustments with CSP instead of messing with the track's kn5, with great success.

Folder Names
If the above stuff just isn't enough and editing the KN5s is needed, please consider releasing the track with a different folder name. Releasing a track rework with the same folder name as the one you're reworking can cause conflicts. PLEASE, people, if you release a rework of a track, change the name. I always put "gb_" in front of the original track name to make sure I'm not stepping on any toes. For one, it's a matter of respect for the original track author, so you're not just taking over their work. Second, there are practical, functional reasons for it to. For one, when you use content manager it can be set to automatically download CSP config files and VAO patches for tracks and the way it identifies tracks is the folder name. If you keep the name of the old track you can get inconsistent results between different users who have the automatically downloaded configs that can conflict with the configs you include in your track. CSP will prioritize the configs in the track's extension folder first, but will then apply the configs from the downloaded configs for things your config doesn't touch. Then you've just got a mess.

Also another good reason to not overwrite existing tracks is racing online. A user with a CSP config can race with other people who have the same track without a CSP config. A user with a reworked track where the track kn5 was modified can only race with other people who have the same rework. This is a selling point for doing everything you can in a CSP config and a selling point for not overwriting original tracks.

Use Version Numbers
In the track's .json files there is a field for version number. Please use it! So many modders neglect it. It's very useful for people who maintain a large library of mod tracks to know if they already have this version. Also, changelogs are nice. They can be added to the description field in the json file, or they can be a readme file, or even just in the post where the mod is shared or on the racedepartment page if it's released that way.

Closing Thoughts
Please consider using these methods as they make it easier for you. They make it easier for people who are downloading to know what they are getting and troubleshoot issues when they come up. They are more respectful to the original authors because their work isn't just being taken over by some random person on the internet.

I love that AC is still alive. I love that people are making some great mods even better with reworks. Reworks done with bad practices are sometimes better than no reworks at all, but with the stuff I've mentioned above it can make those reworks even better because they won't have conflicts and they can co-exist with the originals.

Thanks for listening to my TED talk.
Amen to all that. Very well said.
 
274
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
Amen to all that. Very well said.
Can someone explain how I can upload my rainFX configs to Github - I've looked at doing this but the language is confusing what with 'forks' and 'pulls' - A 3 point (simple/foolpoof) explanation would be great - thanks in advance
 
Last edited:
1,324
Finland
Helsinki
Pitfalls of exporting to FBX with 3dSimEd
3DSimEd is a great tool for exploring a kn5, making changes, messing with materials and exporting an FBX you can mess with in tons of other tools. Unfortunately it doesn't know about all of the shaders and attributes that can be baked into materials in a KN5 file, and when you export to FBX you can lose some of that data. Some of this is problems with ALPHA_TEST vs ALPHA_BLEND materials, things that use custom shaders like ksEmissive or stFow. It doesn't export things that use those shaders properly, and if you're not intimately familiar with the materials in the track you might not even realize they are using those shaders and you'll get things where once the track is reworked where things aren't looking quite right. Using a CSP config to change shader and material properties instead of messing around in 3dSimEd is a lot better for this because it doesn't remove anything from the kn5 that was there before.

Great writeup, agree with ALL points.


Tips for 3dSimed + FBX export + ksEditor:
- Loosing transparencies: This can be avoided by setting ksPerPixelAT (or ksPerPixelAlpha) + ALPHA_CHROMA or ALPHA_BLEND in 3dSimed
- Hand edit your FBX.ini after export to set shader values as 3dSimed looses (float) decimal places for some shader values
- ksEditor does not place appropriate default values for some shader changes made in ksEditor, use 3dSimed to set these first.
- 3dSimed can loose and/or corrupt on import/export, be sure to check your meshes.
- always export to FBX --> ksEditor if you have moved/removed road/wall meshes (try also to set objects w/center pivots)

cheers
 
Last edited:
181
Turkey
İstanbul, Turkey
Thanks so much for people doing grass and rain reworks. It's cool seeing all these old tracks come to life. Unfortunately there are a few things that some of the modders aren't doing that they could to make managing all of these reworks easier for everyone involved. Here's what I see happening, what I do, and hopefully what other people can do to keep things from conflicting.

Check to see if it's already been done
There's a lot of rain/grass configs that exist in the official CSP configs github. These can be set to automatically download in content manager, and if automatic downloads are turned off, they can still be done manually within content manager. These are updated quite often too. These config files are the same as the ones you'd find in the extension folder of the track, but download to assettocorsa/extension/config/tracks or assettocorsa/extension/config/tracks/loaded

There's also a CSP discord where even more configs are floating around, although I think most of these end up in the github.

