Physic discussion thread

Not aiming at arguing or attack anyone, I just think some light needs to be shed on what a physical model brings to the table vs the empirical models IMHO.

From what I can gather from my previous involvement with automotive engineering, the conversation over rendering tires behaviors is basically on two levels.
1. Rendering tire performance in terms of pure grip from a global standpoint (where the meaning of global is basically disregarding what happens "inside" the tire) : in simple word which forces is the tire exchanging with the ground in different conditions, whether it's tire type or track temperatures and rubbering conditions and so on
2. How these forces are are transformed into torque on the steering wheel, which bottom line is what we call FFB (although some additional effects are also overlayed later on in simracing).

When it comes to empirical models the conceptual idea is to have a certain amount of data that could be effectively collected through telemetry and adjust the empirical equations parameters to fit the data the best way possible. The conceptual downside of this approach is that the data available, no matter how comprehensive the database, will always be limited to the conditions those data were collected in. So, to make an example that everyone understands: let's take the last Monaco GP, F1 teams will be able to collect data for the race at full car weight under wet conditions and later damp and green conditions for dry tires. There won't be available data for that track (i.e. aero, suspensions etc. settings) in a fully rubbered hot and full tank conditions.
Therefore conceptually, the data you can empirically measure will always be limited to the conditions you encountered and the car settings you were running.
Everything else has to be extrapolated by use of corrective equations with again more parameters that the user/developer must populate either by experience or literature.
Generally, the empirical equations or corrective equations user defined parameters also won't have any immediately identifiable physical meaning, e.g. you have for instance an exponential function whose exponent is a parameter that is determined to match empirical data, but if data are not available you have to set it by experience or literature and in both cases there won't be any guarantee that the result is in fact close to what the real life would have been.
So bottom line, when you go empirical the correspondence between real life and the model is theoretically only guaranteed for the exact conditions in which data were collected and everything else (which is the vast majority of conditions) is likely to be quite off and anyway pretty much based on engineering judgement at best or personal feeling at worst if you are talking about people with less experience like a modder could be.

In this scenario, what a physical model brings to the table is to base the properties and behavior of tires on equations with physical meaning and much more on actual "architecture" of the tire in its sections and components.
Generally the parameters that the designer/developer uses have a physical meaning and could potentially even be measured (although they are not always measured).
Going this route, means the complexity necessary to achieve a good match with global data of the tire grip and forces is far bigger as the amount of variables is generally far bigger and at times the sensitivity of the models to slightly incorrect data can be significant. It generally requires a deeper understanding of the tire mechanics as some of this variables can have unexpected impacts down the line.
However the advantage is that by using a physical model, once your basic parameters are about right, your model will be able to "swallow" much bigger excursions of its variables (whether it's tire/track temps or pressures, or suspensions angles etc.) keeping results much closer to real life than empirical models would do, especially if excursions are big.
Also, you could imagine the advantage in using physical models for very old tires for which there is little to no empirical data available.

Finally, when you move from point 1 (determining the tire forces) to point 2 above (determining the FFB or the "feeling" of the tire at the steering wheel), the accuracy of the forces, the pneumatic trail, the tire elasticity required to pass on a correct feeling to the driver is the highest. Very few percentage mistake on those or the suspensions/steering arms geometry can ultimately affect a lot the feeling and the user will recognize it immediately.
This is really where a physical model can potentially shine: having a far more accurate representation of what happens "inside" the tire, with its structure and elasticity (vertical and lateral) because those translate into recognizably different steering wheel feelings.

The reasons above is why a physical model has higher potential than an empirical model IMHO, and despite RD has a few "invested" guys who keep saying the opposite, empirical models will never be capable to match a physical model accuracy over a wide range of conditions, because they are far more "actual data" dependent to depict any conditions and those data are simply not available.
Yes, the physical models require a very tough learning curve, yes they require a lot of tuning to figure out the best parameters and yes there will always be some of those parameters that developers have to guess by themselves as they are not public knowledge, but what happens beyond that is engineering equations not "artist impression" of a certain matter as is far more the case of extensive portions of the empirical models.

