GTR2: Why are Modern Sims Still Not as Good?

[Paul Jeffrey]

GTR2 is 11 years old, features a series that no longer exists and was developed for technology less advanced than a modern smart phone. Unbelievably it's still one of the best sims available today.

What I want to know is why? Why in the last 10 + years have some of the many awesome features found in this now long forgotten game not made their way into something more modern? Ok granted many different games feature some of the bits in GTR2, but no single title has taken what was already an incredible base and expanded upon it with the aid of much advanced technology we now have at our disposal.

Driving School? Check
Fully animated pit workers? Check
Animated flag marshals? Check
Day - night transition? Check
Weather cycle? Check
Full official series licence, over two separate seasons? Check
...and the list goes on and on...

Simply put GTR2 was massively overdeveloped, period. SimBin Studios quite literally took every single aspect of the then premier GT racing series in the world and recreated it all into a compelling racing experience that still stands out as a top simulation even by the standards of today, 11 years after the game hit our shelves.

I just find it all incredibility bizarre. In very few industries outside of sim racing will you see a decline in product quality and content as the years progress like we have to put up with today. When GTR2 first shipped in September 2006 the game was a complete package, not splattered with ridiculous bugs that prevented anyone having a good time, not bombarded by wave after wave of disparate DLC content with little or no relevance to the main experience and not hanging on by the merest thread for dear life as another iteration of something that's been released by someone else already. It really was a golden time for sim racing fans, and those who witnessed it all first hand really did think this would be the beginning of something big in sim racing.

Fast forward to 2017 and sadly the progress expected post GTR2 has quite simply not materialised. The game, the official simulation of the FIA GT World Championship, was probably the very last fully feature complete racing simulation we have seen in our niche genre. We've had loads of new games since then, some of which have even been released by the same people responsible for GTR and GTR2, but none have even come close to matching the level of features and polish afforded fans back in 2006. It's down right strange.

Take RaceRoom Racing Experience for example, developed as the next GT game from the people behind GTR and GTR2, when the title first hit public beta stage back in February 2013 what did we have? Basically a hotlapping simulation with limited content, no official series licence, no AI to race against and precisely zero multiplayer features. Added to the still missing animated flag marshals and a range of other GTR2 items that haven't made the move over with time, it's all rather a depressing scene in which to take in.

Ok I appreciate Sector3 have worked exceptionally hard at improving RaceRoom to get to a level where it is barely recognisable now to what it looked like on launch day, but still to even consider releasing a game that was basically stripped of everything that made GTR2 great is simply mind boggling.

And it's not just RaceRoom that are guilty of missing out some key features considered par for the course 11 years ago, everyone is doing it! You only have to look at one of the most popular sims on the market Assetto Corsa as a perfect example, they consider themselves to be perfectionists on a mission to produce the most true to life experience possible, and they even miss out the core basics like weather and day to night transition, never mind such "nice to have" features like a driving school, proper flag implementation and multiclass racing options. It's simply amazing to realise that these features quite simply only exist in a game that was designed and released over a decade ago. Unbelievable.

GTR2 still looks pretty good on top graphics settings, still feels very nice indeed with my trusty CSW V2 and still sounds like it belongs in the very top tier of audio experience. All that whilst replicating a seriously mega international championship in a exceptionally detailed simulation that really does pick out all the little features that makes driving on a virtual track feel like the real thing. With that said and the pretty compelling physics considering the age of the title added up with stuff that no other sim has all together in one package, this is why I still believe GTR2 is, without reservation, the very best simulation racing experience one can purchase during 2017.

I love the game, it's just a bit sad that no one has thought to try and make something similar in the following 132 months since it was released.

GTR was released by SimBin Studios exclusively for PC. The game is still available to purchase on Steam for £4.99.

Like GTR2? Well lucky you, we are seriously considering a brand new informal league! Check out the GTR2 sub forum for general GTR2 discussion or our new GTR2 RDGT Championship forum for more details of the new league season. To prepare for the league all we ask is you have Premium membership, a fresh GTR2 install and these two additional patches HERE and HERE. Get ready for a return of the legend....

Do you still enjoy GTR2? What did the sim do right in your opinion? Why do features present in GTR2 still not appear in moderns sims? Let us know in the comments section below!

 

[DucFreak]

The need to make more money, much quicker, trounces the true passion and risk taking decisions, and willingness to inovate. And if there is less competicion around, there is even less need to do better (and then ahead we can see the emptiness of a desert).

That's just the way it is.
And if we look carefully, it's something that affects gaming in general, not just the niches of simulations.

How many "battle royale" games have been (and will be) coming out in just two years?
(...a lot of them!?)
How many trully inovative single-player games (AAA or not) have we seen in the last 5 years?
(...can't really recall any...)
..................................see what I mean?

