AC, especially when modded with CSP, has a far more usable tire model than rF2 does. You will struggle to produce decent behavior with the rF2 tire model, while it'll be no issue in modded AC to correlate tires to a high level. When modded you can even do really quite realistic heating for tires and brakes, and it has aeromap support. The FFB will also be accurate for a manual rack (You can use "Real feel" to produce 1:1 manual rack torques like for DD wheel use) on CSP modded AC, while rF2 is a bit more esoteric in how it handles FFB. On top of that AC is generally easier to work with modding wise. You might run into an issue if you want zero roll stiffness and only heave. I'm unsure how well only a heave spring will work; might work great, might not, I've never done it. Ideally it'll just work as-is but there are some possibilities for issues. I can't look into it now but perhaps I will and post a follow-up comment if I do. I foresee that some weak corner-spring/damper coefficients might be needed but ideally it'd still work with just a heave spring in place, you just might need to manually calculate your heave spring deflection because I think it doesn't show up in any in-game telemetry, which is no biggie.
Could be interesting to hear more, for me it hasn't been the heave spring that's the problem, more setting the springs to be pre-loaded against the bump stops. I've had no success in finding a way to replicate that. If you've got any insight then let me know! Otherwise it looks like rFactor 2 might be my only option.
@@thomsenmotorsport7201 Packer range in AC is static spring deflection + packer gap. If you want a 0mm packer gap, or negative, you will either put in your static spring deflection or subtract the required gap from it. You add a gap if you want a more typical setup. There is no separate wheel preload in AC apart from the rideheight setting via ROD_LENGTH. Telemetry app has spring deflection, you'll need to enable Dev Apps, search how to do that. It's a line somewhere in the cfg files. Bear in mind everything is at the wheel in vanilla, not the damper, so do your conversions. BUMPSTOP_UP and DN are absolute wheel travel in meters, from the design height. The design height is considered to be when static spring deflection is the same as ROD_LENGTH. You can shoot me a message at Arch#0819 if you want. Also look for "physics pipeline and tools". I explained this same stuff in there too.
OK this is excellent. I'll look back into the packer settings in AC after work, if there's something I've missed that I can do to force a preload then that solves this problem. I feel like I looked into that but it's certainly possible there was something I missed. I've found Physics Pipeline + Tools on Race Department's website, I'll read through that as well after work - it looks like a fantastic resource from a brief look, perfect. I can't believe in my searching I never found this - thank you for the amazing resource. I'm going to have to re-think the next couple of videos if I've come to the wrong conclusion that AC isn't possible - but I'd rather get it right. I'll play around this evening and get back to you.
@@thomsenmotorsport7201 With preload, if you mean an actual preload ie: need to overcome some force until any deflection occurs, then it's not really possible I think, although I can't imagine the actual system works that way. Preload just changes ride height typically from what I understand, the spring will still move normally. If you just want to put the wheel against the bumprubber when the car is sitting still, so that bump moves it into the rubber and rebound moves it out, there's no issue with being able to do that. You can put it *into* the bumpstop travel if you want, although you will need to use CSP if you want the force to vary from different deflection amounts. Is that what you are trying to do, have the car start off with the bumprubber compressed? That is possible without any problems. If you make a bumprubber travel/force graph with CSP, then you can also in a way dynamically change the suspension stiffness via compressing the rubber more or less at static position; it just works as an additional spring. You could do that in a setup-adjustable way via putting the "packer range" parameter into setup, and then changing the packer gap from there. Just bear in mind that changing the load on the spring or the rate of the spring will change the spring deflection and thus the packer gap needs to be adjusted, so I suggest leaving the cornersprings unadjustable if you are going to do that.
@@thomsenmotorsport7201 Sorry, not the force to vary, the RATE to vary. The force increase is linear, while real bumprubbers are very much so nonlinear. CSP allows a .lut to control the effective rate.
