Post by tomlory on Dec 31, 2022 22:34:55 GMT
I ended up getting ACC for free as part of the glitch that I am having with my Logitech G Pro wheel.
I haven't spent much time with ACC but I think it's enough to report some observations.
Considering only road courses, there seems to be more base content tracks or at least world renowned ones.
ACC base content is a bunch of GT3 cars, that's it.
Paid content is lower cost than iRacing.
Paid content doesn't have the variety of disciplines.
At my graphics settings if not the highest settings, the graphics are not any better than with iRacing but lower framerate. There are ACC screens that are real world videos and pics that are, of course, real life appearing, 'cuz they are.
I believe that iRacing tracks are as accurately depicted as possible. If iRacing's Spa is accurate, then ACC's isn't, for example.
ACC has crashed about 50% of the time when starting a new session.
I've learned that feel through the wheel is influenced by what we're used to. Trying to have an open mind, I'd say it's about a tie but if I had to choose between one and the other, I'd take iRacing's feedback. ACC probably has more adjustability, I'm pretty sure I saw I saw settings that we just don't have in the iRacing UI. I recently was made aware of the iRFFB plugin which could definitively raise iRacing's feel, fwiw.
My overall impression is that if ACC was the only sim, notwithstanding the regular CTDs, then it would be satisfying enough but iRacing is the best, we are definitely getting our money's worth, especially if you are at semi-serious about simulating a real world club level or higher racing effort or track days where in reality most of us could only campaign one car; a variety of cars is nice but who has time to bond with more than one or two during a season?
I'm certain that it wouldn't changed anything as far as the end of our organized Efnet racing but it does seem like maybe ACC could have kept us chugging along a little longer than rF2 did. I believe that rF2 was better for our needs at the time but I'm guessing ACC ascended while rF2 descended.
I haven't spent much time with ACC but I think it's enough to report some observations.
Considering only road courses, there seems to be more base content tracks or at least world renowned ones.
ACC base content is a bunch of GT3 cars, that's it.
Paid content is lower cost than iRacing.
Paid content doesn't have the variety of disciplines.
At my graphics settings if not the highest settings, the graphics are not any better than with iRacing but lower framerate. There are ACC screens that are real world videos and pics that are, of course, real life appearing, 'cuz they are.
I believe that iRacing tracks are as accurately depicted as possible. If iRacing's Spa is accurate, then ACC's isn't, for example.
ACC has crashed about 50% of the time when starting a new session.
I've learned that feel through the wheel is influenced by what we're used to. Trying to have an open mind, I'd say it's about a tie but if I had to choose between one and the other, I'd take iRacing's feedback. ACC probably has more adjustability, I'm pretty sure I saw I saw settings that we just don't have in the iRacing UI. I recently was made aware of the iRFFB plugin which could definitively raise iRacing's feel, fwiw.
My overall impression is that if ACC was the only sim, notwithstanding the regular CTDs, then it would be satisfying enough but iRacing is the best, we are definitely getting our money's worth, especially if you are at semi-serious about simulating a real world club level or higher racing effort or track days where in reality most of us could only campaign one car; a variety of cars is nice but who has time to bond with more than one or two during a season?
I'm certain that it wouldn't changed anything as far as the end of our organized Efnet racing but it does seem like maybe ACC could have kept us chugging along a little longer than rF2 did. I believe that rF2 was better for our needs at the time but I'm guessing ACC ascended while rF2 descended.
