GTRevival Is Now Project Motor Racing, Straight4 Secures Publishing Deal With GIANTS Software


GTRevival is no more - the Straight4 Studios title will now officially be called Project Motor Racing. And the studio partners with an exciting new publisher for the title.

The first project of Straight4 Studios has a new name. After being initially announced as GTR Revival, which was later shortened to GTRevival, the title currently in development by many former SimBin team members from the days of GTR and GTR2 now has a new name - it is going to be called Project Motor Racing.

Not only does this likely reflect a change in direction for the game content-wise, it also connects to the Project CARS franchise, which several team members around Studio Head Ian Bell also created. However, this is not the only bit of news that @Michel Wolk and I learned when following an invitation to Silverstone by Straight4.

Project-Motor-Racing-Straight4-Giants-Michel-Porsche-956.jpg

Can you tell that Michel enjoyed our Silverstone trip?

When we arrived at the track, we did not know what to expect. There was a track day for some of the most exclusive and wildest cars on the planet, the "Secret Meet", where even personalities like Adrian Newey or Zak Brown were present. The former even took to the track himself, driving a Ford GT40, an Aston Martin Valkyrie and a Leyton-House CG901, the F1 car he had designed himself for the 1990 season.

In one of the pit garages, there was an old friend from the GTR and Gran Turismo days waiting for us, the Lister Storm. Next to it were banners with the Straight4 Studios logo and that of the new publisher: GIANTS Software. And they really are giants in the simulation genre, just not in sim racing so far.

Project-Motor-Racing-Straight4-Giants-Announcement.jpg

Image: Straight4 Studios / GIANTS Software

GIANTS Software Partners With Straight4​

The Swiss publisher became famous and successful with their Farming Simulator and will now go from a comparatively leisurely pace to top speeds on the virtual racing tracks. We had the chance to chat with GIANTS CEO Christian Ammann about the project, and he is excited about the new adventure.

"With all the capabilities in-house, a successful history of strategic brand alliances, and an infrastructure proven through multiple projects, this partnership of combined strengths marks another milestone by expanding our genre expertise", Ammann says about the new partnership. "We started to self-publish our titles in 2001. That worked really, really well. So we decided to also publish other titles. Of course, we were looking into simulation titles, and sim racing is a very interesting market. It's also games we like personally."

Similarly, Bell is looking forward to realizing the new alliance's potential: "Our partnership with GIANTS is the last piece of the puzzle for the development of Project Motor Racing. It’s fantastic news not only for our studio, but the sim racing genre as a whole. Those who are familiar with GIANTS’ best-selling franchise will recognise why this partnership is going to refresh the sim racing genre in ways that the community is going to love."

Project-Motor-Racing-Straight4-Giants-Ammann-Bell.jpg

GIANTS Software CEO Christian Ammann (left) and Straight4 Studio Head Ian Bell. Image: Straight4 / GIANTS

What To Expect From Project Motor Racing​

Of course, we also wanted to know more about the game's direction. The Lister Storm is a first indication of the content of Project Motor Racing, and while this rare and legendary V12 racing car was scanned live on site and confirmed as the first car in the game, we tried to get a little more out of Ian Bell about the content and features of the new simulation.

"It was GT Revival up until the point where in building the assets, we decided that we were getting a bit bored with only GT. And don't get me wrong, we had about 80-90 GT cars in there. Pretty much every GT car you could ever think of", Bell told us. "We're not listing the content as of yet, but we're way into the hundreds now, in terms of car count, we've just kept going and going. So we kept adding more and more and more, from interesting areas. And alternative series that we find interesting, that aren't called GT. But we will we will announce soon."

Project-Motor-Racing-Straight4-Giants-Lister-Storm-Scan.png

The Lister Storm that was scanned at Silverstone (chassis SA9STRM1B1B053122) is mostly known for its 2003 FIA GT campaign in the hands of Jamie Campbell-Walter and Nathan Kinch, who raced the car in the final four races of the season and took the win in Anderstorp, Sweden.

Bell also confirmed that PMR is indeed going to be a realistic simulator that will focus on both singleplayer and multiplayer. "It’s like picking between your two favorite children. I can't do it because I love a single player for the fact that it doesn't tie you into a system where if you're not social, if you are uncomfortable driving, you can still get on and have great fun in the game. So you need, in my opinion, a great single player career mode, which we're really pushing to hell and back.

