iRacing | 2019 Content and Features Review Video

[Paul Jeffrey]

iRacing recently released a rather cool video - looking back on the many achievements by the simulation over the course of the last 12 months.

Reviewing in video form the changes within iRacing that have happened since last December, the American racing simulation has certainly undergone some significant development this past year - adding many new features and pieces of content as they bid to grow and advance within the sim racing genre.

Literally too many changes and content releases have occurred since December 2018 to write down here in list form, but I'm sure many of you will agree that the improvement to weather and time of day changes have been welcomed, as has the addition of AI and a brand new damage model... but to get the full flavour of the changes, check out this awesome new video from the developers:

Got questions about the sim? Ask our community and start a thread at the RaceDepartment iRacing sub forum!

 

[Boby Kim]

Is Iracing expensive? Wait...i'll get some popcorn

 

[BrunoBæ]

The only thing still struggling is the Tyre Model on IR : I really like it, and for my opinion, it's the best I know (maybe just a personnal taste), but, I'm going crazy with t° and tyre pressure, wich are still wrong (I mean, ok, I deal with, they are wrong, but when you know it, you act like they were ok), i'm still surprised that after so many years (they implemented the first NTM in 2011 or 2012) they are still struggling with that...

Quite honest critique.
My personal oppinion about iRacings ongoing struggles creating a somewhat useable/"realistic" tire model is that it is solely caused by personal pride of Dave Kaemmer.
From the beginning of iRacings NTM Kaemmer proudly announced that to the contrary of all other racing sims this advanced tire model would be based on a socalled 100% “theoretical” model.
The problem with such a model is that if the theory behind such a model is (fully or partly) "wrong" - then the work after such a megalomaniac outpouring will only be to try to minimise the difference between the theoretical tire behaviour and and real world tire behaviour.

In the scientific world a theory which again and again does produce false outputs will be abandoned after some time. Or rather replaced with a better theory.
But just like the theory behind the socalled "cold fusion" got fanboys support way after it was more or less proved wrong then this “theoretical” model has its supporters.

CatsAreTheWorstDogs: Wrong theory = a theory that dont correlate with reality.

 

[RCHeliguy]

What I see with their tire model is that they are iterating towards an ideal.

Complex systems tend to have a huge number of variables. What they are doing is modeling based on physics and over time adding more and more variables to get more accurate.

There is method to this madness, vs. just putting in a mushy fudge factor.

As an example, in the RC Helicopter community there have been many RC flight simulators. One could be run on very minimal hardware and used a very simplistic approach. People added piles of models to it because they just had parameters that could be tweaked for each model. Everything was simple.

Another simulator required more intensive CPU work but was similar in approach. It just had more tweakable parameters, but people could also easily add their own favorite helicopters.

Most recently a purely physics based RC flight simulator was added. It simulated the blades with 80 slices per blade, It simulated the ESC, the servos, the battery and the FBL controller. They actually scanned the real models, blades and the characteristics of the electronics.

As a result even though they had fewer models, you could configure them with specific servos, blades and batteries. which impacted weight and the dynamics of how the heli worked. The CG and weight of the batteries impacted everything from flight length to momentum, hang time and how it turned.

When if first came out it needed some work, but it was the first simulation that felt realistic at lower head speeds. Over time they got the physics worked out so well that after one Winter of tweaking my FBL setting in the software and training with it, I actually transferred the settings from the software to one of my real life FBL controllers and loved it. I setup my whole fleet to match what I had been training with all winter with flight modes at specific head speeds.

Lots of people complained that this newer version was a serious CPU and GPU hog and it was. That was 5 years ago and people said that they would never get it right, but has become much more efficient and works beautifully and all the other simulators now feel fake now compared to it.

So when I hear that this car feels good, but this one doesn't, what I'm thinking is that they've added more characteristics to the tire model, but have a multiplier either wrong or that multiplier needs to be dynamic based on yet another variable. I'm hearing feedback from a lot of people saying that a number of the cars feel fantastic, so I think iRacing is getting closer and closer.

