Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chino tradicional)
日本語 (Japonés)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandés)
български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Checo)
Dansk (Danés)
Deutsch (Alemán)
English (Inglés)
Español - España
Ελληνικά (Griego)
Français (Francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandés)
Norsk (Noruego)
Polski (Polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portugués - Brasil)
Română (Rumano)
Русский (Ruso)
Suomi (Finés)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Informar de un error de traducción
https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=4045-USHJ-3810
Mazda Miata
Mazda 787b
Caterham Academy
One of my fav Mod Tracks are...
Road America
Donington Park
Maybe I'll need to fix emphasis: grip by ITSELF is not enough to cause roll over, you need high center of gravity, poor suspension and/or other combination of things.
Original suggestion was that missing "tire shoulder grip" would be the cause of not rolling over which is simply not true.
Edit:
And again, there is no proper evidence of AC missing some magic component in grip calculations.
AC uses different way of calculating (vector-based instead of component-based math, for example) which might confuse people who are not familiar with mathematics or physics in equations. In physics you commonly need vector mathematics to account for amount and direction of forces, if another engine uses separate components of values that can work too but that by itself does not mean that either one is missing something in calculations.
So Mr. A. is wrong again in some points in arguments here.
Again, the part which I was replying to:
Driving into a rock, a ditch or soft sand is not about grip calculations, it becomes "collision" calculations more like than friction-based equations..
I mean sand behaves more like "soft body" in that it gives away some and resists some amount to reduce speed. Car is not "sliding" on top of sand like on tarmac so friction calculation is not really appropriate there. Since it is at very low position car center of gravity is usually higher than that and car can sink into the sand gradually which can increase the effect sand slowing the car.
On tarmac you have rubber-on-asphalt or rubber-on-rubber friction with certain amount of roll resistance and slide resistance. It is not a "collision" like on sand since the car does not sink into the road.
So they are very different types of cases to calculate.
Associat0r:
People like you are one of the reason not to buy RF2!
RF2 will never be finished, because it is a big money machine for them to not finish, that is the reason why it will never reach Version Status 1.0.
ISI is greedy and it will break there neck in the future, RF2 is way to expensive for a non 1.0 Version.
http://youtu.be/zaYFLb8WMGM
Needless to say: we do not see too many truck-based SUV designs on the road today. Manufacturers hopefully have learned from those mistakes. I mean: their marketing departments in particular. Fuel-costs (weight-reduction) and desired on-road ride-comfort (chassis design) might have something to do with that, as well!
The first Mercedes A-Class was the quivalent mistake in the small passenger-car world: originally conceived as an electric vehicle with "sandwich floor" (to shield off and hold the heavy batteries) it was changed into a conventional IC-powered car mid-way through development. Without the planned-for heavy batteries: it's COG (which is really just a generalised measurement rather than a "given defect" when measured too high) got higher because: there was no dense mass in the floor to be found. Luckily they could "tune-out" the bad behaviour because Bosh had it's "ESP" ready to go, helping modulate brakes independently of driver-input, correcting the tracking of the tyres in corellation to steering-input and detected levels weight-shifts: so they could actually sell the bloody thing without too much concern for it's chassis-design deficiencies.
The second prominent "Mercedes" that fell into this category of poor chassis-performance: The original "smart"-car: that was intended as a two-seater city-car and not really designed for high-performance driving. So next thing you do is test out the performance in an emergency maneouver like the moose test at more than the standardised speed (because we demand more than what is written in the books). Does not mean that it is a good idea to build unstable vehicle-designs in the first place - but there you go.
All this has nothing to do with the OP-question. But to go back to topic: The Miata is a perfect example of how a really good mod can turn out. Other examples are not so great. I personally rarely find a mod that feels right. There are some. But the majority of mods is just "fantasy": a skilled 3d-artist makes a beautiful model, slaps some "borrowed" physics and sounds underneath it and calls it a day. Those mods are to be handled with caution! And even the Miata-mod was not all-perfect (it was darn-close to perfect though!): engine-sounds for surrounding traffic was nuch too loud the last time I drove it (before 1.2) and lacked dynamic range.
I must have downlaoded several e36 bmws to find the one that felt realistic.
As far as tracks I have not found anything good.
Sadly this game is not as good as it was on release day. It appears they dumbed down the graphics to match that of the mods being released.
As far as RF2, I am very disapointied. I own the game and I agree its not very polished. The physics are pretty bad with most of the cars. Surprisingly even some of the isi tracks are not correct.
Brands Hatch, Donington Park and Barcelona mods are pretty good.
Thanks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA1cm8-T3H8
I know its old, but Terra21 has kind of a reputation for good tracks.