Community Question: What do you think about Assetto Corsa Competizione's Physics?

SRO Esports.jpg
Image: SRO
There has been plenty of chatter over the past few days about Assetto Corsa Competizione's physics from sim racers up and down the grid. What is your stance on the matter?

The dedicated GT World Challenge racing platform, Assetto Corsa Competizione has been around since 2018, with it seemingly receiving its last bit of new content earlier this year as Kunos switches focus to Assetto Corsa Evo. The Nürburgring-Nordschleife finally got added to the game in April 2024, and the Ford Mustang GT3 followd not long afterward - even for free.

Despite the game having entered its end-of-life cycle, the community shows no signs of abandoning the title. But Kunos have been heavily reworking the physics even in the title's latter stages, and there are a few people who do not seem that happy about it.


This weekend is the final round of the Intercontinental GT Challenge Esports Series with the 24 Hours of Nürburgring, and Dáire McCormack - who won last year's IGTCE championship with Williams Esports - garnered a bit of attention on social media. In a Tweet, he went on to criticise the current state of ACC's physics and wished for the 1.7 or 1.8 patch's physics to return.

These comments caused a bit of a ripple effect, and have warranted us to ask all of you, how do you find the ACC physics? With our Racing Club regularly hosting races on the platform, many of you may be well versed in what is happening.

Pros vs. Joes: Different Perspectives​

One of the people to comment on the matter was Ricardo Claro, or Random Callsign, who pointed out in a video that someone in McCormack's position is trying to find any inherent advantage. The physics changes mean they have to completely change how they drive and set up the car, perhaps way more dramatically than most average joe sim racers.

Claro commented on the changes made in version 1.9 of ACC, stating that the game had major issues with the way cars reacted to kerbs for many years. 1.9 had seemingly rectified this, but that according to McCormack and a couple of other top level players dramatically changed the meta of driving and setup.


ACC has had a few of these major changes result in some unintentional exploits. Optimal tyre pressures for example are, as of the publishing of this article, set at 27.0 PSI in the dry and 30.8 in the wet. For a short time however, there was an exploit that meant it was optimal to completely maximise the pressure for the wet.

Now though, the 1.9 build of the game sees it to be beneficial to kill the traction control, which is not particularly true to life with GT3 cars. Subsequently, the slip angle seems to be more pronounced in corners. Claro even went as far to say that ACC's force feedback has regressed to even behind iRacing in terms of feel, with the consensus over the past few years being that iRacing's force feedback was not up to par.

That is why we want to hear from you. For those who played ACC both back when it was version 1.7 and 1.8, plus continue to do so now, what have you observed?


What do you make of the physics changes in Assetto Corsa Competizione? Let us know in the comments below or discuss this news in our ACC forum!
About author
Luca [OT]
Biggest sim racing esports fan in the world.

Comments

It feels like you're guiding a block of wood around a racetrack. I wanted to like it, I've even bought DLC for the GT4 cars, but it always feels lifeless. It's a shame because the tracks and cars are nice to look at and it's one of the few modern games the focuses on a specific series of cars, rule set, etc..
 
If someone has never driven the cars in question, by what criteria do they critique the accuracy of the physics? Thus it is a discussion of subjective impressions.
 
Have all of the DLC up to one year ago, when I uninstalled it. I find that GT4/GT3 racing to be excruciatingly boring. Might as well play follow the leader.
 
If someone has never driven the cars in question, by what criteria do they critique the accuracy of the physics? Thus it is a discussion of subjective impressions.
Information exists to formulate a more useful view than just driving the car. Like re: the iR vs ACC brake debate: ACC brakes, at least in the cars I know about, are objectively weak and require a rectangular brake trace. It's not something you need to drive the car to know.
 
If someone has never driven the cars in question, by what criteria do they critique the accuracy of the physics? Thus it is a discussion of subjective impressions.
If you're talking about comparing the very minute driving and driving technique details in order to get the best out of a particular car, then I agree, that may require a real life driver and a very, very elite one at that. However, there are tons of physics issues in every sim - albeit usually different ones from one sim to another (especially from one core physics & tyre engine to another) - that are clearly just strange, unrealistic, unnatural, "digital" vehicle behavior, IN GENERAL, regardless of car or tyre or setup or weather/track conditions or whatever.

There are even some that have existed in many iterations of some physics/tyre engines going back decades and still largely unresolved in those engines' latest iterations to this day (not getting into specifics, not going to start a game or physics war).
 
