Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Stock Car Extreme' started by Heitor Facuri Cicoti, Jan 25, 2016.
The video speaks for itself.
When I saw Rubens in a sim I instantly noticed it'd be SCE.
I have no idea who that BRK guy is tho, I don't really get the whole "youtuber" thing
The G29 is beautiful
What did they say?
The important parts were:
Guest - Does it really remind you a real Stock Car?
RB - Yes. But the Stock Car is a bit hotter. Here we have some wind.
Guest - This sim is very impressive... It is, by far, the best sim I've ever driven!
Apparently the guest is someone with lots of view on Youtube and they talked about how good SCE is.
I like Rubens, always did.
But race drivers since aeons try to tell us how realistic a sim or sim racing equipment is, and yet when somebody speaks up who's not under contract with a sim or hardware producer, you'll hear that no sim ever will be able to give you the required feedback (except you're a real enthusiast and install a ten thousands $ sim racing cockpit in your home to simulate G forces and vibrations)
Guess as Reiza has the license to use real Stock Car names they could put anybody in front of the camera to talk about how cool GSCE is, but of course, if you can get Rubens, you take Rubens
A sim needs to give a realistic feedback of how the car behaves. All the g force thing is not needed for this so on the car behavior alone a real life driver can tell if it is like the real thing or not. Plus you can't really simulate a race car g force no matter what, it's not possible to simulate the constant acceleration of a corner @ Texas speedway by simply tilting your chair
That's my point.
Right, reading over it again i should have phrased the part with the sim cockpit differently, but excuse my sloppyness, i'm on painkillers
You don't need proper feedback to make the perfect sim. Unless you get down to things like quantum mechanics (and maybe even that isn't an exception, who knows) then things are quantifiable. Sure, you won't get as many sensations helping but from a purely vehicle dynamics and kinematics point of view (driver aside), you should be able to get what any human would perceive as spot on physics. Unfortunately we're not even close to that yet as no game in any genre obviously has perfect physics. We're not even close to that in my opinion, some proof of this is the fact that IR, RF2, LFS, NKP, SCE, AC, PC, R3E, KRP, WRS, etc. all behave/drive quite differently from each other (some similarities especially between games based on, or that have evolved from, similar physics engines but even those games are still different thanks to physics engine code changes/replacements). You don't need driver feel to quantifiably view/edit/analyze data (let alone when one can see odd/wrong behaviors which don't even need data because they are so obvious from just visually observing how the physics behave like nothing in reality).
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, in my opinion, the lack of feedback simdrivers feel compared to real-life drivers should have no bearing on how good/accurate/realistic a vehicle physics engine should be able to perform vehicle dynamics and kinematics. Instead, it's all to do with engineers/scientists/programmers ever improving their physics systems.