Also, we hear that we can not have all those things (features) of before because things have become far more complex (to recreate some of the things we used to see before).
This is partial fallacy, or a half truth if you prefer.
Complexity can be somewhat counteracted with far better tools (software and hardware) and spreaded knowledge, both of which are present today in far better quantity and quality (also resolved by getting more capable people involved, though always dependable on total budget).
The other half of the truth we won't hear is that there's less willingness to risk, far higher fear of failure. And I'd even risk saying that there's also fear of being measured against older (but still capable) abandonware titles.

 

[DucFreak]

I think he was likely talking about more mainstream flight sims. I kinda tend to agree with him, not the dumbed down remark though. I use FS2004 because the alternatives don't offer me enough to make me want to switch. I'm using a 15 year old flight sim for no other reason other than I believe it is still the best option today.

"Simming peaked 10-15 years ago"? "Especially flight sims"? "Dumbed down"? If modules like DCS Hornet and Viggen are "dumbed down", I'm really curious about what kind of a 15 yo sim you can offer that is "ok" in your opinion.

The subject of older times vs newer times, for both flight-sims and racing-sims is quite interesting and, at the end of the day, quite reasonable. Reading above, I kind of agree with wide2tele.

Maybe the term "dumbed down" isn't the most correct. But, with very few notable exceptions, it's a given that the flight-sim genre (especially the combat sub-genre) offers far less variety and depth today (in terms of what has been released recently in the genre, overall), if comparing to late 1990s and early 2000s.

DCS was mentioned, and it's fair to say that it's considered the modern champion of complex combat flight sims. But let's stop for a moment and retrocess to some 15 to 20 years ago.....
......among many, many(!) pearls of the time, we'd see Falcon 4 and Rowan's BOB (and the sequel, BOB II), two shining examples of a very crowded and creative era for the genre.

Both Falcon 4 and Rowan's BOB are still unbeaten in regards to a (far better) recreation of a realistic scenario of war. Most of all, they've got real dynamic campaigns. In those two older (and supremely fantastic sims), your player is exactly what one would expect... just a really small cog (you and your aircraft) inside an enormous and unpredictable machine (the war you're in).
Should also be noted that F4 and BOB had the clickity-cliky cockpits and systems recreated as well (for the respective aircraft simulation subject and era, of course), over 15 years ago.

Now don't get me wrong, I too love DCS (enjoyed the A10-C and the KA-50 for years), and every aircraft pack DLC is always phenomenal, it's certainly the best out there as ultra-realistic systems simulator, also in overall feel. But it's all within action scenarios that are totally scripted and easily repeatable (and that should be said). Although these can be nice, it's got nothing on F4 and BOB (and plenty other very old sims) in terms of a war scenarios/campaign depiction. In both F4 and BOB, things don't run centered on the player, the war in the campaign runs its own course, your intervention playing only its tiny part (i.e, you miss an objective or even an enemy fighter, it can become a problem again later, in the campaign). Every re-play is always different and unpredictable - contrary to the scripted missions and campaigns on DCS (which can't allow such dynamism).

DCS is not really the "total package" that those older sims were (and still are today, "modernized" even, check Falcon BMS 4.33). And that's where the "old vs new" problem usually arises, as important features and aspects still miss. It's not nostalgia. Even the developers (E.D.) admit the limitations of DCS, the difficulties in recreating real war scenarios, and impossibilities with dynamic campaigns.
Also, DCS's 1950s and WW2 airplanes and their scripted missions/campaigns in modern day Georgia (????) are another good example of exhisting problems (yes, I know there's the Normandy terrain and assets but, so far, there's nothing about it worth making noise).
Worse of all, there is no alternative to DCS, no other direct competitor developer for the very same genre ("ultra-hardcore"?), something that we would have had two decades ago.

And, to get back to sim-racing, the above is all very comparable to the situation we see today of "driving" vs "racing", in modern-racing sims.
You see, one can now have a very nice ultra complex physics driving car in the sim. A very detailed million(s)-polygon 3D model and 8K textures of simulated car, inside and outside, even laser-scanned tracks and whatnot. But, unless one is happy with very limited off-line capabilities, such as hot-lapping, besides the sporadic race with absolutely crappy AI, totally unrealistic (and incomplete) grids, plus wrong (or plain missing) race rules, and noticeably absent features, the whole aspect that should justify all the freakin effort to recreate all that we see, hear, feel (and pay for), is simply lost with most modern racing sims - the RACING recreation.
IMHO, that's why GTR2 (and the original GTR) is such an icon in this genre. Like, for example, F4 and BOB2 are in their respective genre (and sub-genres).
It's not just about simulating the vehicle, it's also about simulating very realistic scenarios (even "real life" historical like ones) where the vehicle is used on, and everything directly involved.

