PC1 My updated opinions, not happy

[Richard Eriksson]

Ok, so i tried the latest build again after being away from the title for a while. Now that it is closing completion, i felt like having a look at it again to see how it's come along.

And i have to say that as a simulation fan i am very concerned, still. The physics and vehicle dynamics are completely off! For instance, i tried the Zakspeed Capri (one of my all time fav cars) on
Azure... I managed to make a full speed, 65 deg. turn at 255 KM/h. without losing grip at all, while shifting gears!? Now, for anyone who have witnessed the DRM Capris in real life,
this is a joke. Also, the suspension model of all cars are a travesty... Completely ridiculous with the feel of a souped up Burnout Paradise arcade car.

Try the Focus RS, for the worlds most hilarious representation of understeer/snap.

Or try some race car. The on-rails feel and "dead" response is really, really not a good representation of the involved dynamics.

Also, full on braking at 250 KM/h. renders no stability change, lift off oversteer is non existant, weight transfer in general can not be felt.

It's Gran Turismo for PC, but worse. Or in other words, it's Shift 2 all over again. I'm sorry, but this is what i feel.

The FFB is completely dead. Not that it matters, due to above physics issues.

Even the biggest selling point, the visuals, or not that fancy any more. I ran it at max settings 1080p, and i have to say, some textures are really poor... Soft lighting and dnb are weak etc.
AC is prettier, because it looks a lot more natural. Also, the screenshots on pCars that are dislayed in PR materials is a joke. It does NOT look anywhere near that, even at max settings.
There is a lot of post-processing there.


So for me, this is still a "simcade" racing GAME not a simulation. It's in the same vein as Gran Turismo (but worse), Shift-series, Codemasters releases (but worse) etc.

Don't get me wrong, it will be a success and i am glad i invested in it, back in the day. It will sell on the pretty screenshots and it will probably do well for ppl playing with
controllers on consoles. There it may be a nice casual offering, with many cars and some nice effects for the new gen consoles (albeit it will run 30 fps most likely).

But it's still not for me.

I know casual "simcade" is the goal of this title, but in that segment i think Codemasters, despite their flaws, have the realistic dynamics spot on. This is much worse.

 

[David Ignjatovic]

Real-world physics are perfection; the rest are only simulations.

The simcade brigades mantra
No wonder Simbin devolved into a simcade entity

 

[Chronus]

@Dean Ogurok,

no problem here, it's fine we disagree.

Speaking of winter...summer time (still) here. Wish I were back to Toronto. Or Bremen.

 

[Lawndart]

its frequently hard for someone like me to read these threads as it's clear that a lot of thought in peoples assumptions went into replies but I'd like to insert some facts...

I've been a game developer for over 20 years, and I'm spec racer in SCCA, I've been racing for nearly 30 years starting in MX as a factory racer, then sport bikes, age has pushed me into cars.

Gran Turismo reached its fame by simulating realistic physics for the first time on consoles. Games are the only remaining medium that teaches people how to do something through trial and error and lots of failure. Challenging sims are a very viable market but marketing groups can't seem to get their heads around something they can't easily understand, or isn't directky initiative.

Current hardware can handle complex physics and arguably consoles can manage it better than PC due to its multiple cell architecture and physics is all math. What you see in a reply and what you feel when you play can be completely diffrent... The GT series has mastered the consistency between them both.

But the real issue is that real world physics don't translate to a 2D medium so physics is more an art than simulated reality. Iracing took the simulated reality approach and just look at how much they have had to change their "tire models". The reality is they are learning that you need to be convincing more than real... Rf2 seems to be leading that charge...

But why are physics so hard in games?! Well let's remove flight sims... Those are increadably simple with only 8 multipliers governing the plane. But a car? For those of you that tune, you know that every degree you turn a wheel that there are many mutipliers... Camber, caster, toe, and the ultamate... The tire, having its own reactive multipliers to changing dynamics. It's estimated that more than 360 multipliers, per axel, per car are at play. Then you need to include the factors that aren't fixed, the tires and surfaces that are constantly changing.

But dispute all this, hardware can handle this math, it's mostky CPU bound due to compatability needs, but then you have to understand how to do physics convincingly more than real in a 2D medium. You see the laws of physics are bi-directional. They work exactly the same backwards as forwards (your head will hurt if you really think that through) and you also have to realize that real world reactions to physics yield diffrent results every time in the real world, they are 100% linear in a digital medum so you need to factor in "error" I call this digressive physics. And it's where real and game physics converg, and diverg.

