PC1 Project CARS at Brands Hatch (Video)

[Howard]

Slightly Mad Studios has released a short video showcasing the Brands Hatch track in their upcoming title, Project CARS.

The studio visited the Brands Hatch circuit in Kent, England. The developers and industry advisors chat about the title, gameplay, research and features of the game.

What do you think about Project CARS?

Project Cars launches on November 21st on PS4, Xbox ONE and PC. A WiiU version is planned for 2015.

For more on Project Cars make sure to check out the forum or share your latest photos and videos in our dedicated gallery.

 

[Chronus]

You misunderstood my post.

I too hope to see CARS become a great racing sim. There are signs that it may get there. To me, that's all that matters.

 

[William Wester]

You misunderstood my post.

I too hope to see CARS become a great racing sim. There are signs that it may get there. To me, that's all that matters.

I re-read your message, I may have misunderstood as you say. Seem like we are on the same page!

 

[Lesley Buurlage]

looks awesome, but pls at 2:38, its randstad xD

 

[Kevin Knorpp]

I will answer from my perspective so I will describe that perspective first:

While I strongly prefer online racing in theory, I have found offline racing to be far more rewarding in actuality.

I see racing a combo offline much like a puzzle ; a complex problem with many possible answers and many approaches to finding each answer. Simulation software gives me a laboratory in which I can bask in the endless and gloriously satisfying cycle of curiosity and testing.

I was only able to appreciate this perspective after developing my skills, knowledge and experience over several years ; often with serendipitous milestones in my sim racing career that were almost entirely accidental. 99% of "sim racers" will never understand what I understand and I probably understand < 0.001% of what there is to know.

Having said that, my primary sim is rFactor 2. There are two reasons for this:

The first is simple. Detail. A lap in rFactor 2 has more data points, options, challenges, decisions to make, you feel more. No two laps are the same and that is true even without all the variation of time, weather and real road dynamics.

The second reason is also simple. Fast, historic vehicles with manual transmissions and high power to grip ratios ; with the T280 at the helm easily producing enough speed to make even the largest-radius turns deadly and the fattest of rear tires smoke while also enough maneuverability to handle all but the very tightest of tracks.

I'm telling you all this because I believe pCars is going to suit >= 90% of "sim racers" very well even if it is not for me ; especially with a game controller. It's beautiful, tracks selection is excellent, loads of atmosphere, open structure vs. car collecting, plenty of insane vehicles to drive, cool community based inclusive and endearing development approach, etc.

 

[Kevin Knorpp]

Deleted sorry

 

[Chronus]

While I strongly prefer online racing in theory, I have found offline racing to be far more rewarding in actuality.

My way of thinking is almost similar to yours in that respect. I tend to regard online racing has pure competition - almost the same as with go-karts, put on racing gear, and you "test your mettle" against others (and your kart's as well). In the beginning, for instance with iRacing and LFS, it's not uncommon to feel an odd adrenaline rush just before green lights. Pure competition, with its pros and cons.

Offline is different (we could also look into what the target of "offline racing" really is, considering that iRacing offers test sessions (just you and you car) and FVA is nothing but you and your car). It's more personal. With or without AI.

With proper AI, offline races can be exciting, unpredictable and quite close to what we'd experience in a real race - without the aggravation of dumb moves by dumb people.

And it allows me to concentrate on aspects I tend to focus on with racing sims, all of which physics related.

The first is simple. Detail. A lap in rFactor 2 has more data points, options, challenges, decisions to make, you feel more. No two laps are the same and that is true even without all the variation of time, weather and real road dynamics.

The second reason is also simple. Fast, historic vehicles with manual transmissions and high power to grip ratios ; with the T280 at the helm easily producing enough speed to make even the largest-radius turns deadly and the fattest of rear tires smoke while also enough maneuverability to handle all but the very tightest of tracks.

More data points, etc...all very interesting, but...it's not difficult to show anyone that added complexity does not equal higher quality, higher accuracy or better precision.

You can have the simplest of models, and you can effectively model a system - what's more, you can use that model for prediction purposes.

Picking up your percentages...it is clear to a lot of us that that added complexity, the increased "data points", etc, does not translate linearly to a "better physics" or even a "better feel". Just because your model uses 74 equations and a ton of LUT's doesn't mean it's better than a mathematically "simpler" model, and I suspect most simracers will not care or appreciate the "fantastic" returns from such "beautiful" and apparently "complete" complexity. Distancing oneself from impressive claims resulting from "innovation" and "sophistication" is more than ever required from us.

