Assetto Corsa Competizione vs rFactor 2 - Who is the KING of GT3 Simulators?

[@chilael6892]

"The potato graphics" *Laughs in LFS*

[@muimuie]

If your pleasure is to open your mouth on hdr + bloom + post processing effects and reflections on your virtual nose on a sim racing game that’s your choice... mine is to « feel » the nearest sense of driving a real car...and LFS is still the best in this and in VR it is very good looking game because in VR the importance of complex graphics is less important than the sense of « presence » and immersion... The potato graphics will soon have a big DX 11 update and all the children who plays ACC rF2 AMS and so on with a gamepad on a flat screen will turn in LFS when they will have more than 25-30 ;) Have a nice day

[@chilael6892]

@@muimuie Something I've noticed playing both AMS and LFS is that in AMS I need to apply more steering ratio for one corner for example, but it could be because LFS max steering ratio is 720° degrees, I believe, while in AMS it is 900°. The downside of graphics for me is that... It's probaly not gonna run on my pc lmao, so in that sense I still prefer LFS. But I'm probaly gonna buy rFactor or even rFactor 2 since I know the first game of the series does run on my pc, I still gotta check the second one though.

[@DanielProsini]

Lfs have the most well made mirrors in VR.

[@Space-O-2001]

@@DanielProsini Up there with PC2? (RF2 mirrors are awful in VR)

[@TheBoostedDoge]

@@muimuie For me graphics play a big part in immersion, not as much as the driving itself but graphics still play a big part in it. Having the sun glaring on the windshield reducing visibility when the sun is low, or having to deal with the water splashes coming from the car in front when it's raining like crazy, or even just the satisfaction of seeing all the dead bugs on your car after a 6hour race.

[@slatanek]

Being quicker with the same car in rF2 has most likely to do with the tyre - rF2 is modeling Michelin tyre (was actually developed with Michelin) and ACC is modeling Pirelli's which are quite a bit less grippy, but keep their grip steady throughout a longer period of time (the fall off is not as abrupt as the Michelin's but the peak grip is lower on the Pirelli's)

[@DannyRhym3z]

Rf2 might feel good but damn. There's so many more cons than there are pros with it. ACC overall is far superior

[@flowerdealer]

@@ueberlicht_ GT4's are really awesome. RF2 has great FFB, but I can't live with it's pricing, shitty UI and crap graphics.

[@Jt7166]

Rf2 is my favorite sim to drive GT3s in, but ACC is probably the best complete package for them IMO

[@KastaRules]

Great comparison. GT3 cars are too stiff to really notice weight transfer though. One day I am sure we will finally get the best of both worlds: a simgasm of physics and graphics.

[@robben896]

I am not waiting for it though. I will stick to realistic physics and i dont care that much for graphics. RFactor1 graphics is fine for me.

[@hmp01]

@@robben896 I been saying that my whole life, but honestly, lately, I do care if the game looks like shit or not, rf2 looks like a fun game to play, but after trying it out for the first time yesterday I just can't get over how dated it looks. Also, I think assetto corsa beats both of these games in all areas, even physics, and I can make it look incredibly beautiful.

[@pippo-1073]

It’s a myth that RFactor Pro is used to train real drivers, RFactor pro does not use the same physics commercially available. The teams use their own physics,

[@bigfella6629]

That is correct RF2 is not like the version the race teams use, totally different animal.

[@amgcentrumpodogidrzwigdyni2607]

@@bigfella6629 Yep, rFpro is not from Studio 397.

[@SHRModding]

Real gt3 drivers say the ffb is vague in the real cars and that the movement in the car makes up for it. You should watch their videos of playing the game. They say acc is hands down the most realistic gt3 driving experience

[@SHRModding]

@untitled. where does it say fob? ;)

[@fahrigok6793]

Since you don`t have a seat physically connected to the car body in sim, FFB also should simulate seat movement/vibration coming from the car and tires. So, to be informative, FFB should contain movements from both wheels and car chasis. Being "realistic" and containing only wheel information in ffb, in a sim, kind a bad.

[@belevezero2279]

I remember Nikki Thiim taking a dump on ACC

[@SHRModding]

@@belevezero2279 cant remember which driver it was now, keep thinking David Perel but i dont think it was him that mentioned about the ffb being as it is. the video consisted of quite a detailed explanation of what the real gt3 ffb feels like. i recall words such as 'quite mushy and vague'. i will need to dig it up someday. havent watched thiim's vid. will check that out. seems like he can see past the iracing tyre model issues judging by his comments so will be interesting to hear his thoughts.

[@electricalglitch6030]

@@fahrigok6793 If it is Game ,then yes you are right , but if it is a simulator , NO!! never add something or info to FFB if those things don't exist in real world! that is what the word "simulator" mean.

[@theaveragecarguy770]

Strange thing to compare weight transfer visual representation, by showing gt3 cars, which are usually notoriously limited by setups for compression, with low downforce, high center of gravity cars like v8 supercars.. why didn't you show same kerb, same angle for rf2 gt3 vs acc gt3?

[@DEracingx]

wow you could beThe Average Car Guy but this is not an average comment :p Nice aspect to point at.

[@pippo-1073]

The Average Car Guy also GTsport does great visual representation in replays. But the physics are garbage.

[@pancake5830]

@@pippo-1073 but the physics arent supposed to be realistic..

[@pippo-1073]

Pancake in GTsport?

[@pancake5830]

@@pippo-1073 yes

[@ysteinWangen]

That's the most epic sim racing intro I've seen

[@netozeppelin]

And I'd like to know who made it...

[@Ermz]

Sam Harchik!

[@pedrolebre3367]

Can't agree with your opinion. ACC is far superior over all aspects. You talking about physics exterior representation, and you show cars from other classes? We are taking here about GT3 cars and ACC represent it near perfect,. RF2 is all exaggerated at FFB representation as is been a standard for the industry for many years now. ACC is on next level on that matter, and I believe must more realistic. ACC is also on another level at realistic physics department in all aspects, the one class focus and the close work with the real thing give it's fruits. I've been in the sim racing for many years and I can say nothing come closer to ACC to date to PC. Like I've been saying for a long time now , ACC the next GEN Racing Simulator.

[@federicocasalini1331]

Pedro...hai mai guidato una GT3?....se lo avessi fatto capiresti che ACC è solo un gioco

[@Sortsylic]

ACC is not even as good at physics as original AC

[@slatanek]

Regarding the FFB I agree that rF2 and AMS are king in this aspect. But. Their FFB comes not just from the physics engine. Some of the forces are canned. Kunos went for a different approach and only physics forces apply to the steering wheel. And while it IS more realistic (notice while driving ur own car IRL how little the steering wheel actually communicates - most of the information comes actually from the chassis roll, vibration, g-forces etc.), it definitely FEELS less so. That's because ur lacking all the info coming from the chassis. So it's not like the physics are lacking, it's just that in pretend racing we need more information coming from the wheel than IRL to compensate for the lack of G-forces and chassis feel. This is the one thing I'd like Kunos to understand - not everything that's enough IRL is always enough in simracing.