 

[Ayem22]

i have reinstalled Race07 with all DLC and expansions (Evo, Injection) : awesome : Raceroom is so arcade, the FFB is awesome, the cars are awesome !

and it's the only game we can render with triple 4K ultra screens.

 

[wide2tele]

Both Falcon 4 and Rowan's BOB are still unbeaten in regards to a (far better) recreation of a realistic scenario of war.

I've never tried Falcon 4 only because of the time factor to fit it in with all the other games and life. After reading your post, you talked me into it, I can see I simply will have to try it or I know it will bug me forever if I don't. lol

 

[DucFreak]

(sorry for the off-topic)

I've never tried Falcon 4 only because of the time factor to fit it in with all the other games and life. After reading your post, you talked me into it, I can see I simply will have to try it or I know it will bug me forever if I don't. lol

I wish you luck because, as you suspect, the experience is a tad daunting.
As superb as F4 is (especially its modern remake, BMS 4.33), there is no thorough tutorial and nice introduction to the ultra steep learning curve. That has been forever its main problem.
One needs to read the lenghty manual(s) - having that as companion along the way is a real necessity - hence the good old funny remark "RTFM" (Read The Freakin Manual!).
But check gameplay, reviews (and tutorials) videos on Youtube for "F4 BMS 4.33".
If you feel you can handle it, then it is worth a try.

Otherwise, I feel it's better to get into DCS World, get the Flamming Cliffs 3 module (very good package of combat aircraft, though no interactive cockpits), or the F-5E Tiger II module (relatively simple to manage, and fun to fly, if you want interactive cockpits).

 

[TzZyO]

lol probably quite a few new humans on this forum.
I understand your points but the other aspects are also important. No point having dead accurate car physics if there is no AI, no competitions to race in, no weather to change and all we can do is sit in a parking lot and say "Hey, this thing does doughnuts just like a real car!"
We'd quickly get bored so you have to accept the compromise. Same with flight sim, you still want airports to land at, you still want to see a world under you. These things are all part of the reality just as much as flying or driving but it can be suggested such elements do deserve less attention.

I think we are pretty much on the same page. Probably both frustrated with where we think cars and planes could be if given a little more attention to getting things right by developers. Then again, in 2018 it's all about $$$ so I don't see much changing anytime soon unfortunately.

Well, I guess in the end of the day it all boils down to everybody's personal preferences... I wouldn't actually mind having a car sim I could say "Hey, this thing does doughnuts just like a real car!" about Provided, I can actually drive around in it too, not just do doughnuts. Same thing with DCS. I don't really need much apart from the proper aircraft behavior to keep me entertained. If it's not in there, however, I simply don't have it installed. And even if I do have, I could rarely ever touch it (as is the case with X-Plane) if I feel something's definitely off with the physics, even if it appears to have quite an elaborate one.

I'm not happy with how extremely unpolished the majority of the modern sims are, but if I had to choose, I'd still choose the modern ones. Simply because the earlier sims don't quite behave naturally.

 

[TzZyO]

The subject of older times vs newer times, for both flight-sims and racing-sims is quite interesting and, at the end of the day, quite reasonable. Reading above, I kind of agree with wide2tele.

Maybe the term "dumbed down" isn't the most correct. But, with very few notable exceptions, it's a given that the flight-sim genre (especially the combat sub-genre) offers far less variety and depth today (in terms of what has been released recently in the genre, overall), if comparing to late 1990s and early 2000s.

DCS was mentioned, and it's fair to say that it's considered the modern champion of complex combat flight sims. But let's stop for a moment and retrocess to some 15 to 20 years ago.....
......among many, many(!) pearls of the time, we'd see Falcon 4 and Rowan's BOB (and the sequel, BOB II), two shining examples of a very crowded and creative era for the genre.

Both Falcon 4 and Rowan's BOB are still unbeaten in regards to a (far better) recreation of a realistic scenario of war. Most of all, they've got real dynamic campaigns. In those two older (and supremely fantastic sims), your player is exactly what one would expect... just a really small cog (you and your aircraft) inside an enormous and unpredictable machine (the war you're in).
Should also be noted that F4 and BOB had the clickity-cliky cockpits and systems recreated as well (for the respective aircraft simulation subject and era, of course), over 15 years ago.

Now don't get me wrong, I too love DCS (enjoyed the A10-C and the KA-50 for years), and every aircraft pack DLC is always phenomenal, it's certainly the best out there as ultra-realistic systems simulator, also in overall feel. But it's all within action scenarios that are totally scripted and easily repeatable (and that should be said). Although these can be nice, it's got nothing on F4 and BOB (and plenty other very old sims) in terms of a war scenarios/campaign depiction. In both F4 and BOB, things don't run centered on the player, the war in the campaign runs its own course, your intervention playing only its tiny part (i.e, you miss an objective or even an enemy fighter, it can become a problem again later, in the campaign). Every re-play is always different and unpredictable - contrary to the scripted missions and campaigns on DCS (which can't allow such dynamism).

