PC2 Early Project CARS 2 Trailer Leaked?

[Paul Jeffrey]

An interesting video has surfaced on the internet recently that could quite possibly be the first leaked trailer for the upcoming Project CARS 2 game from Slightly Mad Studios.

We all know the sequel to the highly popular Project CARS is in the works with an expected release date for some time during 2017, however could the below video be the very first leaked trailer from the new game? Ok hands up, I seriously have no idea if this is an official video or not, but man it looks impressive. The video, doing the rounds on the internet as we speak, features some of the first moving footage from the new game that I have seen so far. The one and a half minutes of footage gives us a first look at some new for PCARS2 goodies like snow conditions, changeable wind directions, rain build-up improvements and several new forms of racing and brands associated with the upcoming title.

From what I can make out from the newly leaked video it appears PC2 might well have one or two interesting new vehicles in the car line-up come release, with several Porsche's and Ferrari's having already made brief appearances in other leaked images, alongside such heavyweight manufacturers as Lamborghini, McLaren and Mercedes. Looking through the breakdown of the trailer above, we can see the McLaren P1 GTR, McLaren F1 GTR, Ford GT, Lamborghini Super Trofeo, Mini Countryman Rallycross, Ford Raptor Truck, Ford Capri Zakspeed, Ferrari 288 GTO, Nissan Fairlady, Mercedes C63 AMG Coupe, Porsche 918, La Ferrari and the Jaguar XJ220. Please be aware, this trailer is by no means confirmed as official footage, and by all accounts the final game may not contain any or all of the vehicles depicted in the footage.

If we take what we've seen as correct from the above video, and add to this some of the cars we've already found in the game via other leaked screenshots, we are already starting to get an interesting picture of a wide variety of machinery that might make it into the new game from Slightly Mad Studios.

With the recent images leaks showing off a Ford Sierra Cosworth touring car, Mercedes A-Class, Ford Fiesta Rallycross and Mitsubishi Lancer Evo it appears that SMS are looking to cover a wide range of cars from different disciplines of racing and eras of production. I'm a fan of the classic cars myself, so those vehicles with a Group 5 leaning or the Sierra from 80's touring car racing both hold particular interest for me.

Other noteworthy things to take from the trailer include what appears to be the ability to bring snow conditions to the standard circuit racing tracks, with Brands Hatch used as an example in the video to show off the new weather feature. This is interesting as we very rarely see these kinds of conditions make an appearance outside of rally games. It will be interesting to see how Project CARS 2 simulates these conditions on a traditional tarmac racing surface.

Project CARS 2 is due for release on PlayStation 4, Xbox One and PC during 2017.

Check out the Project CARS Series forum here at RaceDepartment for all the latest news and discussions regarding Project CARS on both PC, Xbox One and PlayStation 4. Browse out modding database, engage with the community or join in one of our many League and Club Racing events. Its all here at RaceDepartment.

Are you looking forward to Project CARS 2? Will you be trying out the game on launch later this year? Let us know in the comments section below!

 

[Celestiale]

@ermo and @Patrik Marek thanks for your informative posts within this mess. Definitely looking forward.

Bought PC1 around half a year after release at a discount and got a very good sim without any issues or bugs or glitches, and it felt indeed like a finished product. Still think it's a very enjoyable sim today. One could argue that you had a lot to fiddle around to get the best FFB, but this is really true to almost every sim apart from R3E. Was the same for me in Dirt Rally and AC, a lot of .ini files tweaking and stuff to get the best out of it, that's really standard in todays racing sims, unfortunately.
One of the reasons i enjoyed AC more then PC was, that there are more iconic street cars in AC, like old and new Ferraris, Lambos, Porsches, Lotuses, and just more street cars overall. By the looks of it however it seems that PC2 got those licenses as well now, can't wait to see what street cars are in...i hope a lot more then in the first part.

For me the Perfect sim would just be Forza Horizon 3 with the physics from Assetto Corsa..