[@JanKowalski-kb1hd]

rF2 uses canned FFB effects ? I thought they come from physics engine /steering rack

[@slatanek]

@@JanKowalski-kb1hd this is a controversial topic and the devs themselves r not helping by being silent on that. my understanding is there r some canned effects concerning the pulling on the kerbs on some tracks. in any case i believe if it feels good and realistic it doesn't matter what happens under the hood. as i said the steering wheel in a car is quite innate and vague, the chassis being more alive and getting u more feedback. so as long as it gives me the information i'm happy. rF2 ffb FTW - canned or not.

[@yz249]

Oh really? Guess they changed their approach because there are definetly canned ffb effects in the original AC.

[@slatanek]

yz249 yes these would be the so called road effects which r switched off as default afaik.

[@yz249]

@@slatanek There's road effects in ACC aswell... Are you saying they are canned or not canned?

[@Nickinatorz]

I really love RF2 physics and feeling, also the damage model is insane which adds more to the immersion. Big crashes tend to have more effects with DNF's then it does in ACC. Also the tire models feel really good in RF2. Only downside is the playerbase for RF2 and how much the DLC's costs, but you have so much free content in tracks. You can get ACC for cheap and also the DLC for ACC rather cheap. I don't really care about the quality, but my favorite at this moment is RF2

[@kevin_m]

Every time I return to it from another sim, I notice immediately the superior ffb of Rf2. And yes hoping AMS2 keeps improving. Great vid.

[@pilauto8160]

Choosing between ACC and rF2 shouldn't be difficult. 1) ACC Only GT3 and GT4, very nice graphics but poorly optimized so that some PCs do better graphics with the same performance in other sims, terrible VR performance, day/night and rain cycle, very pleasant and quite realistic sounds, good UI but not extraordinary either, AI not very good, average online but which has the merit of existing and functioning, relatively realistic physics and FFB not unpleasant. 2) rFactor 2 Incredibly realistic physics engine (but not perfect), very realistic FFB (because it stems directly from the physics engine), a lot of medium/high/very high quality tracks but you have to know what to use which requires knowledge, a lot of cars but I recommend (with exceptions) to only use the 40 cars made over the last 4 years by S397 (very varied and incredible realism because fully exploits the potential of the physical engine), day/night and rain cycle, very good car sounds, average ambient sounds, better and better graphics and graphics deployment in progress (type of graphics realistic, quality very pleasant and constantly improving), UI "very simulation" which is in beta and which should be average or good to its release around december, good performance/graphics ratio including in VR, AI with a lot of potential but real and big problems, online CURRENTLY very bad but we have every reason to think that with the new system of competition in December the online will be very good. It's as simple as that............................. ;)

[@cheese186]

I dont understand the point about the visual representation of the "weight transfer". You went to AMS2 and rF2 to compare, but you chose 2 cars that are way softer than GT3 cars (V8 supercar and some BMW production based competition car). Obviously those are going to roll/pitch more than a GT3 car.

[@bjr2966]

David Domínguez I'm pretty sure that was to make his point clear. Not trying to showing a direct comparison.

[@Ermz]

You can run this comparison yourself with gt3s. Load up something like Sebring in rF2 with a field of gt3s and see how they bounce around. Load up a somewhat pitchy/bumpy track like Brand's or Bathurst in ACC and watch how zombie-like their movement is. It's a bit like comparing the flow of Wing-Chun to Karate.

[@Ermz]

Better yet, compare it to the movement of real life GT3 cars. That's what visually gave ACC away to me for the first time. In RL they still behave like real cars (stiffness and downforce inclusive) whereas in ACC they float around in a very unnatural way. AC had this same issue, which you can see on any external shots.

[@eightcores]

​@@Ermz That's probably just AC's and ACC's annoying replay camera which is completely anchored to the car. There are some tools out there which allow for custom camera tracking during replays (Cam Tool 2), which you can see in action here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bJnFg6Rvmt1_hs0 In my opinion, this immediately improves the unnatural look of a replay.

[@filipebeat4941]

ahahah yeah dat was funny! Ermin trippin

[@HarryHarri5]

This should be named: Who is the KING of GT3 force feed back!

[@pippo-1073]

Paul Harris that’s true. Many people love the fbb in ACC, many hate it too. That’s the same did RF too.. also any mention of realist FBB is just silly, it isn’t realistic at all as it a creation.

[@pippo-1073]

Zwenk Wiel yes but something fictional can not be realist when it doesn’t exist in the real world. For a example. My super car called pippo wirh a V18 engine in Assetto Corsa. Doesn’t exist in the real world, it can be realist in the virtual world. FFB on the other hand does not exist, it can not be realistic in the virtual world, that feedback does not come through the steering wheel in the real world. So no amount of good ffb can be realistic, it can make sense for sure but that doesn’t make it realistic. Also GT3 cars have little feedback through the wheel, less than other cars. And that’s why the ffb in ACC is the way it is. They listened to GT3 drivers input. So if you really want talk about realist ffb then ACC is more realistic. You have to unlearn what you have considered to be realist ffb

[@pippo-1073]

Zwenk Wiel lol hilarious you claim I need a dictionary. You need comprehension lessons. As for Forza it’s FBB couldn’t be as realist as rf2 because the physics are not realistic. However it could be as good as RF2. Do you understand that FFB is totally made up? They are not something you get in a real car? You understand? The reason some people don’t like ACC ffb is because they have become accustomed to more forces and detail in feedback. That doesn’t make it more realistic. What about RF2 ffb then if one person had force set to 100% and one has it set to 10%, which one is more realistic?

[@pippo-1073]

Zwenk Wiel Jesus Christ you are fucking dumb. How the duck can ffb be realistic of it does not exist in the real period you fucking moron? Your comprehension is zero. If you had zero the fbb makes sense to you, you know when the car is slipping, you can feel those things better in some games than other games then I’d say yea ok, but there is no such thing as realist. With ffb you are creating something that does not exist. You thought you were smart but the fact you resorted to insults and think a dictionary proves your incorrect point shows you are anything but smart, and smart don’t lack comprehension, you however do.

[@pippo-1073]

Zwenk Wiel you did a really poor job of not name calling Lmao. You feel the car through the butt of your seat in real cars, there is no info coming though the wheel other than force. So there is only ffb you don’t like and ffb you do like. If you want to say it’s realist, but that’s not real ok. I say there is no unrealistic ffb then, only ffb you like or don’t like. GTsport has poor ffb, just force no detail. This dumbass wins this debate.

[@sixpest]

Theirs something magical about rfactors feel; it doesn't matter what wheel what poorly modded car, it just feels so good and really immerses you.