"At the same time. We also believe we need an iRacing style standard or better multiplayer mode. So there's a reason why we're not shipping at the end of 2024, like we planned a couple of years ago, we've added so much. To try to do the best in every area is what we're aiming for."

Furthermore, VR is a core element that Straight4 has in mind in development of Project Motor Racing. Bell continues: "We couldn't possibly not have VR. It's crucial for us", the Studio Head said referencing the VR capabilities of the Project CARS titles.

All of this combined sounds rather promising. We cannot share any moving images, screenshots or more information about the technical basis yet, but we assume that this could happen in August, possibly at gamescom.

Stig-approved Handling​

As for Project Motorsports Racing's physics, we cannot say anything yet either, but we did have a pleasant and very interesting chat with Straight4's handling consultant - none other than the former Stig on Top Gear, Ben Collins, who drove the Lister at Silverstone to collect both footage and data.

The cars "look great. They sound great. But then how do they drive? How do they feel? What's the feedback through the steering wheel? All of that stuff we finesse", explained Collins. "And I've got the real world experience to, to bring it in so I can figure out, you know, what it should be handling like. And in the case of [the Lister], it's really quite unique, although it's front engine, rear wheel drive."

Project-Motor-Racing-Straight4-Giants-Ben-Collins.jpg


Its engine may technically be front-mounted, but "a long way back towards the middle of the car where the driver sits. So you get really, you know, really good handling, almost like a mid-engine car. So unless you've driven it, it's quite hard to be really sure. What would it handle like? And you might make something that handles evil because you think it looks badass, but actually it's quite tame. So I'll try and bring as much of that into the game as I can."

Interestingly, Collins - who recently started a sim racing YouTube channel himself - also pointed out a seemingly common problem that sims apparently get wrong frequently. "The biggest problem with sims is that nearly always the cars a too difficult to drive, and that there's a massive drop off in grip, either the front or the rear or both." How this translates to Project Motor Racing will be interesting to see.

What are your thoughts on Project Motor Racing as the new name, the publishing deal with GIANTS Software and the comments about the development of the sim? Let us know on Twitter @OverTake_gg or in the comments below!
About author
Yannik Haustein
Lifelong motorsport enthusiast and sim racing aficionado, walking racing history encyclopedia.

Sim racing editor, streamer and one half of the SimRacing Buddies podcast (warning, German!).

Heel & Toe Gang 4 life :D

Comments

EVERY sim dev chooses what aspects of the sim to concentrate on at the expense of others
Always and it will stay that way as so much is missing between the real act of practicing driving or racing a real vehicles and what we call a "simulation".
by definition, a simulation is not supposed to be a facsimile : A simulation is a representation of something, not the real thing.
As such, the development studio and also ourselves have to choose what is important to simulate, as all is never the target.
The "Pro" are not after immersion, they are trying to limit cost and gain time on development of improving the performance of the real vehicle.
We are mostly after immersion, make believe we are driving or racing.
All those praising SIM x because it is use by the "Pro" are just showing a total lack of understanding, as beside being always very different from the customer version, the design goals are polar opposite.
As customer, we also are looking for very different aspect of driving or racing, so realistic is rarely the key to anything, a SIM as to considered as a total package, almost artistic in nature, a balance of ingredient, that yield a specific experience.
Arguing on the so called superiority of a particular recipe over an other recipe because of how one particular ingredient is used or measured just demonstrate a total lack of understanding.
A SIM as to be seen as a an experience, does it have what it takes to make your brain believe that you are doing something you are not.
To me, many Sim achieve this, I know I am pretending, but I still prefer it to being limited by real life many boundaries.
To me, Hardware is the enabler, most software are doing just fine once used with "proper" ancillaries.
 
Last edited:
so confirming my point that NO sim is "realistic", even pro sims as they exist within a bubble of non dynamic physics and reality is (as you state) highly variable and dynamic. Every dev will pick and choose (down to personal preference) what areas to devote most time to, sacrificing others.
Splitting hairs and grasping at straws a bit here to say that that makes it unrealistic. And anyway, adding these variables to a pro sim would make the sim less useful; they're passed over not because they're difficult to implement or that some realism has to be sacrificed, but because they would make the development program worse. It's a bit like scripting random engine/electrical failures into a sim. Is it difficult to implement? Not at all. Does it add realism? Probably in some capacity. Does it improve the simulation from an accuracy standpoint? Probably in some capacity. Does it make it a less useful tool because you've now wasted 25 laps of driving trying to figure out how the tire degrades in the 2nd stint, only to have your engine blow up? Yes. The goal of a professional sim is to explicitly not be randomly variable, like Cote says it's a different goal to consumer sims which strive more for fun/immersion. Everything that isn't random (wind variation, someone leaking oil on track, etc) is usually simulated in some capacity.

