Automobilista 2 V1.4.6.1 Officially Released - Now Updated to V1.4.6.4

I'm as much of motorsports historian as anyone here, and have done my small part to help make AMS2 more realistic, but as Pete “Boomer” Bonanni, a pilot who contributed to Microprose's Falcon series of flight sims put it, "The art of simulation design is about understanding limited fidelity." Reiza can input all the most realistic data they want into the Madness engine ... that's no guarantee it will accurately recreate reality, or even our (often flawed) expectations. The Formula Classic Gen 2 category--if it were to reflect reality--would consist of a couple of MP4/4 McLarens capable of stalling on the grid and subsequently storming to victory (a la Suzuka 1988) ... hardly worth simulating if you're in any other vehicle. Like it or not, simulation necessitates compromises: some unavoidable, others taken by choice. Theoretically, Reiza could implement a +/- ballast system across the board (e.g., add or remove ballast mass to any vehicle), or other system to achieve a similar effect, but the results (e.g., "Hey Reiza, this car is now undriveable--your setups suck!", etc.) would undoubtedly create additional issues for the developers that are simply impractical to solve based on resources.

 

Yup, I've experienced that myself.

 

WTF are you talking about?

If anything, they've removed some of the BOP that was in place to make the C4 competitive with the C9 and Nissan during short races, and put it closer on par with the Porsche which is realistic.

Both the Porsche and the C4 are slower than the other two now. The C4 no longer feels like its shaking itself apart in the turns for example and tops out around 199mph in HDF configuration instead of 210mph. The Porsche feels like it's has a little more downforce and a hint more power to compensate, although that might just be the difference of a turbo vs NA setup at Bathurst.

Also, the Porsche is considerably better on fuel (going a lap or 2 longer on 3x fuel burn than the other cars can) and is way more reliable than the other cars.(lost 3rd gear with both the Nissan and Corvette in a 20 lap race at Bathurst 83. Did not lose it with the Porsche because it's a tank.)

Put simply,

The 962 is
-The slowest car on pace,
-But the most fuel efficient, Easiest to drive, and most reliable.

The C4 in
-The 2nd slowest car on pace. Better drive off the corner and slightly higher top speed than the Porsche. Also somewhat fragile. (Lost 3rd gear significantly sooner than with the Nissan) and harder to drive than the Porsche or the Nissan. (Spun a couple times from missing downshifts and locking the rear wheels)
-But sounds amazing, has better fuel range than the Nissan or C9, (in between the Nissan and Porsche) and doesn't suffer from the long haul damage from turbocharging.

The Nissan
-Seems to be the superior car in a straight line, topping out just above the C9 (Although the C9 is faster out of the corner and 2/3rd down the straight). However it has the 2nd worst fuel mileage (although the most opertunity to save IMO)
I think the Nissan is the best overall car right now, doubly so on tracks with long straights.

The Mercedes
-Is a unhinged rocket ship coming out of corners, burns through fuel like no tomorrow (most of the AI choosing to pit twice in my 16 and 20 lap races at Bathurst 83) can pull on the Nissan up to 190mph-200mph, and is undoubtedly the hardest to drive without diving into the car setup. (Under accelerated fuel burn, the C9 is put under a slightly greater disadvantage i think because of how fast it burns through fuel, but in regular races it should be a contender.) Its also very, very reliable in my testing.

 

would be nice to have the option to turn BOP on or off like we have on Gran Turismo, so if you want a more authentic experience you can turn it off or if you want a balanced league race you can turn it on

 

P sessions are two days prior to the race date and Q sessions one day, so unlikely the weather will be exactly the same even if all at the same time of day.

 

If you want to know how realistic they are, aim for all cars to consume no more than 51 litres per 100 km and re-check pace.

 

You do realize that there are other things that can implemented that are not necessarily ballast, like engine restrictors also right? In fact, those are in game already.

 

Yes.. and that has nothng todo with reality.

The sauber was better on fuel than the 962 in real life, as well as being faster in 1989. The car won all the races except one where they had big tire problems. The C9 was also the fastest in a straight line, just as Le Mans figures show.

The Vette shouldnt even keep up with the Porsche in speed, much less with the Sauber.

I am talking about reality here, not what Reiza did.

 

Agreed; each car in AMS2 ought to represent its basic strengths and weaknesses faithfully--a gas-guzzler shouldn't suddenly become a model of 1980's fuel efficiency. After essential performance envelopes are modeled, any possible BOP discussions and countermeasures can commence.