[@cristianuk1823]

@@ueberlicht_ really enjoyable to drive in Beamng

[@doemaeries]

Niels Heusinkfeld (he worked on Automobilista 2) also talked about ACC recently and also mentioned the force feedback. He, too, said that the FF doesn't give good feedback, but also stated, that that could be more realistic that e.g. Automobilista. So who knows what is actually better

[@Ninnuam999]

I'm still sad that all the modders went for AC instead of rF2, I still have fun discovering mods in rF1.

[@thecsr2944]

That's because they understand that the best platform for modders is AC. Studio 397 makes it difficult to mod the sim with the nonsense of doing everything via STEAM.

[@psykonect]

So the best tyre model is the one that you run all the setups at the minimum psi possible, it maybe be the best visual tyre model but live for speed did that many many years before rf2. I have about 700 hours racing in rf2, I've run several championships and raced a lmp2 in vec for two seasons. Yes the ffb of rfactor 2 is stronger, but call it the best gt3 sim? You could say it is a better sim overall but the best gt3 sim? Your opinion on what is the best gt3 sim is just based on the ffb feeling that you have on your setup, i enjoy them both and enjoy the ffb in both but for different reasons, rf2 has a stronger feeling, acc is more subtle and at least for me and my poor guy t300 has more information then rf2. Both have great ffb in their own way, but acc is the better gt3 sim overall for sure.

[@garysmith3068]

ACC is the total package as far as GT3 and GT4 cars are concerned. We can all adapt to FFB, but bad graphics and poor sounds are fixed, this is why ACC is walking away as the GT3 king. And I think the ACC AI is a clear winner, there is no contest there.

[@TheDriftingStig]

I like Assetto Corsa more than these two because you can mod it to oblivion. Add in Content Manager, Sol, Shaders Patch, and FFBClip, and Assetto Corsa is my favorite (the online community is decent too). I'd like to explain these mods for people that are still unsure about Assetto Corsa (all of the mods I just listed are free): -Content Manager: A complete menu overhaul and game launcher with more race options than the standard game! It's free to use but you have to donate any amount of money to its developer to access the full version. -Sol: Sol is a free weather mod that adds many different weather options to the game, including rain (strictly visual though) and snow (I've never tried it but that's an option as well). Sol also allows you to do day/night cycles with races. -Shaders Patch: This brings new and improved graphics to the game, including sparks when bottoming out and brake rotors turning red under braking when they're hot enough. -FFBClip: FFBClip is the best improvement for force feedback in the game. When it's open in-game, I recommend turning dynamic mode on and setting the max gain to 100. There are thousands of more mods at RaceDepartment's website, and some very quality mods at RaceSimStudio's website (not free but worth the money).

[@Theferrariguy]

Agreed I enjoy assetto Corsa too but I just find that the career mode is really boring and that the ai are very hit and miss

[@TheDriftingStig]

@@Theferrariguy with Content Manager's improved AI it's better, and yeah I don't even bother with the career mode

[@Theferrariguy]

@@TheDriftingStig how do you activate content managers ai?

[@leatt6136]

TheDriftingStig Is it possible to use FFBClip with ACC ?

[@TheDriftingStig]

@@leatt6136 I'm not sure tbh, I don't have ACC because I like AC's variety of cars and modability

[@labnux]

I hear Carpenter Brut in the background: I like.

[@basementracer]

I agree %100 with your findings here. I race GT3/GTD/GTLM almost exclusively and your observations with these two titles are spot on. I like you were one of the first inline for ACC and rode the roller coaster of "Yay" and "grrrr" with it's life cycle. RF2 has excellent FFB detail IMHO and you can tell what's going on to the point that it helps you race closely and cleanly without some unsuspected physics action causing you to crash into the car you are racing closely with. IMHO RF2 allows a racer to really race. ACC does the same but seems more about eye candy than the important stuff to a "driver". Great stuff mate, subbed.

[@FedericoTesta1]

I fell in love with rFactor2 GT3s...and the new Radicals...best simdriving experience so far.

[@litgeorge]

This review is flawed since from the very beginning you admit you were not able to configure your FFB properly in ACC. You say FFB is vague and that it doesn't communicate enough to catch the slides. Sorry but this is not what I feel on my side. And I don't even have a DD wheel. I have a simple CSL.

[@jacksonueland]

FFB in ACC is incredible in my opinion

[@MendicantBias1]

I feel the same coming from GT Sport with a CSL Elite 2.5 setup. ACC is stunningly good with FFB, graphics and overall immersion. I run 100% gain, 0% dynamic damping and road effects and feel (and hear) everything I need to drive with confidence. ACC simply has more settings and therefore more to get wrong (and right!).

[@jean-marctrappier4436]

ACC's ffb is terrible, period. They aim to provide "pure" (lol) ffb without canned effect, man you don't even feel your wheel becoming heavier when breaking. Problem is the game is sending exact same information to csl elite and to simucube 2 despite they are very different hardware and they won't translate those info the same way. They NEED to change their attitude with ffb, acc have great physics but poor ffb, terrible even. RFactor 2 is much much much better than acc in ffb, even its physics is better but not much better imho. I've spent a lot of time trying to setup acc like my real car experience, impossible... Rfactor 2 took me like 15 mn.

[@sotirisport3483]

Yes i agree also the ffb is so real and the braking forces its depends on the abs level that you have and when the weel loose its grip.. not always have to lock your weel down... Also i get good info about the rear part of the car.. that most of the simracing strangles...

[@zootalk]

What kinda bothers me about your review on RF2 being better at physics is only just because you can be faster and feel much more confident driving it than in ACC. About the ffb, yes, I agree that RF2's ffb has much more detail than most other sims, though, some real race drivers complain that, in rea life, there isn't that much info coming from the wheel it self, where I think ACC tried to approach the issue in this direction.

[@babisawi5945]

In real life driver can feel what's going on with the car through their butt, g force, etc. which are quite impossible in racing sims, as most sim racers don't have a motion rig. This is why sim developers need a good codes to channel those info through the wheel for the sim racers to have a better feel of their cars.

[@yz249]

Who are these real race drivers that have complained?

[@zootalk]

@@yz249 David Perel and Nicki Thiim are some to name...

[@FreakCanal]

Try rf2 with some shakers and tell me what you think. AC is good but far from rf2 and AM

[@logo8009]

The killer of both is very little online racing but, the king of that has a unrealistic tyre model,FFB.Good video!

[@lugnutRacing]

I hit the like button because of how you said to hit the ‘dislike’ button at the end of the video 😆 --- and because it was a good video 👍🏁

[@BetmmaTipsUFC]

I bought R Factor 2 about 6 weeks ago. I haven't managed to have a single online race.

