Community Question: Where Is The Immersion Line Drawn?

Ferrari 499P iRacing.jpg
Image: iRacing
Many sim racers try to get as close as we can to replicating the real thing, which is all well and good. But where is that line drawn? We would like all of your input here.

Ahead of iRacing 2025 Season 1 starting up on December 17, the headline new piece of content is undoubtedly the two-time Le Mans-winning Ferrari 499P Hypercar. Plenty of iRacing players are eager to drive it, but there was some initial confusion as to where it could be raced in officials.

But following its release, another few glaring inconsistencies arose that now add to the conversation surrounding realism and immersion. With all this in mind, it is time to really ask the question about where certain players are willing to part with immersion and where it is essential for the experience.


Should The 499P Not Be In IMSA?​

Within the GTP class on iRacing prior to the new build, there were four cars: the BMW M Hybrid V8, Cadillac V-Series.R, Porsche 963 and Acura ARX-06. All of these cars race in the real-life IMSA SportsCar Championship's GTP category but also in the World Endurance Championship's Hypercar class - bar the Acura.

The 499P marks the first time that a car designed to comply with LMH regulations as opposed to LMDh has been added to the platform, but it does not race in the IMSA GTP class in real life. The upcoming Aston Martin Valkyrie LMH is set to be the first LMH to race in the North American series, and there is nothing to indicate that the 499P will be attempting a run at the likes of the Daytona 24 Hours or Sebring 12 Hours.

As a result, many people questioned as to where the 499P would be able to be raced in officials.


For those out there still not sure, the 499P will be available along with all of the other GTP class cars in their respective iRacing official series. Subsequently, it is safe to assume it will be also joining them in their corresponding Special Events such as the Daytona 24. But it seems there are some people who are still unsure at least or even angry at most that the 499P will be amongst the selection.

Sim racing does provide the capabilities to branch beyond what the real world of racing is restricted by. So when a car appears in something that is not exactly true to reality but would feasibly fit into it, would that be just as bad as a modern F1 car racing in the 24 hours of Le Mans?

The same goes for tracks. In Week 2 of the upcoming iRacing season, all corresponding IMSA series will be hosting races at Motegi. Just because the real life IMSA do not race there, is that too far removed from reality? Of course, this is all quite trivial, at least relatively to an even bigger uproar within the iRacing community right now regarding the GTP cars.

Prototypes Too Fast?​

For the new build, iRacing have been tweaking the performance of the Dallara LMP2 and all of the GTP cars, apparently to bring them more in line with how they drive in the real world. Well, they may have in fact gone the other way.

Two of the highest iRating players, Pablo Araujo and Yuri Kasdorp, both made posts pointing out the discrepancy in terms of corner speed between some of the GTP cars at certain corners and their real-life counterparts. Araujo showing the real life Ferrari 499P going through the Porsche curves at Circuit de la Sarthe going 230kph, whilst the same conditions on iRacing had the car being able to take it at 288kph.


But that is not all. Another issue with the GTP cars on iRacing is how they deploy their battery. In real life and depicted accurately in the likes of Le Mans Ultimate and Automobilista 2, the power output by the engine remains the same whether the battery is being deployed or not. In this case, the battery is there to make up the deficit in order to use less fuel across a stint.

In iRacing though, the battery deploys the same way it does in Formula One or LMP1 cars, deploying on top of the engine to create additional power. That probably explains why the cars are getting to much higher speeds in iRacing than in real life. With all this in mind, we put it to you, which areas are essential for immersion and which ones are not necessary?

What are the aspects of sim racing where you do not mind it being not completely true to life? Let us know in the comments below and join the discussion on our forums!
About author
RedLMR56
Biggest sim racing esports fan in the world.

Comments

Sometimes I feel racing game devs and modders are hellbent on making their content *too* realistic. Case and Point: Virtual Racing Cars' latest mods requiring a startup sequence for their cars.