If we really want to split hairs, how realistic is a random variation model if it makes the wind blow left when it ended up blowing right when you got to the track? Would have been more accurate not to have the variation at all.
 
Every sim simulates the most important factors that it can: tyre temperatures and load sensitivity, suspension and load transfer, drivetrain, basic aerodynamics etc. They all omit the stuff they can't simulate: complex rubber dynamics, g-forces, turbulent aerodynamics, mechanical wear and tear and so on. Pro simulators try to do it with higher fidelity, to come up with results that correlate with the real vehicle behaviour so they can derive information about vehicle behaviour before hitting the track. No simulator is "unrealistic" because it omits mickey mouse stuff like wind simulation.

A lot of this stuff that sim racers consider "realism" is just flavour that has relatively little to do with simulation.
 
Splitting hairs and grasping at straws a bit here to say that that makes it unrealistic. And anyway, adding these variables to a pro sim would make the sim less useful; they're passed over not because they're difficult to implement or that some realism has to be sacrificed, but because they would make the development program worse. It's a bit like scripting random engine/electrical failures into a sim. Is it difficult to implement? Not at all. Does it add realism? Probably in some capacity. Does it improve the simulation from an accuracy standpoint? Probably in some capacity. Does it make it a less useful tool because you've now wasted 25 laps of driving trying to figure out how the tire degrades in the 2nd stint, only to have your engine blow up? Yes. The goal of a professional sim is to explicitly not be randomly variable, like Cote says it's a different goal to consumer sims which strive more for fun/immersion. Everything that isn't random (wind variation, someone leaking oil on track, etc) is usually simulated in some capacity.

If we really want to split hairs, how realistic is a random variation model if it makes the wind blow left when it ended up blowing right when you got to the track? Would have been more accurate not to have the variation at all.
hang on what hairs am I splitting and what straws am I grasping. I'm discussion the stupidity of the fanbois banging on and on that sim A is more "realistic" than sim B, when "realism" in a sim (and as you opened my eyes to even in pro sims) is ALWAYS a compromise....am I wrong?
 
hang on what hairs am I splitting and what straws am I grasping. I'm discussion the stupidity of the fanbois banging on and on that sim A is more "realistic" than sim B, when "realism" in a sim (and as you opened my eyes to even in pro sims) is ALWAYS a compromise....am I wrong?
I think you're misunderstanding what a simulation is. A simulation of power generation and storage for a city with a nuclear plant, solar panels etc. isn't unrealistic just because it doesn't include a simulation of bread baking inside of a bakery in the city.

A bit of a silly example, but that's close to what yours sounds to me. It'd only be unrealistic if you're trying to simulate handling over an oil spill, or in heavy wind, and I'm sure there's sims for that too.
 
I think you're misunderstanding what a simulation is. A simulation of power generation and storage for a city with a nuclear plant, solar panels etc. isn't unrealistic just because it doesn't include a simulation of bread baking inside of a bakery in the city.

A bit of a silly example, but that's close to what yours sounds to me. It'd only be unrealistic if you're trying to simulate handling over an oil spill, or in heavy wind, and I'm sure there's sims for that too.
and you are misunderstanding my entire point.
 
If i can add more fuel to the fire, if you eliminate all those nuances from the environment, you will fundamentally create something that isn't a simulation of real driving anymore. There is a reason why real drivers dont make "pixel perfect" lines all the time around a track, and its all those factors that make real driving so dynamic. If you take all that away, you are left with a sterile experience, which yes, might be very usefull to test things in a controled environment, but in the end is completely alien to real world driving.

So indeed, all sims are compromised, as are all pro simulators, compromised to reach different objectives.
 
