- 211
- Abruzzi
oooh, the totally-not huracan evo, NOICE
Assetto Corsa PC Mods General DiscussionPC
- Thread starter daan
- 139,905 comments
- 38,613,060 views
oooh, the totally-not huracan evo, NOICE
- 232
- Italy
Hockenheimring - Version 1.0
Original track: Automobilista - Reiza Studios
Original conversion: VheEth
CREDITS
- Trees, Start/Pit dummies by @TheRealCeeBee
- AI Line by @LiquidSkyMan
- Track camera by @DaBaeda
- Additional thanks @ales100i, @norms, @slider666, @Zwiss
::: DOWNLOAD :::
https://www.mediafire.com/file/wakl8nf0nftlwar/vhe_hockenheim_1.0.rar/file
Original track: Automobilista - Reiza Studios
Original conversion: VheEth
CREDITS
- Trees, Start/Pit dummies by @TheRealCeeBee
- AI Line by @LiquidSkyMan
- Track camera by @DaBaeda
- Additional thanks @ales100i, @norms, @slider666, @Zwiss
::: DOWNLOAD :::
https://www.mediafire.com/file/wakl8nf0nftlwar/vhe_hockenheim_1.0.rar/file
Last edited:
- 612
- Doncaster
- 553
- Somewhere
And you've actually owned / driven the car you overhauled. Not like some others who criticize one's work when themselves haven't even driven one car in their entire life. Takes some... Self-confidence to do that. Anyway. An avalanche of great tracks this weekend - thanks to all involved !
- 612
- Doncaster
- 553
- Somewhere
- 827
- Slovenia
In the first place this one is far more accurate as it is laser scanned, compared to Codemasters version, that is flat like driving on ice. Also AI lines are miles better.Would be amazing, i have a old version with all the layout but it requires an update, but if you do that on your version is way faster at this point
Yes, another vote. At least for the national layout.
Last edited:
- 161
- United Kingdom
News?
i can only tell you they are coming along nicely...and Misano too
on a side note Fuji is starting to look better IMO. tree lines and trees are being added..new tyre barriers and up to date corner runoffs...and terrain tidied up...plus a huge mountain (now properly positioned and scaled)
its coming still loads to do though
- 63
- Italy
Great job as usual, Jim.
Months ago i've had the same idea and i make some updates to Fuji (i also try to contact Malagoli, without results), but i haven't completed to release.
If you need, i can give you my version (obviously i have not your skills), maybe you can use some side track objects or what you want.
I remember i place also some billboards on the main stand...
- 161
- United Kingdom
By all means share what you have.. I will defo use if it save me timeGreat job as usual, Jim.
Months ago i've had the same idea and i make some updates to Fuji (i also try to contact Malagoli, without results), but i haven't completed to release.
If you need, i can give you my version (obviously i have not your skills), maybe you can use some side track objects or what you want.
I remember i place also some billboards on the main stand...
- 951
- Virgin Islands US
No better 996 GT2 model exists there other than this for now since no game developer wants to include a 996 let alone touch it. There's a Turbosquid model that was pirated on a site but i don't want to get in deep waters. I'm already trying to find better parts from it mostly from the Forza 996 GT3. Its one of the earlier RR3 models like the Zonda F however not as low poly as that one later RR3 models are on par with FM4 models. It will be a lot better and cleaner than my first 996 GT2 which was on par with those old FM4 Facebook Forza rips.
- 63
- Italy
Here we go
http://www.mediafire.com/file/5iaepxhy685ppfr/malagoli_fuji_speedway_gp.zip/file
A lot of k5n files (with italian names), because i made it with my old and not so powerful pc and it was difficult to use a big file with 3dsimed...
With that rig i also play with shadows disabled, so you can find some object with incorrect shadows settings...
- 1,267
- Italy
- 78
- Finland
Hey,
Firstly, about the "real data doesn't always translate into simulators" misunderstanding.
There are some small, not that consequential limitations in most commercial physics sims. For example in AC, the knee speed of a damper is not adjustable via setup. These kind of scenarios will require some interpretation and often a minor sacrifice to be made. There's numerous small things like this in the suspension and systems. They all add up, but it doesn't mean that you don't use real, reliable data as the starting point. You always do.
