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

Premium
I'm still the dark about what all the crayon lines on the chart thingy's actually mean, is there something there that is telling us that there is no loss of downforce and or grip at specific speeds or there is losss of downforce and or grip, what doe these numbers represent and what are the units of measurement? seconds, meters, air pressure in metric? and whether driver error has been eliminated from the equasion?
I know that I find it hard to get two or three laps to within the same half second on a fast run, there after or earlier I can find a fence or gravel, then we have a set different variables to include...
 
Premium
It looks to me like the charts show that when looked at in isolation the wind is a variable, but when you overlay data from that variable collected over a longer time frame it becomes something more consistent.

Which would inform how that is modeled in the simulation.
 
Last edited:
TIL providing relatively factually correct information gathered from years of effort and millions of dollars of investment is being a "snidey ****". God forbid some people know some things and you disagree with them.
Do you mean McF1papa? I appreciated the info given, which was eye opening. But also reinforced what I felt all along that there's no sims that simulate everything that affects a car. I accepted the reasoning that from a professional view point they use sims in a COMPLETELY different way to the consumer thus some "random" elements are ignored. But it's those random elements that are at the VERY heart of Comsumer sims racing experience. And NO developer has done EVERYTHING right.

I suppose I'm in the minority here of disliking the snidey toxic "my sim is better than your sim" nonsense, which is fair enough. Just means I'm an outsider (at least that how this sites members often makes me feel).
 
Moderator
Premium
I suppose I'm in the minority here of disliking the snidey toxic "my sim is better than your sim" nonsense, which is fair enough. Just means I'm an outsider (at least that how this sites members often makes me feel).
No I think you're in the majority, it's just that most have come to realise either the futility of trying to reason or can't be bothered and are happy to enjoy what they play.
However there's nothing wrong with some robust discussion and people expressing their opinions, after all that's why OT website is text based. Unfortunately the internet doesn't really allow for nuance so sometimes things seem more aggressive than they were meant to be.
 
More an issue of people's ability (or lack thereof) to have a civil & intelligent conversation on the internet than an issue of any given topic.

Anyway, to resume the discussion.
But it's those random elements that are at the VERY heart of Comsumer sims racing experience.
About 99% of the experience is composed of things that are *not* random elements, to the degree that most players probably wouldn't notice if random elements were even present or not (unless they were exaggerated vs reality). These random variations are extremely minor in the grand scheme, given that there are massive discrepancies between sims/reality in the things that aren't random. For example, here is a very simple comparison of real tire data vs. a tire model of a similar tire from a popular consumer sim. The inputs (load, slip angle, ambient temperature, etc) were all exactly matched between the two, so this is a representative, direct comparison of how well the model represents reality.
1723729215948.png

And you can see that it's not remotely close.

Would random variations add something to the experience of driving? Sure. But it's much, much more influential to get the things that aren't random in the ballpark first, as they provide the vast majority of the driving experience. People are focusing on the wrong things if they're looking for low hanging fruit.
 
Last edited:
But also reinforced what I felt all along that there's no sims that simulate everything that affects a car.

I wonder who really thinks that tho? Isn't that absolutelly obvious? It's in the very definition of the word "simulation"... what does "everything" even mean? Where does it stop? Would a sim that does not model protons' Strong Foce be invalidated because it doesn't simulate "everything"?

You are basically barking at windmills, acting like you know some kind of truth that nobody does... yeah, welcome to reality, it's a simulator.. it's designed to do a job, it has limitations in both costs and knowledge so the target is to get as close as possible to something that can actually be used to do that job. People went to the freaking moon training on simulators that were incredibly simple compared to what we have now... their simplicity doesn't invalidate their usefulness.

Then there's the other problem.. the conceptual jump from "sims don't simulate EVERYTHING" to "thus every sim is the same" is pretty dense and that's why people are laughing at you.

No there are sims that do the job they are designed to do better than others and the fact that the bacterial fauna on the tarmac is not simulated doesn't automatically level the playfield, not even close.
 