 

I still wonder why Niels doesn't want to mod the physical tire model. It's one of two reasons:

He refuses to move with the times and use a superior (physical) tire model
or
The empirical tire model is superior

Maybe just maybe.... and i am playing devils advocate here .... You cannot emulate a tire by constructing a virtual tire but rather a slip curve and pure calculations comes closer to the real feel of a car tire grip?? I mean i never wanted to be toxic this is why i removed my comments and replaced with "...." but this still really annoys me because is hard to get concrete answers seeing as they compared rfactor 1 to reality back in the day and it was exceptionally close to the lap time as well as driving feel so im confused and thus wondered if it was a marketing gimmick.

How close is close enough?
How close is close enough? – Part 2

 

I do hope the physical tire model is more realistic when comparing to real life lap times and car behaviour.

 

Summarizing to make thing overly simplistic, the empirical model has the upside that the developer can directly "design" the tire behavior to his liking or to the data they may have collected (I suspect this is what Niels may have liked particularly but who knows for sure). The downside is that it's a stiff model: its accuracy gets degraded fast as soon as the conditions in which the model operates are not anymore those under which the data were collected, which is an inevitable occurrence.

The physical model does not give a direct control of the tire grip curves to the developer, but it is rather an indirect product of tire properties set by the developer through certain engineering equations. This is obviously a nuisance for the developer, but allows for much bigger excursion from the data that may eventually have been collected ahead of time while remaining closer to the IRL tire behavior, which empirical models will not be able to do.

Which one is better depends also on the application: if you are an F1 team and all you want to know is which changes you have to apply to your already known setup on an already known track and track conditions and tires because you just finished your Friday Free Practice 1 & 2 you are probably unlikely to enjoy the pros of a physical model. Also you won't give a heck about FFB fidelity in your simulator. All you want to understand is the trend in lap times by making a change in setup.

If you want to sell a commercial simulator that needs to provide a realistic tire/car behavior for a very wide range of conditions and tracks for which data will be covering an extremely small portion of those conditions and you are after FFB fidelity, then probably the physical model is a much better choice in the long term if you are persistent enough to go after its tuning.

For the sake of clarity, lap times are not the ultimate test bench of fidelity of a model. You can predict laptimes for a circuit with knowledge of a car and its properties almost with a Matlab routine alone with a certain accuracy, but that doesn't make Matlab a simracing software.

 

I can't speak for Niels on the exact reasoning, but he sees shades of grey and would be first to say that he doesn't know everything - for certain anyway.

Philosophically speaking I think you're putting too much value on what a single person may or may not think about it. It's not good for everyone's own analytical thinking. You need a lot of it for such a subject as it is very multi-faceted.

Also to cut Niels some slack: it's not so black and white that I'd say he hasn't moved on with the times or anything snarky like that. At the end of the day he has a great system for reproducing cars and tires for the models that he is familiar with. But just because he has a great system for what culminated in AMS1, doesn't mean everyone has to follow him.

Yes the old faithful ISI engine as a whole is indeed a masterpiece in many ways (reminder: Madness physics are an extension of ISI engine). It's not just the tire model, but the sort of physical chassis and suspension model ISI came up with that AMS2 is also still using to great effect. All of it adds up to create a general framework for vehicle dynamics which gets close to real lap times if you tweak it the right way.

Putting aside the tire convo for a moment: it has to be said that it's also limited for consumer simulation without additions. Not to criticise it, it's from 2005 after all. AMS1 already had some important additions like the turbo model that rF1 was sorely lacking, and I'm sure Raceroom has added plenty. Madness added the SETA tire model, a thorough driveline model/solver, barometric pressure, Livetrack, dynamic weather, DRS, and a boost model for different needs and rules (P2P, ERS, turbo pressure override).