So let's assume your a pad physics engineer... And You set out to make a car game... Your going to get it very wrong unless you understand how your knowledge interprets to a 2D medium. It's not enough to know the math, you need to know the variable results as well... But I digress...

Back on topic, let's say you have "good" physics in a game, and user aids too... It's not enough. The only thing you need to mess with is grip... "Simcade" is a buzz word, starting with good physics and working backwards is the way to simplify them, not starting with a reduced set of variables...

I wanted to chime in, lend some details, as I know how passionate this topic is but its a very complex one... And despite being an expert at component comutational physics and artificial intelegence, I'm a gamer and want the same things you guys do from a product I'll be investing hours into playing... And my thumb hurts...

 

[Chronus]

its frequently hard for someone like me to read these threads as it's clear that a lot of thought in peoples assumptions went into replies but I'd like to insert some facts...

Right: your "facts" versus the "assumptions" of others...

Todd Wasson, Gregor Veble or Dr. Beckman wrote abundantly about this throughout the years and from them alone it's clear your optimistic views are not shared by them. Or any other developer I talked to. Your "resumé", seems awfully similar to Doug A., and if that is so, my amazement at such a post is only bigger.

Current hardware can handle complex physics and arguably consoles can manage it better than PC due to its multiple cell architecture and physics is all math. What you see in a reply and what you feel when you play can be completely diffrent... The GT series has mastered the consistency between them both.

No, "arguably" or otherwise consoles cannot manage it better than PC. There are a number of factors at play here, not just clock speed or IPC figures, or even architecture. The matter is (as you should know, it seems) much more complex and cannot be discussed in this way (at this level...and here).

Both Greenawalt and Yamauchi explained why they could not replicate the level of detail of physics engines of the racing sims for the PC market. With the arrival of the new consoles both seem to believe that now they can increment the complexity of the physics engines - Greenwalt went farther by stating that FM5 physics would be "impossible" on last gen hardware. Which is not the same as proving that the physics of GT6 and FM5 are on par with the best sims for the PC.

Iracing took the simulated reality approach and just look at how much they have had to change their "tire models".

No. Every credible physics engine takes the "simulated reality approach", to a higher or lesser degree of competence. And that is what distinguishes racing sims from what we call arcade racing games (not necessarily those played on arcades, but rather those that take a "higher level" approach to physics, focusing in on the "pretending" rather than on "being").

iRacing took the physical "modelling" approach with respect to its tire model, and only with the NTM. Prior to that, the approach was, as Dave Kaemmer recognized, no different than Kunos/ISI/Cojocar.

They have had 2 tire models: the OTM and the NTM. The latter has been evolving, some say revised, through the years.

If you know anything about the development route taken by DK, then you know how often and of what type the changes were (assuming the information DK passed to the outside world is accurate enough).

But why are physics so hard in games?! Well let's remove flight sims... Those are increadably simple with only 8 multipliers governing the plane.

Flight sims (I know, I was part of the dev team of two of them) can have different degrees of fidelity.

A fairly accurate flight model will use a 6 DOF, while most desktop flight sims use a 3 DOF. If I remember correctly, both GSI and Gilman Louie presented their sims as having 6DOF and fully nonlinear aerodynamics (even beyond transonic and supersonic envelopes). eRazor and some of the F4UT guys (yes, I was part of THAT team as well) confirmed the complexity of the flight models.

In some flight sims, the flight models are not "increadably simple with only 8 multipliers". Far from it.

But dispute that...and let us break our respective NDA's, lets see those "facts"... (Er...No, most definitely not.)

But a car? For those of you that tune, you know that every degree you turn a wheel that there are many mutipliers... Camber, caster, toe, and the ultamate... The tire, having its own reactive multipliers to changing dynamics. It's estimated that more than 360 multipliers, per axel, per car are at play. Then you need to include the factors that aren't fixed, the tires and surfaces that are constantly changing.

Are we to discuss Pacejka, Swift et al? Your perspective of "multipliers" is the typical "high level" perspective of knowledgeable simracers, but the real complexity lies much much deeper than...multipliers. Unless you mean something else...