For the sake of argument, what if either Nissan or Chevrolet managed to design a Group C/GTP racecar that--on paper--was faster than the Porsche and Mercedes? So what? The historical evidence, as measured by race wins, reliability, etc. indicates the 962 & C9 were far, far preferable options at the time. But in a digital simulation, the numbers might argue otherwise.

 

I'm kind of lost after all this discussion... are we saying that in my 15 minute race with a 2pm start, that there will be 24 distinct weather slots each lasting roughly 37.5 seconds (900/24)? And that these time slots relate to the weather (obviously not the sun position) as it was at 2pm, 3pm, 4pm, ..., 12pm the following day, 1pm the following day? This does bear some scrutiny because I did a race at Cascais 88 with the same start time, and about 2/3 of the way into the race (this would be around 5/6am) a thick fog descended, and then went again. But otherwise it was dry.

In my mind I want the weather 10 minutes into the race to resemble the weather at 2.10pm. If the historic weather only works in 1 hour intervals (that is each distinct hour is mapped to a particular weather condition in the game), then I would expect the weather to stay the same throughout, unless I had time acceleration on a level that took me into subsequent hours. I believe this is what happens in single races, and it seems illogical that the same doesn't apply to championships?

 

On the discussion about BOP, I agree with the preference for the cars to be modelled as accurately as possible over equal performance.
Live For Speed has sliders to restrict engine power and add weight for those wanting to race evenly matched cars. Perhaps this is an option?

 

Nevermind. more testing to verify what I thought addressed this.

 

I don't think it is supposed to work like that in championship mode, it is just a bug. It should behave the same as single race.

 

Wait, what?

How was the C9 more fuel efficient when it has more downforce and a much larger engine?

How would corvette be slower than a 962 with almost 150-200 more horsepower?

I'm just like , that doesn't make any sense to me. I know the C9 was an all dominating car, but good God, it cannot be completely unbeatable

Also keep in mind I'm using accelerated fuel burn, so everything is exaggerated I'm sure.

But I'm sorry, I don't understand how 5.0L V8 Twin turbo is more fuel efficient than a 3l flat 6 Twin Turbo making almost half the power at full boost. I assuming that's more driver related than car

(Actually that last thought makes a lot of sense because that's the way Germans think, we must drive as slow yet possible to still beat this other car...)

 

Would be nice, but considering how we already have to reload or reset setups every single time we load into a different version of the same car, I don't know how well madness would hold up to that.

 

are they different days? where i can see that information in game?

 

@Demichkd
I made the test with deleting the AMS2 folder and yes,all is back to default.But unfortunatly you can't put back the default.controller and default.local settings files, you have to enter everything again in game settings.
If you find out something let me know.Maybe an encypted file?
I only use seat position - useing the other settings made no sense.Looks the same as seat positon up or down - and i don't change the FOV wich is @ 60.

 

When Marc says so,it is so....

 

Are you sure.
I have allways got my custom settings back if I does copy these 3 backup´ed files back in.



ByTheWay: The graphic settings is in another folder inside "graphicsconfigdx11.xml"

 

You are not making any sense mate.

A 5.0L V8 can be more powerful while consuming less fuel than a 3.0L F6 if it has more development work, better pulverization on chambers, better electronics control, better integration with a given fuel spec, and less turbo boost. It ticks all those boxes. But not half the power, that's a ridiculous statement.

You can also can have it create downforce more efficiently if you have a newer design that takes lessons learned from previous cars, both your own and rivals, while at the same time having an engine shape that allows you to run larger venturi tunnels. Which is true for the C9 against the 962C.

The Vette GTP is one of the cars that the 962 mopped the floor with when crossing the pond towards IMSA. And according to windtunnel numbers, it created less than half the downforce of what the best Group C cars did, even when GTPs were not required to meet a fuel quota like those cars, which started at 60 litres per 100 km, and by 1990 it was down to 51 litres on the same distance.

Watch results from 1989 and 1990 of the World Sports Prototypes Championship. Sauber-Mercedes destroyed the opposition, and Jaguar, the ones who knocked down Porsche after a streak of 7 straight LM24 wins, could not hold a candle towards the C9 when Michelin finally gave them tyres that were a match to the Goodyears.

It cannot be overstated how good the C9 was. The only true Group C car that topped it was its successor, the even better Sauber C11.