I don't know how far along you are in this project but I have some initial thoughts and tips right off the top of my head. I come from pretty much the exact opposite in terms of experience, I started making 3D models for games and later got into CAD a bit. Having the full CAD model of the car you are replicating is super useful, I cannot stress that enough. Usually one has to rely on whatever 2D blueprints you can find and then combine those into something that you can trace to get the initial shape right and later finetune the 3D model from there by comparing against a library of photos. Sometimes you even have to make due with blueprints of a different spec version of the car. So having a fully detailed CAD model, I would export that into my 3D modeling software and use that kind of like a sketch that you can trace directly in 3D. Like you said, CAD models are usually not well suited for direct use in games when exported, they are too complex and often have weird quirks in the mesh structure. But they represent the shape perfectly already in 3D, so you can put that model in a separate layer, maybe make it semi-transparent, and then create your game model from scratch in a different layer but in the same space - effectively tracing the shape of the CAD version. But, if the CAD model or perhaps parts of it have a decent mesh structure it could be used directly as a base for the game model. Normally it would need to be simplified by removing unnecessary edge loops. It is usually quicker to go the "from scratch" route, but it is worth keeping an eye out to spot if there are parts of the CAD mesh than can be used that way to save time and effort. When creating meshes from scratch, start with fewer polygons than you think. It is easier to add more later on to smooth out a boxy shape than it is to get the shape right with too many polygons and vertices from the start. Also, make the model in separate pieces, like the CAD model is made of many components. Separate meshes can be kept simpler and easier to work with, and can later be combined into fewer objects for exporting to the game. It's also useful to be able to easily hide some objects you are not currently working on. Make sure you find out what orientation the target game uses for xyz-axis, both in terms of world coordinates and local for animated parts like suspension components, doors etc. It can always be fixed later, but sometimes it can be a pain to re-orient parts, especially in hierarchies. Remember you don't have to replicate everything from the CAD, the game model only need the parts that you can actually see. Good luck! I really enjoyed watching you build and race the real thing, looking forward to seeing you back now tackling this as well!
Good tip importing the CAD then using it just as a background sketch - I had been generating sketches in my CAD model and taking measurements I needed from that. What you've suggested should be quicker. Nice to hear your other advice, little tips like starting with fewer polygons and adding to that are great because of my lack of background knowledge. I'm getting up to speed OK with my CAD background but that sort of question springs to my mind often and it's good to hear advice from someone with more experience.
I was just thinking about your old series recently. I'm so excited you're back! Just out of curiosity, did you have to sell the car when you left Australia, or could you still go back and visit it?
I initially leased my car to a guy who was super passionate about it and put in an enormous amount of effort into it. I ended up selling it to him as it's unlikely I'll be back to race it. I'd love to be able to go back and visit it, maybe in 6 months when the pandemic dies down (I've said the same thing for the last 18 months).
I wish you good luck in this project!! Have tried myself to convert my team's Formula Student car into AC and went by cad conversion to kn5, but didn't ended up that well. Someday I'm still engaging in this project again!!
Yeah I can only guess you ended up with something very un-optimized. It could work but you'd end up having to put a lot of work into cleaning up the model. It's for that reason I'm starting from scratch.
Looking forward to this series. One small criticism.... may I ask for the background music to be lowered a bit please. Ten minutes of that swoosh swoosh became quite noticeable with headphones.
"The Bend" is available on AC - Can race on one of Australia's latest tracks - However iRacing is where the Australian Vee e-series is run - wouldn't that be cool?
This is awesome. I have 2000h in Assetto and in rF2 as well. Also modding experience in both. Due to circumstances, choose AC if you want more audience and more exposure. Also if you want it all to be more simple. Choose rF2 if you want next level of physics. It is actually kind of blue and red pill situation with those two. Well AC is not an entirely blue, but it has more of blue channel in the mix than rF2 does. Good luck.
Instead of creating model from ground up i would highly recommed to you to try retopo your model that was exported from cad. that will save you a lot of time
Hello, we are beginner team from India. We are currently at design phase. But designing of the suspension was found to be very hard due to lack of study materials. Can you or anybody from the community please guide us where we can find the resources for the designing process of the suspension. Thank you.