DCS is not really the "total package" that those older sims were (and still are today, "modernized" even, check Falcon BMS 4.33). And that's where the "old vs new" problem usually arises, as important features and aspects still miss. It's not nostalgia. Even the developers (E.D.) admit the limitations of DCS, the difficulties in recreating real war scenarios, and impossibilities with dynamic campaigns.
Also, DCS's 1950s and WW2 airplanes and their scripted missions/campaigns in modern day Georgia (????) are another good example of exhisting problems (yes, I know there's the Normandy terrain and assets but, so far, there's nothing about it worth making noise).
Worse of all, there is no alternative to DCS, no other direct competitor developer for the very same genre ("ultra-hardcore"?), something that we would have had two decades ago.

And, to get back to sim-racing, the above is all very comparable to the situation we see today of "driving" vs "racing", in modern-racing sims.
You see, one can now have a very nice ultra complex physics driving car in the sim. A very detailed million(s)-polygon 3D model and 8K textures of simulated car, inside and outside, even laser-scanned tracks and whatnot. But, unless one is happy with very limited off-line capabilities, such as hot-lapping, besides the sporadic race with absolutely crappy AI, totally unrealistic (and incomplete) grids, plus wrong (or plain missing) race rules, and noticeably absent features, the whole aspect that should justify all the freakin effort to recreate all that we see, hear, feel (and pay for), is simply lost with most modern racing sims - the RACING recreation.
IMHO, that's why GTR2 (and the original GTR) is such an icon in this genre. Like, for example, F4 and BOB2 are in their respective genre (and sub-genres).
It's not just about simulating the vehicle, it's also about simulating very realistic scenarios (even "real life" historical like ones) where the vehicle is used on, and everything directly involved.

And once again it all boils down to the preferences. Yes, it's great that Falcon BMS has such a nice dynamic campaign engine. But can it really compete with DCS as a training tool? I'm not quite convinced. It did, however, appear to have a better AI the last time I tried it out...
Personally, I'm still waiting for the upcoming(?) DCS F-16C module. It would also be interesting to compare the same aircraft in both of the sims.

There's also one thing I really hate about Falcon BMS. And that is its way of how the controls need to be configured. Sadly, I don't have a TM Warthog, so I have to always make my own config for everything. However, in both DCS and X-Plane 11 the process is rather straight-forward. Falcon BMS? It's a headache compared to pretty much anything else (X-Plane 10- included).

 

[DucFreak]

And once again it all boils down to the preferences. Yes, it's great that Falcon BMS has such a nice dynamic campaign engine. But can it really compete with DCS as a training tool? I'm not quite convinced. It did, however, appear to have a better AI the last time I tried it out...
Personally, I'm still waiting for the upcoming(?) DCS F-16C module. It would also be interesting to compare the same aircraft in both of the sims.

There's also one thing I really hate about Falcon BMS. And that is its way of how the controls need to be configured. Sadly, I don't have a TM Warthog, so I have to always make my own config for everything. However, in both DCS and X-Plane 11 the process is rather straight-forward. Falcon BMS? It's a headache compared to pretty much anything else (X-Plane 10- included).

True, it's all matter of preferences in the end.

I personally give a lot of importance to the surrounding features, or "gameplay" aspects if you will, to simulations (mostly for off-line, single-player), be it race-sim or flight-sim, because they set a background and give a meaning. It can help with the whole experience, to immerse, to cut part of the "cold, clinical, lifeless" feel, which some sims do have.
For instances, like had happened before with GPL when doing a whole season, for me doing the 2003 Spa 24H in the original GTR cemented the relation with that game title back then. Not only all was beautifully done as a simulation, the package allowed us to do it - the very same track and correct large grid of cars (and classes), and the same race rules - like the fellas had experienced at the real event (of course, besides obvious sim limitations and race results).
Other example could be how I enjoyed immensely doing missions in FS2004 and FSX, while managing the procedures of flight and interactive cockpits. While I feel XPlane-11 is (by far) the best civilian aviation simulation I've ever experienced, there is less of a fun element, which I confess is something I miss from the older sims.

If F4 can compete as a training tool? I wouldn't know, but it seems F4 receives few complaints from real military pilots in the F4 BMS forums. The already super excelent base at launch (in late 1998) has been continuously evolved, modernized and refined through nearly two decades (by BMS), afterall.
TBH, and for the average guy (like me), I don't really feel more "accuracy" is an issue with F4 at this point. I wouldn't even be able to point it. Perhaps that's why I still enjoy flight-sims (of all kinds), as I'm not able to pinpoint major faults and inaccuracies.
What I really wish F4 BMS had is comprehensive and intuitive ways to welcome a newcomer to the sim, to assist in the learning (it's long, absolutely daunting). There's very little in the game besides the thick manual (truly appaling), so in that part it's really awfull.