I'm telling you all this because I believe pCars is going to suit >= 90% of "sim racers" very well even if it is not for me ; especially with a game controller.

Maybe you could clarify this "especially with a game controller". Is it in any way related to "dumbing down" physics for gamepads, or the apparent advantages gamepad users have over wheel&pedals users on console racing games?

 

[Kevin Knorpp]

What I mean by data points, decisions, etc. I mean from my driving perspective ; not literally. What I am saying is that regardless of sim is that the more complex a problem presented by a combo the better. Not feeling that from pCars but could be me not it.

Regarding controller I don't mean because physics but because FFB

My way of thinking is almost similar to yours in that respect. I tend to regard online racing has pure competition - almost the same as with go-karts, put on racing gear, and you "test your mettle" against others (and your kart's as well). In the beginning, for instance with iRacing and LFS, it's not uncommon to feel an odd adrenaline rush just before green lights. Pure competition, with its pros and cons.

Offline is different (we could also look into what the target of "offline racing" really is, considering that iRacing offers test sessions (just you and you car) and FVA is nothing but you and your car). It's more personal. With or without AI.

With proper AI, offline races can be exciting, unpredictable and quite close to what we'd experience in a real race - without the aggravation of dumb moves by dumb people.

And it allows me to concentrate on aspects I tend to focus on with racing sims, all of which physics related.



More data points, etc...all very interesting, but...it's not difficult to show anyone that added complexity does not equal higher quality, higher accuracy or better precision.

You can have the simplest of models, and you can effectively model a system - what's more, you can use that model for prediction purposes.

Picking up your percentages...it is clear to a lot of us that that added complexity, the increased "data points", etc, does not translate linearly to a "better physics" or even a "better feel". Just because your model uses 74 equations and a ton of LUT's doesn't mean it's better than a mathematically "simpler" model, and I suspect most simracers will not care or appreciate the "fantastic" returns from such "beautiful" and apparently "complete" complexity. Distancing oneself from impressive claims resulting from "innovation" and "sophistication" is more than ever required from us.



Maybe you could clarify this "especially with a game controller". Is it in any way related to "dumbing down" physics for gamepads, or the apparent advantages gamepad users have over wheel&pedals users on console racing games?

 

[Mark Quigley]

I think I understand what you mean Kevin but I experience the opposite in pcars.
I have not tried rF2 so can not comment.
I would call it "resolution" and imo I can feel pcars has a higher resolution that previous sims.
It's just little subtle details that come through, regardless of overall feeling I do feel little details coming through that I feel in real cars but is absent or less detailed in other sims.

 

[Chronus]

I think I understand what you mean Kevin[...]
It's just little subtle details that come through, regardless of overall feeling I do feel little details coming through that I feel in real cars but is absent or less detailed in other sims.

What "little" details "coming through" do you find in pCARS but absent from other sims?

What I mean by data points, decisions, etc. I mean from my driving perspective ; not literally. What I am saying is that regardless of sim is that the more complex a problem presented by a combo the better. Not feeling that from pCars but could be me not it.

Referring to "data points" but not literally...Hmmm...

RE: more complexity the better

things are more apparent than you realize. Hence the need to distance oneself from some claims of sophistication or novelty. No doubt, some will take most things at face value.

 

[Mark Quigley]

What "little" details "coming through" do you find in pCARS but absent from other sims?

How would I even begin to describe the subtle little things I feel?
I am not Michael Schumacher talking to his mechanics, I'm a random punter on the internet

Have you ever thought that you were doing exactly the same thing in exactly the same place every lap regardless of the differences lap to lap like previous corner exit speed makes no difference to your next brake marker even although you are carrying extra speed.
Sometimes I think I am driving a calculator where 1+1=2 thats what you get every time without fail.
Where in pcars it could be 1.016+1.290=2.306, next time it would be 1.25+1.01=2.26
How else can I put it, pcars feels very dynamic where other sims feel sterile to varying degrees.
You have more information to work with at any given time and perhaps saying "absent in other sims" was a mistake.
The "feelings" people feel while describing these things are almost impossible to describe in text on the internet, they are not obvious and everyone feels something different depending on their experience and perspective.

