Not a SIM

[Scaff]

A lot more in PCARS2 than in AC and ACC. For race cars and road cars.

Can’t agree with that, however I find it largely absent in PC3.

 

[GTsimms]

Roads tires in like AC and AMS1 are like driving in rain/ice. When you expect them to grip while cornering. They become unrecoverable death traps not anything like real tires.

 

[Scaff]

Roads tires in like AC and AMS1 are like driving in rain/ice. When you expect them to grip while cornering. They become unrecoverable death traps not anything like real tires.

I've not had a go on AMS1, but would not agree in regard to AC, I find them quite similar to PC2. In fact, I've likened PC2 and AC in that regard, in that the vehicle behaviour is similar, but like the difference between driving one on Pirelli and the other on Conti's (as an analogy).

Now PC3 has the back end stepping out under braking at speeds you would encounter on the road and without the need for full-force braking, it's very dramatic (and recoverable easily because of the input smoothing, and on pad, the countersteer assist) but its also not accurate. That's based on at least three of the road cars in PC3 that I have good experience of.

 

[GTsimms]

I've not had a go on AMS1, but would not agree in regard to AC, I find them quite similar to PC2. In fact, I've likened PC2 and AC in that regard, in that the vehicle behaviour is similar, but like the difference between driving one on Pirelli and the other on Conti's (as an analogy).

Those tires PC2 vs AC feel completely different to me.

 

[Scaff]

Those tires PC2 vs AC feel completely different to me.

Give me a car and track combo and I’m more than happy to run a back to back video comparison.

What are your thoughts on the rest of my post, you may have missed it originally as I edited it in?

 

[oneloops]

I've not had a go on AMS1, but would not agree in regard to AC, I find them quite similar to PC2. In fact, I've likened PC2 and AC in that regard, in that the vehicle behaviour is similar, but like the difference between driving one on Pirelli and the other on Conti's (as an analogy).

Now PC3 has the back end stepping out under braking at speeds you would encounter on the road and without the need for full-force braking, it's very dramatic (and recoverable easily because of the input smoothing, and on pad, the countersteer assist) but its also not accurate. That's based on at least three of the road cars in PC3 that I have good experience of.

In AC the most usual way of loosing lateral grip is with a preprogrammed long slide (usually understeering)
In PCARS2 the most usual way of loosing lateral grip is with hard bumping and imprevisible reactions after those hard bumps.

Both are very unrealistic in the way they loose lateral grip.

ACC is huge more accurate in loosing lateral grip, with a lot more nuances, progressiveness when it's the case (like for example with a low aerodynamic load or with used tyres and other conditions) and rough when it's the case (for example with a high aerodynamic load or with optimum tyres and others conditions).

 

[Scaff]

In AC the most usual way of loosing lateral grip is with a preprogrammed long slide (usually understeering)
In PCARS2 the most usual way of loosing lateral grip is with hard bumping and imprevisible reactions after those hard bumps.

Both are very unrealistic in the way they loose lateral grip.

ACC is huge more accurate in loosing lateral grip, with a lot more nuances, progressiveness when it's the case (like for example with a low aerodynamic load or with used tyres and other conditions) and rough when it's the case (for example with a high aerodynamic load or with optimum tyres and others conditions).

I quite literally did back to backs with all three of these last night and I utterly disagree, the fact that you are claiming (with zero evidence) that lateral grip loss in AC is a pre-programmed (or canned) effect is enough to dismiss your claim!

Neither is 'very unrealistic' in the way they lose grip at all!



Give that a watch and then tell me why he's wrong.

 

[GTsimms]

In AC the most usual way of loosing lateral grip is with a preprogrammed long slide (usually understeering)
In PCARS2 the most usual way of loosing lateral grip is with hard bumping and imprevisible reactions after those hard bumps.

Both are very unrealistic in the way they loose lateral grip.

