I've seen many evangelists and perhaps even the developers themselves refer to Project C.A.R.S. as a "sim" or "simulator". Normally this term is used to describe software that tries to mimic reality. There is nothing wrong with arcade racers so why not just call the game by its real name and stop trying to advertise it as something it's not? There's no shame in admitting that Project C.A.R.S. doesn't try to be realistic. There's a big market for this type of game, even bigger so than for the niche sims, so please stop trying to fool people and aim for your target audience instead.
PC1 False advertising
- Thread starter Björn Spindel
- Start date
Im thinking that steering precision is crucial for any game, either it be sim or otherwise. FFB seems to me like it is the most subjective parameter in any driving game and wery dependable to the core, the physics.
my wonder is that is there any way to really measure, empirically, wich game is more sim than eny one else?!
I think Chronus can chime in with his views on the objective nature of sim physics, but there's also the fact that most sims basically feel the same to some degree, whereas most simcades are piss easy to drive and very forgiving in most cases.
All sims come with a learning curve, once you've gotten past this learning curve, your sim skills are transferable, but there's a difficulty curve that can bite if you haven't played for a while, however, if you play regularly, the best sim cars are easy to drive at a good solid pace.
I'm not an advocate of extreme difficulty equates to hyper realism btw.
I find these statements interesting because in terms of reality FFB should get the lowest possible score, ie., not realistic.Turn off FFB then tell me that there is much of a difference between GTR2, rFactor, GTR Evo, etc. I think that NKPro and LFS feel different due to their tire models but are they really more accurate? If so, how do you know and by how much?
Physics are impossible for most of us to accurately assess because of the lack of firsthand knowledge of how the actual car handles. So with the exception of grossly inaccurate behavior it is difficult to say how well a car in a sim models the car that it represents in real life.
I don't have F1 2011 so I have to ask, What is it about the steering that makes it so bad?
bah, don't you guys ever think about what a sim is trying to accomplish?
The FFB has to provide us info so as to guide the car relative to grip levels as that's the only feel we have, it's not like being in a real car where the entire body is receiving input.
As for F1 2011, I can't get rid of horrible low speed feeling without hurting high speed steering.
Don't think anyone knows, don't think anyone's ever claimed with utter certainty that one physics model is vastly superior to another in the case of the established sims vs other established sims, however, when you include FFB[something you're eager to exclude}, the better sims show their merit.
The thing about FFB is that it is subjective and not really representative of real life. You can say that the FFB is great in sim x and someone else will say that it isn't. What non-subjective issue can anyone point to in order to prove their point? So considering the purely subjective qualities and lack of realism in regards to FFB, how can it possibly be used as way to judge the fidelity of a sim?
Translates as "I don't own a car".
I'd be surprised if you owned a car or ever drove a muscle car for example based on what you've said.
FFB is not subjective.
The FFB is not objectively in real life but only the FFB steering wheel trasmits car's movements.
There is no way in the simulation to transmit car's movements.
The FFB can be more or less strong, but there must be, and must have felt in the same way.
The same is true for physics.
The FFB is not objectively in real life but only the FFB steering wheel trasmits car's movements.
There is no way in the simulation to transmit car's movements.
The FFB can be more or less strong, but there must be, and must have felt in the same way.
The same is true for physics.
I'm sorry but the inside sim racing sim index is a joke. We all have our biases and ISR are no different. They are biased. And what makes them qualified to pronounce on things like physics? Nothing. I've seen them give high marks to an rFactor mod where the physics was miles out.
They came up with this measuring system but shock horror iRacing didn't come out on top. So guess what? They changed the scoring so that AI was omitted. Hey presto - iRacing now comes out top. So sims do not have AI? Isn't it important that AI simulates real drivers. If you have an F1 sim and Vettel always comes last there is something seriously wrong. But on-line code is included. So you can't have a sim that doesn't have on-line racing? Why is on-line racing important for a rally sim?
Nobody would disagree with you on this matter.
It's a index created by ISR altogether. It can be altered, modified and whatever else as long as it is explained by ISR. You can accept or reject it. But as you have shown, you can't ignore it.
However it is their responsibility, and this is important, that they keep following their set standards and definitions when measuring their index. This is what makes them credible or not.
Of course, part of ISR is advertising iRacing; someone must be blind and deaf to not notice that. Therefore, their instruments may be shifted towards being iRacing friendly. Keep in mind that they are operating on the commercial market, having the iRacing lobby on their back.
