And here comes the final part of the article on laser scanning of racing circuits for use in driving simulators.
It’s important to understand that conducting the topographic survey of a circuit is one thing, while completing its digital model and integrating it into a simulator is another. The rendering of its surfaces, its appearance, the modeling of buildings and vegetation, lighting effects, the varying grip levels of the track, its physics, weather conditions, the algorithms calculating the car’s responses and interactions with the circuit, etc. From this perspective, capturing points with laser scanning (LS) is merely the initial phase of a far more complex project involving many other disciplines. Therefore, it’s logical that those responsible for these tasks adapt the methods and systems they use to their requirements and possibilities, as well as their human and financial resources. The purpose of the simulator is key here: it’s not the same if it’s designed for a console as a game or if it aims to be a professional training system geared toward traditional or online competition. However, the conditions imposed by each circuit also play a significant role, as halting the regular activity of a circuit like Nürburgring Nordschleife might not be feasible due to the economic losses it would entail.
The acquisition of a Static LS device can cost an average of around €45,000, while a complete Mobile LS system is around €250,000, but both can yield excellent or mediocre results from a topographic perspective depending on who uses them and how. Naturally, the cost of outsourcing one system or the other also varies, depending on what is intended to be achieved.
What I’d like to make clear with all this is that a Mobile LS system, with “four cameras on the roof and a GPS antenna,” by itself doesn’t provide the millimeter precision some claim, even though LS in specific instances can. A mobile system requires other complementary elements that are equally essential to ensure that topographic accuracy. Project managers should provide the simracing community with more data—not everything, but more than they currently announce—if they want us to fairly assess what they’re offering. Having circuits topographically surveyed with this technology allows the creation of 3D models capable of providing the necessary data to faithfully reproduce the circuit’s topography and geometry, as well as its immediate surroundings: the turning radii of its curves, its longitudinal and transverse slopes, asphalt irregularities, track widenings or asymmetries, runoff areas, the height and shape of curbs, etc., all perfectly positioned in their true dimensions and locations along each section of the track.
Conclusions
What do we consider the most substantial and interesting aspect of all this? It’s the emphasis on making the virtual experience as close as possible to the real one—not just aesthetically, but in a formal, metric sense, which is critical when simulator managers aim to create not only an online competition platform but also a training tool for professional drivers. For the latter, it’s crucial that the virtual circuit where they train certain aspects of their preparation is as faithful as possible to the reality they’ll later face.
Today, a 3D topographic survey of a circuit can be approached in three ways: 1) using “classic” topographic methods; 2) with static LS; 3) with mobile LS. In practice, these methods can complement each other—which is often the case—but these would be the three independent approaches, so to speak, that we could consider if we’re seeking a proper topographic survey of a circuit. The first method, the “classic” one, is highly precise, but the data is discrete (not continuous) and operationally slower and more labor-intensive. The second method, static LS, offers excellent precision and geometric control with a great cost/effort/time ratio, though it may be less practical if temporarily closing the circuit is a critical issue. The third, mobile LS, is undoubtedly the ideal choice in this field due to its speed, especially if closing the circuit is unfeasible. But beware! This is only true if it’s done with perfectly equipped and calibrated systems; otherwise, the resulting topography will have errors, gaps, or missing points in the point cloud, uncertainty ranges, and unacceptable misalignments from a technical topographic standpoint. Of course, these issues can be masked or corrected during modeling, but this brings us to one of the key points of this article: does it matter if a track section has a 6% slope instead of 7.5%? Or is it important if a post or a wall step is 1 meter before or after its actual location? If the simulator is aimed at gaming, it probably doesn’t matter: these are the games we all know, focusing more on the car’s interior or the sun’s glare on the asphalt than on simulation and competition itself. Mind you, we’re not criticizing this—far from it—we’re simply pointing out that it’s a different approach from the one this article aims to address. If, however, the simulator targets a different profile and audience, then it might matter. We must understand that a circuit’s base topography is done once, and it typically doesn’t change substantially over a relatively long period. Resurfacing or track treatments usually don’t alter the base topography significantly. Thus, it’s reasonable to expect a serious simulator to seek rigorous topography to provide a solid foundation for its development.
Of course, we understand all this in its proper measure. We’re not talking about building the Channel Tunnel here—simulators aren’t civil engineering projects where errors could endanger people’s safety. However, iRacing recognized this need and found a suitable technical solution that brought that topographic rigor to the point clouds of its circuits. In my opinion, this makes their approach very clear. Perhaps this is also why their policy is based on a membership, service, and licensing system with a longer-term focus, rather than the conventional model. And here we come to the price of the circuits that gives this article its title. My interpretation is that iRacing doesn’t see circuits as mere inert “game pieces” but as a service offered to its clients with the ambition of being good not just in form but in substance. That’s why they’ve bothered to publicize this work—because they want people to appreciate what’s behind those $14.95.
Undoubtedly, iRacing has made a strong, seemingly discreet bet, but one that’s thoroughly professional and rigorous at its core, designed to position itself as a leader in simulation in this aspect as well, showing everyone the way forward in circuit creation and offering its simracing clients—and the professional drivers who use its platform to train—a top-tier applied topographic engineering solution, aimed at serving both traditional and online training and competition.
We would have loved to discuss rFactor2’s circuits, but we couldn’t obtain any information about them. It’s undoubtedly one of the best simulators of the moment in terms of physics—if not the best—but we reiterate, we lack information on how they’ve surveyed the circuits included in their platform. They may not have used LS but rather other topographic methods. Without data, there’s nothing more we can add.
All that said, we must acknowledge that the level of detail and quality of the circuits we’re enjoying right now is spectacular. It’s an exciting time in this regard, and virtual reality, fueled by these 3D environments, further enhances the driver’s experience and immersion level. But precisely because of this, it also demands better topographic surveys and greater geometric rigor, which is why we hope for even better developments, more quality and rigor, and, of course, more information, so we can properly evaluate each product.
The question now is, do you still think $14.95 is a lot of money? Honestly, I don’t, especially since it’s a one-time purchase that gives us access to true technological gems.
Author’s Note
I’m not part of the consulting team for these projects, so obviously, I don’t know what might be behind all of them. I’ve tried to provide a constructive analysis, emphasizing above all the type of approach I consider correct. I’ve relied on my personal experience as a simracing user, my technical knowledge, and the data I’ve been able to gather and analyze.
Links Mentioned or of Interest
Article written by Francisco Corredera.
http://www.geocobet.com/