[@FreakCanal]

join a championship

[@danielebrambilla2290]

If you make a personal effort to drive like you would in real life, I'm sure rF2 does its job. Problem is it's not the way to be fast. Check some "alien" laps to see what I mean. On the other hand, I've never seen anyone blatantly exploit the driving model and the setup in ACC, at least in one of its later builds. For example, simple tricks in rF2's GT3 cars setups: 1. Minimum tyre pressures, 2. Minimum camber, 3. Minimum or very very low toe in and toe out, 4. Detached rear ARB, 5. Mid to high front ARB, 6. Wing 1 for most of the cars, some are a bit sketchy at the rear and require one more click. And driving tricks? Sure. 1. Don't be afraid to throw the car into the corner with more than 90° of steering angle, 2. Keep very low TC and very high ABS. (i.e. TC 1 - ABS 9), since these are completely bullshit aids that don't work like they do in real life, 3. Assign a button to the TC Override function and press said button as soon as the tyres get some grip out of a corner and hold it until the car is perfectly straight (a few seconds should be enough), 4. Use the brakes to get the rear loose and don't be afraid to push the car past what you believe is the maximum tyre slip, 5. Drifting sometimes is actually faster than driving like human beings (it applies mostly to specific cars, not necessarily to GT3's), 6. Keep a higher gear in a corner than you might think sometimes because for some reason all these cars have more push at low revs, 7. Hold the throttle by about 30% while braking, it will remove the usual kick you get from the car every time you downshift. Oh, one more thing, the RealRoad function is utterly useless for two reasons: 1. People will always take the same line, you'll never see anyone (rightfully so) trying to rubber the outside line of a corner on purpose. 2. It's very heavy on the system and for some specific tracks it takes 15 to 30 minutes to load completely, meaning you have to waste your time driving on a somewhat slick surface for half an hour while likely the rest of your opponents will fly past you with ease. This gets even more frustrating when you have to do a hotlap competition, for obvious reasons. Although it looks like I'm hating with no logic, little do you know I used to be among the very few who actually loved this game and I did my part to help fixing some nagging issues they game had and still has, plus a lot more. In fact, I still believe rFactor 2 is an amazing platform, the issue is with the people who took over ISI and are currently "working on the game" and their frankly ridiculous content, specifically GT3 and GTE cars. Let's not talk about the fact that if you want to do a 6h + long event, you have a 50% chance of seeing it redflagged. Or the insane amount of screenfreezes that make the game (especially during a short qualifying session) literally unplayable. Now, release the lions and get me mauled, please.

[@Ermz]

That's fascinating. I'm going to try all of that in rF 2 and see what happens. No mauling. This isn't a fanboy channel. We care about objective truth and getting the best sim racing experience possible. If rF 2 is fundamentally this broken at its core, it's something I would love to know about.

[@Ermz]

Wow. Well I tried the setup 'tips', while still driving normal lines and improved my Silverstone time in the C7 GT3 by about 1 second. While that isn't mind-blowing, the cars should not be drivable at these settings whatsoever. What's going on here?

[@mckseal]

@@Ermz Also one more note, ACC doesn't use 5 contact points for tyre grip - only for estimating collision points. There is a subtle difference in wording here that is important. And, unfortunately, communicative FFB does not mean realistic physics. Don't get me wrong, both RF2 and ACC are bloody realistic, but the sacrifices made to feel good on a range of cars in RF2. ACC is the king in physics for GT3 however I do agree that FFB could give more feeling.

[@Ermz]

@@mckseal That would certainly make sense. I find ACCs handling floaty and uncommunicative, which would explain why it seems to render weight transfer and loading forces so much more poorly than rF2, ams 2 and BeamNG. They latest patch completely rewrote their suspension behavior because the bump stops weren't working correctly. I think it's fair to say both games are loaded with their share of issues.

[@danielebrambilla2290]

@@Ermz Simply a physics system that looks good on the surface but is too basic for the current generation of sims.

[@bobbychilds3080]

Will you be revisiting this comparison any time soon? A lot has changed since this video was released, I think it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the changes.

[@AndrewTSq]

Havent tried rFactor2 yet, but I loved ISI's F1 99-02. Right now I only play ACC in VR, love it. But when I get tired, I will try rFactor for sure

[@pumpkinjoessimracing6443]

The FFB and incredible road feel always brings me back to RFactor2! ACC is an awesome title though in it's own right....after a ton of patches.

[@opmike343]

rFactor 2 is nearing 10 years old, so I don't think there's much point in bringing up ACC's patches...

[@pumpkinjoessimracing6443]

@@opmike343 point taken.

[@41BOT]

Seems like really nice video in general, but already in ~1:30 FFB nonsense talk, and I don't really want to watch any further. Just another youtuber that makes good sim videos generally speaking, but doesn't really get the fundamentals of car physics simulation. Edit: Finished the video. Nice stuff. But I disagree a lot. Interestingly I agree in general what you are about rF2, but in my opinion those particular cars of rF2 stands behind ACC cars, even though rF2 is very likely fundamentally more realistic, it stands behind ACC in terms of the actual cars physics modelling for those particular cars. As for FFB talk, it is usually very disappointing just as in here, I think there is lack of technical insight in it, but just some simracers knows that stuff. Also I dislike that FFB in absolutely most conversations about cars handling dominates over physics and actual mechanics, which is massive shortcut in explaining things that cars does, without truly explaining it. Believe it or not, as important as FFB is, it is not as much influential for a car as it seems. Car with all its tire, aero, geometry, suspension, layout, engine and drivetrain shenanigans together with conditions that it performs in is what makes it to do things that it does, not any of FFB. The thing thatFFB is - is important, but majorly overrated. And in my opinion it hurts underlying physics and understanding of it.

[@jean-marctrappier4436]

What non sense ? Oh and after hunderds of hours reading forums, trust me, almost NOBODY understands fundamental physics or a race car, I don't know what is your level in this domain but I can assure you ACC's FFB have HUGE issues depending on hardware you use (can't say about yours but with Simucube 2, there are clear problems).

[@daviddanser8011]

Probably depends on the wheel, on my csl elite the feedback is perfect in ACC. Miles better than iracing fi where I can never feel the car going. In ACC you can run really constant laptimes as you feel the car losing control before it even happens. Didn't play rfactor2 much but if it is even better than ACC I almost can't believe that..

[@yz249]

Doesn't matter if the physics is spot on, if the FFB isn't there you can't feel anything correctly. Having said that his ffb settings are completley wrong, it's recommended to have dynamic damping close to 100% and he has it on 25ish. 35% road effects is also very high.

[@41BOT]

@@yz249 Thats not entirely true, feeling the car is not limited to FFB. Also if physics spot on then FFB should be also, unless it some simplified and artificial FFB or some silly sliders orchestra. And perhaps you are right about his FFB settings, I am not familiar with those, but yeah physics feel can be ruined with those sliders.

[@ST0RM777iii]

you're just a bum who can't afford a decent wheel lol

[@kondor99999]

You are doing the best simracing content on YT. Fantastic, detail-oriented, objective and with no inane yammering. Your analysis is spot-on.