Last edited:
what really makes me angry is the AI. Boring, so much physics in the game or whatever, but the AI just standing behind each, overtake is almost none existing, always keeping a mile distance from each other when overtaking and against player drives like a suicidal driver, they don't make mistakes at all, in this class is something normal, the F1 games have a better AI than ACC.
 
what really makes me angry is the AI. Boring, so much physics in the game or whatever, but the AI just standing behind each, overtake is almost none existing, always keeping a mile distance from each other when overtaking and against player drives like a suicidal driver, they don't make mistakes at all, in this class is something normal, the F1 games have a better AI than ACC.
Well you see, that's because the AI in ACC, like the rest of us, needs to farm SA. There's no such requirement in the F1 games therefore the AI can party and have an absolute blast.

OK, on a more serious note, and not related to the quoted post, I think you have to ask why we sim race, and the obvious answer to that is that we want to enjoy it and have fun.

Realistic physics in my mind is both blessing and a curse. For me there needs to be a balance of both realism and engagement. It needs to make me feel like I'm driving.

It's all very well for a dev to create the most mathematically correct car dynamics, but if the end result is that the feeling that you get when driving it is a akin to a breeze block wrapped in a wet blanket, or you have to tippy toe around every corner for fear of making the slightest mistake, then it's all for nothing. It's not fun, it's not engaging.

For example take Richard Burns Rally vs Dirt Rally 2.0. The consensus is that RBR is the more realistic rally title, and I don't disagree, but the truth is I have far more fun in DR2.0. I can drive perfectly well in RBR, but I get halfway through a stage, and start thinking "For god's sake aren't we there yet". It's just not engaging me, I'm not having fun. Whereas in DR2.0 I can hoon a car around all day with big smile on my face - for me they nailed the balance between sim and engagement.

I still do drive a lot of ACC because I'm used to it, got over the FFB changes, and still enjoy it, but if I was starting over today and you put ACC, R3E, rF2, and AMS2 in front of me and asked me to choose then I think ACC would be the first one I deleted, which is a shame given what it has been in the past.
 
Last edited:
I once bought a computer just for ACC, it was a beta and I was thrilled with the simulator. But later I bought RRE, RF2, AMS2, iRacing, LMU and realized that ACC is worse in literally everything. Riding on plastic tires on a plastic track. I don't regret the 500 hours I spent in ACC, but for me that sim has been long gone since I have something to compare it to and for me it's worse in everything.
 
Last edited:
Premium
About the physics of ACC: I really wouldn't know, I've never tried ACC.
But when it comes to physics of a racing sim in general, I'm always amazed at the certainty with which people describe the qualities of the physics of a racing simulator. I then ask myself: "How do they know that? Did they drive the same car in real life and in the sim, at race speed?" I think that in 99.5% of the cases this is not the case.
I also notice that physics and ffb are confused. They are really two different things. A car in a sim can have very realistic physics and worthless ffb. I think that a lot of people then think that the physics are bad, because they don't feel what the car is doing. Conversely, the ffb can be very good and detailed, where you feel everything very clearly and "naturally", but the physics deviate considerably from what they should be. I wouldn't be surprised if some people actually consider these physics to be good.
In the end I think, are we using the sim to practice or test for real racing? Then we should worry about this. Are we driving a sim because we really enjoy doing it? Let it go. Try different sims and choose one that you enjoy driving. It doesn't really matter that the physics are really right, if you enjoy it and don't do anything else with it.
 
About the physics of ACC: I really wouldn't know, I've never tried ACC.
But when it comes to physics of a racing sim in general, I'm always amazed at the certainty with which people describe the qualities of the physics of a racing simulator. I then ask myself: "How do they know that? Did they drive the same car in real life and in the sim, at race speed?" I think that in 99.5% of the cases this is not the case.
I also notice that physics and ffb are confused. They are really two different things. A car in a sim can have very realistic physics and worthless ffb. I think that a lot of people then think that the physics are bad, because they don't feel what the car is doing. Conversely, the ffb can be very good and detailed, where you feel everything very clearly and "naturally", but the physics deviate considerably from what they should be. I wouldn't be surprised if some people actually consider these physics to be good.
In the end I think, are we using the sim to practice or test for real racing? Then we should worry about this. Are we driving a sim because we really enjoy doing it? Let it go. Try different sims and choose one that you enjoy driving. It doesn't really matter that the physics are really right, if you enjoy it and don't do anything else with it.
I played ACC as it was released. At that time i used a T300rs (non DD wheel) and just from FFB i was deeply disappointed. Was just dull and not communicative.
Right now it´s next to iRacing the only current SIM i don´t drive. Using DD nowdays, but as a singleplayer i could not motivate myself, to reinstall the game due the limited content. And the competition is fierce
 
Last edited:
I mean, the game would definitely benefit from having suspensions that don't explode upon merely looking at a kerb.
Now I simply have to try the 1.9 update! (only jumped on the ACC train again for a month or so just post the 1.8 update and haven't raced it since).
Well, as other users mention: Maybe this is in fact closer to reality? In that case I don't mind explosions :)
 
Last edited:
Whenever someone talks about set ups in ACC it makes me sad...