 

[ermo]

So any one with a normal PC monitor or 4k tv are not going to be able to make an informed decision because the devs are intending it for VR and triple screen only? Surely the VR and triple screen users are in a minority?

You inserted the 'only', not me.

I'll answer your question with another question:

If you had a choice of trying out AMS or AC on a wide-screen/triple-screen setup vs. a 'normal' (1080p?) single screen setup on an otherwise identical rig, which would you rather try? Which of the two scenarios is going to give you a better idea of the amount of immersion the title in question is able to provide? And which of the two scenarios are you more likely to see at a promotional event for either AC or AMS? Hint: Niels Heusinkveld promotes AMS with a triple screen setup and a high-end wheel in his youtube videos. Kunos is no different.

Substitute in VR (AMS, AC) as appropriate.

 

[Andy_J]

I'll answer your question with another question:
If you had a choice of trying out AMS or AC on a wide-screen/triple-screen setup vs. a 'normal' (1080p?) single screen setup on an otherwise identical rig, which would you rather try?

I now understand what you mean.

 

[JDougNY]

@ermo

What difference does it make if a player has one screen or 3 screens when the actual physics calibrations are so messy. As I've dug into pCars, there are so many problems. Incorrect spindle positioning in the suspension files, excessively high spindle/wheel mass in suspension files, Road chassis files that were reused for GT3 class cars that have most aero parameters disabled (failure to configure by SMS), diffusers that yield no actual downforce when checked with livetrace report, body inertia far too low on every car, failure to properly account for friction losses....I can keep going with all of the problems. Since there have been calibration issues with NFS shift, S2U and Pcars, how can anyone expect anything better from pCars2?
So, who cares what pCars/Pcars2 looks like visually with multiple screens or VR, when the calibrations of the physics are so poorly done?

 

[poir.qc]

@ermo

What difference does it make if a player has one screen or 3 screens when the actual physics calibrations are so messy. As I've dug into pCars, there are so many problems. Incorrect spindle positioning in the suspension files, excessively high spindle/wheel mass in suspension files, Road chassis files that were reused for GT3 class cars that have most aero parameters disabled (failure to configure by SMS), diffusers that yield no actual downforce when checked with livetrace report, body inertia far too low on every car, failure to properly account for friction losses....I can keep going with all of the problems. Since there have been calibration issues with NFS shift, S2U and Pcars, how can anyone expect anything better from pCars2?
So, who cares what pCars/Pcars2 looks like visually with multiple screens or VR, when the calibrations of the physics are so poorly done?

I'm not saying what you'Ve searched isn't relevant. The more all this is aligned with reality, the better, i would guess.

Personnaly, pCars was my first sim(as long as you're not gathering kudos in a game, it's a sim, imho) in a long while after going to tracks in various vehicules. After sorting the FFB, i tought the driving experience was pretty close, well, close enough to the real thing to be enjoyable.

Isn't it what it's all about in the end?

Cheers!

 

[ermo]

@ermo

What difference does it make if a player has one screen or 3 screens when the actual physics calibrations are so messy. As I've dug into pCars, there are so many problems. Incorrect spindle positioning in the suspension files, excessively high spindle/wheel mass in suspension files, Road chassis files that were reused for GT3 class cars that have most aero parameters disabled (failure to configure by SMS), diffusers that yield no actual downforce when checked with livetrace report, body inertia far too low on every car, failure to properly account for friction losses....I can keep going with all of the problems. Since there have been calibration issues with NFS shift, S2U and Pcars, how can anyone expect anything better from pCars2?
So, who cares what pCars/Pcars2 looks like visually with multiple screens or VR, when the calibrations of the physics are so poorly done?

Now *this* is the right question. First of all, there's no doubt in my mind that from a QA perspective, pCARS 1 suffered quite a bit.

The Vehicle Lead keeps his cards close to his chest despite our offers to help pour over the files -- not much that we can do about that unfortunately. I suspect some of it is due to legal/licensing reasons, as he seems like a genuinely nice guy. He's got a Mech. Eng. background, so I doubt any errors/omissions is due to him not knowing his trade.