[@iValkyrie46]

That shadow of the Huracan though @ 8:55

[@joaofernandes5254]

2:08 imagine flashing your lights to overtake and then getting off the track

[@crawfordbrown75]

absolutely agree 100% with the comments on ACC force feedback

[@olliebob8370]

crawfordbrown75 even with the new suspension? I find now it’s amazing

[@davidbrock2450]

Old video I know. But in a one off comment you totally figure out what I was doing wrong as a new driver with the Porsche GT4 in ACC (Been sim racing since GPL). But that comment totally explained the problems I was having in learning to drive the Porsche GT4 car in ACC. I'm sure it will still take many laps of practice to get that car up to speed. But know I know a large part of what i was doing wrong and what I need to do right. So thankyou.

[@GravityPancake]

Recently dove into RF2 after many happy years of Kunos and Codemasters. Found myself compelled to do this same comparison the other night. Arrived at basically the same points and conclusion after fine tuning my Fanatec CSL Elite v2. The feel of RF2 ,despite any and many downsides, has me lapping like a kitten at a bowl of milk. Great video!

[@GravityPancake]

Have now added Automobilista 2 to my sim roster, and am so far impressed with the latest beta version. Similar feel to RF2 but updated visuals and enjoyable content offering. Nice to see a better application of the Madness engine than in PCars2.

[@Heldermaior]

I think you need to readjust acc ffb. That dynamic damping setting is essential and needs to be set quite high. Not saying ffb is as good as rf2 (it doesn't feel as nice for me) but after tweaking it, I found a decent setup that works for me (CSW V2.5) and gives me great front end feel. On the physics side, both games are very good but I find I can overdrive the GT3 cars in ACC a bit better so I think the physics of these particular cars are better in ACC. I get more "wtf happened?" moments in Rf2 than I do in ACC. Honestly, rf2 is great and I am looking forward to their improvements in online functionalities but in terms of GT3, ACC is unmatched (closest competitor is actually r3e imho). Also AI is still running simplified tire model with 1 contact patch in ACC. So, as you put it, "different physics". Which all modern sims do btw. Pcars2, AMS1 and 2, etc all use a different tire model for AI and player. And finally rFactor 2 tire model is cool and all but it is not as good a model of the specific tires blancplain uses as ACC. They have 3 compounds instead of one and lets not talk about the errors that rfactor 2 tire model has. In order to get the best possible time you need to deflate your tires as much as possible and that doesn't translate into an easier time to severely deflate them and damage them over kerbs or going off track. ACC does a much better job at that. Heck, run cold tires over some hard kerbs in ACC and you just got your tires destroyed. You make interesting videos but a bit more care during research is warranted I think.

[@ErwinLiszkowicz]

+1 On that. Moreover ACC's force feedback is very, let's say unique. And that's all to the GT3 nature - their tires have a peak grip at 4-5 degree of tire slip angle, if you exceed your inputs above that the FFB becomes vague and without detail. As for the argument about cars being glued to the ground. Well, that's how GT3s work, I don't mean to offend anyone but trying to see bodyroll in GT3 cars is just not very smart. There's almost none because these cars depend so much on being stiff to provide a stable aero platform. Just because something looks more lively doesn't mean it's actually accurate. Kunos have access to way more data than anyone regarding GT3s so as good as physics model in rFactor 2 is, there's a reason why pretty much every GT3 driver that was asked about best GT3 sim points towards ACC. rFactor engine is used by GT3 teams because of one simple reason - they provide this kind of service, Kunos don't. Also rFactor 2 engine ISN'T used by GT3 teams, they use rFactor pro, which is a seperate engine branch from rFactor 2.

[@Heldermaior]

@@pascheck2440 sure. I have gain at 80 or 85 and dynamic damping at 110% iirc. I will check prpper settings tomorrow. I fond that if I change from mid engined to front engined cars I need to tweak it a bit.

[@Ermz]

I'm happy to try the exact settings that are recommended for a DD1 and in game. I've tried the recommended Fanatec ones and the wheel felt dead and uninformative.

[@thomassmith4999]

I've been watching Leclerc's twitch stream, so far he's most happy with ACC, not sure if he's tried R factor yet. But he's clearly struggling with Iracing which just shows you the game is faulty.

[@thomassmith4999]

Update this with he also loved Dirt Rally 2.0, immediately proclaiming it "proper", I think we can all agree with that game being pretty much spot on

[@tiagho14]

@@thomassmith4999 I liked one but not dirt rally 2. It's flawed, interestingly, in a way ISI engine or RFactor 2 handling is, yaw dependence dynamics.

[@thomassmith4999]

@@tiagho14 Leclerc is doing the 24 hour of SPA on RFactor soon, excited to see what he thinks.

[@darthbroda]

did he get more into detail about it? and did he give an opinion on other games?

[@MikiLaggard]

Well well well, another ffb battle coming in. I think ffb is always a hard thing to review. You know, personal reference and such. For me personally - and I'm a day one adopter of ACC: I loved the ffb from day one. First time in a sim that I had the feeling of rubber on four ends of the car. It lacked some aspects then, yes, but I could see - or rather feel - what Kunos was trying to achieve. This hasn't changed. rF2 on the other hand gives me 'more', in sense of quantity, but it can be distracting. Too much going on s.t. (Still talking about my own very subjective impressions btw ;) ) Maybe I can sum it up like this: rF2 tries (and all sims just 'try') to give me all information about the car. ACC gives me information about the wheels and says: Now, what you gonna make of it? And the latter just suits me better. Do I understand those who can't cope with ACCs ffb? Absolutely. So isn't it nice that we live in glorious simracing times where everyone can have their favourite approach? I think on that we can all agree. Amen ^ ^ (not to forget: great review, left a sub)

[@Tom-zc9gs]

You know, I feel like ACC's FFB gives you some more infornation in terms of suspension/damper reactions. After the 5 point tyre model and chassis flex were implemented the cars feel quite more predictable to drive, so the FFB forces finally act like they should and give you the exact level of grip for the tyres at any given turn. Dynamic damper is the most important slider, it governs how much damping is applied to the steering force depending on the intensity of the FFB signals. Less means a more raw FFB, which can make you struggle quite a lot and drown you in road details, more means a smoother FFB which helps you feel what you need to and makes you struggle a lot less. I recommend setting road feel to 0, DD to 100, Gain to taste. I also have no problem with 333hz update rate. For my CSW all the FFB effects and gain are at 100. I have gain on ACC between 50 and 60 depending on the car. With these settings and some practice you can get very consistent laptimes and a better handling feel.

[@MikiLaggard]

@@Tom-zc9gs Couldn't agree more - with every point. Spooky... ;)

[@KrasnyMajak-he8xh]

where can you find the "televised rf2 events"?

[@RISCy27]

Could you include the results of you settings tweaking in ACC in order to get best out of your DD1. I am an DD2 user and I am also not perfectly happy with the force feedback.

[@fragelicious]

A choice between eye candy and an accurately modeled race car.