Then there are more serious shortcomings, such as the incorrect internal force suspension calculations in vanilla AC. You must adjust the "real data, correct suspension"'s antisquat and antilift amounts (Mainly for driven axles, extremely inconsequential if there is no drive force) closer towards 0% in vanilla AC, otherwise they will be far too high. Then you must adjust generally the wheel points to maintain curves, as per the real data. It's doable.
The end result in RWD cars for example is generally a tiny bit too much antisquat for a given antilift amount, which in practice will mean most RWD cars for example will lift the rear too much on braking (Perhaps 10mm in a bad scenario) and consequently have a too soft rear on braking (Extremely inconsequential) but when done properly still have adequate stiffness and deflection on the squat side, where more forces and load is being directed during acceleration.
This can make some suspension types very difficult to replicate, often with minor or major sacrifices. In other times, if the layout is a typical strut or DWB setup with low anti-percents, it's not a very consequential adjustment. Examples of extremely majorly hindered cars which require a lot of expertise would be the S13-generation rear suspension cars, and an example of extremely minorly hindered cars which are easier to produce would be the NSX. Semi-trailing arms, swing arms and the like become more tricky, but they are doable. If you make the adequate sacrifices, the difference is minor albeit larger than most DWB/ML/STRUT.
Tires of course are not perfect in vanilla AC nor are they in CSP. In no sim are they. AC probably has the best tires of the sims currently with CSP, with probably the highest telemetry correlation. Tire data inherently is difficult to deal with as it is rare for factors to be decoupled from eachother in the tires, for example the surface heating will instantaneously affect your load curves and camber curves! On top of that the common sandpaper measurement method is quite bad and not realistic, and it is very difficult to datalog a spinning, flexing tire anyway. Most of the time tire data is not very usable (Have you ever looked at a raw plot?) or just not available. However the more savvy physics guys have more data available that you can make conclusions from and generally have a better understanding, but here is where you can argue that "data doesn't translate into the simulator" because the data can be indicating multiple things depending how you interpret it. Suspension has almost no such scenario.
Then some more general stuff:
It's completely down to the OEM and designer how the car will behave. There are no rules, although there are common philosophies and laws that manufacturers must follow. Despite that, a sports compact from company A will be significantly different to a sports compact from company B, or even one suspension package for the same car from the same company can be extremely different. For example NSX vs NSX-R.
OEMs use various simplifications of car behavior expressed numerically, such as understeer factor or stability index. You can make an argument that common designs fall into some criteria, and it's often correct. Such as economy sedans having a higher understeer factor, roll-understeer and often lower ride and roll frequencies compared to sports compacts. However this is no rule. People believe it to be a rule, and ignore that Honda will make potentially a radically different consumer car than what Audi will make for example.
Hence the misconception that "no production cars lift inside rear tire" when referring to FWD sportscars like the DC2 Integra Type R. This is however incorrect. The ITR lifts the inside tire mildly (As you can see on tens of Best Motoring videos...) due to the stiffer rear stabilizer, and adequate body-roll for the tire to effectively lift off the ground. Were one to limit body-roll via stiffer corner springs, or stiffen the front stabilizer (Be it via stiffer bushings, or via a stabilizer size or geometry change), both common changes to DC2's, it's likely the inside tire would perhaps unload; but not effectively lift. A similar situation is in the Peugeot 106, where tuned cars seemingly lift the inside rear tire less than stock cars, despite the tire being unloaded for equal or longer distributions of time during cornering.
The DC2 economy models such as the GS-R on the other hand do not significantly lift the inside rear tire (Except on a violent, sudden trailbraking action where the soft cornersprings and dampers will allow unloading of the inside rear tire) because the front roll rate is higher than the rear roll rate. The dominant way this is achieved is via a thinner rear ARB, which couples the wheels together less and doesn't jack up the inside rear as much. There needs to be a distinction made here.
