AM2 -- My thoughts

Well, I don't really know how the Madness engine works, so how much it forces things to be done a certain way with little latitude, I can't say. It might be constraining, or it might be quite open, allowing either great variation due to the functions used having many coefficients, or may even allow the specification of your own mathematical model completely. Details of this are probably part of an NDA, so we'll more than likely never know.

One thing though, Reiza did try the gMotor2 engine first when they did their rF2 cars (and tracks), so I guess they got a good idea regarding how each would influence their desired implementation path, and they made their choice.

 

The problem is that some of the YouTubers are still calling it PC2 but haven't driven the sim in over a month. Some since the drop of Early Access. Some of them admit as much. A lot of them don't really do their homework, and make uneducated statements usually negative about the game. Not sure if you're familiar with the YouTuber Jardier? He was one of the games' detractors, and he hadn't even driven it. I love the guy but that always stuck in my craw. He finally tried it and was like a kid at Christmas. He admitted he was wrong, but correctly stated that though there are some similarities, they are still very different. Especially the physics. Changing numbers can and does change the physics, but it's more complicated than that.

 

This is a falsehood and Neils should really provide some clarity to his YT post. Neils was trying to demonstrate why different devs get different results with the same tire physics (disregarding everything else in a physics engine). A few things, he was most focused on the isiMotor engine as that is what he's familiar with and the Madness does work differently. However, when I say it's a falsehood, what I mean is the physics are based on calculations. Yes, the values that go into it can be different, but that creates a variation, not a completely different behavior.

Take a piano for example. It has 7 octaves. A "C" in octave 1 (known as C1) sounds lower than a "C" in octave 7 (C7). However, they are both "C", just a variation of C.

With that, unless you change the actual calculation, then you just have a variation of the calculation. Some people are sensitive enough to feel what the physics engine is doing regardless of the variation of the "values". Some aren't. This is what some of those YT'er's (including me) are saying. Those underlying behaviors are similar, and they should be. Just changing a few numbers doesn't remove that.

However, we know that the SETA tire model works like tire manufacturers. i.e. they (Reiza) have to construct a tire. Within the SETA model, that tire will inherit certain behaviors that the tire model supports. i.e. flex, flat spots, scrubbing, heating, etc... There is also all the other calculations (aero, suspension, chassis, driveline, etc). I'm sure over time, Reiza will continue to diverge into their own direction but the whole point of using someone else's engine is that you don't have to do everything from scratch which means you natively inherit certain behaviors.

 

I dont really agree with you here at all. We are probably typically talking exponents and scalar coefficients. Different values there can and will result in drastically different behavior. Ive not play PC2, so I can't vouch for how similar they are or aren't, but just because a particular tire model-based sim could theoretically have the same number variables its working with doesnt mean it will behave the same. You can make a certain variable have a large influence or no influence. Given that we are talking about a tire model, it's basically a matter of how many different variables are modeled. The more variables, the more room for divergence exists, but also a higher chance of getting it more accurate to real life.

I dont know, I'm just a math guy... coefficients in a formula can make a huge difference.

In any case, I am inclined to think that the game physics handle more or less how they want it to, regardless of any similarity or lack thereof to PC2.

 

So I'll give this example.

In my race car, I may run a few different tires. They are all constructed differently, from different manufacturers. Even with the same "printed" tire sizes (say 245), the tires will vary in actual width almost a full inch in difference. The compounds are different, the chemistry is different, etc..

However, it's not "different physics" when I go to drive them. There is a "variance" in how they behave but they have the same "characteristics". They have a slip angle at which they generate their max grip. It may be different for each tire, but there is a slip angle. There is a point at which grip falls off. It may be different for each tire, but it exists for each tire. The tires have an optimal pressure and/or temperature. It may be different for each tire, but it exists.

The only thing that changes is the variance at when these things occur and the amount of window they occur within. I don't have to relearn how to drive just because of a new tire, I just need to understand/learn when the new parameters happen and adjust. So when I say that "different values don't change the physics", this is what I'm referring to... The underlying behavior is still there, but the windows for the behavior change. Unless you actually change the calculations, you don't alter the underlying behavior.

Now, supplying wide variance of data can skew a scientific test in any form. If you have an equation and you put in for X say 10 and then put in 10,000,000,000 then yes things will be radically "different". To the point you can't tell the variance. However in my example above, the tire manufacturers are producing tires to beat one other. The parameters they are using are very close to the spec rules allows. Similarly, people trying to make realistic tires, their "data" is going to be similar and not widely different. Therefore you'll be adjusting to the "variance" within the same physics model but it's not an entirely new model.

 

Would Reiza have tied up with SMS if their madness engine was so bad?

Did some people here actually look into PCARS1 FFB model adjustment available to the end user?

I graduated as an automotive engineer 20yrs ago i can tell you i was pleased by what i was seeing there.

I rate Reiza team management high enough to have balanced that out when they set their high level tech requirement to their devs group and plan workload and related budget to execute what we see today in AMS2

To me SMS has executed a good bunch of cars in PC2 that has given the confidence to Reiza they had a sufficient base to create their AMS2 game as a proper SIM

My 2p

 

Broadbent does as always create a dismissive "review" then months later when its popular to do so make another "i was wrong" video about the title he previously dismissed.

Take that youtuber with a grain of salt. He is there to make money, he is a business. Making contrarian videos gets views, as does" i like this sim now and here is why", videos.

 

Or maybe he just didn't like it and he will change his mind after the game has developed?
Plenty of people on here did the same thing and no one says conspiracy.

 

It's possible but there are so many YouTube conspiracy theories these days it's ridiculous. There are plenty on YouTube for the wrong reasons, but not every popular YouTuber immediately can't be trusted.

 

Every review, regardless who does it, is subjective. The only review you should trust is your own ;-)

 

AMS2 and PCars2 are two different game using the same engine, the only thing that is some how similar are the graphics, the driving feeling is as different as any 2 other different game. The same applies to PCars and PCars2, same engine but totally different driving feeling.
Some will like both, some will like one of them, some will not like any of those two, the only way to know is trying them and enjoy or not, does not matter what every body else enjoy.

 

We know it is the same engine,

 

I don't follow broadbent anymore. He's turned his channel into a pure entertainment thing. He's not relevant as a sim comentator anymore. I watched him review an earlier build,and he just jumped straight into s race at Adalaide and started criticizing it. After that I unsubbed.

 

Deleted

 

Gamer muscle is probably my favourite YT dude. And he's just uploaded about AMS 2.

 

'They' say a lot of stuff on the internet and there's a lot of crap out there, just make your own mind up and decide for yourself. If you like something, who cares what chumps in bedrooms on the internet say? They are just desperate for likes and subscribes.

 

Yeah Gamermuscle and Jardier are prob the only 2 who you can trust really, im not saying i hate any of the others, but alot have sponsers/paid to review or give a biased opinion.
And both of the above rate the game very highly, you can't tell me that with as many followers as some youtubers have that the followers even play racing games or even own AMS2 let alone play it, there just as above sheep following the herd.
If you like driving and aren't blinded by the bright lights you will know AMS2 is up there with RF2 as prob the best ffb/physics.

 

Simracing604 has had a lot of nice videos about AMS2. He's very enthusiastic about it.