Good call on the issue of F4's controls config. Yes, it's old school, you really need to configure one by one. Both DCS and XPlane-11 have got that much, much better.
Also, and like with the more complex DCS modules, F4 BMS is the kind of flight simulation you'll feel a HOTAS is absolutely needed, not just for it to make total sense and be immersive, but to be more manageable. What I mean is, those with the cheap regular joystick like me (Logitech Extreme 3D Pro) may still manage it but will always feel limitations. Trying F4 BMS with a HOTAS + pedals combo was a world of difference, more intuitive, and so much nicer.

 

[TzZyO]

True, it's all matter of preferences in the end.

I personally give a lot of importance to the surrounding features, or "gameplay" aspects if you will, to simulations (mostly for off-line, single-player), be it race-sim or flight-sim, because they set a background and give a meaning. It can help with the whole experience, to immerse, to cut part of the "cold, clinical, lifeless" feel, which some sims do have.
For instances, like had happened before with GPL when doing a whole season, for me doing the 2003 Spa 24H in the original GTR cemented the relation with that game title back then. Not only all was beautifully done as a simulation, the package allowed us to do it - the very same track and correct large grid of cars (and classes), and the same race rules - like the fellas had experienced at the real event (of course, besides obvious sim limitations and race results).
Other example could be how I enjoyed immensely doing missions in FS2004 and FSX, while managing the procedures of flight and interactive cockpits. While I feel XPlane-11 is (by far) the best civilian aviation simulation I've ever experienced, there is less of a fun element, which I confess is something I miss from the older sims.

Interestingly, I loved GPL much more than GTR that felt "cold and lifeless" to me instead, because the old F1 cars are much more fun to drive, and the sim made a good job at portraying that. I also liked GTL a lot. You could guess that modern race cars are not really my thing...

As for XP11 missing a fun element... In my opinion what it's missing is still better modeling. Any XP11 aircraft still manages to feel less elaborate, more amateur creation to DCS modules. And blade element theory it uses doesn't appear to be superior to whatever DCS uses for flight dynamics, quite on the contrary. That's why I'd rather prefer DCS including civilian aircraft as well than waiting for Laminar Research to make a breakthrough.

If F4 can compete as a training tool? I wouldn't know, but it seems F4 receives few complaints from real military pilots in the F4 BMS forums. The already super excelent base at launch (in late 1998) has been continuously evolved, modernized and refined through nearly two decades (by BMS), afterall.
TBH, and for the average guy (like me), I don't really feel more "accuracy" is an issue with F4 at this point. I wouldn't even be able to point it. Perhaps that's why I still enjoy flight-sims (of all kinds), as I'm not able to pinpoint major faults and inaccuracies.
What I really wish F4 BMS had is comprehensive and intuitive ways to welcome a newcomer to the sim, to assist in the learning (it's long, absolutely daunting). There's very little in the game besides the thick manual (truly appaling), so in that part it's really awfull.

To be honest, I stopped believing in real pilots being a reliable source of physics "authenticating" quite a while ago. Especially if they never tried a sim before (or a "game", what they undoubtedly consider it to be). Most likely they would give a whole lot of slack to the first thing they tried, or conversely would call every sim useless, since it's impossible to make the experience resemble reality even by the means VR. After all, good real pilots are not necessarily good engineers...
On the other hand, if it was a pilot who came to be one after being an avid simmer, that could be really interesting what such a person could say about sims. But then again, their judgement could be clouded by many things...

Good call on the issue of F4's controls config. Yes, it's old school, you really need to configure one by one. Both DCS and XPlane-11 have got that much, much better.

It's not even that it's old school... After all, the pure F4 doesn't present that much of a problem. But with BMS you really have to get out of your way to set up everything. From what I can remember, manual ini-files fiddling is a must. I think I even had to manually copy the needed lines, paste them into the ini, and then change them so that the line would accept my control input. It was a while ago though, so I don't quite remember it well.

Also, and like with the more complex DCS modules, F4 BMS is the kind of flight simulation you'll feel a HOTAS is absolutely needed, not just for it to make total sense and be immersive, but to be more manageable. What I mean is, those with the cheap regular joystick like me (Logitech Extreme 3D Pro) may still manage it but will always feel limitations. Trying F4 BMS with a HOTAS + pedals combo was a world of difference, more intuitive, and so much nicer.

Having HOTAS is not a problem. It's the kind of HOTAS you need to have to make use of Falcon BMS that is the problem I do have Thrustmaster's FCS set with pedals, and it is just lacking hats for enough functionality, even though there's three of them on the throttle. But the stick has only one (!), so that makes it not very usable. If I would add the Warthog stick to this, now that would be another matter. But that thing is not cheap... And I would probably get a better wheel instead anyway.
That said, DCS only managed to fare better because it had older aircraft, while in A-10C you don't have to worry about the radar (for the lack thereof). With the coming of Hornet, however, things are going to change (at least when it gets all the promised features). But at least I still will be able to set up my controls from within the interface.