Yes, people sim-race because we want to imagine following in the footsteps of are biggest idols in the motorsport world but that doesn't mean we want to go through all the nitty-gritty mundanity of all the things needed to reach that.

In the wise words of Gabe Newell, "Fun isn't realism; it's reinforcement."
I partially agree. I think it's a hobby and fun comes first. But if some people want to learn how to turn on a modern F1 and find it fun, what's the problem with a mod that does that?

The problem for me is when people want to impose their sense of realism on others.
 
Premium
Personally, I don't really care about all this tiny little detail stuff... Besides, don't we all want to see certain race cars unrestricted at some point? (Like the Porsche 919 Evo, Ferrari 499P Modificata, or McLaren 720S GT3X, or that unrestricted AMG GT3 that set a new record at Bathurst)
With you there. Would love to see that Bathurst modded GT3 in a sim
 
Premium
Of course the elephant in the room being ignored is that only a handful of drivers can attest to the accuracy, realism, and fidelity of these machines or understand how real world fidelity at tracks from one day to the next can be dramatically different. Convenient for the fizzicks elitists who often have zero track experience - even just in parade lap or truck ride to a corner station.
This what I was alluding to with my comment that my expectations are for authenticity as far as my knowledge extends.


Some people are completely unaware how much knowledge they don't have and simply cannot have, Yet seem to believe they hold expertise on things they have never experienced outside of a video game, or never studied outside of reading someone else's posts or writings.

I saw the idiot bald guy state under one of his youtube videos that he definitely knew what he was talking about as he had 10000 hours in-game experience.
 
Sometimes I feel racing game devs and modders are hellbent on making their content *too* realistic. Case and Point: Virtual Racing Cars' latest mods requiring a startup sequence for their cars.
This is a very fair argument, as are others presented in this thread, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

I'd venture to say that no car has ever or will ever go through T1 at Sebring at the 159 mph shown in the iRacing screenshot (wider entry or not), let alone LMDH/LMH which have the highest weight and lowest downforce of any prototype in the last 10 years. 120mph is already on the optimistic side for those cars. That's 75% error in lateral G (Acc=v^2/r, not exactly rocket science). Looking at some other videos, it seems 140 mph is fairly common in iRacing, which would still be an error of 35% (monumentally large).

So in essence, you're driving a car that's completely different to its real counterpart. For some, that's fine, but I think for many, it defeats the point of what a sim is supposed to be.

Not that I think public sims will be able to model these cars accurately (due to lack of data among other things), but you could make a car with 0 data and get closer than 75% error.
 
As much as I prefer a game should strives for authenticity, I appreciate the ability to put together tracks and cars that have never happened in the real world.

My immersion is ruined when cars behave in ways they wouldn't in the real world, But only as far as my knowledge extends. Its very unlikely I would notice a car having higher top speed in game in comparison to its real world counterpart, Or that battery management isn't faithfully re-created, But I can certainly see this would give someone the shits who knows these details.

As long as it looks like a car, and drives how I'd expect that car to drive, I'm good.
I agree on your first statement. I used to be obsessed with GTR2's mods, collecting cars and tracks for many series (ALMS, LMS, BPR...). I wanted the real grid an nothing more. But with time I learned to be satisfied with fictional series / cars which were good matches on tracks they didn't race on. I started to understand that with the Race 07 series. GT1, GT2's categories were fictional, and so what? They were great. The same with Raceroom. What is wrong with using real regulations for supercars that didn't make that step in the real racing world? As soon as the developpers are using these regulations, it is fine. And, at the end, you, the player, are able to understand that certain categories are better on some tracks and you do your own thing. The most important thing is that the real regulations are respected, because we want to feel the real thing and want to compare to the real pilots' performances. On this I want a real simulation of systems and speeds.
 
Realism and immersion are same thing just for some people. For me it is.

I think the line should be drawn at "no way this could be possible". And many things are possible, like Lotus 49 racing on modern semislicks, it is technically possible, and iRacing has technically done that because they are weird like that, but then they should also make it clear, and not pretend that car is on proper tires.