Car physics have to be more complex than those of flight sims due what's been simulated:
- aerodynamics,
- chassis dynamics
- tires
- transmission
- engine
- suspensions

Aircraft can be fairly accurately simulated with 6DOF nonlinear dynamics focusing on:
- aerodynamics (subsonic, transonic, supersonic effects, plus a complex study/modelling of forces and moments on flaps/flaperons/wings/canard surfaces, etc, etc)
- chassis dynamics (fuselage, wings attachment points, load hardpoints, canopy, arresting hooks, load and wheels housings, etc, etc)
- FBW system
- turbofan engines, variable nozzles and flaps

Military grade flight simulators incorporate a significant assortment of systems and must be integrated with hexapod motion platforms (or dual gimbal gondolas) and telemetry systems, therefore their complexity is inherently higher.

You see the laws of physics are bi-directional. They work exactly the same backwards as forwards (your head will hurt if you really think that through) and you also have to realize that real world reactions to physics yield diffrent results every time in the real world...

Good Lord, no.

The laws of physics are not "bi-directional".

The Laws of Physics are Time-symmetric - in theory, reversing the Arrow of Time would mean the laws of physics are the same still.

You seem to ignore a few FACTS:
- first, the time-symmetry of physical laws is a theoretical possibility
- the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is not deterministic in nature (contrary to your "digital medium"), it's rather probabilistic and what some call a map of probabilities.
- at the quantum level, as per the transactional interpretation, we are talking about a 2-way street where events of the future determine events in the past and vice-versa. There are therefore cases where violation of time reversal invariance happen, which then points to a preference towards a certain (albeit limited) preference for a time direction.

And not quite this either: "real world reactions to physics yield diffrent results every time in the real world". Good Lord!

At the macroscopic level, we can discern/check similarities between events/reactions. It's down to the quantum level that the uncertainty principle and the probabilistic nature of the real world assert themselves.

Or are you implying that if you drop a stone from 2 meters high on a ladder NOW at t=0s it will take sqrt(2*h/g) seconds, and a moment later at t=3s the same stone will fall faster or slower than that? Hmm...

they are 100% linear in a digital medum so you need to factor in "error" I call this digressive physics.

Er...Are you saying you have to introduce an error (your "digressive physics") to account for the fact that in a digital medium the "reaction to physics" are 100% linear?

We already have numerical errors arising from solutions to discretized equations or a the solutions to specific sets of PDE's. With tires, you have to deal with spatial discretization errors, temporal discretization errors as well as the defects in the estimation of nonlinear interactions. Almost all tire models available have to provide ways to minimize the potential problems from this.

One example of "inherent" propensity to errors is the well known problem related to the oscillations due to variation of slip angle/ratio. [I recall correctly, Todd Wasson used relaxation length to calculate slip angle and slip ratio and thus avoid that.]

Again: the task of modelling a system is already complex enough, no need to "factor in" an additional error.

So let's assume your a pad physics engineer... And You set out to make a car game... Your going to get it very wrong unless you understand how your knowledge interprets to a 2D medium. It's not enough to know the math, you need to know the variable results as well... But I digress...

Not digress. You're simply being disrespectful to a lot of "pad physics engineers" who try to inject some much needed correct physics calibrations into racing sims for others to enjoy. And some have backgrounds which make them actual experts in their fields.

And despite being an expert at component comutational physics and artificial intelegence, I'm a gamer and want the same things you guys do from a product I'll be investing hours into playing...

Let no one tell Caesar his head is too big for the crown.

 

[Lawndart]

Right: your "facts" versus the "assumptions" of others...

Todd Wasson, Gregor Veble or Dr. Beckman wrote abundantly about this throughout the years and from them alone it's clear your optimistic views are not shared by them. Or any other developer I talked to. Your "resumé", seems awfully similar to Doug A., and if that is so, my amazement at such a post is only bigger.



No, "arguably" or otherwise consoles cannot manage it better than PC. There are a number of factors at play here, not just clock speed or IPC figures, or even architecture. The matter is (as you should know, it seems) much more complex and cannot be discussed in this way (at this level...and here).

