Those Caterham Super 7s are my dream cars since ever basically. Just drove it round LA Canyons. This is the first mod I tried in AC and it was absolutely brilliant! Loved every second of it. The car is so playfull, just like I imagined it from watching videos. Thank you very much for your work!
Cars Caterham 420R / R300 racecars 1.5
- Thread starter Ben O'Bro
- Start date
Ben O'Bro updated Caterham 420R / R300 racecars with a new update entry:
New 3D model and one bonus car '08 R300
Read the rest of this update entry...
New 3D model and one bonus car '08 R300
Read the rest of this update entry...
Eck Simpson
Premium
Well, I'm having too much fun.
Trying to recreate seasons of rFactor and the WRRacing Caterham league. Memories of big Bruv, god rest 'im and the great company I kept, when I was less of a liability.
Thank you Ben. And to anyone still out there from WRRacing, hope you're all in the rudest of health.
Trying to recreate seasons of rFactor and the WRRacing Caterham league. Memories of big Bruv, god rest 'im and the great company I kept, when I was less of a liability.
Thank you Ben. And to anyone still out there from WRRacing, hope you're all in the rudest of health.
Cheers
glad this mod is being enjoyed
to be honest there are still mistakes on this one
the physics is still an altered version of the 1700
but Jack is developing it with assistance of real racers, so hopefully when it goes to 2.0 it should be a different machine
And 2021 season sees the arrival of slick tyres, that will make a big change as well
Kyuubeey
@Simberia
If he isn't already, tell him to jump over to CSP physics and implement the heat model. Implement all of the CSP tire stuff while he's at it. Trying to chase accuracy without good heat is kind of like just stumbling on the right result, and only sometimes.
I don't see him posting on the Discord so I'm worried the physics sophistication is quite behind compared to what it could be.
I don't see him posting on the Discord so I'm worried the physics sophistication is quite behind compared to what it could be.
what happens online
if one doesn't have CSP installed ?
Can a server require people to have it ?
Kyuubeey
@Simberia
It'll crash for the vanilla clients if car.ini header is using extended-2. In a way, they will be required to have it.
IMO it's a complete deadend to try to dev stuff for vanilla anymore. Especially racecars. You can get a reasonable result in vanilla but it is much more enjoyable, faster and the end result is more accurate if you dev for extended physics. Although being an axle rear car, this one won't be able to benefit from the entirety of extended features, while also not suffering some issues that vanilla DWB has, so it balances out somewhat.
Although I did look at the car and there are appear to be more physics issues than just inaccurate heat which will make telemetry/butt-dyno correlation difficult.
Kind of a good example why "driver feedback" means almost nothing most of the time, and how people can easily trick themselves. So I don't even even advertise it anymore as a mark of quality.
Getting people to measure things for you is more valuable than getting them to drive your car, because everyone will say different things about the same car, some more on point than others. Rarely do people completely muck up a measurement.
I know everybody is gonna get annoyed at me saying that, but it's the truth.
Don't look at the physics of the 420 they ain't pretty (yet)It'll crash for the vanilla clients if car.ini header is using extended-2. In a way, they will be required to have it.
IMO it's a complete deadend to try to dev stuff for vanilla anymore. Especially racecars. You can get a reasonable result in vanilla but it is much more enjoyable, faster and the end result is more accurate if you dev for extended physics. Although being an axle rear car, this one won't be able to benefit from the entirety of extended features, while also not suffering some issues that vanilla DWB has, so it balances out somewhat.
Although I did look at the car and there are appear to be more physics issues than just inaccurate heat which will make telemetry/butt-dyno correlation difficult.
Kind of a good example why "driver feedback" means almost nothing most of the time, and how people can easily trick themselves. So I don't even even advertise it anymore as a mark of quality.
Getting people to measure things for you is more valuable than getting them to drive your car, because everyone will say different things about the same car, some more on point than others. Rarely do people completely muck up a measurement.
I know everybody is gonna get annoyed at me saying that, but it's the truth.
It's been me assembling elements together a long while ago.