Good to see you back Simon!
I love both of these Aussie motor-geniuses!
Thanks - and likewise!
You guys got me through my engineering 👍
HE’S BACK!! Thanks for all the effort you put into your videos, this series sounds very enticing!
He´s actually back
i checked in so many times to see if you uploaded something. I'm so glad that you are back
I'm really happy you are back man. The car building series is one of my favorite UA-cam series and now I'm super excited to watch this one
second that
He is back!!!
HOLY SHIT HE'S BACK
return of the king
YOU'RE BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Good that you are back !
Welcome back Simon! I rewatch your build series at least once a year!
Excited for upcoming videos!
I'm so very happy that you're back!
looking forward to watching this project. and welcome back!
AC, especially when modded with CSP, has a far more usable tire model than rF2 does. You will struggle to produce decent behavior with the rF2 tire model, while it'll be no issue in modded AC to correlate tires to a high level. When modded you can even do really quite realistic heating for tires and brakes, and it has aeromap support.
The FFB will also be accurate for a manual rack (You can use "Real feel" to produce 1:1 manual rack torques like for DD wheel use) on CSP modded AC, while rF2 is a bit more esoteric in how it handles FFB. On top of that AC is generally easier to work with modding wise.
You might run into an issue if you want zero roll stiffness and only heave. I'm unsure how well only a heave spring will work; might work great, might not, I've never done it. Ideally it'll just work as-is but there are some possibilities for issues. I can't look into it now but perhaps I will and post a follow-up comment if I do.
I foresee that some weak corner-spring/damper coefficients might be needed but ideally it'd still work with just a heave spring in place, you just might need to manually calculate your heave spring deflection because I think it doesn't show up in any in-game telemetry, which is no biggie.
Could be interesting to hear more, for me it hasn't been the heave spring that's the problem, more setting the springs to be pre-loaded against the bump stops. I've had no success in finding a way to replicate that. If you've got any insight then let me know! Otherwise it looks like rFactor 2 might be my only option.
@@thomsenmotorsport7201 Packer range in AC is static spring deflection + packer gap. If you want a 0mm packer gap, or negative, you will either put in your static spring deflection or subtract the required gap from it. You add a gap if you want a more typical setup. There is no separate wheel preload in AC apart from the rideheight setting via ROD_LENGTH.
Telemetry app has spring deflection, you'll need to enable Dev Apps, search how to do that. It's a line somewhere in the cfg files. Bear in mind everything is at the wheel in vanilla, not the damper, so do your conversions.
BUMPSTOP_UP and DN are absolute wheel travel in meters, from the design height. The design height is considered to be when static spring deflection is the same as ROD_LENGTH.
You can shoot me a message at Arch#0819 if you want. Also look for "physics pipeline and tools". I explained this same stuff in there too.
OK this is excellent. I'll look back into the packer settings in AC after work, if there's something I've missed that I can do to force a preload then that solves this problem. I feel like I looked into that but it's certainly possible there was something I missed.
I've found Physics Pipeline + Tools on Race Department's website, I'll read through that as well after work - it looks like a fantastic resource from a brief look, perfect. I can't believe in my searching I never found this - thank you for the amazing resource.
I'm going to have to re-think the next couple of videos if I've come to the wrong conclusion that AC isn't possible - but I'd rather get it right. I'll play around this evening and get back to you.
@@thomsenmotorsport7201 With preload, if you mean an actual preload ie: need to overcome some force until any deflection occurs, then it's not really possible I think, although I can't imagine the actual system works that way. Preload just changes ride height typically from what I understand, the spring will still move normally.
If you just want to put the wheel against the bumprubber when the car is sitting still, so that bump moves it into the rubber and rebound moves it out, there's no issue with being able to do that. You can put it *into* the bumpstop travel if you want, although you will need to use CSP if you want the force to vary from different deflection amounts.