Both Greenawalt and Yamauchi explained why they could not replicate the level of detail of physics engines of the racing sims for the PC market. With the arrival of the new consoles both seem to believe that now they can increment the complexity of the physics engines - Greenwalt went farther by stating that FM5 physics would be "impossible" on last gen hardware. Which is not the same as proving that the physics of GT6 and FM5 are on par with the best sims for the PC.



No. Every credible physics engine takes the "simulated reality approach", to a higher or lesser degree of competence. And that is what distinguishes racing sims from what we call arcade racing games (not necessarily those played on arcades, but rather those that take a "higher level" approach to physics, focusing in on the "pretending" rather than on "being").

iRacing took the physical "modelling" approach with respect to its tire model, and only with the NTM. Prior to that, the approach was, as Dave Kaemmer recognized, no different than Kunos/ISI/Cojocar.

They have had 2 tire models: the OTM and the NTM. The latter has been evolving, some say revised, through the years.

If you know anything about the development route taken by DK, then you know how often and of what type the changes were (assuming the information DK passed to the outside world is accurate enough).



Flight sims (I know, I was part of the dev team of two of them) can have different degrees of fidelity.

A fairly accurate flight model will use a 6 DOF, while most desktop flight sims use a 3 DOF. If I remember correctly, both GSI and Gilman Louie presented their sims as having 6DOF and fully nonlinear aerodynamics (even beyond transonic and supersonic envelopes). eRazor and some of the F4UT guys (yes, I was part of THAT team as well) confirmed the complexity of the flight models.

In some flight sims, the flight models are not "increadably simple with only 8 multipliers". Far from it.

But dispute that...and let us break our respective NDA's, lets see those "facts"... (Er...No, most definitely not.)



Are we to discuss Pacejka, Swift et al? Your perspective of "multipliers" is the typical "high level" perspective of knowledgeable simracers, but the real complexity lies much much deeper than...multipliers. Unless you mean something else...

Car physics have to be more complex than those of flight sims due what's been simulated:
- aerodynamics,
- chassis dynamics
- tires
- transmission
- engine
- suspensions

Aircraft can be fairly accurately simulated with 6DOF nonlinear dynamics focusing on:
- aerodynamics (subsonic, transonic, supersonic effects, plus a complex study/modelling of forces and moments on flaps/flaperons/wings/canard surfaces, etc, etc)
- chassis dynamics (fuselage, wings attachment points, load hardpoints, canopy, arresting hooks, load and wheels housings, etc, etc)
- FBW system
- turbofan engines, variable nozzles and flaps

Military grade flight simulators incorporate a significant assortment of systems and must be integrated with hexapod motion platforms (or dual gimbal gondolas) and telemetry systems, therefore their complexity is inherently higher.



Good Lord, no.

The laws of physics are not "bi-directional".

The Laws of Physics are Time-symmetric - in theory, reversing the Arrow of Time would mean the laws of physics are the same still.

You seem to ignore a few FACTS:
- first, the time-symmetry of physical laws is a theoretical possibility
- the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is not deterministic in nature (contrary to your "digital medium"), it's rather probabilistic and what some call a map of probabilities.
- at the quantum level, as per the transactional interpretation, we are talking about a 2-way street where events of the future determine events in the past and vice-versa. There are therefore cases where violation of time reversal invariance happen, which then points to a preference towards a certain (albeit limited) preference for a time direction.

And not quite this either: "real world reactions to physics yield diffrent results every time in the real world". Good Lord!

At the macroscopic level, we can discern/check similarities between events/reactions. It's down to the quantum level that the uncertainty principle and the probabilistic nature of the real world assert themselves.

Or are you implying that if you drop a stone from 2 meters high on a ladder NOW at t=0s it will take sqrt(2*h/g) seconds, and a moment later at t=3s the same stone will fall faster or slower than that? Hmm...



Er...Are you saying you have to introduce an error (your "digressive physics") to account for the fact that in a digital medium the "reaction to physics" are 100% linear?

We already have numerical errors arising from solutions to discretized equations or a the solutions to specific sets of PDE's. With tires, you have to deal with spatial discretization errors, temporal discretization errors as well as the defects in the estimation of nonlinear interactions. Almost all tire models available have to provide ways to minimize the potential problems from this.

One example of "inherent" propensity to errors is the well known problem related to the oscillations due to variation of slip angle/ratio. [I recall correctly, Todd Wasson used relaxation length to calculate slip angle and slip ratio and thus avoid that.]