Premium
If i can add more fuel to the fire, if you eliminate all those nuances from the environment, you will fundamentally create something that isn't a simulation of real driving anymore. There is a reason why real drivers dont make "pixel perfect" lines all the time around a track, and its all those factors that make real driving so dynamic. If you take all that away, you are left with a sterile experience, which yes, might be very usefull to test things in a controled environment, but in the end is completely alien to real world driving.

So indeed, all sims are compromised, as are all pro simulators, compromised to reach different objectives.
Exactly what my mind was generating, every race has random and unaccounted for instances, oil is a good example, as with other fluids perhaps drawn onto the track from minor offs, the quickdry dust that soaks up spills has an effect, the wind (or lack of) might keep dust hanging in the air, a fresh laid surface will rubber up over time but can be slippery as hell with a mistcoat of moisture.
All of these things and many more could be added into a sim to provide variables, not simply is it raining or not,
I noticed in a GT4 race a short while back a Mustang got a light tap in the rear by a McLaren, the latter had not a scratch but the Mustang just ground to a halt, unforseen electrical issues, the deeper you look the further you can go in simulation, I don't think you can only include the known variables, you need the random occurances if you're going to generate excitement and a more true picture.
 
If i can add more fuel to the fire, if you eliminate all those nuances from the environment, you will fundamentally create something that isn't a simulation of real driving anymore. There is a reason why real drivers dont make "pixel perfect" lines all the time around a track, and its all those factors that make real driving so dynamic. If you take all that away, you are left with a sterile experience, which yes, might be very usefull to test things in a controled environment, but in the end is completely alien to real world driving.

So indeed, all sims are compromised, as are all pro simulators, compromised to reach different objectives.
None of the things mentioned besides wind and oil have the capacity to affect the racing line on a lap to lap basis. Oil is quite rare and wind can very easily be simulated in a fashion that's satisfyingly variable. People are vastly overemphasizing the importance of these to the driving experience. Even wind doesn't tend to vary enough per lap to contribute much variation. If you go to the track and there's no wind and no one spills oil, is real life now an invalid representation of real life? The variables that actually matter for the overall driving experience are the ones that aren't random.


hang on what hairs am I splitting and what straws am I grasping. I'm discussion the stupidity of the fanbois banging on and on that sim A is more "realistic" than sim B, when "realism" in a sim (and as you opened my eyes to even in pro sims) is ALWAYS a compromise....am I wrong?
All simulations are by definition approximations. But that doesn't mean you can't say Mario Kart is a lesser simulation than iRacing and that iRacing is a lesser simulation than pro software, certainly if comparing specific components (e.g. the wind model). It's a gradient; all sims being approximations doesn't mean that one sim isn't vastly more representative than another (would be a logical fallacy to draw that conclusion), so there's no reason not to compare them. And I do stress that "compromise" is the wrong word to be using.


Lap to lap wind variation example:
1723489707360.png


And for 29 laps:
1723489661216.png

1723489823726.png


Generally +-6kph error band with some outliers (heavy gusts) that go higher. Lap to lap is more like +-2kph with same outliers for gusts.

Can that be modeled? Sure, quite easily. Is the variation lap-to-lap a significant factor in driving? Not particularly. Is the simulation in any capacity invalidated if it's absent? No, 99% of it is still the same. Is that true for all of the other things mentioned? Yes.
 
None of the things mentioned besides wind and oil have the capacity to affect the racing line on a lap to lap basis. Oil is quite rare and wind can very easily be simulated in a fashion that's satisfyingly variable. People are vastly overemphasizing the importance of these to the driving experience. Even wind doesn't tend to vary enough per lap to contribute much variation. If you go to the track and there's no wind and no one spills oil, is real life now an invalid representation of real life? The variables that actually matter for the overall driving experience are the ones that aren't random.



All simulations are by definition approximations. But that doesn't mean you can't say Mario Kart is a lesser simulation than iRacing and that iRacing is a lesser simulation than pro software, certainly if comparing specific components (e.g. the wind model). It's a gradient; all sims being approximations doesn't mean that one sim isn't vastly more representative than another (would be a logical fallacy to draw that conclusion), so there's no reason not to compare them. And I do stress that "compromise" is the wrong word to be using.


Lap to lap wind variation example:
View attachment 775872

And for 29 laps:
View attachment 775871
View attachment 775873

Generally +-6kph error band with some outliers (heavy gusts) that go higher. Lap to lap is more like +-2kph with same outliers for gusts.