These are all things that you don't necessarily need to replicate a real lap time or race pace, because in the end it all works on averages. This is a bit of an extreme example just to underline how misleading accurate lap times can be as a metric for sim accuracy. The same is true when we talk about tires in optimal conditions and within limits and when you throw them into crazy scenarios - which tires go through in practice lap after lap to give us an end result.

In the end with consumer sims I like to think more along the lines of: yes it gets close enough to the real lap time. But it did it on a cold Sunday evening at historic Hockenheim on bias ply tires. What each person values in a sim (race car engineers have veeery different priorities for example) changes how we view each one available.

That is also why there isn't a concrete answer. It depends. You just have to live with that.

 

Live with it or use games with empirical model.

 

The karts at rain are totally disfunctional. The things will strongly aquaplane even within low speed (as 30km/h). Even with wet tires it is incontrollable, as if totally disconnected to the ground.

These folks were running over some big puddles way faster than I and their karts were barely disturbed by that. You need to be way faster to feel like hitting a wall like I did.

A lad racing with a faster kart. It's slippery, but not disconnected. Just see how the guy always had some control, the transitions are gradual and some big&deep puddles barely disturb the kart.

Maybe kart's tires still need some love.

PS: Just as a reminder because it's my favorite car ever (in RL, not the AMS2 version), but the McLaren F1 LM still drives as if it have tires made of glass. In the rain I would be faster driver a Polo and in the dry it just don't match the fame of being a friendly car to drive (in RL a lot of folks reported to use this car as an usual daily vehicle as it behaves as a death trap even if you drive it slow and stead (following real road rules).

Abração e obrigado pelo update!

 

It just so happens that 'today' James Baldwin made some comments on AMS2 and how the GT3's can be excessively rotated for pretty much the entire cornering process, for no punishment (detriment). And that is their main issue that is amiss versus real GT3.
Which is exactly what I have been saying.....

It has nothing to do with FFB as it is the CAR that is able to do it. FFB is just one information source, but is not the source of knowing rotation and also NOT of many other things too. Knowing rotation/slip comes from how much rotation you GET versus what you are doing with the STEERING ANGLE. FFB is irrelevant to that.
But FFB gives very useful OTHER information that is a 'must have' also.

If you are turning into a corner, and the steering angle is 'shallow' - less radius than the corner racing line - but the car TAKES the racing line, you just know it came from rear end slip via trail braking, or engine braking, or even just 'over-loading' the rear tires and thus they slipped outwards (could be setup, or driving inputs, or both). And the same for the 'exit' portion.... seeing you KNOW you added power, and even modulate power to ALTER the turning process, with a continued 'shallower than radius' steering use... so you just KNOW it was power used to cause rotation off the rear.
Plus when you make VARIATIONS to those inputs (either case, entry/exit) and see the RESULTS of doing so, you confirm what it was that caused what. eg zero steering change, but a burst (or longer) of power, producing more rotation.... hmm, it was the REAR end slipping outwards that provided that. Is all VERY SIMPLE to measure and assess....

Once again, the big 'give-away' is how you can power all the way around Spa/Rivage (in 1st gear), rotating off the rear almost the whole way (a shortish entry section of trail braking rear slip)... for benefit. Or even IF someone else could do that exact same cornering/lap time in a more linear way in a more commonly used 2nd gear method, that is irrelevant as you CAN do it with the super-rotating 1st gear manner too. I can't even match the 1st gear method using 2nd gear! (but I might not do it as well as someone else COULD - not that it is anything hyper difficult)

I also use TC0 a lot (in testing mainly), as that allows the rear end power to produce super-rotation easier than a higher TC does.... though really, I can get indentical lap times in TC0 or TC7, even though they drive a BIT different. Certainly not as hugely different as you would expect such a wide TC difference to cause! Plus that you would want to be a really good driver to run a 'powerful' (500HP) race car at TC0.... though all my real world experience is ONLY with NO TC anyway, thus it does not bother me or seem 'hard' to me anyway. (and why I love the over-powered older F1s and GroupC etc in sims).
There is no way you can do the best lap times in LMU with TC 0 !!! Well I guess it COULD be done, but your consistency/safety would be severely trimmed down! Hmmm... though I race those F1's and GroupC reliably for a whole race (fast!), so I guess it still is more a matter of LEARNING them like the back of your hand and thus KNOWING their exact limits, and for every corner and 'possibility' you can encounter, of a track. So then you COULD race an LMU GT3 with TC0 successfully I guess. But I have never done it in LMU to know - that is because if the real car has it (GT3 in this case), then I consider it is valid to USE it (as required and whatever levels of it that suits suits you - typically a mid range sort of TC value used), plus it DEFINITELY makes a notable difference of benefit to use TC "X" in LMU (Not 0 ever).

 

Where exactly did he comment on 1.6.5?

 

Having wide slip angle and being able to produce a lot of rotation with just throttle is for sure a very common characteristic of car handling in AMS2 on GT3's (it's similar in a lot of other classes too). You can change the setup and make it less so, but it's definitely there and usually very usefull for producing good lap times. It's actually so powerfull that you can adjust the setup to be a more understeery and safe and still get have enough rotation by using the throttle.

You compare a lot to LMU, where currently you cannot really do that, the cars don't allow much slip angle at all and are still hard to rotate (even though front end is slightly better now compared to what it was before the latest updates), but that to me isn't that realistic either, even though it might be slightly closer to IRL behavior. Also both Baldwin and Perel both seem to think that it's too much to the unforgiving side currently.

If you look for onboards and just listen how early the drivers can go on throttle and still have enough rotation to not go wide, it's not miles apart from AMS2 so I don't personally find the handling too unrealistic to be a huge problem. I also like the AMS2 flavour of "unrealistic handling" much more fun what you get in LMU on the GT3's currently (which is more about underdriving). I do expect both sims still to improve over time.

ps. any claim that driving in AMS2 wouldn't require skill is total bs. It might be slighlty different way of driving that you need to master than in some other sims, but there is definitely big skill gap between fast drivers in AMS2 and the rest, similar to other sims.

 

I'm not looking to drag this conversation on, but I do think it worth pointing out that your argument seems to have changed in the time of this thread.

If I remember correctly, your original point was that you could slide the car and there be no "detriment" for it. However, within that same post, you then stated that the rear would lose grip and predictability and cause major issues.

"And then... as much as you can drift 'a mile'... a huge amount... for no detriment.... at some stage they DO just lose a huge amount of grip, with no feedback or warning and then you will lose the rear end big time."

However, in later posts you no longer seem to mention this loss of grip, as if this over-driving style can be maintained.

It has since been said by Chillblast that the HUD tyre temperature displayed to the user is a calculated temperature based on many temps that are logged within the game. It is not the surface/tread temperature alone.

"Just to clarify something you mentioned, the HUD tire temps are a collection of various temperatures on the tire such as surface, core, side wall etc but they are not separated in a visual text way, so as an example ig your tire is reading as 100° it might be hotter in some areas of the tire and cooler in other parts."

So, if the driver chooses to drive in this un-sustainable way, the tyre surface will heat up at a faster rate than what is shown in the HUD. The HUD will say 90deg (for example), but the reality is that the tyre surface you are running on is far hotter and really struggling.

Your "detriment" of driving in this way is that after a few laps you will struggle to maintain the lap times and likely struggle to drive consistently, and at worst, lose control of the car.

I don't have experience of it (I'm not James Baldwin, and don't want to be), but I imagine a GT3 driver (only using GT3 as that seems to be the focus of discussion here) could drive their GT3 machine in this way, but why would they? It would be foolish to do so, as it is not the fastest way to approach a stint and will likely lead to crash damage and huge expense.

Does the game accurately reflect reality in terms of exactly how much the car can be slid?... I don't know... but the game certainly rewards the driver that drives and manages their tyres properly and with consideration, and it certainly punishes over-driving over the course of a stint... as you've already found out and stated.

I agree with you on the FFB aspect, in that it is a communication of what is happening and does not affect the ability of what the car can actually do. Other than that, I'm not qualified to agree or disagree about how the game simulates reality.

Probably worth noting that your approach to raising your concerns/points has been sub-optimal. Using CAPS so readily makes your posts read quite aggressively and as if you are talking down to others, and this takes away a lot of the validity of the points you are trying to make. Just something to consider, maybe.

All the best,
Andy

 

I agree. As I've said many times before, for me personally, a good simulation is a mix of realism and driving fun. There are certain things you can't simulate (visually and haptically), and compromises are necessary. You can't simulate everything in one wheel, as some people sometimes believe. Of course, new levels of immersion can be added with different hardware, making a simulation even more intense. I highly recommend this kind of hardware; it will give you completely new perspectives and feelings. LMU, in my opinion, is far too exaggerated, and it greatly reduces the fun, but that's also a matter of taste.

 

LMP2 Gen2

I did about 50 laps in the Gen LMP2 and my very first impression - within one lap(!) - was "This is a GT3 with more aero!"
You race it IDENTICALLY in every single way! And the only difference is that it sticks to the road way better!

I started on the default setup (well I assume it loads up with default!) and raced off Eau Rouge flat out, not caring what happened as anything that DID happen would just be some data about its responses - sliding, crashing, or driving up through there fine....
But it had so much leeway to do Eau Rouge it was like a sunday drive! And then the rest of the lap was more or less too! Just by doing exactly as per GT3 - every single curb that is used, the same.. every corner you would do in the GT3 with 'super' rotation....
I have no idea what lap times are typical, but lap 1 was 2:10.... 2:09's within no time (2nd or 3rd lap).... starting with a full tank of fuel.... and very low 2:07 by the end of the run.

One big difference (to GT3) is the tire limit - the LMP2 has 'none'! It drives exactly like the GT3 BUT you never encounter a rear end loss - though maybe could if you really did something stupid! In 50 laps I never spun or crashed even once! Lovely aero!!! LOL

I did 'super' over-rotate once or twice early on on entry into a corner, but even that was super simple to deal with and correct it fine, so I changed the setup to Engine Braking 10 (I think it was) - but I am not even sure WHICH WAY is less or more! It seemed to be LESS.... but it wasn't a super extreme change for such a value change. It SEEMED to help reduce/erase that rear locking uder super rapid down-changing - but I will have to test more on that specifically as I ended up not deciding if it was THAT that helped or not.
Possibly some Differential settings would help too, but that was operating perfectly fine in all areas so I didn't even change a thing with that. Some cars (or sims) the Diff is as critical as anything else! And maybe the default setup had it just perfect for Spa anyway(?).

TC I ran6.. then 10... then 0.... as I did laps.... and like the GT3, no issue at all with any value used. And no lap time benefit for any either. Even with TC10 you could super rotate around Rivage. Though the ENTRY into Rivage is a bit different to be optimal. Deeper, under longer trail braking - a bit more typical of a real car.

It took a few laps to 'learn' the "No ABS" braking so as not to lock up the front(s) on it - pretty well only ever into the Bus Stop Chicane, but eventually not even there.

As for REALISM... well I have never driven such a 'high aero' car, so I can't truly know. Though you can EXTRAPOLATE if you have phyics/car/mechanical knowledge.....
Seeing it drives IDENTICALLY to the GT3 I would say that is WRONG!! Mostly because a high aero car would NOT LIKE 'angles' - you would lose aero fast then. So 'super rotating' could mean angled airflows = less aero effect. Probalby a reduction in rear end grip. But maybe it is not a lot of loss at LOWER angles, and also at those areas that have lower speeds.... and maybe I never surpass angles that truly matter(?). So I can only guesstimate results versus what SHOULD happen....
High aero cars tend to need to be driven 'linearly' for optimal lap times.

After a bit of setup changes it alway remained EASY to drive 'very fast' and maintain quite a lot of leeway per cornering area. eg Very low chance of error, and even if you did you could correct it to remain near optimal lap time anyway. Whether it was a front grip loss, or a rear grip loss.... though it is so 'easy' you rarely have any case of those anyway. Even if I was purposely a bit "push to the max and ignore a sensible, must stay on track, racing attitude" it was still easy to NOT error anything that mattered at all. Maybe up to 0.4secs on a bad error 'fix' - depending where that occurred.
Of course you could MAKE a crash , or slide off track, happen if you WANTED to.... but there is no point forcing that! Just race fast, hard, and see IF it happens.

I am sure it is nowhere near this easy to race a real LMP2 car around on its limits!
Though NEXT I have to find a high end lap time target to match.... as MAYBE it is so much faster than mine that it needs the car to be made 'dangerous' - But not basing it off ridiculous online world records etc - but general "Split 1" leader type times, which tend to be genuine and more realistic! (though not at al Alien level either! There is no need.)

I think I thought it was "fun" to race it around, but still always felt I was just racing another GT3 that had better aero..... oh, and no tire grip limit - seemingly just an incessantly progressive slide. (They SHOULD have a limit where they 'snap' - well most slick types/brands)

I think in a real car it is that you can feel, and measure, the G's (inertias)... even assigning WHERE they are headed... thus you just know how loaded up the rear (or front) tires are, and then how close to a limit they are. Via experience/memory-recorded, values you have learnt.
And if you have the ability to also APPEND all the dynamic factors that occur as you race around - such as a bump you know is "there", or curb hop you do "here", which will alter that grip loss point, then you have that very high accuracy that allows maximums to be run safely, all the time - versus the people who do not know all that and thus 'error' too often when they did NOT account for what was going to heppen due to the different case "X" they encounter this time.

Verdict: LMP2 is a GT3 chassis with a high aero body on it instead. LOL
Maybe they really are just that.....

-----
Oh.... top lap times of 2:04.5 region - at Alien level. So I am typically 1.0 to 1.5secs from that.. prob 1.5sec at Spa length...... which means the car needs to be made 'more dangerous', though it has a lot of leeway now so it should improve quite a bit and still be fine to drive. I had 'potential' of 2:06.5 with the car as it was, so I would be expecting/hoping sub 2:06 after serious setup investigation... (but who knows....)
I also doubt it will change the car's characteristics - it will just be more 'dangerous', capable of running over its limits easier.
Next time I will look up the lap time FIRST, sigh..... but I generally get within range on my own, before even knowing that record one.
2:07... not within acceptable range....

 

Well, as for myself, I’m no racing driver and I never raced anything other than go karts, but normally I would say that lmp2 are the easiest and more planted cars to drive in ams2, with huge aero, so for me it’s almost sterile because they always feel very safe, safer than gt3 for sure; but I believe in real life they are like these. Stefan Johansson said that when they drive it they were very easy intuitive and balanced, which is what I feel in AMS2. So maybe for you it would be better for you to try some low aero old school cars like Opala 86 or Omega stock car? Maybe with these cars you’ll be able to better assess tire behaviour in the long radius corners . I feel these cars are much less safe to overdrive, the stock 79 as well. I always have fun with the old corvettes and 911 Porsches too, maybe you could try these and check if these cars will better relate to your real world experience?

 

Oh those 'old plain; type cas are a real pain to race!! Swaying everywhere, lol.
You can take them as a 'challenge', but even that is taxing the fun as they are just so bad to race!
Far better is a 60's, non-aero F1 !!!

 

Agree that 60s and 70s are super fun too, but it’s odd to hear that you having already raced super v8 style cars find the old opala and omega stock cars not fun. As they don’t look dissimilar to a v8 stock car. Low aero big power, leaning on heavy side. At least the feel I have when driving the omegas are similar to me as of the v8s, where the v8s feel a bit more planted than the omegas for example. But both more unforgiving and equally fun. Would it be nice to have your feedback on any of these, as you can compare with real life experience. What’s your opinion on super v8 physics on AMS2?

 

THe LMP2 tire testing gave a surprise bonus.....
Time Trial. Which I had never bothered to look at ever before!!!
Somewhat annoyingly they give you an optimal car, that has non-wearing tires - though the heat factor is there. Thus all their lap times are better than mine, which are just normal race weekend sessions with a half full fuel tank.. and wearing tires etc!

So off I went to choose a ghost of low 2:06 for Spa.
Even better - you can download and use their setup too!
First choice, used their setup, chased them, then matched the lap.... then beat it... so off to the next 'level' of car/lap time.
2:5.8 (I was 2:6.3)
This is where it became 'hard'...... plus I found 'tricks' they were using to optimise the lap, via using any track parts that are NOT 'illegal'. I never race to that level, thus will always be X amount slower. MY 'rule' is that TWO WHEELS must be on bitumen at ALL TIMES. Not just one... but TWO. And this is limiting my best lap time, versus ghosts etc, so then I just had to do as they do......

And handy.... James Baldwin is number two on the ladder!! That was another bonus!
So I ran against James and the 2:05.8 car I picked.
Quite quickly I could beat James down the Kemmel straight - JUST - but then was back behind on his rear bumper after Les Combes. But being that close - plus having the other car about one car length behind in the mirror... meant it was perfect for a cross reference of Rivage!! Where I 'demonstrated' that my 'super rotation' GAINED on James. When you watch THEM you get zero information as to what they are TRULY doing!! For all I know he was doing the exact same - and all you see is a car tracking a racing line, just as mine does. But I KNOW mine is running into super slip rotation. Screaming revs.... pulsing throttle to maintain the slip optimally.... and the LMP2 "whirr" winding up, down, up, down, in seeming agony! LOL

But then James gets away through Speakers Corner - which I just cannot get to match him. Or the car that was behind, so he also either matches me down the next straight, or gets a bit ahead.
Then at POUHON, boy does James teach everyone how to excel there!!! That is where he gets the majority of his lead on me then. I got a LOT better at it - seeing they use the RUNOFF as part of their "arc" and I never have. But I have more to work out to MATCH James there! Maybe I never will....

One great thing for the whole lap is how I am amongst them, and when running at 101% you get all kinds of 'slips' and 'special manoeuvers' occuring, where you mess up that fraction and then have to CREATE what is needed to keep the car running at optimals (and on the track!). Which I can do almost always (very experienced at FIXING small slip ups!!), and that then shows the quite 'radical' cornering methods you can have to use, to save a slip up, yet don't lose any time from them anyway! And also a number of 'special curb runs' I do at specific areas (that James does not) - running inside wheels right around on the curb to get roll and 'hook up' to assist rotation - which then GAINS on their more normal racing lines.

At these 'speeds' (lap times) this is where you are on the fringe of asking for trouble reasonably often!! I still rarely lose control but now I at least HAVE. Which is because when to try to match them (James etc) you MUST push the rear end to the limits, or you just can't match him. Most areas are fine and safe to do that still, but SOME are so fine a line that you only need the slightest excessive engine braking to lose the rear end big time.

The LMP2 is definitely WAY too "lenient" in tires - allowing that 'super slip rotation' method... but in a lot of other ways they are very good!!
And even though this is not a Gen2 GT3, they are extremely similar and in both cases they need to cross a limit SOONER. Especially the LMP2 which I am sure would never be driven successfully the way I can drive it!!

The LMP2 needs that earlier limit AND quite severe - or at least should be severe as aero gets lost big time then. So hopefully the 'aero maths' would take care of that severity occurring anyway.

The GT3 needs the same, and I guess its 'aero maths' would be what makes it adequately severe(?), but less severe than the LMP2 would act on that big rear end loss/angle.

So as I said... I do not KNOW what James does around Rivage, but I am caning the rear end to the max with 'super rotation' from it.... and it matches, or even beats him that fraction! So I consider that the perfect 'data set' to verify what is amiss.
And if he actually does the SAME... well then that just backs it up even more. But you only need ONE person able to do it to show it is a fact of what can be done - and it should not be workable really.

This tire ability/shortfall is exactly what S397/LMU tackled with their last tire changes. People were doing that exact same thing in LMU ! (But not me!!! I only TEST those things - which happens because I ENCOUNTER a flaw during 'proper' racing and then head off to pursue what it is etc)
They sort of fixed it for LMU... at least improved it a LOT..... and I have not decided yet if I think it is correctly fixed, or good enough, or clearly amiss X amount still. At first it was notably amiss in how it severely punished slip/slide, but then a POSSIBLE explanation for the flawed outcome was found - a valid function/resultant of SETUPS caused that, and changes in your setup cured the newly added "flaw"!

That is NOT anything the same as the AMS2 flaw, as that is a benefit to be able to do 'unrealistic' things. The LMU change caused huge, excessive, DETRIMENT! But as mentioned, that was really the tire model showing WRONG SETUP choices, that had worked with the prior tire model fine but now caused severe handling issues. An easy fix once worked out - and it ends up being a change in setups that makes sense too. Thus... all is good (enough) in LMU again. LOL.

------
I am going to try to make a "helmet cam" so I can record ALL of my driving, at Spa in GT3/LMP2 with the 'super rotation' and other maybe 'special' driving manners used - to view the entire cockpit, steering actions, with telemetry feeds on screen etc. Even I MYSELF will be interested to see what is SEEN by an observer!
You sort of need some "video glasses"..... I will see what I can do for that....

Oh.... you could actually watch my GHOST and see if you can see it at Rivage - though I will have to check THAT lap, because sometimes if you come in too hot to Rivage and then you must run an "alternate fix" path where you run out wider, to a slower speed, and THEN max throttle the "super rotation" so it can get back to inner curb and hold that the rest of the way. And that comes out pretty well exactly the same as the 'continual super rotation' path anyway. I am an 'expert' at fixing those poor Rivage entries!
Ghost in the name "Deanimator" (approx 39 on the ladder)... one day I will rename that....

 

Booo !!!
I loaded my own ghost to watch it......
You get no sound!! So that is a big let down and makes it already half useless for demonstration! You need to HEAR the screaming engine under 'super rotation'!
Then you get no 'anything' really... no gears, speeds etc etc.

And then the final boooo...... when you WATCH it, you cannot even perceive ANY rotation!! Anywhere, anytime! It just looks like a 'perfectly' raced car - nicely aligned at all times. Which I guess it ENDS UP that way - but that is CREATED by extreme rear slip (at the places that it must be used to be FAST).

Hopefully a 'helmet cam' version shows it all properly, because of the real-time steering use, the throttle use, the screaming engine(!).
It is all very interesting in how it is "invisible" it is when viewed! For all I know ALL the top lap time drivers are doing the exact same! I suspect they MUST, to achieve the lap times!

And a bonus good thing..... I maintained "two wheels on bitumen" at all times, LOL.
No special track clipping....

But I have been up in lap time by the region of 0.6seconds many times, then managed to slide wide, or off etc.... and ruined the lap. So a sub 2:06 will turn up soon enough - and more so if I also work out that big Pouhon bonus that James gets!! Anything 2:05 will be mission accomplished for me....

But for the tire testing thing, just the COMPARISON against James and Joseph(?) was the perfect way to demonstrate that it WORKS as the best way to corner - at Rivage or ANY place you need really tight turning at fastest speeds.
I use it at:
Les Combes (quite a lot)
Malmady (a LOT!)
Rivage (a huge amount!)
Fagnes ( a huge amount!)
and that is all...... everywhere else is 'normal' manner. They are totally fine without it.