 

[jgf]

"Modern" games (this discussion has been around for years) are not as good simply because they follow the market. A development team can literally spend years on a state-of-the-art flight sim or racing sim or sub sim, which in the end only appeals to a niche market and may only see sales in the hundreds of thousands; or in the same time they can develop and release a half dozen simpler games with wider appeal which will all sell in the millions. If you are trying to make a living which do you do?

But ...you can also blame the gaming community, whose attention span in general has lessened over the years. Where once race sim sites had ongoing threads on how to set up a car, you now see posts of "I don't have time to learn to make setups, does anyone have some I can download?"; on flight sim sites discussions are now about wanting to stroll around the cabin, watch a movie, or order a drink, instead of how to use navigation instruments or read approach plates. (They must want a passenger sim, not a flight sim.)

A perfect example of this comes from a blog I read a couple of years ago regarding Skyrim. (Paraphrasing from memory), "I created a character, went through a couple of dungeons, visited a small town, then walked to a larger town. And noticed I'd been playing three hours! I don't have time to talk to every NPC looking for quests, I don't want to search every little corner for loot. I like a game I can play through in 10-15 hours and move on." (Lol, Skyrim was the shortest and simplest of the Morrowind/Oblivion/Skyrim trilogy.)

As for GTR2, some newer sims offer better graphics, or physics, or FF, or sound, some have weather, some have seasons ...but GTR2 gave us all those features in a well balanced package. That set a standard to which I've not seen other sims strive.

 

[GTR233]

Quite agree with you jgf, that reminds me of I have finished oblivion but not morrowind (around 75%) just because it was too long and I have found it repetitive.
About GTR2, the most interesting thing are the high modding possibilities : I know no other games that can be tailor made to your own tastes (textures and physics) so easily, I think I have spent more time on modding than playing GTR2

 

[TzZyO]

Quite agree with you jgf, that reminds me of I have finished oblivion but not morrowind (around 75%) just because it was too long and I have found it repetitive.
About GTR2, the most interesting thing are the high modding possibilities : I know no other games that can be tailor made to your own tastes (textures and physics) so easily, I think I have spent more time on modding than playing GTR2

It can be modded, sure. But only to a certain extent. I'm not sure what's wrong with its physics, considering it's the same old isiMotor, but it always felt numb to me. From time to time I reinstall GTR 2 and put Power & Glory on top of it. Do some laps in different cars... And end up uninstalling it again. It feels bland and lifeless, almost borderline arcade even. There's very little fun in driving these cars... And, for the moment, I'm talking about Power & Glory here(!). The pure GTR 2 is even worse than that.

Of course, I can see how it can be more appealing to those who are in it more for the feel of being a race driver for a team. But if your priority is to enjoy driving the cars themselves, well... Something like Automobilista is much-much more suitable for that, even though the physics engine shouldn't be all that different, while visually it would probably be hard to tell one from the other.

Talking about sims that can really benefit from physics modding, I can only think of RBR. The NGP mod does a lot to make it feel almost like a completely different sim. Sadly, RBR's modding support is so bad, you'd probably call it "modding countermeasures involving obfuscation". And NGP itself is not quite perfect either.

 

[TzZyO]

"Modern" games (this discussion has been around for years) are not as good simply because they follow the market. A development team can literally spend years on a state-of-the-art flight sim or racing sim or sub sim, which in the end only appeals to a niche market and may only see sales in the hundreds of thousands; or in the same time they can develop and release a half dozen simpler games with wider appeal which will all sell in the millions. If you are trying to make a living which do you do?

But ...you can also blame the gaming community, whose attention span in general has lessened over the years. Where once race sim sites had ongoing threads on how to set up a car, you now see posts of "I don't have time to learn to make setups, does anyone have some I can download?"; on flight sim sites discussions are now about wanting to stroll around the cabin, watch a movie, or order a drink, instead of how to use navigation instruments or read approach plates. (They must want a passenger sim, not a flight sim.)

A perfect example of this comes from a blog I read a couple of years ago regarding Skyrim. (Paraphrasing from memory), "I created a character, went through a couple of dungeons, visited a small town, then walked to a larger town. And noticed I'd been playing three hours! I don't have time to talk to every NPC looking for quests, I don't want to search every little corner for loot. I like a game I can play through in 10-15 hours and move on." (Lol, Skyrim was the shortest and simplest of the Morrowind/Oblivion/Skyrim trilogy.)

As for GTR2, some newer sims offer better graphics, or physics, or FF, or sound, some have weather, some have seasons ...but GTR2 gave us all those features in a well balanced package. That set a standard to which I've not seen other sims strive.

