Has the game engine been decided for the next game?

Another month down and still no VR , lol
Lucky there are others

 

VR is great, but even though I own a Rift, rF2, and Assetto Corsa, none of them see any use because I'm on Automobilista all the time
AMS - VR>AC+PC2+rF2+VR

 

Idk why you are still waiting, they said VR wont happen in AMS

 

Im simply waiting for news ,I know nothing more feature wise will come to AMS (which I except) (I had more hours in AMS than pC1/AC and rF2 until i got a Rift) but am truly excited for any news on new AMS with VR built in from the get go , nothing added after the fact .
So i keep coming back hoping for news ,no need for dislike because there is others ,thankfully !

 

If you want to create a real racing environment you'll need weather variation and track progression with marbles, rubber, dust. Any race track changes a lot from day to day. Nowadays AMS deliver a static track whileas rF2 and PC2 take the leading on this regard.

 

AMS features dynamic tracks
You make a good point, and yes rF2 and PC2 are ahead in some respects, (PC2 in graphics) but as an overall package I think AMS is miles ahead.
rF2 has great FFB, VR, and classic F1,2 and 3, but overall an absolute dearth of content. The BT 65 is a beautiful car to drive, but there were three period circuits to drive it on back in April 2013, and there are still only three now..

 

You're right, I know AMS tracks are not completely static but there's a long way to go for the feeling "wow, the track has really changed from yesterday", as a kart amateur driver I assure the same track is never the same across the time. I'm afraid the current game engine won't allow more than is already done.

 

As Salvatore mentioned above, AMS does have dynamic tracks, with marbles and rubber accumulation. Dust affects cars that go out of track, but, yes, it doesn't affect the track itself. The factors that mostly affect race track grip other than those, are ambient temperature and water accumulation. The first is, as far as I know, simulated but with static temperature. The second is, obviously, coming in AMS2 or whatever the name is.

There should be nothing that current AMS physics engine cannot simulate. The new game will have the same physics engine but with more upgrades and features added in. What AMS needs, is a new graphics engine that can improve the game visuals. That's it. No one sane, and knowledgeable about software development, thinks that a new version of a certain software can be built from scratch. This is simply... not effective nor clever in any way. And other developers who claim that they built there next game physics engine from scratch are outright liars! Almost, nothing in this age is built from scratch, especially software about simulating complex dynamical systems.
==================================
Now, let me tell you a little story related to your first comment quoted here.
In the past, I had worked on a project to apply some theoretical research in a specific engineering discipline. That was a relatively large project in its field, lasting for six months, and was budgeted at one million US dollars.
Four months in, we were able to implement the experiment and we gathered all the needed measurements and results. The project chief, however, was not confident of the results entirely. He was the main contributor to the theory of the project (an Iranian professor). So, he decided that we build a mathematical model to simulate the experiment (read: physics engine) and compare the results.
We did it in about a month time. The problem was that the simulation results was totally different to that of the real thing! After a lot of discussions a decision was made to consult an expert in that specific system. When the expert studied our model, he asked us to throw out a central part of our model with four insanely complex nonlinear equations, and replace them all with one number! One freaking constant!
We did as we were asked, and guess what? The results completely agreed with practical findings! This was because some systems, especially of high complexity and chaos, can be better simulated if it were simplified.
Therefore, more complex doesn't necessarily mean better.

 

Someone should tell that to the rF2 fanboys who love to point out that it has the most complex tire model.

 

They love that, don't they?! They're always going on about it...

Also guys, I do think it has been stated before, they are staying with the current engine, they're just developing it.

 

By dynamic I think he meant non scripted, in rF2 if you run all race long in one line, no matter which one, that's where the rubber will be, it's usefull specially with rain (and really really usefull on ovals with more than one line) as you need to drive a bit different line under those conditions. In AMS it's always the same line
While rF2 tire model is a bit of a waste it's rather interesting... in the video Marcell did about rF2 last week he said to actually get a tire closer to real life in game you need to get a real tire and cut it in half to be able to reproduce it in game

 

My basic understanding between the two models is this: The older model (rF1/AMS/rF2 non-CPM) is that you are defining a desired outcome in the tire files. The CPM in rF2 is complex because you essentially have to build a tire and test to see if that produces the desired outcomes...which is why it's such a pain to work with from a modding perspective. For those who have working knowledge of tires from an engineering and construction perspective, CPM is the way to go.

