What do you think is the most significant reason AMS2 userbase is so small?

This 90’s forum makes it easy to attach pics. 11,396 online @iracing now

 

I bet once AMS2 has a reliable MP and some recurring servers numbers will double up or more for AMS2.

 

Tough to believe p2p can be reliable. I guess it is possible, but very unlikely for this sort of game.

I believe AMS2 can only be reliable if everyone in the lobby is connecting from the same country or, at most, from the same continent. If the server is a mix of players from everywhere, due to the nature of p2p, the session has a very high risk of something bad happening.

Regarding recurring servers, we already have it (JustRace) for a while now, but it doesn't seem to get popular at all.

 

Yes, the AMS2 numbers are close to the rF2 numbers! & I believe those rf2 numbers are 98% MP while the AMS2 numbers are 98% SP.. the potential is there & don't forget LFMs poll had AMS2 winning by a landslide to be their 2nd sim but it failed in the MP/server-side & won't work with their system set up..

 

yes .its a great platform but they all end up suffering from the same things..

The online action is not to bad right now
But then you compare them to just 1 hourly LFM session and its quite telling
this was 19:15 GMT (i'm in the US so eu prime time is 11am-2pm my time)

 

Current MP is not in good state and there has been zero advertising and support by Reiza to JR.
Once that is in place the word will spread and numbers will surely increase.
P2P is not the most favorable option but I'm sure there can be at least significant improvements that can be achieved even with P2P architecture compared to the state of the art of AMS2 today.

 

If your going to comment as if there are facts, at least get the facts straight.
ACC does change tank size and ballast track to track. I have the motec data to back up the vehicle weight. And thieir change logs is full of BOP adjustments from tank size to engine power, and torque at certain areas of the power band, as well as boost asjustments on turbo models. All under BOP.
You then go further to say their physics is canned, despite the fact they have actual manufacturer data from the manufacturers and the teams.

You are entitled to your personal opinions on ACC, but you are not entitled to make up your own facts.
There are areas of traction control application, especially on cars with TC LON and TC LAT settings, it is difficult to implement this in game. They know the exact settings on those TC systems, but for realism they purposely make them worse (is irl the TC responds to the wheel slip, and in the sim, the TC knows exactly the wheel slip as it occurs).

I am not trying to annoy you, but please stop with these made up "facts".
There are of course improvements that can be made and I know they're tweaking the tyre model again in the next update.
And I wouldn't classify myself as an ACC fan boy. I play all simulators and like them all, for different reasons.

 

Well, I can see why Reiza didn't take you up on the offer of support/community.
Have a nice day and may your laps be fast.

 

The facts are that you cannot in real world enter a corner up to the apex with brakes 80% on like you do in ACC and go faster. If you had knowledge of vehicle dynamics you would know. Besides that you can see that in the onboard cameras on YT where you can see the inputs.
Besides, when the ABS and TC intervene there are noises and vibrations that can be heard in the onboards (especially there are a couple of them in the top of YT searches that are very exemplary in this respect) and they prove that ABS intervention is nowhere close to as often and invasive as ACC driving style requires.
As for BOP what I meant is that in real life BOP is made ONLY with those 3 interventions and more seldom in the season with ride height. In ACC that is not the only thing that is changed. There is obviously other stuff that changes elsewhere (suspensions/dampers probably but it is not possible to verify because data are not visible and anyway they are reported to the wheel if you know what that means) that is also evident in the way the car behaves and in the telemetry. Hence why I say there is canned physics at work.
Finally, if you think manufacturers (both of cars and tires) are making available to videogames developers the full and real physics data you are delusional: it's a marketing stunt. The reasons are that some of the data that would be needed for the simulation aren't known to the manufacturers themselves because they don't need to establish them for what they need to do, then there is other data will not be revealed because they are sensitive.
What developers may likely get access to is data from the MRUs on the car (i.e. mostly accelerations, speeds, in relation to the position on the track and stuff like that, if they are lucky they could get some operational ranges of data for certain parameters, but usually the ranges are big enough not to give away the real range and that also often means the real information in there is negligible), which are global car behavior info.
Better than nothing for sure, but that kind of global data can be fulfilled by many many different physics, hence fulfilling them isn't guarantee that your physics and FFB are spot on. Also even knowing in exactly which conditions data were gathered (which in itself is almost impossible) means no guarantee that the simulator will be as accurate in different conditions simply because the quality of the simulation model gets in the way of that.
Don't get fooled by marketing stunts and look at reality for what it is.

 

You can't go to an apex with 80% brakes on and go faster LOL. Seriously man, just stop. Please stop with the misinformation.
Although, to go fast, you need to trail into the apex as much as possible. Certainly not 80% as the car would either push wide, or lose the rear on brakes.
There's a video with Brendan Hartley discussing this exact concept, even true in a LMP1/Hypercar.

Anyway, as for the rest of your comment, it just appears you are anti ACC for some reason. You actually just flat out refuse to believe they have access to real data. There is a reason the dampers and bumpstops on all cars are in numerical increments and not actual force values....NDA.

I am not claiming they have access to all they'd like to have, but with the manufacturer input, the team input and that of drivers (who usually agree ACC is most true to life for actual gt3 racing), then I take notice of that. And from driving in ACC, the vehicle behaviours make sense.
Again, if you don't like ACC, this is perfectly fine, but to wash their progress and physics development as marketing stunts is really unfair and misinformed.
You'd be surprised to know, maybe, I drove the merc in AMS2 and in ACC. Back to back. My braking behaviour in both was identical. The cars felt really similar. A little more sensitive in ACC and a bit more difficult to drive , but whatever, maybe just down to different base values on suspensions or whatever...they both had a lot of similarities. The video is on my YouTube channel.
So if you think ACC physics are canned, then you must see AMS2 in a similar way.
I happen to think they both have very accurate physics, representing really advanced physics engines.