 

[Grega Zorc]

^^Hm, that sounds like my Iracing experience, where I had to arrive at each corner at exactly the correct speed. Anything above and i was out. Very frustrating. So I spent most of the time looking at speed to be just right, instead of paying attention to the traffic and racing.

But racing in AC is just pure poetry. You listen to the engine and tires, ffb matches that and you know by feel, how fast you can go. If I make a mistake I know exactly what I did wrong.

 

[Chronus]

^^Hm, that sounds like my Iracing experience, where I had to arrive at each corner at exactly the correct speed. Anything above and i was out. Very frustrating. So I spent most of the time looking at speed to be just right, instead of paying attention to the traffic and racing.

Was going to post something similar to what you wrote above - almost to a T.

But then...fortunately, DK changed the TM and in the last few months iR changed significantly and tires are finally tires. [Not spot on, not flawless...but believable, at least with a few cars.]

But racing in AC is just pure poetry. You listen to the engine and tires, ffb matches that and you know by feel, how fast you can go. If I make a mistake I know exactly what I did wrong.

Fortunately, my experiences/work (physics wise) with 3 different physics engines have allowed me access to the "poetry" you experience with AC.

You and @Mark Quigley describe in similar ways experiences with 2 different "next gen" simulators. All good, but somewhat unfortunate because these other "old" sims offer the same experience (from a technical POV, on one hand, and judging from the reactions of others, from a "feel" POV as well) as your "next gen" sims.

That is the point some devs don't want to see discussed: from the perspective of physics, mathematics and algorithms, what some of the "non next gen" game engines offer is every bit (literally) as good as novel sims. You do have to invest a very large amount of time to get the best out of them, true, but the potential is there.

So, why didn't "devs" take the most from those "old" platforms?

Ask them.

---

Hence why I ask people to step back, take in a lot of information and not simply swallow what some clever dev/marketing head/CFO/CEO/PR guy/gal tells the world.

Think about Greenawalt's relentless focus on realism to "sell, sell, sell":

it’s the tyres where we’re not just on the cutting edge of racing simulation, we’re on the cutting edge of tyre science.
[...]
It means a car comes to life. It’s just more alive. And that’s what Forza is about. We want to bring physics that a race car driver can appreciate and put it in the hands of a five-year-old.

If you think this level of hype is particular to console "gaming" and FM5, think again.

Step back, seek info (GB's of it, year after year) and judge for yourselves.

 

[Mark Quigley]

Fortunately, my experiences/work (physics wise) with 3 different physics engines have allowed me access to the "poetry" you experience with AC.

This would give you a very different perspective than most here.
I remember years ago getting into music production and from that day on the music I liked would be analysed in detail, I would listen for folks using preset synth patches and laugh, or drum loops unaltered from sample cd's. Music was no longer enjoyable because I understood how it was produced.
If you say pcars should not be different as technically it is not different to older sims then I have to take your word for it as I know bugger all about physics engines.

I don't know what, how, where or why I feel something extra in pcars, I just know I do, it might just be the tire model, the ffb, it might be a combination of a few things, I just want them to do more of it.

I'm doing my best to describe something when I just wish I could point to it and say "that thing there, I like that, that is good"

 

[Chronus]

I'm doing my best to describe something when I just wish I could point to it and say "that thing there, I like that, that is good"

I believe you do. And to some extent, I can empathize with your perspective.

Music was no longer enjoyable because I understood how it was produced.

Hmmm...As I may be misunderstanding the true meaning of the above, I will just say this: understanding how the sim works (at whatever level: code, vars in process memory, physics calibration, telemetry) and "injecting" the data you have into it, makes it worthwhile and even more enjoyable.

I admit it does take away some of the mystery in it. [Example, a known programmer and someone behind one of the best simulation systems around, instantly recognizing (from a few moments experience) the quality of the extrapolation in use in a sim... ]

If you say pcars should not be different as technically it is not different to older sims then I have to take your word for it as I know bugger all about physics engines.

Actually, I said this:
"from the perspective of physics, mathematics and algorithms, what some of the "non next gen" game engines offer is every bit (literally) as good as novel sims."

All underlying physics in current sims revolve around similar principles. FFB discussions/issues for some (dubious) reason clouds that, but nevertheless, that's the basic truth.