We are coming along for the ride with every new improvement they add. We don't have to wait for the next version of the software to be released at a distant date with two years worth of changes and improvements.

 

[BrunoBæ]

Im not much interested in helicopters.
Often when people use such analogical reasoning its because they believe that because something happens in a somewhat analogical area then it also must happen in the current area.
This kind of reasoning is not considered as a special valid way of reasoning.
To say it at least

 

[avenger82]

The new tire model is spot on.

How do you know? Have you raced same cars IRL?

 

[RCHeliguy]

Im not much interested in helicopters.
Often when people use such analogical reasoning its because they believe that because something happens in a somewhat analogical area then it also must happen in the current area.
This kind of reasoning is not considered as a special valid way of reasoning.
To say it at least

Saying theories don't correlate with reality is not a valid way of reasoning either.

Some theories are 100% valid and correlate exactly with reality.

I did not give you an analogy. I gave you a specific example of simulation software that used a purely physics based model that worked extremely well compared to it's competitors.

That application of physics demonstrates that when you account for a large enough number of the variables in an equation that you can accurately reproduce the same response you get in real life.

Every time iRacing iterates on their model, they improve its fidelity by refining the equation.

 

[Kurupt CDN]

I've been an on/off member for the past 8yrs....to be honest the title never really kept my attention and found the content pretty lame and the ffb/physics to be a battle of frustration.

The past 2 yrs the title has improved greatly in many aspects as seen in the video and still has more to come....audio, weather and the latest features to be added to all content etc, etc.
The last update with the addition of ai and new tire model sold me and resubbed with the black Friday sale for 2 yrs.

All in all iracing just checks alot of the boxes for ME. At the end of the day....it's a game, not perfect but either are any of the other titles as they all have their strengths and weaknesses.

The positives for me are.....
The best VR performance and clarity I've tried on any sim and I am running an ancient PC i5 3570k @ 4.3ghz, just upgraded to a 1660 ti and run every track at 90 fps with low/high settings x4 AA and 140% supersampling. The addition and performance of Nvidia SPS is simply amazing.....other titles really need to add this to improve vr performance.
Soft launch of AI is great and imo better than any other ai I have raced against and can't wait for them to be added to all the content as well as improved.
Track technologies I feel are the best of any title, track rubbering based on where the cars actually drive so multiple rubber lines can be created, marble build up, loose surface physics and an in-depth heating model based on sun temp, day to night transition and shadows over a few days.
Personally, I don't mind the tire model/physics and ffb as I feel it will only improve over time.
Content has gotten better and love the dirt road content, Porsche cup and Audi tcr rs3 and looking forward to the Porsche GT4 car to be released.
MP unmatched on PC and most populated no need to search for a safe place to race or leagues, I can race based around my schedule and not a leagues defined time.
Special events race calenders, esports and high quality streamed races multiple times a week.
Sim racing in North America during the evening is a dying breed and a ghost town in most other titles.
They continue to build on the engine instead of releasing a new title every few yrs.
Private forms with tons of information...with very little my game is better than yours bs that happens in most open forms.
Yes overall it's expensive, but I only buy the content I need. It also gives me back up to $40 a yr for participating to reduce the cost of my yearly subscription which I take advantage of with the black Friday deal or 3 new pieces of content for free....if desired.

As mentioned before I have an old PC and iracing performs great in VR and I have people to race at any time.....so for ME dropping $2000-3000 on a new high end PC to play a cheaper priced game just to buy a newer version in 3-4 yrs and upgrading my gpu for $1000 cause they added a new gfx engine isint justified.
I'd rather spend my money enhancing my racing rig than upgrading a PC for graphics enhancements.

Play what you enjoy!

 

[Wil.]

How do you know? Have you raced same cars IRL?

Nice to see you that interested, raced the Nordschleife for years, so I think I can compare RL & sim physics, e.g. the behavior of chassis & tires quite a bit. Happy new year my friend!

 

[Fucitol]

Personally, I don't mind the tire model/physics and ffb as I feel it will only improve over time.

Well, when comparing with other sims this is one of the most important aspects I'd say. The tire model and especially the FFB are very subpar in iRacing which I don't understand given the games age. That tells me that - besides new tire models - I don't expect any improvement in FFB for instance or surprises like Kunos just did with implementing chassis flex.

 

[BrunoBæ]

Saying theories don't correlate with reality is not a valid way of reasoning either.

Mkey
Absolutely no reason to use time to respond to such a comment.
Because everyone knowing even the sligtest about how theories are veri/falsified in the real world would only shrug and probably get a good laugh reading such a comment.

 

[Kurupt CDN]

Well, when comparing with other sims this is one of the most important aspects I'd say. The tire model and especially the FFB are very subpar in iRacing which I don't understand given the games age. That tells me that - besides new tire models - I don't expect any improvement in FFB for instance or surprises like Kunos just did with implementing chassis flex.

Iracing has had chassis flex since 2015
This is from there site, and are the chassis parts that flex....I am sure more parts will flex with the new damage model.

Flex – not everything flexes, while in real life there is no such thing as a rigid piece. The following are modelled for flex.
• sway bars
• suspension mounting points
• drive shaft
• chassis torsion
• steering column
• body
• a-arms
• tyres

 

[avenger82]

Nice to see you that interested, raced the Nordschleife for years, so I think I can compare RL & sim physics, e.g. the behavior of chassis & tires quite a bit. Happy new year my friend!

Thanks. But I asked, have you raced same cars IRL. It should be with similar tries to say they are accurate. Behavior at and over car’s limit matters. Below it , most sims are quite accurate.
Happy New year.

 

[RCHeliguy]

Mkey
Absolutely no reason to use time to respond to such a comment.
Because everyone knowing even the sligtest about how theories are veri/falsified in the real world would only shrug and probably get a good laugh reading such a comment.

I started out studying Engineering Physics and went through quite a number of theoretical physics classes.
Many theories have proofs that show they work.

What happens is that theories are updated over time. In the case of say Newtonian physics when Quantum mechanics came out, it supersedes and is a superset of Newtonian physics. By that I mean that Newtonian physics is good enough for most things that we deal with on a daily bases is is perfectly valid for most things we deal with. However it falls apart under extreme circumstances, say measurements at extreme speeds.

Quantum physics can completely describe everything that happens in Newtonian physics to an extreme level of accuracy well beyond what we need for most applications. Does it make Newtonian physics wrong, not really. It improves upon it. For engineering purposes Newtonian physics is within the limits of most measuring devices anyway.

An example of a theory that has been proven is Einstein's Theory of Relativity. We can take two atomic clocks and put one in a jet that then flies at supersonic speeds for an extended period of time and when it lands the two clocks will be out of sync by a difference that is predicted by Einstein's theory showing time dilation. However that is just one example. There are many of other proofs.

 

[RCHeliguy]

Thanks. But I asked, have you raced same cars IRL. It should be with similar tries to say they are accurate. Behavior at and over car’s limit matters. Below it , most sims are quite accurate.
Happy New year.

This just goes to prove that there is no pleasing some people who are just out to argue something for the sake of just being right. I would guess that it wouldn't matter if any professional racer said their tire model worked great for a car that they regularly raced. You would say either he was paid for that opinion or that it was great for that one car and proved nothing for any other car.

 

[Jetsun]

I started out studying Engineering Physics and went through quite a number of theoretical physics classes.
Many theories have proofs that show they work.

What happens is that theories are updated over time. In the case of say Newtonian physics when Quantum mechanics came out, it supersedes and is a superset of Newtonian physics. By that I mean that Newtonian physics is good enough for most things that we deal with on a daily bases is is perfectly valid for most things we deal with. However it falls apart under extreme circumstances, say measurements at extreme speeds.

Quantum physics can completely describe everything that happens in Newtonian physics to an extreme level of accuracy well beyond what we need for most applications. Does it make Newtonian physics wrong, not really. It improves upon it. For engineering purposes Newtonian physics is within the limits of most measuring devices anyway.

An example of a theory that has been proven is Einstein's Theory of Relativity. We can take two atomic clocks and put one in a jet that then flies at supersonic speeds for an extended period of time and when it lands the two clocks will be out of sync by a difference that is predicted by Einstein's theory showing time dilation. However that is just one example. There are many of other proofs.

Get your point n agree, but just a precision, the Newtownian view of gravity was superseded by Einstein's one, through his theory of relativity, which is still classical physics (non quantic), nothing to do with the arising of quantum mechanic. A proper quantic description of gravity still have to be done afaik.

 

[RCHeliguy]

@Jetsun I agree, you are right.

And yes, Gravity is a complete bitch. No question there and we are still waiting for the grand unifying theory. Right now there is no equation that explains how to derive gravity. We just measure it as well as we can and use it as a constant. The mystery continues...

 

[Jetsun]

@Jetsun
And yes, Gravity is a complete bitch. No question there and we are still waiting for the grand unifying theory. Right now there is no equation that explains how to derive gravity. We just measure it as well as we can and use it as a constant. The mystery continues...

Yea the material universe is quite mind blowing the deeper we look, add life to the equation and the mystery is even greater, mystic-ish. Sorry to have derailed the tire model theory .
May be we can say that as long as a theory can predict measured data within margin errors it can be considered as a valid theory, relativity to those kind of data, within the approximate framework of not having confrontated the model to the infinity of all type data that will be relevant to the model. Anyway it seems that the more parameter we bring in, the closer we can come to the infinite interconnected reality. But luckily, as our perception, our sensors, our focus, have limited resolution, so is the number of parameters that should allow a sim to give illusion of real world. A finite set giving illusion of infinity, a bit like 24fps gives continuity illusion to our visual consciousness. Now I need brain vacation lol.

 

[maelstrom]

Personally, I don't mind the tire model/physics and ffb as I feel it will only improve over time.

But how long do they need to make the improvements? They’ve already had close to 12 years and they’re still making basic changes to fundamental parts of the sim. You get the impression that it’s only only innovation by other devs which is highlighting shortcomings in the basic sim and forcing their hand. People who have have defended the iRacing tyre model for years are suddenly realising that the new one is significantly better. They have a huge budget compared to some other devs but don’t seem to use it to significantly improve the experience. I don’t doubt that iRacing’s multiplayer is the best currently available, but if it wasn’t for this, and if they had to rely on the appearance and fidelity of the sim, I’m convinced that they wouldn’t have nearly as many users. As long as they have the market cornered with multiplayer, there’s no real incentive for them to make any major changes to the basic sim and the impression you get is that it’s more about the money now than the passion for racing (for them, not their subscribers).

 

[RCHeliguy]

They have a huge budget compared to some other devs

Keep in mind that other titles sell in the high hundred thousands to low millions. iRacing has a user base of 10's of thousands.

In addition just looking at the releases of ACC, Dirt Rally 2, or PC2. Each had glaring bugs that were mostly sorted over time periods of months to a year or more. So they rely on their customer bases to test their products.

iRacing has to do much more thorough testing because every release needs to be an improvement over what they had before. iRacing consistently supports every piece of hardware out there and has done so for years.

If your development budget requires much more thorough testing that budget doesn't come from no where.

 

[Eckhart von Glan]

Keep in mind that other titles sell in the high hundred thousands to low millions. iRacing has a user base of 10's of thousands.

that
I'm not an industry expert, but to me they look more like the outsider than the mammoth people sometimes think they are. Even with the pricing model they have, with currently 70,000 active members, their costumer base is ridiculously small compared e.g. to Codemaster's f1 titles. I'm actually glad for each year they make the cut and I wouldn't be surprised if the only thing that keeps them afloat is their close links to NASCAR, not the money us customers pay. But then again, I have never had a look at any of these companies' numbers, so all this is guesswork.