That's an interesting question, actually... What do you do if you want to make a living? Well, it appears that the "civilian" counterparts of the sims can be just side projects. It can take longer for them to evolve like that, but if you know that the main branch of the sim is used for pretty demanding real world applications, I think this justifies the wait. And it's not just something I came up with. Where's enough examples of that starting with rFactor Pro (which doesn't quite fits perfectly here, but at least it's a car sim) and ending with Steel Beasts Pro (that has the Personal Edition version).

I think this is the only way for realistic and up to date sims to be made these days and still provide their creators with sustenance (and then some).

 

[jgf]

.... it appears that the "civilian" counterparts of the sims can be just side projects. It can take longer for them to evolve like that....

And therein lies the issue. Either you finish the project and release it, to find many in the gaming community ignore it because it is "old" - having been built on the the technology of two or three years earlier when you started the project; or you have a "perpetual beta" where you trickle out new versions or new releases or new bulds periodically but never a final product (I consider the latter an objectionable form of job security - if the team ever finishes the project they must seek a new one, so milk the current one as long as possible ...something not possible in a large corporation with managing engineers and project engineers and timetables and deadlines).

So there's a dilemma, a large company with the resources to create a "good" sim doesn't see the niche market as worth the expense, and a small company who might see a sim as a prestige title cannot finish it in a timely manner. What it will take is a large software company with existing profitable products to see the value of a prestige project for promotional value; much like when Sierra purchased Papyrus (sadly a few years later Vivendi bought Sierra and put an end to that).

 

[TzZyO]

And therein lies the issue. Either you finish the project and release it, to find many in the gaming community ignore it because it is "old" - having been built on the the technology of two or three years earlier when you started the project; or you have a "perpetual beta" where you trickle out new versions or new releases or new bulds periodically but never a final product (I consider the latter an objectionable form of job security - if the team ever finishes the project they must seek a new one, so milk the current one as long as possible ...something not possible in a large corporation with managing engineers and project engineers and timetables and deadlines).

So there's a dilemma, a large company with the resources to create a "good" sim doesn't see the niche market as worth the expense, and a small company who might see a sim as a prestige title cannot finish it in a timely manner. What it will take is a large software company with existing profitable products to see the value of a prestige project for promotional value; much like when Sierra purchased Papyrus (sadly a few years later Vivendi bought Sierra and put an end to that).

There is no such thing as a "complete final product", unless you are making a Tetris or Breakout clone or similar. Take a look at more serious software pieces like Lightroom. They are always in development. You can't make the one that is absolutely the best. Things are getting improved over time (at least they should). And if you won't incorporate improvements into your product, it will get superseded by some other products.

Same goes for simulators. They are not really games. They have game-y elements wrapped around the core code dealing with simulating real life systems behavior as close to original as possible. And at the current knowledge and computational power levels all this is only the beginning. The old "make a certain set piece of software, receive a certain sum of money for it, end of story" paradigm simply cannot be applied here. There need to be other approaches to developing things like this and monetizing them. And as much as I hate to mention iRacing here, at least they seem to understand that. Too bad they decided it should be so much skewed in their own favor. But their example just shows that while the approach works, the developers should be less greedy and should seek for more investing opportunities. Same goes for Eagle Dynamics. Well, you don't have to pay them the renting fee, even if almost every single module costs like a separate game, but at least the core engine (and the modules) are constantly getting improved on.

 

[jgf]

There is no such thing as a "complete final product"....

GPL was released and a few months later one patch. That was it. Final Product.
N2k3 was released and a few months later one patch. Final product.
FS2004 was released and a few months later one patch. Final product.

How many other games/sims could we add? Many of which never had, or needed, a patch; the developers created, tested, and released a finished product, then moved on to their next project.

Now we come to current developers with their incessant stream of "latest build", "most recent version", "newest release" ....with no finished product in sight. Though they continue to milk the public for "donations" to continue their development, promising all sorts of new features, which may or may not ever appear, and rarely addressing bugs which those who pay to be beta testers complain of. (If you've ever wasted time with ETS2 you know how egregiously ridiculous this paradigm can be. I played for a few months when the game was already two or three years old. During that year they released nine new versions of the game - that's roughly one every six weeks - and yet did not address even one of the many things players had been complaining about since the game was first released; while about every third new release rendered half the existing mods incompatible. I gave up on the entire mess and walked away. A couple of years, and numerous new versions, later I chatted with someone then playing ETS2 ...and found the developers still had not addressed any of those issues.)

Every project, whether building a dog house or designing an aircraft carrier, has to be considered "finished" at some point.

 

[wide2tele]

Yep, all gone to cr*p last few years. I liked the days of going into a store, looking at all the PC game boxes nicely on display and after spending a good deal of time, finally selecting my own box with CD to take home. That was it, game purchased, a patch to chase up online when I got home at most and away I went. No infinite DLC's required to make my game good, no more pulling at my pockets ($$$) by the developer. How I miss the glory days!