Is that what you are trying to do, have the car start off with the bumprubber compressed? That is possible without any problems. If you make a bumprubber travel/force graph with CSP, then you can also in a way dynamically change the suspension stiffness via compressing the rubber more or less at static position; it just works as an additional spring.
You could do that in a setup-adjustable way via putting the "packer range" parameter into setup, and then changing the packer gap from there. Just bear in mind that changing the load on the spring or the rate of the spring will change the spring deflection and thus the packer gap needs to be adjusted, so I suggest leaving the cornersprings unadjustable if you are going to do that.
@@thomsenmotorsport7201 Sorry, not the force to vary, the RATE to vary. The force increase is linear, while real bumprubbers are very much so nonlinear.
CSP allows a .lut to control the effective rate.
Nice to see you're back!
its kinda cool that you have a sponsor
Wow, that's really a cool project, i will love to watch it
HE'S BACK
You are back! Looking forward to see how it goes.
Glad to see you're back, I absolutely loved the build the first time around and I'm super excited for what's to come!
Great to see you :)
A big thank you to Ridge Wallet for sponsoring this video. Use the following link to get 10% off their products: ridge.com/FVST05.
Really looking forward to this series!
THE KING IS BACK
I can't wait to try your car in AC. Amazing project !
Was randomly thinking of where this channel went only two days ago after all that time. Glad to see you're back
Yeah!! He's back!!!
He's Back!!!!
Glad you´re back
WAIT YOU'RE BACK!?!?!?!
I Just found your channel like 2-3 weeks ago so glad to see you back!
So glad you're back man!
Glad you are back. Any racing content from you will always be good content.
The mith the legend is back
Nice! Cool idea for a sieries. Will def watch. Background music a bit to loud for my taste tho.
Happy to see you back!!!
I don't know how far along you are in this project but I have some initial thoughts and tips right off the top of my head. I come from pretty much the exact opposite in terms of experience, I started making 3D models for games and later got into CAD a bit.
Having the full CAD model of the car you are replicating is super useful, I cannot stress that enough. Usually one has to rely on whatever 2D blueprints you can find and then combine those into something that you can trace to get the initial shape right and later finetune the 3D model from there by comparing against a library of photos. Sometimes you even have to make due with blueprints of a different spec version of the car. So having a fully detailed CAD model, I would export that into my 3D modeling software and use that kind of like a sketch that you can trace directly in 3D. Like you said, CAD models are usually not well suited for direct use in games when exported, they are too complex and often have weird quirks in the mesh structure. But they represent the shape perfectly already in 3D, so you can put that model in a separate layer, maybe make it semi-transparent, and then create your game model from scratch in a different layer but in the same space - effectively tracing the shape of the CAD version.
But, if the CAD model or perhaps parts of it have a decent mesh structure it could be used directly as a base for the game model. Normally it would need to be simplified by removing unnecessary edge loops. It is usually quicker to go the "from scratch" route, but it is worth keeping an eye out to spot if there are parts of the CAD mesh than can be used that way to save time and effort.
When creating meshes from scratch, start with fewer polygons than you think. It is easier to add more later on to smooth out a boxy shape than it is to get the shape right with too many polygons and vertices from the start. Also, make the model in separate pieces, like the CAD model is made of many components. Separate meshes can be kept simpler and easier to work with, and can later be combined into fewer objects for exporting to the game. It's also useful to be able to easily hide some objects you are not currently working on.
Make sure you find out what orientation the target game uses for xyz-axis, both in terms of world coordinates and local for animated parts like suspension components, doors etc. It can always be fixed later, but sometimes it can be a pain to re-orient parts, especially in hierarchies.
Remember you don't have to replicate everything from the CAD, the game model only need the parts that you can actually see.
Good luck! I really enjoyed watching you build and race the real thing, looking forward to seeing you back now tackling this as well!
Good tip importing the CAD then using it just as a background sketch - I had been generating sketches in my CAD model and taking measurements I needed from that. What you've suggested should be quicker.
