Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by GodzillaGTR, Sep 2, 2017.
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.
Separate names with a comma.