 

[TzZyO]

GPL was released and a few months later one patch. That was it. Final Product.
N2k3 was released and a few months later one patch. Final product.
FS2004 was released and a few months later one patch. Final product.

How many other games/sims could we add? Many of which never had, or needed, a patch; the developers created, tested, and released a finished product, then moved on to their next project.

Now we come to current developers with their incessant stream of "latest build", "most recent version", "newest release" ....with no finished product in sight. Though they continue to milk the public for "donations" to continue their development, promising all sorts of new features, which may or may not ever appear, and rarely addressing bugs which those who pay to be beta testers complain of. (If you've ever wasted time with ETS2 you know how egregiously ridiculous this paradigm can be. I played for a few months when the game was already two or three years old. During that year they released nine new versions of the game - that's roughly one every six weeks - and yet did not address even one of the many things players had been complaining about since the game was first released; while about every third new release rendered half the existing mods incompatible. I gave up on the entire mess and walked away. A couple of years, and numerous new versions, later I chatted with someone then playing ETS2 ...and found the developers still had not addressed any of those issues.)

Every project, whether building a dog house or designing an aircraft carrier, has to be considered "finished" at some point.

If any of those were a final product, I'd be still using them. I don't touch GPL anymore, even though it was probably the most enjoyable of the bunch at the time. These days even LFS can barely be considered good enough physics-wise. And there is no clear winner when it comes to the modern titles. In fact, neither of them is "quite there". For car sims it's only the beginning of the journey now. You can't really pick a single engine and say, "ok, this is good enough for the backbone, now all we have to do is adding more cars and tracks and touch up the graphics from time to time". So, it's natural for the physics engine to be constantly worked on.

Sure, the devs can abuse the system. Some of them simply grow tired with a project long before it's been made useful. That's why there is a need for new monetizing paradigms that would equally keep the devs responsible for what they are doing, and on the other hand, would keep them interested in progressing. As I said, to me at the moment one of the best business models out there could be that of Eagle Dynamics. Sure, their prices are too much over the top sometimes, the copy protection can still be a pain (at least if you change any components in your rig), and all that while they are missing a lot of features and feature a lot of bugs. But at least DCS gets better itself by the day and new modules are coming more or less regularly. Would the same work for cars? Well... With fairer prices it could. I don't see a reason why not.

You should realize that making a modern sim is much different to making a game. It's a constant research. And the resulting software is extremely complicated, making squishing all the bugs even more complicated. Especially considering the teams sizes.
As someone who used to do coding in the past I can testify that debugging can be one of the toughest things out there. And that's not mentioning that there are hardly any two similar PCs in the world. Some of those bugs could actually be caused by a faulty mainboard or a PSU.

 

[TzZyO]

Yep, all gone to cr*p last few years. I liked the days of going into a store, looking at all the PC game boxes nicely on display and after spending a good deal of time, finally selecting my own box with CD to take home. That was it, game purchased, a patch to chase up online when I got home at most and away I went. No infinite DLC's required to make my game good, no more pulling at my pockets ($$$) by the developer. How I miss the glory days!

The only point I can agree with is the proliferation of DLCs and other underhanded marketing techniques. However, making complete games at the first try is not going to work anymore with modern titles. Programming, 3D design, audio production -- everything has become much more complex than what is was before, and it's only going to get worse in the future (I doubt the new real time ray-tracing techniques will make the process any less complicated, au contraire). And here I'm only talking about games. Now imagine what breakthroughs can sims make in the future. Real time finite element modeling, computational fluid dynamics, you name it. With these things needing to be taken care of, the writing process could take decades even for a team. Unless there will also be breakthroughs in AI that will allow to offload coding/debugging onto the said AI.

 

[Bjarne Hansen]

If any of those were a final product, I'd be still using them. I don't touch GPL anymore, even though it was probably the most enjoyable of the bunch at the time. These days even LFS can barely be considered good enough physics-wise. And there is no clear winner when it comes to the modern titles. In fact, neither of them is "quite there". For car sims it's only the beginning of the journey now. You can't really pick a single engine and say, "ok, this is good enough for the backbone, now all we have to do is adding more cars and tracks and touch up the graphics from time to time". So, it's natural for the physics engine to be constantly worked on.

Well they where final products!
It is not like physics are expiring.
I would argue that Rf2 only got small changed to rf1/ simbin physics. Yes it also got added physics like chassis flex and new tire model.
And Rf2 got better physics than any other sim today.


Physics, AI and gameplay doesn't count for much anymore see how excited people are over a few screenshot of ACC.
Calling it the true successor to GTR2 by looking at a couple of screenshots.!

The only ones more excited than the fanboyz are Kunos bank managers.