Consider the scope
Is the rework confined to just a CSP config? If so, why not just build the CSP config file and submit it to the CSP configs github? https://github.com/ac-custom-shaders-patch/acc-extension-config

Is it new models, and removal of models? This doesn't always have to be a KN5 change. CSP allows you to hide or replace models. The github listed above doesn't just take ini files, it can take kn5 model replacements too. Just about the only thing you can't remove or replace with CSP are timing objects, starting grid / pit slots, and the driveable road mesh. These restrictions are built into CSP to prevent cheating. Everything else can be hidden and replaced from within your CSP config. Look here for more info: https://github.com/ac-custom-shaders-patch/acc-extension-config/wiki/General-–-Model-replacements

Finally, textures can be changed with skin packs instead of editing the textures directly into the KN5. Material attributes can all be edited in the CSP config. Unless you're changing things like the timing spots, optimizing the objects, the way the materials are mapped to the objects, or the road mesh there is very little reason to change the KN5s.

Pitfalls of exporting to FBX with 3dSimEd
3DSimEd is a great tool for exploring a kn5, making changes, messing with materials and exporting an FBX you can mess with in tons of other tools. Unfortunately it doesn't know about all of the shaders and attributes that can be baked into materials in a KN5 file, and when you export to FBX you can lose some of that data. Some of this is problems with ALPHA_TEST vs ALPHA_BLEND materials, things that use custom shaders like ksEmissive or stFlow. It doesn't export things that use those shaders properly, and if you're not intimately familiar with the materials in the track you might not even realize they are using those shaders and you'll get things where once the track is reworked where things aren't looking quite right. Using a CSP config to change shader and material properties instead of messing around in 3dSimEd is a lot better for this because it doesn't remove anything from the kn5 that was there before.

GrassFX and old 3D Grass
I see a lot of people editing the KN5s to remove the old 3D grass and this step is almost always not needed. CSP provides a way to do this in the INI. A few ways in fact. For one, if a material has the ksGrass shader applied to it, grassFX will make that material transparent if that material is added to "grass materials". If the 3d grass object has that shader applied to it (which it most likely does), you can add that material to the grassfx materials and that will make sure it's hidden. If the 3d grass object doesn't have the ksGrass shader applied to it, but some other shader, simply add it's material to original_grass_materials or it's mesh to original_grass_meshes and that 3d grass will be hidden. Finally, you can use the model_replacement stuff mentioned above to hide the 3d grass objects if for some reason the other two grassfx specific methods aren't working for you.

There are some tracks where the actual grass surface is wrongly set with the ksGrass shader. I've seen this in a lot of codemasters conversion tracks. For this when I've done grass reworks of these I've done shader replacements and material adjustments with CSP instead of messing with the track's kn5, with great success.

Folder Names
If the above stuff just isn't enough and editing the KN5s is needed, please consider releasing the track with a different folder name. Releasing a track rework with the same folder name as the one you're reworking can cause conflicts. PLEASE, people, if you release a rework of a track, change the name. I always put "gb_" in front of the original track name to make sure I'm not stepping on any toes. For one, it's a matter of respect for the original track author, so you're not just taking over their work. Second, there are practical, functional reasons for it to. For one, when you use content manager it can be set to automatically download CSP config files and VAO patches for tracks and the way it identifies tracks is the folder name. If you keep the name of the old track you can get inconsistent results between different users who have the automatically downloaded configs that can conflict with the configs you include in your track. CSP will prioritize the configs in the track's extension folder first, but will then apply the configs from the downloaded configs for things your config doesn't touch. Then you've just got a mess.

Also another good reason to not overwrite existing tracks is racing online. A user with a CSP config can race with other people who have the same track without a CSP config. A user with a reworked track where the track kn5 was modified can only race with other people who have the same rework. This is a selling point for doing everything you can in a CSP config and a selling point for not overwriting original tracks.

Use Version Numbers
In the track's .json files there is a field for version number. Please use it! So many modders neglect it. It's very useful for people who maintain a large library of mod tracks to know if they already have this version. Also, changelogs are nice. They can be added to the description field in the json file, or they can be a readme file, or even just in the post where the mod is shared or on the racedepartment page if it's released that way.

Closing Thoughts
Please consider using these methods as they make it easier for you. They make it easier for people who are downloading to know what they are getting and troubleshoot issues when they come up. They are more respectful to the original authors because their work isn't just being taken over by some random person on the internet.

I love that AC is still alive. I love that people are making some great mods even better with reworks. Reworks done with bad practices are sometimes better than no reworks at all, but with the stuff I've mentioned above it can make those reworks even better because they won't have conflicts and they can co-exist with the originals.

Thanks for listening to my TED talk.
We should put this into a .txt file so every modder/user can see it.
Great insight and respect.
 
Last edited:
300
United States
United States
Can someone explain how I can upload my rainFX configs to Github - I've looked at doing this but the language is confusing what with 'forks' and 'pulls' - A 3 point (simple/foolpoof) explanation would be great - thanks in advance

youll need to be added as a contributor on the project. I think the easiest way to get that access is by asking for it on the discord.

https://discord.gg/MttdepvS