For a concrete example:
Front
25.0mm Solid, 98R = 68389.690995392 x 0.3819^2 = 9974.47298032
24.0mm Solid, 96R, GS-R = 58086.558987938 x 0.3819^2 = 8471.78580151
Rear
23.0mm Solid, 98R = 152618.83365846003 x 0.5138^2 = 40289.9130498
14.0mm Solid, GS-R, RS/LS = 20951.193829124 x 0.5216^2 = 5700.11923298
13.0mm Solid, RS/LS = 15576.48121224 x 0.5216^2 = 4237.83966032
At the wheel before bushings, the later Type-R stabilizer makes 9.50 (!) times rate, while the front only makes 1.18 times rate compared to the softest OEM bars*. The excessive rate will largely jack up the wheel more and couple the wheels more without significantly influencing steady state behavior. It's not optimal for total axle forces, but it's one way to safely and easily acquire a looser handling to a FWD car.
Things like this is why I urge people to not make generalizations and to try to maintain a context.
I hope the essay was entertaining for those who are interested.
* Correction, softest OEM bars I calculated. 22mm OD front bar exists for the LS, that'll be a bit softer still compared to the 24mm OD front bar. However they'll be similar.
Firstly, about the "real data doesn't always translate into simulators" misunderstanding.
There are some small, not that consequential limitations in most commercial physics sims. For example in AC, the knee speed of a damper is not adjustable via setup. These kind of scenarios will require some interpretation and often a minor sacrifice to be made. There's numerous small things like this in the suspension and systems. They all add up, but it doesn't mean that you don't use real, reliable data as the starting point. You always do.
Then there are more serious shortcomings, such as the incorrect internal force suspension calculations in vanilla AC. You must adjust the "real data, correct suspension"'s antisquat and antilift amounts (Mainly for driven axles, extremely inconsequential if there is no drive force) closer towards 0% in vanilla AC, otherwise they will be far too high. Then you must adjust generally the wheel points to maintain curves, as per the real data. It's doable.
The end result in RWD cars for example is generally a tiny bit too much antisquat for a given antilift amount, which in practice will mean most RWD cars for example will lift the rear too much on braking (Perhaps 10mm in a bad scenario) and consequently have a too soft rear on braking (Extremely inconsequential) but when done properly still have adequate stiffness and deflection on the squat side, where more forces and load is being directed during acceleration.
This can make some suspension types very difficult to replicate, often with minor or major sacrifices. In other times, if the layout is a typical strut or DWB setup with low anti-percents, it's not a very consequential adjustment. Examples of extremely majorly hindered cars which require a lot of expertise would be the S13-generation rear suspension cars, and an example of extremely minorly hindered cars which are easier to produce would be the NSX. Semi-trailing arms, swing arms and the like become more tricky, but they are doable. If you make the adequate sacrifices, the difference is minor albeit larger than most DWB/ML/STRUT.
Tires of course are not perfect in vanilla AC nor are they in CSP. In no sim are they. AC probably has the best tires of the sims currently with CSP, with probably the highest telemetry correlation. Tire data inherently is difficult to deal with as it is rare for factors to be decoupled from eachother in the tires, for example the surface heating will instantaneously affect your load curves and camber curves! On top of that the common sandpaper measurement method is quite bad and not realistic, and it is very difficult to datalog a spinning, flexing tire anyway. Most of the time tire data is not very usable (Have you ever looked at a raw plot?) or just not available. However the more savvy physics guys have more data available that you can make conclusions from and generally have a better understanding, but here is where you can argue that "data doesn't translate into the simulator" because the data can be indicating multiple things depending how you interpret it. Suspension has almost no such scenario.
Then some more general stuff:
It's completely down to the OEM and designer how the car will behave. There are no rules, although there are common philosophies and laws that manufacturers must follow. Despite that, a sports compact from company A will be significantly different to a sports compact from company B, or even one suspension package for the same car from the same company can be extremely different. For example NSX vs NSX-R.
OEMs use various simplifications of car behavior expressed numerically, such as understeer factor or stability index. You can make an argument that common designs fall into some criteria, and it's often correct. Such as economy sedans having a higher understeer factor, roll-understeer and often lower ride and roll frequencies compared to sports compacts. However this is no rule. People believe it to be a rule, and ignore that Honda will make potentially a radically different consumer car than what Audi will make for example.