[@kris1]

I run the Simucube 2 and have spent hours trying to get the FFB on ACC to feel good. Its good for some cars on some tracks but overall is way behind RF2, it feels weird to me especially at the limit I don't get a good feeling from the tires and weird vibrations coming through the wheel.. ACC has come a long way and is excellent overall but until they improve the FFB I'll stick with RF2 and AMS2 for general driving and iracing for online. iracing actually feels very good on the SC2.

[@jean-marctrappier4436]

I have the same hardware and same problem, seems to be ACC that is failing, not ALL of us (because I know many other drivers that have the same issue). But you know, ACC "doesn't change real effects, if you can't feel it in your wheel, it means this effect doesn't exists in reality"...this is what man reply on their forum...yeah they do...I mean a 1.5 ton car braking from 280 km/h to 100 in less than 3 seconds won't have a heavier steering wheel despite colossal forces that are applying on it...go figure.

[@jimmyd1337]

@@jean-marctrappier4436 Then you have real gt3 drivers like nikki saying ACC feels more real than any other sim. I know who im going to believe....

[@keckz92]

James Downes, the FFB approach in SIMS, seems to be dependent on developers. ACC's approach was for realism, but somehow forgot that we are sitting on a stationary seat and can't feel the other real forces. without any other information coming through the wheel, to sense the cars behavior, makes the game meaningless. RF2 gets the feel right, and whenever playing it, it just puts a smile on my face. when first trying ACC it was a wasted weekend of adjusting the FFB, to feel the cars behavior. in the end it was just muscle memory that got me around the track, absolutely no immersion, it's more a thinking mans game. purchased it for only 1 reason, it was another game with good graphics and was expecting an improvement over AC. unfortunately for KUNOS, graphics isn't what keeps me playing a game. now only try it a few times a year to see if they improved the FFB. surprised they're staying with the same feel. if they ever brought out a new updated version of AC, i wouldn't even bother testing it. Realism is not sitting at a desk. Another oddity, is that the AI in front of me looks like they're floating above the track, seems to be an illusion most likely caused by the dark areas under the cars. it also ruins the immersion. but hey! , must be realistic.

[@chrisbarker5336]

@@jimmyd1337 this comment gets posted a lot. It's a shame you cant play the sim and form you own opinion. Plus Nikki makes most of his comparisons to Iracing.

[@geanito]

I don't know which was the version you were using at the time of the creation of the video, but if it was before the 1.3.11. There were substancial changes to the suspension on ACC. It changes some things that acts directly into what you said about consistency and representation of the car in contact with the track. Not trying to advocate on sim over the other, but would be worthy checking that out.

[@paradisefilmslanka]

What would be the minimum hardware requirements to run rFactor 2 smoothly in 2020? I heard its not as resource hungry as ACC.

[@nathanjohnson4721]

Is the handeling better then old version and is the new one more fun???

[@rchelipilot3581]

To be honest, both games are among the best that I’ve played. I really enjoy both titles. I don’t mind the rf2 graphics or menu because the driving is so good. I don’t mind the ffb in ACC either. It feels good to me. My only gripe about ACC AI is that they give up after you overtake them, whereas in rf2 they keep fighting. But rf2’s AI definitely need to be more aware of the players car.

[@Rdcjfie]

One of the top comparisons I have seen in my recent memory. Very close to my personal conclusion between these 2 (as of 5/4/2020). ACC has a long way to go... you may look at the scope of the game/sim on paper, and say to yourself, "It is SO NICHE, how could it NOT nail it(?). The increasingly granular sim modeling aspect(s), like in the physics math, are an immense challenge to capture/reproduce. There AREN'T LIGHTYEARS between the good offerings anymore. I have yet to upgrade to a DD wheel, BUT, what I will say, IS THAT FOR ANYONE NOT ON DD do yourself a favor for your ACC FFB experience: Wheelcheck (iRacing) output .CSV, import into LUTgenerator, and WHAM! You'll be far ahead of what I think the majority of people have experienced, in terms of FFB, in ACC. Join the RD forums, or elsewhere, interact with the communities, and you'll be ahead of the curve for sure. Overall, RF2 is now a once-in-a-while ting for me, ACC IS IN MY TOP ROTATION. The serious bugs in ACC will be addressed at some point. As an IT pro, I know all about whiteboards & punchlists! There are some real POS & NEG observations of my own that I don't think he covered, but when the author's content is high-quality, let's leave it for now. NICE ONE ERMIN!!!

[@donnie9001]

I couldn't figure out why I didn't like ACC but sounds like I was right, there is just no feeling. I might have to get RF2. When I saw the the F1 bouncing in your AMS comparison, I was shocked. ACC does not even come close. I would sacrifice graphics if I am able to really drive the car.

[@danmariano1981]

Funny, I have the exact opposite experience with the regard of FFB. ACC feels great to me without never touching the FFB config, on the other side RFactor 2 feels terrible and I have to fine tune every car and save a different config for each one. Then it gets close to ACC.

[@yz249]

Maybe your global settings are compeltley wrong then? Because pretty much everyone agrees rf2's ffb is the best on any sim. If it feels terrible I'd consider redoing you're settings or something.

[@filipebeat4941]

@@yz249 no, rf2 really sucks lmao

[@yz249]

@@filipebeat4941 As a complete sim, yeah. But speciffically ffb wise no it doesn't.

[@filipebeat4941]

@@yz249 i was not being dat serious but.. it has no street cars, i couldnt even try it properly cuz dont know any of included cars and i downloaded a mod 458 italia dat wouldnt oversteer, dat was enought fo me, not realistic at all. 458 full gas should oversteer

[@filipebeat4941]

@@yz249 neva tried it again

[@CNR.5K]

ok now my question, I don't have a wheel, of course this test was done with a wheel but is it worth getting either to play with a controller? I currently play f1 2021 and Forza Horizon 5 on a PS4 controller that I plugged into my PC but is it worth trying a more sim-like game with a controller or should I get a wheel first? I'm thinking the Logitech G29 eventually, just to start

[@18837ven]

Deffo save up for a wheel first

[@johnwebb9035]

I have the same opinion of both sims as you. The only difference is that i find Assetto Corsa FFB quite good.

[@thedjentlemandriver4571]

Awesome review Ermin! I'm impressed!!

[@azeribrogaming]

that's a dope comparison vid. Thanks!

[@redrumcoke2363]

Just wanted to point out that I believe you have Carpenter Brut - Roller Mobster playing in the background. If that's the case, they should be credited in your description. Otherwise, great video.

[@thecsr2944]

Keep in mind that Rf2 was not created with GT3 physics originally, at the beginning they did not have cars of that category. Instead, ACC was created with GT3 in mind. So ACC outperforms it not just in graphics, but in natural GT3 physics. And nobody comes to tell me if I have driven a GT3 in real life, it is about who gets closer with a steering wheel, to the physics of a GT3.