I don't have the time (or, frankly, the inclination -- the content being W.I.P and all) to go through and double-check his numbers in hex as I've just started studying Mech. Eng. (yay \o/) and am waaay busy myself. But I've noticed that he's been iterating relentlessly over his files (suspension geometry from CAD + setup tweaks, brake tech, tyre tech, aero, etc.) and SMS have also employed a very prolific modder/handling guy to whom I've just sent my automated L<->R chassis QA test script from my local S2U UCP archive as inspiration and as a way to contribute.

On the vehicle dynamics code front, one of the more interesting things happening is that the vehicle physics coder has landed an insanely cool piece of code, which I think you're going to enjoy playing around with once the title ships -- assuming you don't blow a gasket over any physics calibration issues, that is!

But, yeah, we shall see as the Zen Master says. Good to hear from you.

 

[Mr Blonde]

I've just re-installed PC1 and thought I'd give it another shot using a T300RS as I've gained a lot more experience on FFB settings whilst playing R3E, AC, RF2 and AMS over the past 12 months or so. I have to say, I'm really enjoying the feeling of the FFB. I'm not really bothered about the science behind it at all or if it's not technically correct. All I know is that I'm having fun and isn't that the reason for gaming in the first place?

 

[JDougNY]

@ermo

Having all of the physics files coded makes it impossible for the people involved in testing to actually provide any good input to the developer. One ends up having to speak of how something is "feeling", instead of being able to say, "In the suspension file, I see 4 errors related to the front and rear spindle positions". For one to know this, one has to decode the files. So, what's the point of having testers discuss the actual physics calibrations during development, when they have no clue what the calibrations are, since it's all in code?
What's probably happening is that the discussions are carrying on about FFB, which is a separate discussion to actual physics calibrations. I could only assume that if I were involved in testing, I would get kicked out for decoding the files and pointing out anything odd to the developer.

When looking at pCars physics, I can see in some cases where some care was taken in setting most parameters. In many other cases, I see that things are more cobbled together in a rush with typos/errors and things left disabled that should be functioning.

My modding partner is involved with pCars 2 testing and has told me that the physics have seemed to improve. One of the things he mentioned what that the cars were better at the limit. Well, just have to wait and see what happens.

 

[Mr Blonde]

IMO, a good coder should be able to interpret (feel) the feedback received from testers and be able to implement it. Just my opinion.

 

[JDougNY]

IMO, a good coder should be able to interpret (feel) the feedback received from testers and be able to implement it. Just my opinion.

The point I was getting at is that there are times where errors/typos in the code are causing a handling issue. A physics coder might not be noticing the errors, then look elsewhere to adjust something, when the problem resides in those errors/typos. This is exactly what has occurred in pCars, SMS would set one area of calibrations way off base to counter something done wrong elsewhere. So, I was saying that if the physics were more open so that testers could review, they could help to identify errors/typos, etc.

 

[poir.qc]

@ermo
What's probably happening is that the discussions are carrying on about FFB, which is a separate discussion to actual physics calibrations.

While you're right that those 2 topics are totally different subjects, they're still closely tied. The better the physics part is, the less you'll need to massage the FFB part to get good end results. And vice versa.

In the end, it's how well those 2 layer interact with each other that gives a good experience.

 

[Austin Ogonoski]

Semi Off-Topic, who is everybody's favorite pCars shill?

 

[Blimey]

Being mocked for not buying the game because it can't offer quality tracks, nice community.

 

[Blimey]

Semi Off-Topic, who is everybody's favorite pCars shill?

Associat0r rated my comment sad, he might be a contender.

 

[Andy_J]

Semi Off-Topic, who is everybody's favorite pCars shill?

I could guess...........I'm going to say...........nah, I won't.

 

[ermo]

For the record, I totally agree with what @JDougNY is saying. I'm also super bummed out that it is so hard to help SMS catch errors (typos, suboptimal estimates or even downright errors) in the physics files.