Hence the misconception that "no production cars lift inside rear tire" when referring to FWD sportscars like the DC2 Integra Type R. This is however incorrect. The ITR lifts the inside tire mildly (As you can see on tens of Best Motoring videos...) due to the stiffer rear stabilizer, and adequate body-roll for the tire to effectively lift off the ground. Were one to limit body-roll via stiffer corner springs, or stiffen the front stabilizer (Be it via stiffer bushings, or via a stabilizer size or geometry change), both common changes to DC2's, it's likely the inside tire would perhaps unload; but not effectively lift. A similar situation is in the Peugeot 106, where tuned cars seemingly lift the inside rear tire less than stock cars, despite the tire being unloaded for equal or longer distributions of time during cornering.
The DC2 economy models such as the GS-R on the other hand do not significantly lift the inside rear tire (Except on a violent, sudden trailbraking action where the soft cornersprings and dampers will allow unloading of the inside rear tire) because the front roll rate is higher than the rear roll rate. The dominant way this is achieved is via a thinner rear ARB, which couples the wheels together less and doesn't jack up the inside rear as much. There needs to be a distinction made here.
For a concrete example:
Front
25.0mm Solid, 98R = 68389.690995392 x 0.3819^2 = 9974.47298032
24.0mm Solid, 96R, GS-R = 58086.558987938 x 0.3819^2 = 8471.78580151
Rear
23.0mm Solid, 98R = 152618.83365846003 x 0.5138^2 = 40289.9130498
14.0mm Solid, GS-R, RS/LS = 20951.193829124 x 0.5216^2 = 5700.11923298
13.0mm Solid, RS/LS = 15576.48121224 x 0.5216^2 = 4237.83966032
At the wheel before bushings, the later Type-R stabilizer makes 9.50 (!) times rate, while the front only makes 1.18 times rate compared to the softest OEM bars*. The excessive rate will largely jack up the wheel more and couple the wheels more without significantly influencing steady state behavior. It's not optimal for total axle forces, but it's one way to safely and easily acquire a looser handling to a FWD car.
Things like this is why I urge people to not make generalizations and to try to maintain a context.
I hope the essay was entertaining for those who are interested.
* Correction, softest OEM bars I calculated. 22mm OD front bar exists for the LS, that'll be a bit softer still compared to the 24mm OD front bar. However they'll be similar.
Last edited by a moderator:
- 1,726
- Chicago, USA
Would be amazing, i have a old version with all the layout but it requires an update, but if you do that on your version is way faster at this point
Are you guys referring to the 2018 Hockenheim that was updated by PatrickPat? I had the same initial thought: "what is different with this VheEth/Reiza version compared to PatrickPat version?"
Last edited:
- 63
- Italy
I think Patrickpat is based on the old Codemasters conversion, VheEth is from Automobilista... I don't know if AMS1 tracks are laserscanned, but i think is a better base....
- 334
- United States
@gutbomb Maybe for the next update, if planned can you please check this minor problems? It would complete at 100% the huge work you did
The grass border which is different color compared to the other grass
View attachment 973318
Here too
View attachment 973319
And this which can be fixed easily via ext_config under GrassFX with:
OCCLUDING_MATERIALS = GBRM_01, STRAW_01, STRAW_02,
Also the texture of road and road-grass blend have a small difference in color
View attachment 973320
Thanks for your work man, much appreciated
It’s actually the same texture and even the same material, it’s just that the model itself was so low poly that this is just how the light is hitting it, making it look like that. I tried a few settings to make the lighting more even on those materials but then it just made things look too dark in sunlight or too bright in shadows. I ended up just turning my grassfx setting to the highest setting and it makes the grass so dense you can’t see the underlying texture and everything looks normal. I think the mesh would need to be rebuilt to get rid of that and that’s unfortunately beyond my skill level
the grass on the hay bales is intentional, it’s supposed to look like little bits of straw sticking out of the haybale. I usually have grassfx turned all the way up and it looks a little better than in your screenshots but I admit i wasn’t convinced it was the way to go. I had the idea a few months ago to start doing that to hay bales and thought it looked cool but yeah in your screenshots it looks a bit weird.
Similar threads