Same goes in this instantce. If car runs tires, aero and power which it could techincally have, but doesn't originally. It has to be stated that "in this simulation "this and that" in car is adjusted differently", so thats why it runs way faster.

Simulation is faster than real life for many reasons. But iRacing has been notoriously using way grippier tires, that also gives away more violently than they do IRL, with such tires it is very hard to drive, but possible to be very fast after lots and lots of practice.

To me driving Lotus 49 on semislicks is where I would draw the line. I would also draw the line for every instance where good physics are being degraded in some desperate attempts to be more likeable to people, and practice shows it more often give bad results. There has to be raw honesty in simulation, manly rough/gentle honesty.
 
I don't really care about obsessing over every little tiny detail in a racing game. Give me something that looks good, is fun and manageable to play, and I'm good.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Premium
Realism and immersion are same thing just for some people. For me it is.

I think the line should be drawn at "no way this could be possible". And many things are possible, like Lotus 49 racing on modern semislicks, it is technically possible, and iRacing has technically done that because they are weird like that, but then they should also make it clear, and not pretend that car is on proper tires.

Same goes in this instantce. If car runs tires, aero and power which it could techincally have, but doesn't originally. It has to be stated that "in this simulation "this and that" in car is adjusted differently", so thats why it runs way faster.

Simulation is faster than real life for many reasons. But iRacing has been notoriously using way grippier tires, that also gives away more violently than they do IRL, with such tires it is very hard to drive, but possible to be very fast after lots and lots of practice.

To me driving Lotus 49 on semislicks is where I would draw the line. I would also draw the line for every instance where good physics are being degraded in some desperate attempts to be more likeable to people, and practice shows it more often give bad results. There has to be raw honesty in simulation, manly rough/gentle honesty.
I would strongly encourage you not to lose out on some absolutely incredible experiences because of assumption and prejudice. The 1955 Mercedes W 196 R on modern tires is so absolutely magical. A delight to balance and twirl with through the breeze at modern day Spa. I doubt the tire model for an older tire would make that much difference with the chassis being a far more significant challenge to the dance and hustle with.

Now losing the pole position, to cleanly getting away and leading the race by 20 ish seconds, setting fastest lap, and then getting network dropped a couple minutes before taking the checkered flag for the perfect 4 part "trifecta" - that tire model is not the part that ruins sim racing. netcode is akin to gambling still and far far more harmful.

Why can't I pay $10 more a month for a super low latency game packet routing option that the NSA/CIA/FBI aren't tracking so I am not get cheated on my wins!?!?

 
The charms of overprice and season ticket iRacing.
Don't cry and work on the rating of a paid bot.
 
I would strongly encourage you not to lose out on some absolutely incredible experiences because of assumption and prejudice. The 1955 Mercedes W 196 R on modern tires is so absolutely magical. A delight to balance and twirl with through the breeze at modern day Spa. I doubt the tire model for an older tire would make that much difference with the chassis being a far more significant challenge to the dance and hustle with.

"Magical" is where I draw the line. :D But seriously I have no problem with a more modern tire on historic car. As a coincidence I am currently working on 1937 W125 mod for rF2, will release soon. I have managed to get 1937 tire pretty awesome already. But I had an idea to include tire with late 1960s compound, or modern historics compound which is also very similar to late 60s.

But we are talking about relatively similar construction tires, that have very similar behaviour principles just better grip and wear characterestics. If we will be putting on much wider and MUCH grippier tires on old cars it will already be getting into nonsense territory, and then even more if we will turn into radial construction tires... At some point car will start getting undrivable - chassis will be strained too much, steering will become too slow, aerodynamics will become a serious issue, suspension will become too soft, ultimately old car can be overall unfit for more strict and on rails handling requiring tire. But it should be all good with tire that behaves similarly.