ACC is huge more accurate in loosing lateral grip, with a lot more nuances, progressiveness when it's the case (like for example with a low aerodynamic load or with used tyres and other conditions) and rough when it's the case (for example with a high aerodynamic load or with optimum tyres and others conditions).

Guess, I am going to have to test ACC soon.

 

[Scaff]

Guess, I am going to have to test ACC soon.

No comment on the claimed faults and 'very unrealistic' PC2?

As you were championing Nik Romano's video to me only last night, I'm quite surprised you would miss that?

 

[oneloops]

I quite literally did back to backs with all three of these last night and I utterly disagree, the fact that you are claiming (with zero evidence) that lateral grip loss in AC is a pre-programmed (or canned) effect is enough to dismiss your claim!

Neither is 'very unrealistic' in the way they lose grip at all!

You have zero evidence that I'm wrong, claiming "zero evidence" it's not an evidence of the opposite.
You dismiss a claim with arbitrary things, that's how you dismiss other's claims.

And you miss again the nuance "preprogrammed long slide", always cutting words to be right ?

The evidence is there, accesible to everyone, you have only to test it in both with some driving skills and some sensitivity.

 

[GTsimms]

No comment on the claimed faults and 'very unrealistic' PC2?

As you were championing Nik Romano's video to me only last night, I'm quite surprised you would miss that?

@Scaff I am not saying Project CARS 2 was perfect. It did very well, but had an underlying tire issue causing the anti-jolt to be implemented.

I have not experienced the handling model in ACC or AMS 2 (btw) for myself.

The best tire model in a simulation was PC2 upon release in 2017. If, you cannot tell the difference in sims and think they are similar. It shows a lack of knowledge.

 

[Scaff]

You have zero evidence that I'm wrong, claiming "zero evidence" it's not an evidence of the opposite.
You dismiss a claim with arbitrary things, that's how you dismiss other's claims.

You made the claim, as such the onus is on you to support the claim, not the other way around. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

And you miss again the nuance "preprogrammed long slide", always cutting words to be right ?

The definition of pre-programmed is to set something to occur in a set way, which would mean its a preset outcome, so either you have used the wrong term or you are claiming that AC doesn't calculate the loss of lateral grip in its physics engine, but rather it's a pre-programmed occurrence that will always happen, in the same way, at the seme point.

I've not 'cut' your words to be right, I've used the dictionary definition of the exact word you used.

The evidence is there, accesible to everyone, you have only to test it in both with some driving skills and some sensitivity.

I await the evidence being presented by you, video capture is quite simple in this day and age, when will it be up?

@Scaff I am not saying Project CARS 2 was perfect. It did very well, but had an underlying tire issue causing the anti-jolt to be implemented.

Nor am I. I just find it odd that something you were championing only this morning is now flawed to the point of not being worth correction because you have found someone who shares your bias.

It strikes me that both of you have simply swallowed the line that PC3 is 'all the sim you could want' based on zero evidence being supplied by SMS, the utter lack of real-world driver involvement in this development cycle doesn't bother either of you, the clear and demonstrable issues it has with the dynamic balance of most cars (most clearly under braking). I've driven three of the road cars in PC3 in anger on track and at pace on the road (GT86, F-Type and A110s) and they do not behave accurately in PC3, ditto with regard to the Formula Jn, which is in effect a Formula Ford, I've a solid amount of track time in those and what PC2 gets right about them is gone in PC3. But none of this bothers you because you've been 'told' it's better?

I'm using reality as the benchmark here, you both seem to be using what you have been told by a company with a product to sell.

I have not experienced the handling model in ACC or AMS 2 (btw) for myself.

And? I wasn't referring to them.

The best tire model in a simulation was PC2 upon release in 2017. If, you cannot tell the difference in sims and think they are similar. It shows a lack of knowledge.

My knowledge comes from my experience, experience you know of, odd that you got quite worked up over PM about the importance and validity of experience, only now to attempt to invalidate mine as it suits you? It's odd as well given that I have direct experience of quite a few of the road cars in AC, even as far as owning one of them (not the exact variant, but five years with one of them as a daily driver must mean something).