Again: the task of modelling a system is already complex enough, no need to "factor in" an additional error.



Not digress. You're simply being disrespectful to a lot of "pad physics engineers" who try to inject some much needed correct physics calibrations into racing sims for others to enjoy. And some have backgrounds which make them actual experts in their fields.





Let no one tell Caesar his head is too big for the crown.

Fantastic acedemic reply, I rather enjoyed the read when I ignore the discrediting.

The overall point I would attempt to make is one of achieving convincing reality, not real reality. Of the name dropping you did? I know most of them personally, minus Dave. It was a sad when "chopstick" Louie left the games buisness (along with wild bill and a few others), I was offered simular options to join a team working for the Gov. And I still play F4... No dynamic campaign like it to this day. You have my respect for your contributions as a moder and keeping that game alive. My lawndart handle was from the Falcon day... The F16 coined the name.

Dan G? You really bought into that reasoning? Stolen straight from the mouth of Kaz circa 04'?

Look "Chonus"? I'm not here to debat all the literature you read, mods you participated in (on games I likely worked on) or being discredited by you. I'm here contributing and if you don't like it or I'm stomping on you in some unintentional way accept my apologies. I'm clearly not here for you and my words are also clearly meant to be digestabe at a comunity level.

You do make one good point that's relevent, who I am doesn't matter, but I'm new in these forums so some accreditation seemed appropriate. The rest of your points were lacking in anything constructive, as if I came trouncing in your territory. Though very informative and textbook accurate to boot... I pitched the textbooks decades ago... Don't be to quick to judge.

Btw, I don't know anyone named Doug A.

 

[Bryan O'Connor]

You know **** just got real when algebra gets used.

 

[Lawndart]

Ok, double post, I'm sure I just broke a TOS but after posting it occurred to me that my terminology is diffrent but it almost reads as if you put a microscope between the lines of my points... Further supporting them rather than discrediting them... If I ignore the word "no" at the beginning of each point, your technically supporting them... My over simplification clearly wasn't resinating with you.

"Digressive" is also clearly a term you don't like, and to be fair it's not at all a standard term... But otherwise I'm certain we are relatively on the same page... So I'm not sure what the retort is unless I simply reminded you of this "Doug A." Fellow?

Physics - hit 3 pool balls with a que ball exactly the same way and they won't end up in exactly the same place each time... Or ever for that matter.

I totally forgot about heat and tires. Good catch, but I'm also more than happy to clear up any PR statements that are used to explain away the why nots...

If I can get CFD licensed from NASA off SGI machines and into a flight sim back in 99 I might have a slight clue... But as you said, this isn't the place to discuss the depth of physics, but it's certainly the place to point out that consoles sure as hell can do so much more than you were told, or might know yourself. But the market for such complexity isn't there nore will it be.

 

[Mircea Rad]

But the real issue is that real world physics don't translate to a 2D medium so physics is more an art than simulated reality. Iracing took the simulated reality approach and just look at how much they have had to change their "tire models". The reality is they are learning that you need to be convincing more than real...

Perfectly said, couldn't agree more. That is why I would like to see more and more the approach to use experienced racing drivers to give input, not marketing crap, but brutal, honest inputs, good or bad. Simulating reality is not about putting all the perfectly correct numbers in a simulated environment (although this is what makes people feel better because they can brag about it being 100% real) but tweaking those numbers to feel real.

 

[Chronus]

That is why I would like to see more and more the approach to use experienced racing drivers to give input, not marketing crap, but brutal, honest inputs, good or bad.

Agreed on the marketing crap, honest inputs and using racing drivers. Have seen it done, and not as a PR exercise. It works.

Simulating reality is not about putting all the perfectly correct numbers in a simulated environment (although this is what makes people feel better because they can brag about it being 100% real) but tweaking those numbers to feel real.

No, that's not what simulating reality is all about. But that's a discussion for another thread - and certainly with other participants.

RE: "but tweaking those numbers to feel real."

The old mantra...

Tell me, sir: "feel" real to whom? You? AJ? Gjon Camaj? Kaz? Dan? Eugene? Stefano? Mark? Or to Rubens Barrichelo? Ben Collins? Claudia hürtgen? PerhapsTimo Scheider?

Do you understand it? "Feel" varies from person to person. You may certainly not have a clue about vehycle dynamics or the least experience with cars, so your "feel" will be totally different from a person who at least has experience with cars. Even among racing drivers experience differs and the way they see the same car differs enormously, let alone how a sim would "feel".

The only way to get a sim to approach real life is to use:
- the proper approach to modelling, good algorithms
- good data

That is objective and not subject to the whims of this or that person who thinks he/she knows what a sim should "feel" like. May not be perfect (it never is), but at least you can trust the result when done properly.

By "feel"? Oh...

put a microscope between the lines of my points... Further supporting them rather than discrediting them... If I ignore the word "no" at the beginning of each point, your technically supporting them... My over simplification clearly wasn't resinating with you.

Obviously not (re: my points "technically" supporting yours). Curiously, you know it, as this "double post" proves. But you may pretend to read whatever you wish into my post.

You were not oversimplifying things. You simple have the wrong idea in several points, and unfortunately you end up conveying wrong ideas as well.

it's certainly the place to point out that consoles sure as hell can do so much more than you were told

Yes they can. We can use hundreds of them to build clusters. Last I checked, my own university was using some 350 PS3's to that effect. And if I recall correctly, the USAF built a "supercomputer" with almost 2000 PS3.

Indeed, they can do so much more than just run GT5.

But that proves nothing in the context of Gran Turism (or even Forza for the xbox). Again, things are not as linear as you for some reason insist on making them look (or was that another "attempt" at over-simplifying things? Jump on and say YES.).

And by the way, the "cell architecture" you mentioned earlier applied to the PS3 only (another "over-simplification" on your part perhaps?). Both the PS3 and the Xbox 360 used "versions" of the PowerPC, so they inherent the typical features of the RISC design. Sony (and Toshiba and IBM) created the Cell design based on the RISC model as well.

And as we know, the PPC architecture in the consoles was dropped in favour of the X86-64 (the reasons for this are a testament to the X86 architecture and partly the reason why I disagree with your views on the consoles). And that too is a good theme but offlimits here.

---
You talk about "discredit" but ignored your own "clever" remarks about "facts" and "pad physics engineers".

Given the "Chonus" reference (really?), the conversation stops here.

 

[Kjell Eilertsen]

@Chronus what's up with the need to be so patronising? I reckon most people here can easily tell you sit on a fair share of knowledge behind the scenes, but most people don't like others riding in on a high horse being a douche about it, knowledgeable or not.
I thoroughly enjoy reading your post, if I choose to disregard the aforementioned parts, but you'd do yourself a huge service by approaching people with more respect and rather try to spread knowledge in a inclusive manner.

 

[Andy_J]

I'm lost. Seems this conversation is between to university mad professors

Chronos

Lawndart

I'll leave you guys to it. Have fun discussing your quantum physics.

Think I'll do the GTR2 1988 Grand Prix of Adelaide in a McLaren. Just for fun.

 

[Mircea Rad]

@Chronus You didn't fully get my point or maybe I wasn't very clear. What I meant is start with accurate algorithm & data, then tweak the numbers so that the feeling is correct for racing driver that actually know how it should feel.

Of course feeling is subjective, that's why I mentioned racing drivers to give inputs. I mean, if the feeling is right for a group of racing drivers (unbiased, of course) then it should be ok for a sim-racer.

Even among racing drivers experience differs and the way they see the same car differs enormously, let alone how a sim would "feel".

You're really exaggerating here, a driver might like a car to drive in a specific way and feel the need to tweak the set-up until it's to their liking, but if you get 2 drivers on track with the exact same car their feeling of the car will not be enormously different. Why do you think drivers use each other's data, set-up information, etc. Or how can a team of 3 drivers agree on set-ing up a car for a 24h race, if their view would be enormously different on how the car feels?

 

[Chronus]

@Chronus You didn't fully get my point or maybe I wasn't very clear. What I meant is start with accurate algorithm & data, then tweak the numbers so that the feeling is correct for racing driver that actually know how it should feel.

@Mircea Rad, I understood that.

My reply was to hopefully get you to think that "feel" is highly subjective. No one's "feel" is equal to another. You can't or shouldn't set a sim around someone's "feel".

Of course feeling is subjective, that's why I mentioned racing drivers to give inputs. I mean, if the feeling is right for a group of racing drivers (unbiased, of course) then it should be ok for a sim-racer.