You can't expect something completely unbiased. Nowhere.
It's a index created by ISR altogether. It can be altered, modified and whatever else as long as it is explained by ISR. You can accept or reject it. But as you have shown, you can't ignore it.
However it is their responsibility, and this is important, that they keep following their set standards and definitions when measuring their index. This is what makes them credible or not.
Of course, part of ISR is advertising iRacing; someone must be blind and deaf to not notice that. Therefore, their instruments may be shifted towards being iRacing friendly. Keep in mind that they are operating on the commercial market, having the iRacing lobby on their back.
You can't expect something completely unbiased. Nowhere.
I don't know what is the "basic consensus", can only tell you a few things, if I may.
Beginning with something someone said above (I think Kevin Jay):
"Physics are impossible for most of us to accurately assess because of the lack of firsthand knowledge of how the actual car handles."
Physics, whether it be that of flight simulations or that of racing sims, is a complex subject. As I said to jgf at NG recently, though, anyone who wills himself/herself to study the underlying physics can understand what goes on and easily perceive if a racing sim has it right or not - in terms of physical realism.
Kevin above mixes two concepts which are different and should not be mixed: physics and "how the actual car handles".
How a car handles is the result of physics, yes, but to a large extent of setups. You can ruin a perfectly good car with a bad setup, and you can compensate (to some extent) design flaws with proper setups. No way around this: setups, being the result of the interaction of team engineers and pilot (with or without analysis of telemetry), are of vital importance in determining how a car handles.
Knowing how a car "handles" is, therefore, best conveyed by someone who actually has or has had the chance to drive it. I'm thinking about drivers such as Ben Collins or Tanner Foust who have had the opportunity of driving dozens of cars, some of them professionally, but any driver with experience should be able to elaborate on how the car "handles".
The Physics of a car (aerodynamics, chassis, tires) is assessed through telemetry and equations (models) with or without the help of specific software (think about CFD models or tire models run with a variety of software and in different platforms).
Knowing how a car handles has a human element to it, the engineering/physics of a car does not.
Now, people may say "realism encompasses physics and car handling", to which I say no, not true. Car Handling is variable, as it depends on setups; one team sets up the Ferrari 458 with a slight understeer, another team sets its 458 up a bit oversteery and yet another team sets its 458 up to "feel" neutral. Different teams, different setups, different handling. Which are you, as a developer going to model? Better yet, which is the realistic 458? Probably none, probably all, it depends.
With that in mind, we should be able to cast aside definitely the Big Myth ("if you haven't driven a car in real life you can't tell if the simulated car is realistic or not").
-
Addressing Klazerman's "basic concept" of "a sim [...] has to be hard to control"...
No. At all. I have been arguing against that for years now. While it is irrelevant who started this absurd notion, fact is a lot simracers think that way, the public at large thinks that way (remember Jeremy Clarkson's introduction to Greger Huttu's prowess with iRacing: "the fiendishly difficult simulator") , therefore many a developer went down that avenue, often "forcing" the simulation physics to be "difficult", "hard", because otherwise the target audience might reject the sim as being arcade.
No. My own limited experience with real life racing drivers gives me a few pointers about what racing is and driving a race car is.
They (pro drivers) make their living this way, they have to be competitive. They have to give it all and demand it all from a car. This alone means they will be frequently driving on the limits.
Driving on the limits, so they tell me, is not hard because the car will lose traction inexplicably at any time (low speed, high speed, low load, high load). It is hard because it is hard work the whole time, because it is physically exhausting, because it requires a lot of concentration to find that small piece of Heaven which is maximum grip and good, natural handling. It is hard because they know they are pushing, they know some components don't last the whole race (sometimes not even part of a stint) and they can (a) lose time in corners or pits, (b)lose the car (engine compromised, suspension damage, ECU probs), (c)seriously compromise budgets if something goes catastrophically wrong and they crash a car.
Race Cars, nowadays, often have good aerodynamics packages, which provide high downforce at a "minimum" cost of drag. They're also served with composite materials which make them lighter and more manoeverable; they're also fit with light and resistant engines; large tires made from rubber compounds which provide dramatic adhesion and good resistance to wear and temperatures.