Yes? No? Am I on the right track?

 

So the current AMS engine can simulate the internal combustion, exhaust, turbo, etc. physics of Richard Burns Rally? No. Maybe it can be coded into the physics engine but it'c currently not capable of it. Also, maybe the new game will have the same physics engine but I'd expect it to have large improvements. The same oversteer, inertia, engine torque, and wheelspin issues that plagued the physics engine AMS is based on that were there in the late 1990s and early 2000s are still very much apparent today (AMS have improved them slightly). In fact most of them still exist in other games also based on the same engine such as Raceroom Racing Experience, Project Cars, and rFactor 2.

 

If you are talking about simulating the 4 stroke cycle Aero Piitulainen later posted on BHMS forums that this was PR Bull****. If you think about it, an engine running at a modest 6000 rpm is running at 100 cycles per second. So with your typical racing sim running at 300-400 Hz, your crankshaft has rotated about 90 degrees between physics calculations. To properly simulate the 4 stroke cycle in real time with valve and ignition timing I would think you would need to run at something like 40,000 Hz.

 

No idea about all that. I think you be missing the point I was trying to make. Someone commented that there should be nothing the AMS engine can't simulate. Obviously that doesn't hold true to any sim or probably any game for that matter.

Not that I care but is all the following a lie?
""RBR simulates an actual internal combustion engine, down to each compression stroke. Power is computed on the fly as a real engines is.
RBR does proper turbo modeling, based on actual compressor maps. It calculates the exhaust gas rate in MFR (mass flow rate), based on load and RPM, then uses that information to calculate the manifold pressure (including boost pressure drop across the intercooler, lol!).
From manifold pressure, you then get a direct reading for horsepower at the engine when combined with current RPM and engine load. THEN, it calculates drive line losses through the 4wd system, and you get individual power readings at all 4 tires, which varies in real time based on how the front, middle and rear differentials distribute the power as directed by your setup.
Result? Load affects power. Boost is different in different gears. That's why RBR can model things like a blown turbo, or a hole in your intercooler going over a jump. You can selectively fail anything in the engine and RBR will adjust accordingly, because its calculating everything on the fly, and like a real engine, everything is connected.
Again I reiterate the point that I can fail the turbo in RBR, or the cooler, or the piping. RBR will accurately then simulate this failure and develop power accordingly."

"RBR is unbelievably ahead in terms of SIMULATING complexity. The engine, the suspension geometry, the braking system, the cooling system. The physics engine itself in RBR also helps the tire model. Every single texture has its own grip level, both on low and high slip angle driving..."

"[Q]: Haven't ISI done a fairly detailed suspension calculation since F1-2001?
[Sparrow]: It's pretty damn good, but again it's an emulation based system. It has preset formulas that you yourself can edit in the HDV file for how different rates affect tire grip and other things. RBR calculates modeling in 3D the full steering and suspension geometry.
It's like playing Doom1 vs Doom3. In Doom 1, if you shoot a barrel it falls over. Because there is a preset system that tells the barrel that if you're hit at X rate, you display the animation of falling over at Y rate.
In Doom3, you hit a barrel, the barrel cops a particular momentum (mass x velocity), gravity is constantly pulling on that barrel at 9.8m/s/s and these forces act on the barrel. The result is the same. The barrel falls over, however the way each is computed is fundamentally different.""

 

Can RBR be modded and the average user actually prove it is how it works?
I'm sorry but in the days of crazy marketing I dont believe 90% of what a dev says or shows in a promo video if their game is fully locked.
That does not stops me from playing it if the game is good. But to get me with this marketing... wont work, otherwise I'd be playing PC2.

 

Hahahahahah! The racing driver flicking his visor, exposing his eyes wide open in shock yelling "Sega!" (cue "Sega" voice over) is so awesome, lol!

Sega should have used that guy to end all their commercials, lol!

 

Since you are here...any news about game engine?
Did you guys chose one or still testing?
Give us something (please)!!!