Now doing around 10minutes laptime with 1937 W125 in old Nords or Pescara with correct tires is what is expected. I assume it wouldn't be end of a world to have more modern tire on it, that would allow laptime closer to 8minutes, with a mandatory condition that it would be clearly stated that car is being simulated with a tire that is not period correct, has better performance. And indeed, most importantly it has to give good emotions the way it drives, it has to make sense.
 
Premium
I have my favorite sims that I stick to, mainly because they were the first ones I played and I pretty much just stuck with them being a person of habit. BUT- basically, if gas pedal go vroom and steering wheel go screech, im immersed.
 
I don't care that much about "realism" as long as it feels ok to drive but there are limits, if I'm doing maggots and becketts 10kmh faster than real life it's Ok, but not if I'm doing 50 or 60kmh, then it's too much. But again, this happened because, and ONLY because, it's iracing, the self proclaimed "Best simulation in the world", it's litterally the first thing they say when you enter their website, so it's 100% their fault, you want to say you're the best sim? Ok, then act like it.
 
I believe this article makes a very good question, because the answer is incredibly subjective seeing what different simracers will say.

Through the years and the different communities I've been involved with, I was always surprised with the different reactions to certain situations where simulation values could become questionable...

Some outrage because a car is 3s faster than IRL. Others have no problem with that gap being 10s.

Some get mad if a car does not have its inner systems simulated. Others are fine with that if the simulation includes other variables like weather.

Some are annoyed by a car spinning out inmediately at the first hint of a slip angle above 0. Others are fine with that but dissapointed if a car gets one a couple degrees above what they expected. The correct slipangle becomes an argument where it is impossible to agree.

Then some don't care one bit about all of the above if there aren't complete rulesets to race said cars. Others just care not about rulesets, just performance simulation as accurate as possible.

There is also the group of people that care not about anything of the above if the simulation has great netcode and matchmaking. And guess what? There is another group that does not care about MP or anything of the rest by one bit, and it's just good AI what makes or breaks the deal.

Does this mean that anybody on this discussion is right or wrong? Nobody is. Where we are a dissapointment though, is when we become elitist, gatekeeping a-holes, belittling anything that it's not what we like. How hard is it for people to shove their snarky remarks up where the sun doesn't shine? Of course, it's not like we should never deliver constructive feedback about games we don't like as much, and the main users of said game could learn a thing or two about not becoming overly defensive or create some pathetic circlejerking in response. Simracers should learn the difference between love and obsession.
 
I think this particular subject brings out the worst in the community - there are too many arrogant idiots hell bent on claiming one sim has the definitive physics, whereas all others are crap.

Hell you even get these totally brainless prats claiming that you're not a serious simracer if you play anything other than "x" title.

So, with my "brainless idiot" hat on, I shall give the utterly irrefutable facts about the physics of certain titles.

ACC - Absolutely great, drives like I would imagine a real GT3 car would. Heavy and not overly responsive, but still nimble.

AC - Disappointing - If the road cars actually handled in real life like they do in the game then the respective manufacturers would be drowning in lawsuits.

rF2 - pretty good, but it would be better if the cars didn't bounce around like they're little RC cars.

DR2.0 - Effing brilliant. Rallying should be difficult and fun, and this is it.

iRacing - 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

WRC series (9 and onwards). Not bad, captures rallying, but there's a disconnect which reduces the fun factor.

AMS2 - No, just no. Although I haven't tried 1.6 yet.

And I'll leave it at that.

Let me put my serious hat on now. It shouldn't matter to anybody what I've written above as they are just my opinions, and I'm not going argue with anybody disagreeing with them as everybody's expectation of a sim is different. So I guess we can sum it up like this.

The sim with the best physics is the one that you enjoy driving the most.

The sim with the worst physics is the one you dislike driving the most.

As far a realism is concerned none of them actually represent a truly realistic model of the car or track that you're driving, so it really doesn't matter if you prefer one sim over another.
 
Back
Top