[@agudaqo]

Where can I find those laserscan nurburgring GP and SPA tracks for rFactor2 that you use in this video? I don't see them in the official steam workshop nor the game itself.

[@systemachic]

store.steampowered.com/itemstore/365960/detail/36/

[@agudaqo]

@@systemachic and SPA?

[@systemachic]

@@agudaqo I don't thinks that spa is laserscanned for rF2

[@aurusbr]

A friend of mine was having problems with ACCs FFB. He fixed uninstalling, renaming the documents folder and installing again.

[@bendonkin9449]

Increase the caster angle if you don't like ACC FFB. It increases the self aligning force and, for me, makes to FFB WAY better. Although ACC lacks in the smaller details, imo the finer details of kerbs and wheel vibration over bumps don't really help me drive better, just feels nice to feel the road details.

[@kondor99999]

Can you give a link to that rF2 Spa? Is it in the workshop?

[@kokoaliburudenda7107]

Look here www.internationalsimracing.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=2df7252bc57965cea6b534a2446dc79b&board=67.0

[@stefanfutterer9089]

please show us your fanatec- and game-Settings in ACC, thanks

[@isumboseefamilia8484]

How about Live For Speed simulations?

[@aledmb]

hi, great comparison! can i ask what version of spa is this? do you have a link to download it? thanks in advance!

[@f1v10thebest]

I have never had any issues with seting ffb of acc in fact its a joy to setup

[@Ermz]

That's great to hear! If you'd like to give me some exact settings for a DD1, I'd love to try them out.

[@f1v10thebest]

@@Ermz I use the csw 2.5 so I don't think the settings will work for you.

[@StevenSanchez_95]

Question: I’m new to the sim racing world and have my eyes set on ACC, the question is what graphics card would I need to run to get the most realistic experience? Also, what’s the best set up for ACC (PC wise)?

[@truc1405]

There is no answer to your question. You don't provide enough information. How do you want to play ? single monitor ? fullhd/4k ? tripple monitor ? VR ? ACC is very GPU consuming with graphics settings to ultra.

[@sub23DaRkNeSS]

gpu has nothing to do with realism?

[@truc1405]

@@sub23DaRkNeSS Sure it does. Realistic graphics = GPU. But if you mean the realism of physics, it's more the CPU job. In my case, CPU (i7-6700k) runs at 40% and GPU (RTX 2060s) at 90% (in high setup and 4k). The Ram is very important in ACC too.

[@sub23DaRkNeSS]

@@truc1405 you can get 30 fps and the physics will remain the same... Sure gpu for realistic graphics but thats it.

[@truevilmeow]

I definitely agree with rfactor 2 feeling better than everything else, but I do find Assetto Corsa with a custom LUT feels better than Automobolista 2 at the moment.

[@Rallyman2222]

I really want ACC, but I heard it doesn’t run well online with an i3 processor. I have a gtx 1660 graphics card but I don’t know if that will make a difference or not due to my processor.

[@bendonkin9449]

I run an AMD 3200G and a 1650 super (so extremely mediocre, especially my cpu) with epic KTAA, and a mix of high/medium settings, and get between 60 and 130fps depending on the number of cars on track.

[@Rallyman2222]

@@bendonkin9449 appreciate the info bro; you ever run into problems with a full field of drivers

[@bendonkin9449]

@@Rallyman2222 Yes a little bit mate, with ~30 AI i drop the anti aliasing and shadows. I have only raced online with less than 25 drivers though, so i'd need a better processor for online races with larger grids.

[@Rallyman2222]

@@bendonkin9449 ahhh that makes sense; this was a big help I really appreciated this. Thank you brotha.

[@Mrmarcie]

You nailed it. I agree with you. I play AC for the graphics and sometimes competition but for the 'real' driving I take rFactor 2. After years of owning those games I can see I did many many more hours on rFactor. Because it's more enjoyable. But I hope they'll be improving graphics in the future.

[@CrazyPCgamercatguy]

You forgot to mention the wet conditions on both sims. ACC (in my opinion) is the best in this aspect, followed only after the madness engine (PC2-AMS2) while rF2 is not even close. There is also the price: If you don't have any of these and want to do GT3 races then you have to pay for: ACC: 40 (main sim) + 15 (DLC - 4 extra tracks) = 55 Euros. rF2: 30 (main) + 32 (for the 3 tracks which are on GT3 championships) and 52 (car packs) or you can find the packs which are similarly expensive. I won't even bother to try and make any sense for their pricing model (Which I believe is unacceptable - they ask way too much in my opinion). Unless you don't mind getting the main sim and then use mods for cars and tracks, in which case, good luck. I'd also say that the base content of this sim doesn't worth the 30 Euros price tag. 10 or 15 would be more fitting for the very old and updated content they offer there. Talking about rFactor 2: They should throw away everything they have, except the physics model, and start from the beginning in rFactor 3 (with more reasonable pricing).

[@davidwright1605]

Not bad for a balanced comparison. I would point out though that rF Pro is not the same thing as rF2. If teams were using rF2 your point would be stronger. Laptimes in ACC are typically not too slow - if you are 3 seconds a lap quicker does that mean rF2 times are too quick? rF2 offers different compounds - were you driving on the hard compound? Overall the review seems to primarily focus on FFB and driving alone. For many its about racing and if ACC has good AI and good online racing and rF2 doesn't, its game over. The fact that you had to use a track ripped from AC also says much about the state of rF2.

[@astraalex]

I don´t know, how you can have fun at racing, with a lag in the response the car is giving to you. The rF2 MP is way better than told in the video. ACC got a fast growing community, but this means also, that there are always, even on high safety rating servers, crash kids around. Never had ACC public server experience without first corner carnage. That the track is ripped by AC, is not the problem of rF2. Rf2 supports mods, and that is a good thing, because there are a lot very well scratchmade mods out there, which together with the incredible good laserscanned original tracks, like the Nürburgring in the video, it brings you a lot of fun driving it. And thats the other thing, what will you do in ACC, if you are getting upset by driving only gt cars over and over again?

[@Jellybeantiger]

Nailed it mate,I looove ACC’s sound engine,a neglected part of racing sims. RF2 still owns in ffb and physics though.

[@prithvirp]

Music name during the conclusion?

[@Dcully]

Raceroom is well up there for GT racing.

[@doniv3235]

AMS 2 is starting to look great but it needs more players. Its a fun game too

[@NeTiTrea]

So far people like Dave Perel and other GT3 driver express the opinion that ACC is the closest to the real world representation of GT3 spec cars even in regards to wheel feedback. I do agree RF2 force feed back appears more immersive but I am not sure how much does it actually represents what a racing wheel feels like in a real GT3 spec car. I don't disagree with you but I am more in favor of a realistic representation of wheel feedback even if that sacrifices a bit consistency and fee,l because there are no Gs and vibrations to feel on your chair.