 

Watch any stream from ACC (apart from actually driving it) and see the inputs... In real world the input you see in the telemetry when it is shown for GT3 is usually (well) below 30% braking when approaching the apex. Compare it with any fast driver that is streaming ACC and see how much input they give in a corner like Rivazza 1 which is even sloping downwards.
I'm stating facts that you can see in any YT video of real races with telemetry/inputs and facts that (besides testing them on your own) you can see in any ACC stream.
And that is besides have certified knowledge of how vehicle dynamics works.
There are some similarities between AMS2 and ACC (thanks God) but being able to trail brake ridiculously hard and still make the apex is not one of them.
AMS2 has it own flaws and things that must be corrected and I'm vocal on those as well.
But ACC is definitely not the bible of physics in many respects for whoever knows about real cars engineering basis and such narrative is mostly a marketing stunt.
If stating this qualifies me as anti-ACC then it's your own opinion.

 

You can't compare real world to sim as an exact 1-1.
With ACC and GT3 you can go into a braking area with brakes applied, usually above 60% or so when beginning to turn in. This pressure is released to less than 10% by the time of coming into the apex, or fully off entirely.
The top guys on ACC are so efficient at this, that it boggles the mind, but if you see their corner entry data on motec and even slow motion the video, you can see they get out of the brake at the perfect time. As steering angle increases, brake decreases. But trail braking to the apex is the marker of a good driver. The harder they are able to do it, while still getting the car turned in, will have the best lap time.

I don't claim ACC to he the bible of physics at all. All simulators out there are modelling the same stuff now. The knowledge is very public on what should be modeled. ACC does it based on real life data, ground effect, chassis flex etc.
Reiza does a great job with tyre and driveline characteristics and suspension modeling. Basically, they're all trying to achieve the same thing and they are at advanced stages, facing different problems on different areas.
ACC has been more developed from an earlier stage. Reiza is now there in my opinion, but it needs to focus more on the online side and mid race saves.
People have limited time but still want to do a long race or an endurance race, we need mid race saves. This would open AMS2 to many more people. Even if the real track had to reset, who cares. The actual resuming of a race is more important.

 

I don’t own ACC but all my friends who do say the braking is like “all you have to do is slam the brakes as hard as you can” I think ams2 the speed you can carry to apex is or “feels” too much ? IF you can get a gt3 driver who isn’t getting paid by one of the sims or endorses a sim product , that would be an honest answer. I racing feels good up to about 98 then feels like ass. Their problem is Dave K is hell bent (20+ yrs) making a pure sim tire without any fudging, result is a flawed tire because the devs aren’t able to make the tracks to blend well with the tire hmmm Back to ams2, you can get it loose but to straight loop any of the cars it’s like it’s in a slot haha

 

The main reasons for me:

- braking feels really bad for me. I have t-lcm pedals and they work fine in every other sim. In ams 2 it’s like they are not linear… the braking is weakly applied up until a certain point and then it just locks, seemingly without warning or feedback. It’s more or less unplayable. I searched and found threads here detailing this exact issue. Some of the cars are great, and I would definitely spend more time with them if I could fix my brakes. The Dallara formula car in particular is nice.

- there is nothing else to grab my attention. AI is clearly better in rF 2 and iracing. Many other top sims have laser scanned tracks. Even though ams 2 has an excellent selection of tracks overall, I miss the laser scanned detail.

- the cars and tracks have a tendency to feel old/reused. Many of them were in ams 1 and in the rf2 reiza pack. It’s not bad that the same cars and tracks appear in those other titles, it’s disappointing that they seem to have just been ported to ams 2 with minimal updates.

- for a game with a large single player audience the lack of a career mode is baffling.

I guess those are the main reasons. To be fair, Ams 2 does a lot right and for sure has come a long way since i bought it earlier this year. And I wouldn’t be here at all if I didn’t want to see the game succeed.

 

It's not the amount of speed that I am criticizing, it's the amount of braking itself: as you probably know the grip "circle" is actually an oval shape but the important thing about it, is that it simply tells you that if you use the grip to brake the car you can't use it for turning (see how low is the curve at high Fx values).


In ACC this oval is more like an "indianapolis" oval: almost a square. So in this way you can gain by heavily braking even while you are asking a lot of lateral grip to turn the car in all the way to the apex.

If you ask ACC fans they will tell you it's the ABS, but ABS cannot change the laws of tire physics and add grip where there should not be.

 

I use to have similar problems both with my T-lcm pedals and previous load cell kit modded T3pa pros . it was really frustrating at times . But since upgrading the T-lcm brake with elastomer mods, it’s way better .
basically, TM pedals aren’t very good with Ams2 . it’s too easy to hit max force with them unless you have something to cushion the the pressure like elastomers .

 

That makes sense and you explained it correctly. I’m not of an engineer mind so it’s gets a little cloudy but

 

I dont agree with you - and have only brake problems with blocking when the speed suddenly gets under some threashold/limit set by the Madness TM.
But I have a comment about your linear/not linear critique.
You can set the law for the brakes (and all other inputs) by changing the "Sensitivity" slider.
As I recall it then values under 50 gives an exponential law and values above 50 gives the opposite.
IE under 50 is slow starting and above is abrubt/high starting.
OK?

 

Not me