Assetto Corsa Porsche Pack Vol. 3 and Update 1.12 Available for PS4 Next Week

GTPNewsWire

Contributing Writer
15,792
United States
GTPHQ
2,789
Belgium
Lokeren
breyzipp
breyzipp
XBox One player here. Guess I'll have to wait a bit longer due to the issue. :(

Ahh well at least PS4 players get their share of the pie already.

Hope the XBox One issues are fixed soon and a new release candidate will go into submission this week.
 
123
brockybrock
This bloody game on PS4 has been such a let down, I bought this on pc back when it first came out and enjoyed seeing it develop, just hasn't really worked on PS4..... yet! Man I'll be p@&sed if they don't finish it correctly. And guys, red pack is awesome but why no preset room on Monza with the F1 cars??? You're Italian right?
 
8,581
Denmark
Denmark
I hoped for a little more documentation from the patch, but I guess it's something. At this point I'm mostly interested in seeing how the console version develops beyond the obvious flow of DLC.
 
119
United States
Seattle
&...on the 14th Ride2 drops in the U.S.
Ride2-image1.jpg
 
1,060
Germany
Near Nürburgring
DanPrez
I asked 505 Games about custom championships - no answer. They reacted to private lobby questions, though. So i guess they simply dont know when Kunos will include custom championships. I think that chances are slim for the next update. They havent mentioned them so they wont come at this point.

I can only assume that they have to re-work the UI for this feature, same goes for custom button mapping. So im affraid they will take their time.

Vol. 3 is awesome, though. Its the most attractive Porsche pack for me personally. Cant wait to finally get my hands on that GT3 R!
 
1,768
phillip_andrews
Hoping for a few small changes to some bugs I've noticed as well. The ability to change boost level on the short tail 962 and a way to change the rear wing level on the Ferrari SF-15 would be good. I'm sure there's more little bugs as well that could do with ironing out.
 
1,768
phillip_andrews
Only the long tail has adjustable boost. Same on the PC and I guess that's how it was in real life.

I'd be surprised if the short tail was different to the long tail on a detail like that. I would assume teams would be using the same car throughout the season in short and long tail configurations so the mechanicals would be largely the same.
 
12,019
United States
Indianapolis
BrandonW77
I'd be surprised if the short tail was different to the long tail on a detail like that. I would assume teams would be using the same car throughout the season in short and long tail configurations so the mechanicals would be largely the same.

I don't think that was the case. When it was first released there was discussion about why one had adjustable boost and one didn't and it was shown that it was accurate to the real cars. Plus, the short tail is a 1985 model and the long tail is a 1987 model so they were not used in the same season. I'm having a hard time digging up the info but here's a quote from the lead physics guy, Aris, that shows how much detail and effort goes into these things and how closely they work with the manufacturer, so if the short tail doesn't have adjustable boost you can be pretty sure it's accurate.

You'll be happy to know that we double check with Porsche regarding the 962 performances.
With the kind help of mr. Singer, we've found out that the hand written notes on the aero testing of the 962C Short Tail, was mentioning LDxA but in reality was LD.
For who is not keen with the terminology, LD is the downforce coefficient. It get's multiplied by the frontal area to give the total LDxA number which is the "tot CL" number in the WINGS application. Long story, short, it means the car had less downforce by a factor of about 1.7. Further research was made to the drag and adjustments have been made. Also worked on the tyre values.

The Longtail was good instead, the only thing that needed adjustment was the drag as ours was a bit too optimistic. Also, we have added to the core simulation a new controller to have a passive wastegate control that permits a better in cockpit turbo adjustment while the wastegate remains variable. This permits the proper turbo simulation as in the current version, plus going even higher in turbo boost, while still keeping the same turbo pressure map.

Hope you'll like the improvements made in 962C ST and LT and the effort to bring you the best simulated 962 car.

Screen Shot 2017-02-08 at 2.40.03 PM.png
 
8,581
Denmark
Denmark
I'd be surprised if the short tail was different to the long tail on a detail like that. I would assume teams would be using the same car throughout the season in short and long tail configurations so the mechanicals would be largely the same.

That was also my first thought when I noticed this difference, but I don't even think the short tail has that fancy boost level indicator the long tail has on its dashboard. This sort of says it all.
 
1,768
phillip_andrews
I don't think that was the case. When it was first released there was discussion about why one had adjustable boost and one didn't and it was shown that it was accurate to the real cars. Plus, the short tail is a 1985 model and the long tail is a 1987 model so they were not used in the same season. I'm having a hard time digging up the info but here's a quote from the lead physics guy, Aris, that shows how much detail and effort goes into these things and how closely they work with the manufacturer, so if the short tail doesn't have adjustable boost you can be pretty sure it's accurate.



View attachment 626377

Take a look at this video below it's a 962 short tail and you can clearly see the boost knob to the bottom left of the wheel.



I can't see a reason not to have a boost adjustment in the short tail version unless there was regulations that prevented the changing of boost. I think it is a detail they have got wrong or just missed.

I also believe the 962 in general is a bit too slow compared to the real car. I might be able to get a 6:30 around the Nordschleife if I tried a 1000 times (6:47ish is my quickest so far) but that's still way short of the 6:11 Bellof did and 6:16 Ickx did in 1983. Both amazing drivers but I doubt they drove the car as hard as possible whereas we have that luxury in a game.
 

Wiz

Well-Known Jerkface
Premium
1,136
United States
Michigan
Take a look at this video below it's a 962 short tail and you can clearly see the boost knob to the bottom left of the wheel.



I can't see a reason not to have a boost adjustment in the short tail version unless there was regulations that prevented the changing of boost. I think it is a detail they have got wrong or just missed.