Jack has a lot of correct measures and redoing lot of things.
Racers feedback has also meant giving weight, measures and setup values
Which probably none of them are integrated yet
The mandatory csp for online is a bit annoying.
I have a big real racers player base, who are not computer experts far from it. And adding csp to the balance could be a recipe for disaster for a lot of them.
I'll think about it and mention it to jack and the guy who manages all their leagues, and weight it all
Cheers for your insight.
Ain't nothing but love for you bro ^^
Last edited:
Kyuubeey
@Simberia
That's good, then. Although they both have the same issues; I suppose the cars are interchangeable.
I understand the annoyance with the CSP thing, but I just made a distinction not to support vanilla myself anymore. But I don't make "league cars" either. It'll be a more difficult choice for you guys, having to cater to a specific audience. If they truly want accuracy, CSP would be the way to go. It'd introduce some tire heat management into the game too, making this a bit more interesting, not just more realistic.
Tell him to at least use load and camber curves for the tires. Those are vanilla compliant, not CSP features. It will be as important as using good heat. Trying to make something work with KS stuff is not helpful. These cars are quite light so they will suffer badly from bad load curves especially.
Ideal would be to get accustomed with cphys and take the leap. Otherwise the car might be developed in an inaccurate direction just by necessity.
I understand the annoyance with the CSP thing, but I just made a distinction not to support vanilla myself anymore. But I don't make "league cars" either. It'll be a more difficult choice for you guys, having to cater to a specific audience. If they truly want accuracy, CSP would be the way to go. It'd introduce some tire heat management into the game too, making this a bit more interesting, not just more realistic.
Tell him to at least use load and camber curves for the tires. Those are vanilla compliant, not CSP features. It will be as important as using good heat. Trying to make something work with KS stuff is not helpful. These cars are quite light so they will suffer badly from bad load curves especially.
Ideal would be to get accustomed with cphys and take the leap. Otherwise the car might be developed in an inaccurate direction just by necessity.
some say we shouldn't try to fix what's not broken
Like the car a lot! What are people using in terms of steering rotation? It seems to be a bit boaty with 900 or 1080. Interested to hear from people who have been using the mod for a while.
Cheers, AussieStig
Cheers, AussieStig
Kyuubeey
@Simberia
You should set steering degrees either to your wheel's max amount, and use SCALE = 1. That will speed up racks with higher degrees, but keep racks under it the same.
Or, you can set a higher amount, and use a SCALE under 1.0 (Proportional between the selected steering degrees and your wheel's max) to scale steering linearly until your wheel runs out of lock, proportional to the max you set.
For example 1260deg scaled to a 1080deg wheel would be SCALE = 0.85714285714.
There's no reason, whatsoever, to tune the settings per-car apart from what kind of scaling you want.
The physics are the ones which decide how much actual rack movement and roadwheel angle the car gets. It's a hacky old-sim thing to have to change steering degrees from car to car, because sim devs in the past didn't know/bother to set realistic rack geometry and parameters.
Thanks for your reply mate. Much appreciated, currently, I am using a DD1wheel with SEN set to 1080 and that corresponds to the AC in game setting for wheel rotation. Driving the car with this setting, it seems to have a slower less responsive steering rack with more lock being applied resulting in inevitable understeer. I assume the scale 1 is in the FANATEC wheel settings? Thanks again for your reply, cheers, AussieStig
Kyuubeey
@Simberia
SCALE and STEER inside of AC's controller settings.
The 420R I have has 372*2 deg of lock, which should be well under even 900deg. You will reach the limits of the steering lock before you reach the limits of your actual wheel's lock.
Some old sims would scale the steering of the car to your 1080deg, but AC has always scaled it linearly and correctly for me. Check that STEER is 1080 and SCALE is 1 in AC's controller settings. It should then cut off steering after you reach 372 to the side.
Do you still see the in-game wheels turn when you steer past 372 to the side? If so, something is wrong. It shouldn't be using the full rotation of your wheel, but to me it sounds like it is.
Last edited:
