Opinion on iRacing short falls.

On May 25, 7:12 am, "jeffareid" > wrote:
> For new tracks, fun runs or track days could
> be used to learn tracks if there wasn't sufficient practice time.

But that's the whole point, convenient practicing on simulators so
that you wouldn't need to spend money and time on track days.

> Games
> can be used to learn the basic layout of a new track, but a driver isn't
> going to learn his braking and turn in points until some quality
> real world time with a particular car and track combination.

That is not true. Of course it doesn't completely substitute for real-
world practice time, but it does teach you braking and turn-in points,
among other things. The quality of vehicle and track modeling makes a
difference.

> Bottom line is iRacing is just another racing game, perhaps with better
> physics

Yes, it's just another racing game, but it has much more distinctive
features than just better physics and a more restrictive structure.

> wrote in message
...
> On May 25, 7:12 am, "jeffareid" > wrote:
>> For new tracks, fun runs or track days could
>> be used to learn tracks if there wasn't sufficient practice time.
>
> But that's the whole point, convenient practicing on simulators so
> that you wouldn't need to spend money and time on track days.
>
>> Games
>> can be used to learn the basic layout of a new track, but a driver isn't
>> going to learn his braking and turn in points until some quality
>> real world time with a particular car and track combination.
>
> That is not true. Of course it doesn't completely substitute for real-
> world practice time, but it does teach you braking and turn-in points,
> among other things. The quality of vehicle and track modeling makes a
> difference.
>
>> Bottom line is iRacing is just another racing game, perhaps with better
>> physics
>
> Yes, it's just another racing game, but it has much more distinctive
> features than just better physics and a more restrictive structure.

I'll agree with that.

> That is not true. Of course it doesn't completely substitute for real-
> world practice time, but it does teach you braking and turn-in points,
> among other things. The quality of vehicle and track modeling makes a
> difference.

I've read comments from real racers using the same car and track
combination in iRacing as in real life and they state that the braking
points aren't even close. Turn in points are probably close though,
but turn in points even with NFS would be about the same.

> wrote in message
...
> On May 25, 7:12 am, "jeffareid" > wrote:
>> For new tracks, fun runs or track days could
>> be used to learn tracks if there wasn't sufficient practice time.
>
> But that's the whole point, convenient practicing on simulators so
> that you wouldn't need to spend money and time on track days.
>
>> Games
>> can be used to learn the basic layout of a new track, but a driver isn't
>> going to learn his braking and turn in points until some quality
>> real world time with a particular car and track combination.
>
> That is not true. Of course it doesn't completely substitute for real-
> world practice time, but it does teach you braking and turn-in points,
> among other things. The quality of vehicle and track modeling makes a
> difference.
>

But this is a bit of a wank though. How could you ever come close to
simming the kind of variations in co-efficients of friction that the real
world throws up (dust, dirt, oil, changing surface over time, etc, etc). And
does iRacing sim wet tracks and wind yet? What is the point of mm perfect
tracks given these issues?

Again, I find the notion of paying substantial extra amounts of money
for a mm perfect track a bit of a joke even from a training tool perspective
let alone a pure simmimg perspective.

On May 26, 1:04 pm, "Byron Forbes" > wrote:
> But this is a bit of a wank though. How could you ever come close to
> simming the kind of variations in co-efficients of friction that the real
> world throws up (dust, dirt, oil, changing surface over time, etc, etc). And
> does iRacing sim wet tracks and wind yet? What is the point of mm perfect
> tracks given these issues?

Accurate tracks increase realism even if other aspects aren't on the
same level. Changing conditions don't change the track geometry.
Teaching the effects of variable weather and surface would be another
aspect of training.

> Again, I find the notion of paying substantial extra amounts of money
> for a mm perfect track a bit of a joke even from a training tool perspective
> let alone a pure simmimg perspective.

From a pure simming perspective I wouldn't want to go back to non-
laser scan tracks. There might be other ways to achieve the same level
of track surfaces, but I haven't come across any tracks of similar
quality yet. I have no idea what's the optimal cost-effective laser
scan fidelity, but I could imagine going much above a centimeter would
start to make a difference in the surface quality, and going above a
few centimeters would certainly start to have an effect on track
geometry. At least the "millimeter" accuracy pretty much ensures that
no one is going to top them on that...

> wrote in message
...
> On May 26, 1:04 pm, "Byron Forbes" > wrote:
>> But this is a bit of a wank though. How could you ever come close to
>> simming the kind of variations in co-efficients of friction that the real
>> world throws up (dust, dirt, oil, changing surface over time, etc, etc).
>> And
>> does iRacing sim wet tracks and wind yet? What is the point of mm perfect
>> tracks given these issues?
>
> Accurate tracks increase realism even if other aspects aren't on the
> same level. Changing conditions don't change the track geometry.
> Teaching the effects of variable weather and surface would be another
> aspect of training.
>
>> Again, I find the notion of paying substantial extra amounts of money
>> for a mm perfect track a bit of a joke even from a training tool
>> perspective
>> let alone a pure simmimg perspective.
>
> From a pure simming perspective I wouldn't want to go back to non-
> laser scan tracks. There might be other ways to achieve the same level
> of track surfaces, but I haven't come across any tracks of similar
> quality yet. I have no idea what's the optimal cost-effective laser
> scan fidelity, but I could imagine going much above a centimeter would
> start to make a difference in the surface quality, and going above a
> few centimeters would certainly start to have an effect on track
> geometry. At least the "millimeter" accuracy pretty much ensures that
> no one is going to top them on that...

So you're saying you'd have no time for a sim track that exists no where
in real life? It sounds like you're so obsessed with what is literally
pseudo reality that you fail to appreciate the potential of the "sim racing"
world. There are some great tracks in the sim community that have no real
life counterpart whatsoever. Bull Run for example - an official Papyrus
track.

Anyway, my attitude with all new technologies is to wait for it to
become commonplace and then get it when they no longer want an arm and a leg
for it. My guess is that in the not too distant future, every race track on
earth will be digitally mapped and any sim company will be able to purchase
it from them. iRacing must be wondering how long it will be before they
start seeing suspiciously similar tracks to theirs appearing about the
place.

"jeffareid" > wrote in message
...
>> That is not true. Of course it doesn't completely substitute for real-
>> world practice time, but it does teach you braking and turn-in points,
>> among other things. The quality of vehicle and track modeling makes a
>> difference.
>
> I've read comments from real racers using the same car and track
> combination in iRacing as in real life and they state that the braking
> points aren't even close. Turn in points are probably close though,
> but turn in points even with NFS would be about the same.
>
Links please.

>> I've read comments from real racers using the same car and track
>> combination in iRacing as in real life and they state that the braking
>> points aren't even close. Turn in points are probably close though,
>> but turn in points even with NFS would be about the same.

> Links please.

RSC is down so I don't have links.

"jeffareid" > wrote in message
...
>>> I've read comments from real racers using the same car and track
>>> combination in iRacing as in real life and they state that the braking
>>> points aren't even close. Turn in points are probably close though,
>>> but turn in points even with NFS would be about the same.
>
>> Links please.
>
> RSC is down so I don't have links.
>
Are these 'real racers' people of note?

>>>> I've read comments from real racers using the same car and track
>>>> combination in iRacing as in real life and they state that the braking
>>>> points aren't even close. Turn in points are probably close though,
>>>> but turn in points even with NFS would be about the same.

>>> Links please.
>>
>> RSC is down so I don't have links.

> Are these 'real racers' people of note?

Nope, just real racers. I cant remember if the Skip Barber school
instructors were one of the ones that stated that braking points in iRacing
weren't the same as the braking points in real life.

It's an issue related to simulation versus real life, but I don't know what
the specifics are other than comments made by a few racers.