Now about that car and track combo I requested, if it's so clear cut it should be no problem providing the details and I am more than happy to put a comparison video together, I have the time today, so its no issue at all.

 

[oneloops]

You made the claim, as such the onus is on you to support the claim, not the other way around. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.


The definition of pre-programmed is to set something to occur in a set way, which would mean its a preset outcome, so either you have used the wrong term or you are claiming that AC doesn't calculate the loss of lateral grip in its physics engine, but rather it's a pre-programmed occurrence that will always happen, in the same way, at the seme point.

I've not 'cut' your words to be right, I've used the dictionary definition of the exact word you used.


I await the evidence being presented by you, video capture is quite simple in this day and age, when will it be up?


Nor am I. I just find it odd that something you were championing only this morning is now flawed to the point of not being worth correction because you have found someone who shares your bias.

It strikes me that both of you have simply swallowed the line that PC3 is 'all the sim you could want' based on zero evidence being supplied by SMS, the utter lack of real-world driver involvement in this development cycle doesn't bother either of you, the clear and demonstrable issues it has with the dynamic balance of most cars (most clearly under braking). I've driven three of the road cars in PC3 in anger on track and at pace on the road (GT86, F-Type and A110s) and they do not behave accurately in PC3, ditto with regard to the Formula Jn, which is in effect a Formula Ford, I've a solid amount of track time in those and what PC2 gets right about them is gone in PC3. But none of this bothers you because you've been 'told' it's better?

I'm using reality as the benchmark here, you both seem to be using what you have been told by a company with a product to sell.


And? I wasn't referring to them.



My knowledge comes from my experience, experience you know of, odd that you got quite worked up over PM about the importance and validity of experience, only now to attempt to invalidate mine as it suits you? It's odd as well given that I have direct experience of quite a few of the road cars in AC, even as far as owning one of them (not the exact variant, but five years with one of them as a daily driver must mean something).

Now about that car and track combo I requested, if it's so clear cut it should be no problem providing the details and I am more than happy to put a comparison video together, I have the time today, so its no issue at all.

You love the dictionary to get out of context everything, that's rigid thinking.

Don't pretend to be so clever, there is many ways of randomness as a function in programming too, not always preprogrammed is "that will always happen, in the same way, at the same point."

I don't make videos for you. You can make videos for me in order to demonstrate your claims, you have a lot more time to lose than me.

 

[GTsimms]

@Scaff If, AC and PC2 tires are the same. Let's take any car which is the same in both games and check speeds at which you go off track.

 

[Scaff]

You love the dictionary to get out of context everything, that's rigid thinking.

Don't pretend to be so clever, there is many ways of randomness as a function in programming too, not always preprogrammed is "that will always happen, in the same way, at the same point."

I don't make videos for you. You can make videos for me in order to demonstrate your claims, you have a lot more time to lose than me.

So you are unwilling to support a claim you made, unwilling to expand on your own poor use of words (and now the dictionary is seemingly an inaccurate source of word definition) and unwilling to provide any evidence at all?

Not only that, but you are now into cheap digs in place of discussion!

@Scaff If, AC and PC2 tires are the same.

Strawman logical fallacy, I've never said that and you know I've never said that. If you believe it to be true then quote me.

Honest question, is deliberately misquoting something, that as a moderator, you see as acceptable forum behaviour?

Let's take any car which is the same in both games and check speeds at which you go off track.

Because off track behaviour is the core of all physics behaviour now?

Why is it so hard to provide me with an example of something you say is quite obvious and clear to see?

Here's a few I did earlier (and by that I mean years ago).







BTW the last one is a car and track combo I've driven in reality.

 

[oneloops]

So you are unwilling to support a claim you made, unwilling to expand on your own poor use of words (and now the dictionary is seemingly an inaccurate source of word definition) and unwilling to provide any evidence at all?

Not only that, but you are now into cheap digs in place of discussion!

Poor use of words ? hahahaha you are so rigid and simple, ignoring randomness in programming, thinking that "will always happen, in the same way, at the same point."

You are the only in gtplanet who ask always for demontrations for every post and even you don't know how to use the dictionary hahaha... maybe it's a problem.

 

[GTsimms]

I've not had a go on AMS1, but would not agree in regard to AC, I find them quite similar to PC2. In fact, I've likened PC2 and AC in that regard.

So quite similar. So your basically saying they are close to the same which they are in different ball parks.

 

[Scaff]

Poor use of words ? hahahaha you are so rigid and simple, ignoring randomness in programming, thinking that "will always happen, in the same way, at the same point."

You are the only in gtplanet who ask always for demontrations for every post and even you don't know how to use the dictionary hahaha... maybe it's a problem.

So once again petty insults and digs in place of discussion.

 

[Scaff]

Similar is not the same, so no you can’t quote me saying it.

 

[oneloops]

So once again petty insults and digs in place of discussion.

You ask for demonstrations when you get words out of context and you claim a poor use of words...

You should expect nothing from others when you discusses with a rigid thinking and cutting words from other's claims.

 

[PJTierney]

 

[oneloops]

Very poor comparison with such a low driving level in Pcars2 and AC. Don't you know how to take a corner properly ?

 

[Scaff]

Very poor comparison with that low driving level in Pcars2 and AC. Don't you know how to take a corner properly ?

I await your skilled driving demonstration along with further insults.

 

[oneloops]

I await your skilled driving demonstration along with further insults.

That's not an insult, it's low level. And you can't deny it, you can see it in the videos.
You can't compare taking corners well with turning that way.

There are many examples in Youtube, you will learn something before claiming your channel "sim racing"

 

[MagpieRacer]

That's not an insult, it's low level. And you can't deny it you can see it in the videos.

There are many examples in Youtube, you will learn something before claiming your channel "sim racing"

Post some examples then. We're all anxious to see them. You keep saying they're out there but you can't show us.

 

[slthree]

Gentlemen, you do realize that winning an argument on an anonymous internet forum gains you nothing, right?

Now, I don't know enough about racing, be it real life racing or video game sim racing, to determine who's right and who's wrong. But, I do find it interesting that many boisterous arguments are being made with no video evidence.

While I'm markedly against this back-and-forth nonsense, I must say that, at least, @Scaff presents video evidence when he makes a point.

In my line of work (actually, this is a truth in all life) saying a thing does not make the thing so. Saying that thing over and over and over again still does not make the thing so. Personal attacks and insults while making those points undermine the point themselves and reveal a lack of character.

At a certain point one has to wonder why you continue to go back and forth publicly as opposed to taking this argument to private chat.

Yes, I am well aware of the "ignore" feature but I'd rather not use it. If I ignore 3 different people who know a lot about racing games then I'm the one who loses because I get a lot of knowledge from you guys.

Please, I implore you to end this.

 

[OooAhh Cantona]

You are the only in gtplanet who ask always for demontrations for every post and even you don't know how to use the dictionary hahaha... maybe it's a problem.

I would like to see demonstrations and evidence as well.

Scaff seems very willing to put in the work to support his opinion. I think it's fair that he asks others to do the same when there are questions or uncertainty.

 

[oneloops]

Post some examples then. We're all anxious to see them. You keep saying they're out there but you can't show us.

Look some David Perel videos for example. I'm not claiming a comparison and demonstrations in a video with such low skill level.

A proper comparison needs to be way more close to the example compared to.

 

[slthree]

Noooooooo! Please don't encourage them.

But, that is funny

 

[Scaff]

That's not an insult, it's low level. And you can't deny it you can see it in the videos.

There are many examples in Youtube, you will learn something before claiming your channel "sim racing"

You want to know why I’m not as quick as some?

I will tell you before you head to the ignore list, my ASD (a registered disability) has an affect on my fine motor skills, none of which however affects my mind and ability to understand vehicle dynamics.

Carry on with your unproven ableist assumptions.