I can't cite specific examples (sorry, just can't), but...as far as I know, your requirement there has a problem, because often dev studios do not employ "groups" of racing drivers. They tend to rely on the input of 1 or 2 drivers at most. iRacing is perhaps a bit different, because Shane V., Scott M., Dale Jr. and a few others have been consulted for feedback related to V8 Supercars and Nascar (but then, I and others have heard some of these drivers complain their feedback isn't given proper attention).

You're really exaggerating here, a driver might like a car to drive in a specific way and feel the need to tweak the set-up until it's to their liking, but if you get 2 drivers on track with the exact same car their feeling of the car will not be enormously different. Why do you think drivers use each other's data, set-up information, etc. Or how can a team of 3 drivers agree on set-ing up a car for a 24h race, if their view would be enormously different on how the car feels?

No, not exaggerating. I'm tellling you how things work with 2-drivers team or even 3.

The same car setup for one particular driver is "felt" differently by other drivers. Period.

What team engineers and owners do to minimize problems is this:
- owners try to make drivers with similar driving styles (and setup demands) fit in the same team. That is the ideal situation.
- with or without drivers with similar driving styles in the same team, team engineers try to find a balance (compromise) that best fits the demands of the team as a whole. So, in essence, from I have seen in different teams, is this: every driver compromises a little, so the right balance is reached

It doesn't matter if you agree or not, or think that it's an exaggeration. It is how things work.

But disregard what I stated and ask team owners how they form teams, and how balance between different drivers is achieved.

 

[Mircea Rad]

@Chronus I said it was an exaggeration to say that drivers' feel on the same car in the same track conditions is ENORMOUSLY DIFFERENT. I know how endurance racing teams work and what you say is correct, I haven't argued about that, but if the driver's feel would be so ENORMOUSLY DIFFERENT it definitely wouldn't work. Another example is F1, if a driver loses track time in practice, is common practice to use the data from the other car. Of course, I'm talking about a general starting point, it depends on each driver to fine tune the car balance to their liking and driving style.

My idea was about grip, traction, braking, weight-shifting etc. and how inputs from real drivers could help the devs to make the tire model and FFB to recreate the correct feeling in your steering wheel. And then going further on specifics for individual cars behaviour.

P.S. Why are you acting like you're some kind of "know it all"? This attitude is unhealthy

 

[Chronus]

I said it was an exaggeration to say that drivers' feel on the same car in the same track conditions is ENORMOUSLY DIFFERENT

Never said A THING about track conditions.

As I wrote it: Even among racing drivers experience differs and the way they see the same car differs enormously.

To be fair, I should have stated it slightly differently: Even among racing drivers experience differs and the way they see the same car MAY differ enormously.

but if the driver's feel would be so ENORMOUSLY DIFFERENT it definitely wouldn't work

Again, you are leaving aside what I said earlier, that team owners try to bring together drivers of at least similar driving styles. That alone reduces differences significantly. When this is not enough, then engineers and drivers must find solutions and compromises in order to optimize the sum vector car-driver.

You see it differently, fine. No problem.

 

[David Ignjatovic]

FWIW,.....I've tried 2 of Chronus's car mods for RACE07, and physics wise, they seem to be close to perfect, ie, when I apply differing inputs, there's a proportional reaction, so unless I really overdo it, the cars are grippy and stable, however, there's always a penalty for failing to brake appropriately and dealing with weight transfer.

The cars throttle response is also outstanding as is the tyre models behaviour.

 

[David Ignjatovic]

Another thing to remember.....Tiff Needle's view of driving games where he wrote off all PC sims and favoured ultra arcadey DIRT3.

 

[Chronus]

Oh, Tiff...

I remember a lot of iRacing and NetKar Pro (not mentioned by Tiff) guys being quite angry at him for that. Simraceway got a nice wink from him.

Hard to say the real focus/agenda of his "analysis". Why go to the trouble of trying everything (some of the best) and then choose...Dirt? If his angle was simply gaming, then maybe it is understandable? Been a while since last I tried Dirt (the original), can't say how real(istic) it is.

 

[Andy_J]

Dirt......realistic? Its about as false as a false thing form the Planet Fudge. Nasty.