As JDoug says, there is ample evidence that typos, wrong values or even bad code (!) can lead to layers of work-arounds that serve to mask the fundamental issue across SMS's recent titles.

As an example, from what I understand, the differential code in pCARS is fine as long as the car modeled has certain qualities. However, it turns out that the further away you move from these qualities, the weirder the differential code behaves. This is being rectified for pCARS 2 and I wouldn't be surprised if this in itself has caused quite a few workarounds to be implemented in the calibration of the chassis and tyre physics data (I should note that I haven't done any comparisons myself, so I can't offer any hard evidence for this).

That said, it is my distinct impression that the vehicle dynamics team at SMS do take their job *very* seriously, and that the Vehicle Lead is certainly qualified for the role.

Were I to design and implement a vehicle dynamics physics engine, I would do it in Rust and ideally keep it GPL while requiring copyright-assignment of contributions in return for giving access to the code. I would also keep the physics data open for inspection (to the extent that licensing allows) and make it easy to create remixed versions of the 'official' cars as well as integrating created-from-scratch cars/tracks (this is more aimed at pro sim guys, rather than amateur modders).

The way I see it, the value of a racing sim lies in the experience/presentation (i.e. UI, UX, graphics, sound), the social aspect (leagues, online jam-sessions, spectating, reviewing races and replays), the level playing field in competetive eSports (making it difficult to cheat and/or exploit the platform), the licensed assets (tracks/cars) and the expertise that goes into creating them.

By licensing the physics code under the GPL, competitors can't adopt the code and close access to it, and if they do adopt the code, they must contribute back their changes and compete on a level playing field (because assets are copyrighted and the name of the title/brand is trademarked).

Ah well, dreams are free.

/rant

 

[poir.qc]

On a side note, i hope they take a look at the vintage tire on the RS1600 and the 2002 Turbo. It seems that as soon as the Car FFB moves from the default 26, 100, 100, 100, 100, the tires get wrecked almost instantly... Renders those cars undrivable, sadly.

 

[Andy_J]

@ermo You said many of the same things when defending Pcars1. Like many others, I'll believe it when I see it for myself. Your paying beta testers (read investors) were supposedly race sim fans and users and their input was to be used for Pcars to make it the sim of all sims (Bells words) but Pcars failed to make an impact in the serious race sim community. Why? Is it because it still uses an iteration of the Shift 1 and 2 engine?

 

[ermo]

@ermo You said many of the same things when defending Pcars1. Like many others, I'll believe it when I see it for myself. Your paying beta testers (read investors) were supposedly race sim fans and users and their input was to be used for Pcars to make it the sim of all sims (Bells words) but Pcars failed to make an impact in the serious race sim community. Why? Is it because it still uses an iteration of the Shift 1 and 2 engine?

*sigh*

I haven't seen the code. And while I genuinely respect the guys working for SMS, there are clearly limits to what I know (and what they are willing/allowed to disclose to WMD members). Honestly, I think SMS are looking to redeem themselves because it very much seems that they are acutely aware of pCARS' failings and are *very* determined to do better with pCARS 2.

Why did pCARS' end up a fair bit below expectations? I think there are several reasons, most of which it seems that SMS have tried very hard to address for pCARS 2. And just to be clear, I'm defending the *efforts* of the developers. The end product of those efforts is what it is.

Unless of course you're asking a rhetorical question because you have an axe to grind, in which case I'm most likely wasting my time engaging with you. To be clear, I'm not stating categorically that you do have an axe to grind, just that it is one of many possibilities.

 

[Andy_J]

Unless of course you're asking a rhetorical question because you have an axe to grind, in which case I'm most likely wasting my time engaging with you. To be clear, I'm not stating categorically that you do have an axe to grind, just that it is one of many possibilities.

*sigh* too.
Clever talk as usual. But no axe to grind at all. I never paid into Pcars, I never invested. I have just heard it all before. So *sigh* indeed. I think all WMD members (not just the devs) need to redeem themselves after all the hype last time. No need to engage further.