There is a MASSIVE AMOUNT OF GRIP available in these cars. Dave Basu, pro racing driver (still competes at Dutch Supercar Challenge, Bram probably knows if it is so) in early 2011 at iRacing forums said that the real Corvette C6r (which he used to drive) was "very stable", "very much planted", "drives as if on rails". That was a GT3 C6r, if I recall correctly.
Stable. Planted. Drives as if on rails.
I have been told the same over and over by these guys. I have read the same impressions by the likes of Oliver Gavin or Tommy Milner.
The key is then, and has always been, how that grip builds up, how it can be kept and how it is lost.
For that we have different models as most of you know, from the Fiala and Pacejka ones, to more physical, transient ones (what Stefano, Gjon and Dave call "more dynamic models").
Which model we use is irrelevant, though. The objective is the same: provide grip where grip is due. No more, no less.
Sorry guys for the long winded post.
It's all about grip in a racing sim because it's all about grip in the real world. Great post.
Nice post Chronus. I've always found most sims to lack that feeling of grip compared to real life race cars on fat slicks. Was in a F430 on a track day at Silverstone a few months ago when I made a very careful mental note of how the car felt to drive at various points on the track surface. It honestly felt very close to the level -- and most importantly feel -- of grip in pCARS. Same too in the Aston GT4 last year at Brands. I agree that the Corvette in iRacing should feel like it should have much more grip. I don't think that means that the NTM is wrong for the car (MoTeC doesn't lie and all the graphs correlate in iRacing) -- I think the problem is that it is not being conveyed properly to the player in the FFB for whatever reason. I also think S2U feels very very good at the wheel (albeit it with a few mods installed) --> nice feeling of plant and grip/no grip transition. There are issues elsewhere with the TM and I think they are well documented but the feeling of grip is the most important thing. The holy grail is to get the correctly behaving NTM correctly feeding back to the player via the FFB.
I was careful not to say they were biased because of the iRacing sponsorship. As I said, we are all biased. This bias will come from our previous experience - the games we have played in the past and where we live - the race series which interest us. There is a big gap between the US and Europe in terms of motorsport and this is reflected in racing sims. Simbin games have not sold well in the US and NASCAR games have not sold well in Europe. So just being from the US will bias you towards iRacing because you'll probably have "grown up" with Papyrus games and iRacing was initially very US centric in terms of content. Not that there is anything wrong with this - Simbin have always been very Euro-centric. But I stronly suspect a European based review team would give European developers a higher profile and iRacing a lower profile.
Where "sponsorship" may affect their biasing is their sim racing equipment. Maybe I'm out of touch but I'd be surprised if triple screens, racing rigs and £400 racing wheels are really typical of the average sim racer. They recently marked a console game down because it didn't support a £400 wheel. I have to take a deep breath to spend £150 on a wheel for my £500 PC. How many people buy a console for £200 and then buy a wheel for it for £400?
But... it's the official PlayStation wheel or something, and a PlayStation game doesn't support it. That is weird.
Latest News
-
2023 Racing Series Officially in Sim RacingThere are so many sim racing games out there aiming to recreate official real-world racing...- Angus Martin
- Updated:
- 6 min read
-
Most Played Racing Games On Steam In April 2024Spring has arrived in most of the Northern Hemisphere, and it shows in the player numbers of...- Yannik Haustein
- Updated:
- 3 min read
-
2024 Formula One Miami Grand PrixFrom new liveries to groundbreaking team personal changes, here's everything that's gone down in...- Connor Minniss
- Updated:
- 3 min read
-
2003 NASCAR Cup Cars Scanned For iRacingDale Earnhardt Jr. Has been at it again, teasing future iRacing content that will bring those...- Thomas Harrison-Lord
- Updated:
- 2 min read
-
Automobilista 2: 2024 F1 Liveries For New F-Ultimate Gen 2 CompleteJust in time for the 2024 Miami Grand Prix, the current season's liveries for the reworked...
- Yannik Haustein
- Updated:
- 2 min read
-
PISTA Motorsport: New Dev Log Announces Early Access, Confirms ModsPISTA Motorsport developer REG Simulations is back with another dev log for their project...
- Yannik Haustein
- Updated:
- 3 min read
-
World of Outlaws: Dirt Racing 24 is iRacing’s Dirt Oval SequelA sequel to the critically well-received World of Outlaws: Dirt Racing will slide into view this...
- Thomas Harrison-Lord
- Updated:
- 2 min read