DiRT Rally > Richard Burns Rally

[quejki]

RBR sucks and i don't know why people love that much the physics...I finished rally school (in real life, not in the RBR) months ago and it's 100 times easier to drive in real life than in RBR... People think, if game is harder then it's more realistic - it's not. DiRT is easier, but it feels natural, almost like real life.

[flatdarkmars]

Originally posted by quejki:

People think, if game is harder then it's more realistic - it's not.

I never played RBR, so I can't address it specifically, but this comment of yours is very true. A good example is the old Grand Prix Legends game; the default setups on the cars had positive camber and unrealistically low ride heights that caused the cars to be always hitting the bump stops, causing eratic handling. It was unrealistically hard to drive until you changed from the defaults to a more historically-correct setup.

The overall grip level in DR was definitely too high, but the v2 handling cars seem to be finding a good balance.

[j0lly]

I couldn't agree more! A "simulation" is supposed to be like the real thing as far as im concerned, and driving is not nearly as hard as most simulators.

[Simon said EAT DUST PLAYER_1 !]

Originally posted by quejki:

RBR sucks and i don't know why people love that much the physics...I finished rally school (in real life, not in the RBR) months ago and it's 100 times easier to drive in real life than in RBR... People think, if game is harder then it's more realistic - it's not. DiRT is easier, but it feels natural, almost like real life.

has your rally-school vehicle had semi-locked clutch-type differentials on both axxles? Has your rally-school vehicle shown a different response to steering-input (amount of rotation) in it's rally-school mode than in a custom-setup?

I agree that Richard Burns Rally was never perfect. Yet it isn't as bad as two lines of dis-approval might make it out to be to the casual reader. Also: the console-versions never were mod-able. The PC-version got all the goodies (that today's long-standing fans rely on) shoe-horned into it, after the fact!

So please: don't just dismiss it like that! Dirt Rally still has some major flaws to it, as well when comparing game-play between these two specific titles. Each one could take a cut from the other and be improved that way, massively still!

[DocStrangelove]

I agree that DR is better than RBR (even though it still has some problems), but RBR is far from ♥♥♥♥. It was the best rally game until 2015, quite impressive imo. Some still say it's better than DR, to each their own, but it's clear these are the best two by a mile.

[snow]

Originally posted by DrStrangelove:

I agree that DR is better than RBR (even though it still has some problems), but RBR is far from ♥♥♥♥. It was the best rally game until 2015, quite impressive imo. Some still say it's better than DR, to each their own, but it's clear these are the best two by a mile.

+1

[Sutioc]

RBR's physics on tarmac is so hard and it's so easy to lose control.

[SeriousSpy]

Originally posted by flatdarkmars:

Originally posted by quejki:

People think, if game is harder then it's more realistic - it's not.

I never played RBR, so I can't address it specifically, but this comment of yours is very true. A good example is the old Grand Prix Legends game; the default setups on the cars had positive camber and unrealistically low ride heights that caused the cars to be always hitting the bump stops, causing eratic handling. It was unrealistically hard to drive until you changed from the defaults to a more historically-correct setup.

The overall grip level in DR was definitely too high, but the v2 handling cars seem to be finding a good balance.

Those setups have been fixed through updates, and have certainly been fixed by the GPLPS.

[Plaskus]

Originally posted by j0lly:

I couldn't agree more! A "simulation" is supposed to be like the real thing as far as im concerned, and driving is not nearly as hard as most simulators.

The thing with simulation vs reality is that you don't feel the car in the same way. If you sit in a car and powerslide you feel the car when it's loosing traction and when it gains traction, on a simulation you only feel it through the wheel wich i think is much harder. Now this only more or less applies if you have a wheel, not if you have those gigantic simulation thingies that moves with how the car in-game moves.

[Simon said EAT DUST PLAYER_1 !]

Originally posted by Gomnes:

Originally posted by j0lly:

I couldn't agree more! A "simulation" is supposed to be like the real thing as far as im concerned, and driving is not nearly as hard as most simulators.

The thing with simulation vs reality is that you don't feel the car in the same way. If you sit in a car and powerslide you feel the car when it's loosing traction and when it gains traction, on a simulation you only feel it through the wheel wich i think is much harder. Now this only more or less applies if you have a wheel, not if you have those gigantic simulation thingies that moves with how the car in-game moves.

problem with "motion-platforms" (some use the words "motion-simulators" for that kind of contraption) is that within a quick succession of maneuvers you are going to run out of "room". Think about a flight-sim and a downward spiral at maximum-G: you can make a moving pod move freely around a central axxis. But: what about the vertical: ... well scrap that idea: it is probably even less-complicated to implement a solution for a 3d-flightsim than it is for a race-car simulator: since a flightsim has the inherent capability of going upside-down. A (race)car would never do it, outside of a crash. So think about 3 quick, yet shallow left turns with about 3G each. You pretty much will hit a limit of movement-range that is used to recreate the lateral G-forces through moving intertia. So you will have to scale down that effect massively. Where in an aircraft these forces build up and let go much more gradually (with the exception of high-performance fighter-planes maybe): in a car things will happen very sharply at times. And should the goal be to simulate / recreate the main characteristics of g-force/inertia - feel of a 4-wheeled ground-vehicle, you have no "leeway" big enough to fool the driver's brain into believing that there is no movement happening, when you try to slowly bring the pod back to central-zero through creeping at an "undetectable speed".

So the "obvious solution" to that problem would be to scale-down the forces involved. And make sure that the combination of track-simulation and movement-range of the platform does work within (=stay within) each other's boundaries as a whole. Kind of like today's consumer ffb-wheels are used in proper driving-simulation software.

What I am going on about is this: people without imagination and the will to think stuff through... ...will never be able to drive a simulation-racer as well and as successfully as other people that do possess that ability and determination of deep thinking have been observed to do well at such a task.

Let me put it this way: if Walter Röhrl had been born in this day and age: he would have probably been the next Gregor Hutuu (hopefully I spelled that name right!).

[DocStrangelove]

Originally posted by Sutioc:

RBR's physics on tarmac is so hard and it's so easy to lose control.

RBR (vanilla)'s tarmac physics are ridiculous. That training yard, it's slippier than Gymkhana in Dirt 3, even though you have only 300hp.

[Simon said EAT DUST PLAYER_1 !]

Originally posted by DrStrangelove:

Originally posted by Sutioc:

RBR's physics on tarmac is so hard and it's so easy to lose control.

RBR (vanilla)'s tarmac physics are ridiculous. That training yard, it's slippier than Gymkhana in Dirt 3, even though you have only 300hp.

It's torque, buddy! Torque(....)

...but yes Tarmac in rbr was (....put your most-favourite word for trash here........) !!

good one! @ kevlar

[BWX]

You just hate RBR because you suck at it. It has far superior physics and FFB than D-Rally broken arcade nonsense ever thought of having. It's funny how the people with the least amount of talent and skill are those ones to always say "RBR sucks". have fun with your tweaked arcade fake physics and FFB worse that Dirt3.

[SeriousSpy]

Out of curiosity, have you actually played DR since the start of Early Access? If you had, you'd know that the FFB is fine at the moment, maybe not amazing, but certainly on the level of some older sims like GTR2 or RBR.

[Montago]

RBR is rally on ice... ALL THE TIME

[SeriousSpy]

RBR has serious mid-speed grip issues, IMO.

It's better with the NGP mod though.