Nice to hear your other advice, little tips like starting with fewer polygons and adding to that are great because of my lack of background knowledge. I'm getting up to speed OK with my CAD background but that sort of question springs to my mind often and it's good to hear advice from someone with more experience.
YES YES YES YES, WHE NEED MORE
omg i forgot about this until i searched it up earlier, didn't expect to see you back!
Awesome, glad you're back !
I was just thinking about your old series recently. I'm so excited you're back! Just out of curiosity, did you have to sell the car when you left Australia, or could you still go back and visit it?
I initially leased my car to a guy who was super passionate about it and put in an enormous amount of effort into it. I ended up selling it to him as it's unlikely I'll be back to race it. I'd love to be able to go back and visit it, maybe in 6 months when the pandemic dies down (I've said the same thing for the last 18 months).
Welcome back! We've missed you!
I see you chose the music which is reminiscent of comeback too. Awaiting some more mind blowing stuff from you.
Thank goodness you are back..
Welcome back 👍🏽
Sweet project!
How is the engine mounted in mid not rear position what mods are needed please ?
Honestly so good so see you back Simon, ur an inspiration and a blessing 2 the world! Hoping u r well!
You are baaaaaaack. Woohooo
AWWWWW FUCK YEAAAH!!! THE MAN IS BACK!! Dude I missed you so much
SO HYPED THAT THIS IS BACK! this series is so useful to learn for us racecar nerds, you're the man!
you are back YAY!
With Kyle back, I’d been hoping you’d also be jumping back into the game!
Where have you been dude....
Hello man you came back welcome I Meissen your video so happy to see you back
I had no idea we could simulate our own designs in sim racing games.
yes! yes!
HES BACK???
I wish you good luck in this project!!
Have tried myself to convert my team's Formula Student car into AC and went by cad conversion to kn5, but didn't ended up that well. Someday I'm still engaging in this project again!!
Yeah I can only guess you ended up with something very un-optimized. It could work but you'd end up having to put a lot of work into cleaning up the model. It's for that reason I'm starting from scratch.
No way! My most favorite youtuber is back!! :)
WOOOOO BABY
Looking forward to this series. One small criticism.... may I ask for the background music to be lowered a bit please. Ten minutes of that swoosh swoosh became quite noticeable with headphones.
Thanks for the feedback, will do for the next one.
LETS GO
happy to see u back !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wow
O caba voltooooou 🎊
I missed you man
"The Bend" is available on AC - Can race on one of Australia's latest tracks - However iRacing is where the Australian Vee e-series is run - wouldn't that be cool?
He has returned!!!!!!!!!
This is awesome. I have 2000h in Assetto and in rF2 as well. Also modding experience in both. Due to circumstances, choose AC if you want more audience and more exposure. Also if you want it all to be more simple. Choose rF2 if you want next level of physics. It is actually kind of blue and red pill situation with those two. Well AC is not an entirely blue, but it has more of blue channel in the mix than rF2 does. Good luck.
Yeah pretty much the logic I used.
Instead of creating model from ground up i would highly recommed to you to try retopo your model that was exported from cad. that will save you a lot of time
YAYYY YOU'RE BACK!!
just a fyi, your music can be lower in volume it's covering your commentary a bit
wtf you're still alive? HELL YEAH
A quick question: I thought one of the formula Vee rules was that aero devices are prohibited?
Surprisingly no - at least not in the Australian series.
@@thomsenmotorsport7201 Dang! Lucky! from my reading it looks like they are in my local series. It would make building a car a lot more fun.
I honestly didn’t think you would come back not that I’m complaining
Hello, we are beginner team from India. We are currently at design phase. But designing of the suspension was found to be very hard due to lack of study materials. Can you or anybody from the community please guide us where we can find the resources for the designing process of the suspension. Thank you.
Great to see you back, but kill the crap jiew-jiew music. We are here to listen to you.
Nice video, great info!!! Wish you skip he music next time
Wait, why'd you move?
FUUUUCKK YEEEESSSSSSS!!!!!!!
HE'S BACK