I also believe the 962 in general is a bit too slow compared to the real car. I might be able to get a 6:30 around the Nordschleife if I tried a 1000 times (6:47ish is my quickest so far) but that's still way short of the 6:11 Bellof did and 6:16 Ickx did in 1983. Both amazing drivers but I doubt they drove the car as hard as possible whereas we have that luxury in a game.


As far as I can tell, the car in that video is a 1983 model of the 962, when the game has a 1985 version. I don't know this for sure (I'm not a 962 history buff), but perhaps the 85 version did not have adjustable boost?

Also, Bellof & I believe it was Jochen Mass (not Ickx) were both driving 956's, not 962's.

Also also, the current record on the RSR leaderboards for the 962 short tail is 6:10.648 http://www.radiators-champ.com/RSRL...controller_type=all&community=all&friends=all
 
1,768
phillip_andrews
Wiz
As far as I can tell, the car in that video is a 1983 model of the 962, when the game has a 1985 version. I don't know this for sure (I'm not a 962 history buff), but perhaps the 85 version did not have adjustable boost?

Also, Bellof & I believe it was Jochen Mass (not Ickx) were both driving 956's, not 962's.

Also also, the current record on the RSR leaderboards for the 962 short tail is 6:10.648 http://www.radiators-champ.com/RSRL...controller_type=all&community=all&friends=all

Makes little sense why they would remove the function to adjust boost. The RSR leaderboards are they console or PC as PC is too easy to fiddle with mods etc to get faster times?
 

Wiz

Well-Known Jerkface
Premium
1,136
United States
Michigan
The RSR leaderboards are they console or PC as PC is too easy to fiddle with mods etc to get faster times?

PC. RSR has a backend system in place that checks for cheats. From what I understand it's very robust.

I'm quite confident that the 6:10 is a legit time.
 
1,768
phillip_andrews
Wiz
PC. RSR has a backend system in place that checks for cheats. From what I understand it's very robust.

I'm quite confident that the 6:10 is a legit time.

Fair enough that's good it sounds legitimate but I'd prefer a console time for absolute certainty.

Firstly consider the 962 from 1985 would be a faster car than the 1983 956. Secondly the most important fact that it's far easier to push to the absolute maximum on a video game. I very much doubt the real life Porsche drivers were pushing any where close to their maximum when they knew they had to bring the car back in one piece for the 1000km race the next day.

With that in mind I think that a good driver should be able to get close to the real life time not just a handful of "aliens".
 
12,019
United States
Indianapolis
BrandonW77
Take a look at this video below it's a 962 short tail and you can clearly see the boost knob to the bottom left of the wheel.



That video is from 2015. What's the chance that in the proceeding 30 years that this particular car was not upgraded or modified?

Firstly consider the 962 from 1985 would be a faster car than the 1983 956.

Rather than make up facts I did a bit of a deep dive. The IMSA version was faster, but the International version (962c, the one we have in AC) used the same engine as the 956 but weighed between 50-100kg more. That engine had actually been around since the 70's and started its life in the 935, it even ran at Indianapolis. There was very little difference between the 956 and 962, the latter having a slightly longer wheelbase and a steel roll cage (probably where a lot of the extra weight comes from). Also, the version we have may be the low downforce configuration that was run at Le Mans (just like the C9 we have) which may not perform quite as well at the Nords.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_962

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/754/Porsche-962C.html

With that in mind I think that a good driver should be able to get close to the real life time not just a handful of "aliens".

The top 10 are all within about 10-15 seconds of each other which is a reasonably close gap at such a big track. And IMO the fact that we can push harder in a sim does not necessarily mean we are automatically faster, it still takes a lot of skill to get a beast of a car around a beast of a track. Also, it's still a game, and while they strive for as much accuracy as possible we cannot expect 100% accuracy, nor should we be terribly bothered if it slightly misses the mark. Just enjoy the car and the track and don't be so worried if its lap times may be slightly off from the real thing, as long as it's fun that's all that matters.
 
Also, the version we have may be the low downforce configuration that was run at Le Mans (just like the C9 we have) which may not perform quite as well at the Nords.
The low downforce version of the 962C is the long tail version of the car. I'm not sure the 962C KH (short tail) ever ran at LM; it certainly didn't with the factory supported top teams and it looks like there weren't any short tailed 962Cs present at all in 1985: http://www.racingsportscars.com/photo/Le_Mans-1985-06-16.html

With that being said, I agree with your main premise. Early 962Cs weren't any faster over a lap than 956s, so the fastest aliens putting down 6'10 (slightly faster than Bellof's time) looks about right.
 
12,019
United States
Indianapolis
BrandonW77
The low downforce version of the 962C is the long tail version of the car. I'm not sure the 962C KH (short tail) ever ran at LM; it certainly didn't with the factory supported top teams and it looks like there weren't any short tailed 962Cs present at all in 1985: http://www.racingsportscars.com/photo/Le_Mans-1985-06-16.html

With that being said, I agree with your main premise. Early 962Cs weren't any faster over a lap than 956s, so the fastest aliens putting down 6'10 (slightly faster than Bellof's time) looks about right.

Yeah, that part was just speculation based on reading something that said they were often run in low downforce trim and then thinking that the C9 we have is the low downforce Le Mans spec. The rest was all pulled from various pages though.
 
1,654
England
England
Player_7421
Player 7421
How come it's being released on Monday and not Tuesday? Is it because of Valentine's?
Most likely because I doubt the players who have girlfriends will be on PS much that day. Im just going to hope my girlfriend gets me the dlc for Valentine's Day. Jks, still would be good though.:bowdown: