1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Automobilista 2 // Physics engine

Discussion in 'Automobilista 2 - General Discussion' started by david chatelet, May 27, 2019.

  1. david chatelet

    david chatelet New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2019
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hello.

    I specify that I ask this question because I have no knowledge on the subject.

    Is it possible that Automobilista 2 uses the Physics engine of rF2 despite using the PC2 graphics engine ?

    I really don't know.

    If possible, is the probability low, do you think ?

    Thank you.
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. AlenC

    AlenC Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    24
    Renato already replied (can't remember which thread) that they are building upon the PC2 base. Besides, if I understand correctly, project cars is rFactor offshoot as well...

    Edit:
    source: So....... the AI in AMS2

    At least, that's how I understood this...
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. XTRMNTR2K

    XTRMNTR2K New Member Reiza Backer

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2016
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    19
    Project CARS and the MADNESS engine have absolutely nothing to do with rFactor or rFactor 2. The engine was developed in-house from scratch as far as I know, so there isn't any old code left over from a previous engine its based on.

    As for the physics, I for one am happy that the MADNESS engine is being used rather than rF2, since the engine itself is rock-solid. It's a matter of parameters, and knowing the perfectionist work of Reiza Studios I have no doubt they'll get it right.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. alexSchmurtz

    alexSchmurtz Active Member Reiza Backer

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2016
    Messages:
    348
    Likes Received:
    178
    Sorry but this is wrong. Madness is still based on isiMotor, see here: Image Space Inc. | Software Developers
    Not sure why Raceroom is not mentioned (there is a Sector 3 logo) but I think it has the same base too.
    (Only rFactor 2 is using a more recent engine than the others, isiMotor 2.5)

    Of course, each studio did his homework and made changes... But that makes many games with the same base! And they don't feel like clones so we should not expect a Pcars clone either...;)
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  5. david chatelet

    david chatelet New Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2019
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Impossible for me to understand this sentence. Impossible.

    We are all looking for the most realistic simulation, right ?

    The physics engine of rF2 is very, very, very far the most realistic of the market.

    So how to be satisfied that the physical engine used is that of a simulation much less realistic ??

    Strange reasoning for a simracer seeking the greatest realism and the most realistic FFB.

    Do not take it wrong.
     
    • Disagree Disagree x 10
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. XTRMNTR2K

    XTRMNTR2K New Member Reiza Backer

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2016
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    19
    Please read this sentence again once more:

    It only says that the studios behind those titles had - previously - started out with the isiMotor engine. It does not say that the likes of SHIFT or PCARS were actually developed with engines that had isiMotor at their core.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2019
    • Disagree Disagree x 4
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Auduns75

    Auduns75 RWB Audi Reiza Backer

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2016
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    9
    Hi
    Just wondering on what basis you state this "fact"? Which physics engine is the most realistic is a very subjective meaning, and also very dependent on the input and parameters given by developers. Who is to say that the physics engine in the Madness engine is not the most realistic one?
    Last time I tried RF2, most realistic wasn't the impression I was getting, that said, what do I know, only thing I do is drive around in my skoda IRL and trying to be a race driver on PC, that doesn't give me the clout to have a proper educated meaning about realism

    So, again, on what basis do you pass your judgement? And, please do not take offence to my post, I'm just trying to put some perspective in to the discussion.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
    • Like Like x 2
  8. David Wright

    David Wright Member Reiza Backer

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2016
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    42
    ISI were originally working for EA and their engine belonged to EA. They re-wrote it for rFactor so it became their engine but if you look at the physics files for rFactor and F1C they are very very similar You can re-write the code but it can still essentially be the same in terms of data to input..

    Renato has actually seen the MADNESS physics engine which most of us haven't and he says in the RD interview

    Moreover the physics, Audio and AI fronts are for the most part an evolution of what we were already used to, so that has allowed us to continue progressing from the solid base we already had on those fronts; The SETA tyre model is a bigger departure to our old tyre model, which is always a tricky move considering how much of good racing simulation physics rely on not only an advanced tyre model but one that´s manageable to work with - luckily SETA has proved surprisingly accessible, very versatile and we´ve been achieving good results with it pretty much from the get-go.
     
    • Like Like x 5
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. traind

    traind Member Reiza Backer

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    22
    The current, tangible difference between RF2's engine and the Madness engine is that RF2 has a widespread admiration in the sim community for handling feel and PCars 2 does not. I agree that there is no way to definitively "prove" one engine or simulation is more realistic across all parameters. Yet if you spend time on multiple sim racing forums with experienced sim racers I think you have to acknowledge the relative reputations regarding handling feel and nuance.

    That is not to say that PCars 2 is a complete failure in that department. It has its moments and they show the Madness engine's potential. I am also not saying RF2 is the most consistent of simulations regarding quality of feel from car to car. But the highs of the best cars in RF2 certainly outpace the highs in PCars 2. Of course PCars 2 excels in other areas where RF2 is still struggling.

    And this is where we have to place our faith. That the team that made AMS consistently feel so good has carefully considered their (somewhat limited) engine options and chose the Madness engine. And the fact that SMS allowed them to "play" with the engine before committing to it should reinforce our faith that Reiza did not jump into something they now regret and are finding unworkable.

    Still, a skeptical person might worry that Reiza is sacrificing the excellent handling feel of AMS a bit for the modern features of the Madness engine in order to grow sales. From a business perspective I could understand that if it turns out to be true. Look at sales of AMS and RF2.... sims without a modern look and features don't sell as well as bright shiny competitors and will not translate to consoles either. I don't think that is what is happening with AMS 2 but it is possible it might turn out that way. Let's hope Reiza are able to make the Seta tire model really sing and we get a more modern AMS with new content, more features and even better handling/ffb. That would be a dream. Although it will make me have to upgrade my PC or GPU to run it on triples really well :eek:
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. AlenC

    AlenC Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    24
    Will you take this guy's word:
    ?
     
    • Informative Informative x 5
    • Like Like x 3
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Auduns75

    Auduns75 RWB Audi Reiza Backer

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2016
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    9
    @traind thanks for an educated and balanced response, which is what I was looking for, racing sims will forever and ever be a matter of subjective taste, I'm no fan of PCars 2, as a matter of fact, I haven't played it in months.

    RF2 is a sim I really want to like, but every time I fire it up, the UI is not working or I can't get the FFB right, and then theres the mods, too many of them and to varied quality.

    Lately we've been running R3E in our club, RWB, and that gives us the pure racing that we want, no netcode problems, entice close racing and is accesible for all of us. We raced AMS for a while, bit AMS has an old RF1 bug that is affecting me specially, giving me disconnects a few laps into the race, due to some UDP timeout or something like that, which is a real bummer since AMS is probably the best sim we've raced on.

    That video from Niels is really interesting, but I need some amfetamine to be able to follow all the wizardry he's talking about ;)

    To sum up, I believe Reiza can create the game SMS failed to create with the Madness engine, I also believe they would have delivered the goods with an other engine, I think we should just trust the guys who knows best, and wait for game to drop :)
    Thanks
     
    • Like Like x 2
  12. AlenC

    AlenC Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2017
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    24
    Just to make it clear, I have some reservations about madness engine and I doubt Reiza will be able to fix them all. But Neils seems to think madness' physics engine is "easily capable of surpassing AMS". So in that regard, I'm optimistic.
    Custom FFB file posted in the other thread seem to me a great improvement over existing ones, so I think it CAN be done properly.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  13. traind

    traind Member Reiza Backer

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    22
    So this is encouraging and worrying at the same time. He says that Madness is more advanced than RF1 and you could get more from it as a result. But he also says that there isn't time to be consistently excellent with all the content for AMS2 using a detailed engine like Madness, and specifically the SETA tire model, in the timeframe that AMS2 is scheduled for.

    So we could interpret that in at least two ways.

    1) Niels is a perfectionist and would want more time to get the tire physics and feel just right with a physical tire model like SETA.... but AMS2 will still feel better than AMS even if they don't reach their full potential by December 2019.
    or
    2) The launch timeframe is too aggressive to do the SETA tire model justice so we will get a less than consistent AMS2 as far as handling feel due to tire model complexity, amount of content and short time-frame.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  14. David Wright

    David Wright Member Reiza Backer

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2016
    Messages:
    67
    Likes Received:
    42
    I think he's saying there isn't time for him to produce his new spreadsheet for it to be used for AMS2. As you say he is something of a perfectionist as he also says the reputation AMS1 has for consistency is perhaps not fully deserved.

    Personally I'm not worried. Firstly I like many of the cars in PC2 and am happy with the FFB. But secondly I also feel (and don't want to offend anyone on Reiza's own forum) that its pretty rare for Reiza to meet their planned deadlines. I'm sure part of this is not wanting to release something thats not ready. So if AMS2 is not ready in December then IMO Reiza won't release it.
     
    Last edited: May 30, 2019
    • Agree Agree x 2
  15. Nathaniel Reese

    Nathaniel Reese Active Member Reiza Backer

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2016
    Messages:
    209
    Likes Received:
    53
    Yep, inconsistency was the plague of pC2, .. but I kind of trust Reiza based on previous experiences .. AMS was probably only sim consistent across all content ..
     
  16. DaVeX

    DaVeX Well-Known Member Reiza Backer

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2016
    Messages:
    1,145
    Likes Received:
    408
    What I likes from that vid is his final statement about the tool he is developing now, he found such detailed data never used before in sim racing...:D
     
  17. Renato Simioni

    Renato Simioni Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2016
    Messages:
    1,984
    Likes Received:
    6,661
    Couple of answers that may put enquiring minds at ease:

    1- We´ve developed tools to convert a lot of our data-based files into Madness - track AIWs, trackside cameras, physics for chassis, aero, suspension and parts of the drivetrain for example. So in all those fronts we pretty much start from where AMS1 left off and take it from there - not letting go of that baseline is what made the engine decision so difficult, and what we needed to learn we could still use to some extent before commiting to Madness. We couldn´t make that schedule work if we had to start from scratch.

    2- The one area where there is a complete fresh start is the tire model, and here the pleasant surprise is that even SMS database from PCars2 which we use as placeholders as we develop our own already drove at least as well if not better than their AMS1 counterpart pretty much from the get go.

    So we have a very very solid baseline from this point, how much better it will get we´re still digging to find out. But anyone worried it may not feel as good as AMS1 is likely to be pleasantly surprised.
     
    Last edited: May 31, 2019
    • Like Like x 14
    • Informative Informative x 9
    • Winner Winner x 6
  18. Renato Simioni

    Renato Simioni Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2016
    Messages:
    1,984
    Likes Received:
    6,661
    Third point - Niels is indeed a perfectionist, and also an engineer at heart. Bless him for that, as those are the guys that really push the envelope and move the genre forward. His tool when fully realized should offer a substantial step up both in terms of physics workflow as well as consistency.

    But that also means when he says this or that is completely wrong or way outdated, you can take it with a grain of salt in the sense that the updated revision may not necessarily lead to the revolutionary upgrade in practice that it suggests :)
     
    • Like Like x 14
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  19. traind

    traind Member Reiza Backer

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2016
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    22
    Perfect! This is exactly what I wanted to hear. While it may not be a huge big deal to some people, others will be concerned. I think you should find a way to get this message out into the mainstream sim audience who don't come here.

    I am not sure if you said this in the Race Department interview part two but if you didn't, you could send it to them to include as they have not published the second part of the interview yet.

    Looking forward to more information as you are ready to share it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. Asturbo

    Asturbo New Member Reiza Backer

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2017
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    10
    Great info! Another question: The Madness engine you have licensed is the same version used in PCARS2, or the Madness engine has been updated from then and we'll get a newer version?
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page