Anyway, with its stunning visuals (in my opinion, even better than GT6 or FM5), it would be (will be...) fantastic to see CARS have great physics (and AI).

 

[Mark Quigley]

I think a better way of putting it, for you and your experience with physics engines, the illusion is just that but for us mere mortals it's all just black magic, hocus pocus and voodoo that makes these games. When bugs pop up while playing like falling through the track, it ruins the immersion but for you it is just a bug as you can already see through the illusion.

Music not being enjoyable is not accurate but enjoyment has changed and not always for the better . I asked this as I was trying to find out if the same applies to understanding and enjoyment of games especially sims where what is going on in the background is just as important as what you see on screen.

Actually, I said this:
"from the perspective of physics, mathematics and algorithms, what some of the "non next gen" game engines offer is every bit (literally) as good as novel sims."

With the exception of FFB (basically, just a layer between the player and the physics engine), all underlying physics revolve around similar principles.

For the sake of not spending my life on the internet I reduced that to "technically no different"
Yep, numbers are numbers and nobody can claim intellectual ownership physics, mathematics and algorithms therefore all developers have access to and use the same erm.....things, ask me anything about the details on this and I will look at you will a vacant stare with a little drool coming out of the side of my mouth, I may even make a grunting noise

We all have the same bodies and minds with some exceptions, some of us manage to make better use of our facilities than others. Even some of us less able manage to do more than able bodied people.
It's not what you got but how you swing it.

 

[Chronus]

And swing away Merrill did.

I believe I get what you mean (slow mode here... ).

I would suggest reading/watching physicist Brian Beckman on game physics to have a glimpse on how things in this arena are done. [And then...there are licensing issues, expected machine specs of the target audiences, the commercial and information agreements with tire and car makers...all of which complicate matters beyond the beauty and simplicity of numbers and physics.]

Regarding music...

A dear friend of mine (one of the founders of a known german black metal band) showed me the tip of the iceberg of music editing (the sound mixes, the different ways different sound frequencies have to be employed, the tricks with the "rough" lead vocals and whatnot). All curious stuff, as close to black magic as possible to me...the kind of stuff you "have no idea" of, the kind of stuff dangling back and forth between sound engineering things and arty, exotic, eccentric matters.

I never looked at Black Metal the same way since.

 

[Eckhart von Glan]

possibly one of the most poetic threads on racing games ever

 

[John Oliver]

No such thing as a simulator and anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves.
You drive a real car the same way people control there wheel in iracing for example they will crash on the first corner or as soon as they spin the wheel left and right fast to control a spin lol.....
A game wheel will never replace Gforce and the seat of your pant control.
Sims and people who think there driving as good as the real racers are dreaming and will be amazed just how different it is.
So pls no more sim talk because your kidding yourself.

Anyway did a quick vid of this game.
enjoy

the water relfections are some of the worst ive seen,and why is the car pulling always to the left like that?

 

[Pucky Loucks]

Hey gang, I just spent a few min testing the Formula C which I have to say is the best feeling physics I've ever felt. The force feed back in the wheel for this car is amazing. The Stig (Ben Collins) was doing the physics and handing QA on this car a couple of weeks ago. I couldn't believe the feeling of this car. I just got a motion rig and I'm starting to think that we really are closer than we've ever been to Nirvana. Debating sim physics without motion doesn't seem like a valid debate. (Just my 2 cents)

Here a short video (before my over clocked video card packed it in)

Oh and the odd colouring is the Oculous Rift chromatic aberration, you don't see it when looking through the lens.

 

[John Oliver]

Hey gang, I just spent a few min testing the Formula C which I have to say is the best feeling physics I've ever felt. The force feed back in the wheel for this car is amazing. The Stig (Ben Collins) was doing the physics and handing QA on this car a couple of weeks ago. I couldn't believe the feeling of this car. I just got a motion rig and I'm starting to think that we really are closer than we've ever been to Nirvana. Debating sim physics without motion doesn't seem like a valid debate. (Just my 2 cents)

Here a short video (before my over clocked video card packed it in)

Oh and the odd colouring is the Oculous Rift chromatic aberration, you don't see it when looking through the lens.

it looks very awkward to drive like that,not realistic looking at all.the way the track tilts in games with look to apex always seems so wrong.