ive just watched this video, and have a general feeling about the wheelo lock in GSC, doesn't it look too much in this radical??
http://www.racedepartment.com/media/videos/lime-rock-mountain-radical-sr3-divers-view-gsce.4201/
1.) Yes, I've also noticed in some other videos of GSC where there seems to be too much lock allowed in the driving. Maybe it's not a physics issue but just a player using too slow a rack (combination of real-life wheel's lock and in-game car's lock), but those same videos often look correct at times in terms of the steering lock, so how could it be sometimes seemingly correct and other times seemingly incorrect? Is it a physics issue that is allowing/requiring too much lock from the car at certain times (bui at other times the amount of lock seems just fine and not too slow)??
Perfect example
Sometimes the amount of lock required looks great, but other times it looks "off". There seems to be way too many corners, especially mid and high speed, where the car requires 90 degrees, even beyond 90 degress, of steering lock. It just looks way too slow for those type of high speed corners, but then at lower speeds and when correcting oversteer it looks pretty good. It's like the car allows you to crank in a ton of lock at mid to high speeds without causing too much slip. Seems odd.
I own GSC and sometimes I feel this, but other times I feel it's all in my head. It's really hard to get a grasp on. Is it just the steering rack settings of the player or is it something in the Reiza/ISI physics/tyre modelling?
I have also noticed this in some mods for rF1, and some cars that don't seem to suffer from this then seem to suffer from other problems like just being too overly twitchy and darty. It seems to always be some sort of compromise when getting the best out of the rF1 tyres. Fix/hide one thing, but then something else shows it's head.
2.) I don't notice this much, if at all, in rF2, regardless of car, mod, etc. I do feel though that rF2 sometimes has something off with the amount of steering lock required to save a bigger oversteer moment. It sometimes seems to need less correction lock than you think/feel. For example, you get the rear out and as you are correcting you feel as if you need about 75 degrees of lock to fully save the slide and stop the rear rotation, however once you get to just the 50 degree mark the slide becomes saved and you start the returning-steering-back-to-centre phase. If you use a slower steering rack than the amount of oversteer correction lock feels spot on but as a consequence the rest of the driving now has a slightly too slow steering rack. Overall it's much, much improved from rF1/GSC, it's only some bigger oversteer moments here and there now.
3.) Having said all that, and to answer the threads question...
Game Stock Car is AMAZING. The overall dynamics and feel of GSC are great. Please support these guys. Formula Truck is great too. The package and price of GSC, not to mention the support and passion of Reiza are phenomenal. They are so committed to the pure simulation aspect. I'm so happy they got a guy like Niels who seems to be all about pure physics and FFB, with the rest being a million miles away (graphics, real logos lol, etc.). He is, no-nonsense, trying to give us the technically best and purest driving experience possible.
Watch this amazing video. Notice it is 99.9999% about the pure gameplay itself. It's all about the actual driving experience AKA the vehicle dynamics, the FFB, the technical design of the car's physics, driving technique, etc. etc. This is a "proper" guy when it comes to physics development and I'm so happy he is head of physics for one of our sims.
This guy has probably the best sim-racing videos on all of youtube, PERIOD. He deserves many more views.
There is one area where, to me, GSC is much superior to rF2: the fact that I can edit the FFB values (a result from using a pre-rF2 ISI engine) to exactly how I want it. Having the freedom to customize the FFB in order for you to feel the car the way you think you should and in a way that helps make up for sitting at a desk behind a computer screen (rather than being forced to just go by steering rack forces) is a must in my opinion. I can still manage to get faster laptimes, go off track less, get up to the limit quicker, lap more consistently, and know what I need out of the car (either technique or setup wise), better in GSC and anything rF1 based than in rF2 solely due to the fact that I can get edit how the physics, and what the car is doing, translates into FFB, where in rF2 you are more or less stuck with what you got. It's a shame because the rF2 physics engine is superior to GSC's/rF1's.
4.) P.S.
One more thing about Reiza. Perhaps the most important thing. They are developing plugins that actually (I believe) affect/change the core physics and tyre model of rF1 (or add to it, or..whatever, you get the point, lol).
This can be thought of more of a core physics/tyre model update, rather than just editing numbers and plugging in different numbers for your rF1 mod. I'm pretty sure no rF1 mod has ever had this done to it's physics.
Once this gets implemented, you then cannot consider GSC just an rF1 mod, as the physics/tyre model plugins will be affecting the physics on levels that cannot be done by just plugging in different numbers to your mod. I am so glad they are sticking with the ISI engine (although rF2 would be even better) due to the magic fidelity and depth that the ISI engine portrays. There is never a feeling of dullness or simplicity in the ISI engines' physics, even if technically the rF1 engine may not be the most up to date and technically supreme as the rF2 engine or other engines. The vehicle dynamics in the ISI engines always seem alive, raw, and reactive to every little input/output, and that cannot be said about every modern, newer-than-rF1 sim engine (even if they are better in other areas).
.