Can that be modeled? Sure, quite easily. Is the variation lap-to-lap a significant factor in driving? Not particularly. Is the simulation in any capacity invalidated if it's absent? No, 99% of it is still the same. Is that true for all of the other things mentioned? Yes.
Funny i dont remember mentioning any variables myself. And i was alluding to a lot more than "wind" and "oil".

Maybe next time reply to the right person, and keep your meaningless graphics for someone who actually cares :)
 
None of the things mentioned besides wind and oil have the capacity to affect the racing line on a lap to lap basis. Oil is quite rare and wind can very easily be simulated in a fashion that's satisfyingly variable. People are vastly overemphasizing the importance of these to the driving experience. Even wind doesn't tend to vary enough per lap to contribute much variation. If you go to the track and there's no wind and no one spills oil, is real life now an invalid representation of real life? The variables that actually matter for the overall driving experience are the ones that aren't random.



All simulations are by definition approximations. But that doesn't mean you can't say Mario Kart is a lesser simulation than iRacing and that iRacing is a lesser simulation than pro software, certainly if comparing specific components (e.g. the wind model). It's a gradient; all sims being approximations doesn't mean that one sim isn't vastly more representative than another (would be a logical fallacy to draw that conclusion), so there's no reason not to compare them. And I do stress that "compromise" is the wrong word to be using.


Lap to lap wind variation example:
View attachment 775872

And for 29 laps:
View attachment 775871
View attachment 775873

Generally +-6kph error band with some outliers (heavy gusts) that go higher. Lap to lap is more like +-2kph with same outliers for gusts.

Can that be modeled? Sure, quite easily. Is the variation lap-to-lap a significant factor in driving? Not particularly. Is the simulation in any capacity invalidated if it's absent? No, 99% of it is still the same. Is that true for all of the other things mentioned? Yes.
"vastly more representative than another"....in what? EVERY area....no, as you've pointed out. It IS a compromise as areas of reality are not simulated, because:

a: not worth the effort for minimal gains. (in consumer sims).
b: not worth the effort as it will muddy data (for pro sims).

but fine it seems you want the sim wars to continue, enjoy the toxicity (personally I'm fed up to the back teeth with it).
 
"vastly more representative than another"....in what? EVERY area....no, as you've pointed out. It IS a compromise as areas of reality are not simulated, because:

a: not worth the effort for minimal gains. (in consumer sims).
b: not worth the effort as it will muddy data (for pro sims).

but fine it seems you want the sim wars to continue, enjoy the toxicity (personally I'm fed up to the back teeth with it).
Well actually, if your car simulation doesn't have a simulation of orbital mechanics then clearly it's unrealistic. You can't just G = Z and expect a realistic simulation. I think this is the BIG MISSING THING that will finally make simulations ACTUALLY REALISTIC.
 
Well actually, if your car simulation doesn't have a simulation of orbital mechanics then clearly it's unrealistic. You can't just G = Z and expect a realistic simulation. I think this is the BIG MISSING THING that will finally make simulations ACTUALLY REALISTIC.
You joke, but there's an astounding number of people who believe that something called "gravity modelling" is what is missing from all the popular sims.
 
fine ****ing laugh at me, makes you all feel big and manly?
Pay no atention to them anymore. These guys show up ocasionally to try to discredit the competition and stirr the "my sim is bigger than yours" toxicity. As far as i could see, this was just an elaborate troll and thread derailing exercise. Its particularly sad when guys who are supposed to be "pros", and even former devs are doing it, while insulting and dismissing legitimate points from the very users of said products.
 
Pay no atention to them anymore. These guys show up ocasionally to try to discredit the competition and stirr the "my sim is bigger than yours" toxicity. As far as i could see, this was just an elaborate troll and thread derailing exercise. Its particularly sad when guys who are supposed to be "pros", and even former devs are doing it, while insulting and dismissing legitimate points from the very users of said products.
Insults have been, for the most part, coming from you...

Also worth noting that you have also dismissed data, credentials, real industry feedback, experience... But I guess thats not discrediting because you have the "trust me bro" level of factual data to back you up.

Not surprised to read you claim toxicity, yet you are in the center of it :)
 

Latest News

Article information

Author
Yannik Haustein
Article read time
5 min read
Views
14,862
Comments
280
Last update
Back
Top