But Dirt 2, that's a bit different. That actually had some good effects and some good car feel. They must have cocked up though, because they went back to nastiness for Dirt 3 and fudged that up.

 

[Lawndart]

I'm lost. Seems this conversation is between to university mad professors

Chronos

Lawndart

I'll leave you guys to it. Have fun discussing your quantum physics.

Think I'll do the GTR2 1988 Grand Prix of Adelaide in a McLaren. Just for fun.

I like that! The argument is between a guy who desperately wants to be seen as smart and another guy who has developed over 50 games for every major game publisher and 30 years of racing experience.

@chonus just stop, you are using subjectivity and data when it suits your argument, and argument that's not at all informative or constructive. You can't even follow the conversation, your too busy with "look at me!"

Agreed on the marketing crap, honest inputs and using racing drivers. Have seen it done, and not as a PR exercise. It works.



No, that's not what simulating reality is all about. But that's a discussion for another thread - and certainly with other participants.

RE: "but tweaking those numbers to feel real."

The old mantra...

Tell me, sir: "feel" real to whom? You? AJ? Gjon Camaj? Kaz? Dan? Eugene? Stefano? Mark? Or to Rubens Barrichelo? Ben Collins? Claudia hürtgen? PerhapsTimo Scheider?

Do you understand it? "Feel" varies from person to person. You may certainly not have a clue about vehycle dynamics or the least experience with cars, so your "feel" will be totally different from a person who at least has experience with cars. Even among racing drivers experience differs and the way they see the same car differs enormously, let alone how a sim would "feel".

The only way to get a sim to approach real life is to use:
- the proper approach to modelling, good algorithms
- good data

That is objective and not subject to the whims of this or that person who thinks he/she knows what a sim should "feel" like. May not be perfect (it never is), but at least you can trust the result when done properly.

By "feel"? Oh...



Obviously not (re: my points "technically" supporting yours). Curiously, you know it, as this "double post" proves. But you may pretend to read whatever you wish into my post.

You were not oversimplifying things. You simple have the wrong idea in several points, and unfortunately you end up conveying wrong ideas as well.



Yes they can. We can use hundreds of them to build clusters. Last I checked, my own university was using some 350 PS3's to that effect. And if I recall correctly, the USAF built a "supercomputer" with almost 2000 PS3.

Indeed, they can do so much more than just run GT5.

But that proves nothing in the context of Gran Turism (or even Forza for the xbox). Again, things are not as linear as you for some reason insist on making them look (or was that another "attempt" at over-simplifying things? Jump on and say YES.).

And by the way, the "cell architecture" you mentioned earlier applied to the PS3 only (another "over-simplification" on your part perhaps?). Both the PS3 and the Xbox 360 used "versions" of the PowerPC, so they inherent the typical features of the RISC design. Sony (and Toshiba and IBM) created the Cell design based on the RISC model as well.

And as we know, the PPC architecture in the consoles was dropped in favour of the X86-64 (the reasons for this are a testament to the X86 architecture and partly the reason why I disagree with your views on the consoles). And that too is a good theme but offlimits here.

---
You talk about "discredit" but ignored your own "clever" remarks about "facts" and "pad physics engineers".

Given the "Chonus" reference (really?), the conversation stops here.

You are wrong Chonus, we drivers feel exactly the same thing in the same car. What differs is driving style and setups to reflect that style. Racing teams have test drivers to identify car behavior, give feedback, fix the car. Then it get fine tuned to style.

Stop going into the minutia to make an obscure point about objectivity. You might be formally educated but you have no clue how to build an end user experience.

In fact every post after yours is correct, and even usable by guys like me because I understand mechanicly in a game what they are saying much like a race driver explaining a car behavior to a race engineer.

Spreadsheet attributed are very common in games and will continue to be for many years, arguing otherwise is retarded.

This thread isn't about right or wrong, it's a discussion. You won't win anyone over with your academia, and worse you are undermining your intelegence with false assumptions based on/false interpretation of other people's words or interviews. Know you place, least you will loose the place you have.

My double post was because I felt sorry for you and threw you a bone, an opportunity to adjust your ways, benefit of the doubt, now you are just being abrasive and rude and borderline trolling... It's tools like you that keep guys like me from particapating in public forums...

Now this argument is now over. You contributed nothing but a bunch of noise.