All the metta hacks and backwards reactions like the casters just boggle the mind as to how Kunos went from suspension that followed conventional set up theory and many considered their suspension industry leading... To ACC...
 
Last edited:
Premium
I love ACC and play it regularly.
I changed my way of setting up the cars, following the tips from Arnout simracing you tube channel
I like a lot the behavior of cars and have fun. That´s all that count for me.

Of course other sims are great too.
I like them all !
 
Last edited:
I got this game on a Steam Sale in 2019, using the money I got after refunding Project Cars 2 with 115 minutes of gameplay. I cannot recall the exact point of the year where I got it, or the version it was on (maybe 1.5?).

I was quite impressed by the driving experience package. How it looked, how it felt on the cockpit, how the 3D hands moved to every single command, how it drove, how it felt on the FFB. I had triple monitors back then, and my PC could not sustain performance on triples with rival cars, just driving alone, so I had to put it on the backburner.

Switched to VR on the same computer. All other games remained performing well, but ACC was even worse now, so I had to wait a couple more years till I finally could upgrade. By 2022, that awesome feeling I felt three years before was completely gone, and all I had was a lump which I could not understand how to set it up and drive, no matter what guides I followed and how hard I tried. And in the end, it was just GT3 cars, so why keep on bothering? It has remained uninstalled ever since.
 
You know that your whole post is criticizing physics judging from what you're physically "feeling" in your hands, right?

You know that you can make AMS2 (and Project Cars 1 & 2) - and some other games - "feel" bad / good / better / worse or just completely, massively different through all sorts of in-game and especially text-file FFB changes, right?

You know that regardless of how bad/good/better/worse or just different those settings and text-file changes make the FFB that the actual in-game driving - the physics - are still 100000% identical to before, right?

21 years of simracing later and I see that people are still judging in-game physics - pure vehicle behaviour, action, reaction - based on how their real life wheel moves & shakes.
You probably have plenty of time for those adjustments. I've been playing video games since 1984 with the Atari. And at my advanced age, almost senile, I just want to enjoy driving for 20 minutes and have everything be perfect. The sensations are personal, non-transferable, and losing your mind over a comment about a video game says a lot about you. I'm sorry if I offended you, fragile young one.
 
Last edited:
I have to admit to be amused with some of the very vocal members comment coming out to tell us how they are over ACC.
When looking at the volume of players ACC has on Steam charts, it looks to me that the SIM is popular as ever with a lot of people still thinking that driving ACC is a great way to spend time on their rig.
Preferring a different SIM is perfectly legitimate, we all have our own priorities and way to enjoy SIM racing, But not using ACC at all, really, do you think it makes you look cool?
 
Last edited:
If someone has never driven the cars in question, by what criteria do they critique the accuracy of the physics? Thus it is a discussion of subjective impressions.
I talked with Raffaele Marciello almost a year ago about Acc’s physics and setups,and about which is the best game in that sector.
He answered Rfactor2 abd Iracing.
Especially about setups ACC is totally broken,and far from reality.
I love ACC, but it was even clear to me he was right,I always thought that way and his response as a multiple real GT3 champion was significant
If someone has never driven the cars in question, by what criteria do they critique the accuracy of the physics? Thus it is a discussion of subjective impressions.
 

Latest News

Article information

Author
Luca Munro
Article read time
3 min read
Views
2,329
Comments
60
Last update

Where are you racing next?

  • iRacing

    Votes: 115 12.7%
  • LFM

    Votes: 75 8.3%
  • SimGrid

    Votes: 6 0.7%
  • SimRacing.GP

    Votes: 4 0.4%
  • OverTake

    Votes: 28 3.1%
  • rFactor 2

    Votes: 51 5.6%
  • LMU

    Votes: 98 10.8%
  • WSS World Sim Series

    Votes: 19 2.1%
  • Offline

    Votes: 462 50.8%
  • Raceroom

    Votes: 51 5.6%
Back
Top