[@TsZen876]

I've had ACC for a while and don't play it much because it feels like a chore, i bought rFactor 2 a few days ago and immediately noticed what you're talking about with the FFB sure it doesn't look as pretty but it's easier to learn how to push the car and definitely more fun to do so!

[@Max__apex]

Channels growing mate .... best tech talk about driving from any channel

[@januza]

mind sharing your dd settings and game settings for both games?

[@HDGamesWalkthrough]

No, you are wrong. The FFB in ACC is the best FFB nowadais and most detailed. It's too naive not to dig deeper and made rewiews. RF2 is really great sim, but it has a lot of tire bugs and force feedback is not right too in all aspects. Realism in RF2 looks better, but it's only looks, it doesn't mean the realism is really better than in ACC.

[@pcholakov]

100% in agreement with your conclusion; as polished as fun as ACC is, I still go to rF2 for the joy of feeling realistic tire forces coming through the wheel. Btw I understand that in ACC the 5-point contact model is specifically used for kerb collisions; supposedly they also have an actual deformable contact patch model which determines grip.

[@BlkInc1]

my understanding is Direct drive wheels are more complex to fine tune. Reccomended settings are just that but one really needs to fine tune to their preference. I have driven both and i feel loads more detail in ACC. What I want to ask is that downloadable content because I dont remember seeing those cars last time I launched the game. Also ACC has noticble bodyroll and the suspension works even better since the last update. I think its version 1.3.12 now ? Cars go over curbs better now, the rewrote the entire suspension code while working on GT4 cars. All cars now have simulated helper springs. Would be nice if you did a part 2/ follow-up at some point.

[@RichieSpeed]

This is the first video of yours I've seen. Very well done, great stuff. You raise interesting points, some I agree with and others I do not. I am interested in your opinions on FFB. I'm running a CSL 2.5 and the FFB in ACC was plug and play, it feels incredible. Conversely, the ffb, along with the car feel and physics in AMS 2 is probably the worst of any sim I've driven to date. A shame as I'm a long time AMS fan and was expecting something special. I find it interesting that you consider AMS 2 ffb to be good, but not ACC. I guess this can only come down to personal preference. The car feel during slow speed corners and during loss of traction are my biggest gripes in ACC, but it's still far beyond iRacing for example. I haven't fired up rF2 for some months so will need to give it another go, but it's hard to look past the awful UI and graphics even with great feeling cars. As a side note - I'd suggest real teams use of the rFactor engine is more to do with how open it is and how long it's been in use for professionally. These teams and simulation centres have full time staff members who look after the physics and program these simulators, seeing as ACC is so new and very "closed" in comparison, it would make sense that the rFactor engine is dominant in the professional scene. I doubt there are many people on the planet who could happily work on ACC, where as there are many well versed in isimotor. When you have a product which works, is very well documented, well researched and ready to run, it would be hard to justify moving to something new which lacks that infrastructure, even if it has better potential, and I'm not even sure if the ACC engine is released for professional use? I'll have to do some research on that one.

[@TakumiMarowana]

Hi mate, I noticed you said you were using a csl wheel for acc...not sure if you're aware but it's recommended to have your wheel rotation set at 1080 on the wheel base and 900 in the game. Just a heads up in case you didn't know mate 👍

[@gorraksmashskull]

That "smash dislike twice to show you who is boss" is genius

[@Johnnygibson007]

I got ACC when it was one car and one track and it was nothing to write home about, but it has certainly come a long way since then and I find it quite enjoyable now. All these sims have the strengths and weaknesses. I don't really have a favourite and tend to have car/track combos in each that I like, except AMS2 which I am sure will improve but right now I can't work out if I am racing or figure skating. On the FFB side of things after doing a couple 12 lappers in an old Mk 2 Jag in GT Legends, excluding the full CRT style graphics glory, my question would be............. What have they been doing for 15 years apart from taking my money and blowing smoke up my arse?

[@faramund9865]

Force feedback is a massive part of what makes a racing game good or bad. Given that, it is interesting the best feedback is gained from a community member in Project Cars 2 for example. I don't know whether custom feedback exists for these games too.

[@m1releven619]

thx mate for this objective resumee

[@TsZen876]

Great video!

[@mbas0507]

now i am doing more ACC, results : not the best on VR , good FFB Good physics everything is good, but everything on RF2 is better , now i am totally convinced

[@SpressoMan]

Great comparison! I completely agree. ACC is gaining popularity; and with the addition of console racing, they'll have a pipeline of revenue to foster further development. Maybe they'll get to 12 - 20 contact points with their tire model as well. I'm curious about RF2 graphics. With their physics model so much on point, I wonder if a few shader packs could help bring their "look" up to 2020 standards.

[@0Ignition0]

it looks like your ffb in ACC is really messed up, I dont have any problem with it

[@arjankremer8229]

These are my 2 main go to games: for multiplayer it is ACC and for immersion (motion and VR) I use rf2! Thanks for the video, totally correct.

[@90AlmostFamous]

Arjan Kremer are Lobby lively in acc ?

[@arjankremer8229]

@@90AlmostFamous Could be better but for me lively enough. I am not fast, always in the middle of the pack..... I have 4 favourite tracks I choose from, with an SA as high as possible. (My SA is >90) What you will see that at Free practice there are not many players but at the end of quali most of the time there are enough cars. On the popular tracks! Sometimes it is horrible during the race, divebombs and accidents. But most of the time racing is fun. Last time I found a server with drivers of similar skills, after every race they changed track and sticked together, that was fun.

[@Unique_Racing]

RF2 is probably the best sim racing game right now 🤷‍♂️ I’ve had ACC since day one and as I noob I preferred ACC because the ease of use but once I got into sim racing heavy and been sim racing for a year now RF2 is my favorite of all of them, but when I want to have fun and not take racing 100% serious I play the original AC lol that game is still fun as hell 😂 have some crazy moments in that game and is probably the second most played sim racing game behind Iracing. ACC I have faith and is begetting better especially with David Pereal a you tuber and an actual real life driver that in the game is helping the company improve the feeling and FFB on the cars. Automobolista 2 idk need to figure out the FFB settings honestly because I keep losing control on every car 😂 i doubt I’m that bad but I can see that game being awesome eventually but not currently something I’d play over rf2

[@hivemind9000]

The first time I tried ACC the FFB felt awful with the default settings - I could hardly stay on the track. Did some digging in the forums specifically for my setup (Fanatec CSW) and after some tweaking it has been fantastic. I can really feel the road/car/suspension and the car telegraphs plenty when it's about to lose grip. I also have a buttkicker which helps convey a lot of information subliminally as well, so maybe that has something to do with it (plus a decent steering wheel with two FFB vibrators in it). Like night and day when compared to iRacing, but I would like to try RF2 after watching your vid (mainly just to see what the difference is - I still like the ACC online racing).

[@Fab_Rice]

Great content, and the small ear candy (aka Carpenter Brut :p )

[@trick6579]

Great Video, thanks for sharing 👍🏻