Last edited:
I wonder who really thinks that tho? Isn't that absolutelly obvious? It's in the very definition of the word "simulation"... what does "everything" even mean? Where does it stop? Would a sim that does not model protons' Strong Foce be invalidated because it doesn't simulate "everything"?

You are basically barking at windmills, acting like you know some kind of truth that nobody does... yeah, welcome to reality, it's a simulator.. it's designed to do a job, it has limitations in both costs and knowledge so the target is to get as close as possible to something that can actually be used to do that job. People went to the freaking moon training on simulators that were incredibly simple compared to what we have now... their simplicity doesn't invalidate their usefulness.

Then there's the other problem.. the conceptual jump from "sims don't simulate EVERYTHING" to "thus every sim is the same" is pretty dense and that's why people are laughing at you.

No there are sims that do the job they are designed to do better than others and the fact that the bacterial fauna on the tarmac is not simulated doesn't automatically level the playfield, not even close.
thanks for calling me pretty dense, Won't be buying any of your ****ing products.
 
More an issue of people's ability (or lack thereof) to have a civil & intelligent conversation on the internet than an issue of any given topic.

Anyway, to resume the discussion.

About 99% of the experience is composed of things that are *not* random elements, to the degree that most players probably wouldn't notice if random elements were even present or not (unless they were exaggerated vs reality). These random variations are extremely minor in the grand scheme, given that there are massive discrepancies between sims/reality in the things that aren't random. For example, here is a very simple comparison of real tire data vs. a tire model of a similar tire from a popular consumer sim. The inputs (load, slip angle, ambient temperature, etc) were all exactly matched between the two, so this is a representative, direct comparison of how well the model represents reality.
View attachment 776680
And you can see that it's not remotely close.

Would random variations add something to the experience of driving? Sure. But it's much, much more influential to get the things that aren't random in the ballpark first, as they provide the vast majority of the driving experience. People are focusing on the wrong things if they're looking for low hanging fruit.
so why can't all devs get it right then? I see people moan about EVERY single fecking sim. Are all the devs stupid?
 
I wonder who really thinks that tho? Isn't that absolutelly obvious? It's in the very definition of the word "simulation"... what does "everything" even mean? Where does it stop? Would a sim that does not model protons' Strong Foce be invalidated because it doesn't simulate "everything"?

You are basically barking at windmills, acting like you know some kind of truth that nobody does... yeah, welcome to reality, it's a simulator.. it's designed to do a job, it has limitations in both costs and knowledge so the target is to get as close as possible to something that can actually be used to do that job. People went to the freaking moon training on simulators that were incredibly simple compared to what we have now... their simplicity doesn't invalidate their usefulness.

Then there's the other problem.. the conceptual jump from "sims don't simulate EVERYTHING" to "thus every sim is the same" is pretty dense and that's why people are laughing at you.

No there are sims that do the job they are designed to do better than others and the fact that the bacterial fauna on the tarmac is not simulated doesn't automatically level the playfield, not even close.
Strong words, from the guy that once said that safety cars had no place in a sim because "players dont like to be stuck behind a safety car".

I am sure that must be extremely hard to simulate, and it doesn't affect the racing experience, dynamic, or even immersion whatsoever, right? :)
 
More an issue of people's ability (or lack thereof) to have a civil & intelligent conversation on the internet than an issue of any given topic.

Anyway, to resume the discussion.

About 99% of the experience is composed of things that are *not* random elements, to the degree that most players probably wouldn't notice if random elements were even present or not (unless they were exaggerated vs reality). These random variations are extremely minor in the grand scheme, given that there are massive discrepancies between sims/reality in the things that aren't random. For example, here is a very simple comparison of real tire data vs. a tire model of a similar tire from a popular consumer sim. The inputs (load, slip angle, ambient temperature, etc) were all exactly matched between the two, so this is a representative, direct comparison of how well the model represents reality.
View attachment 776680
And you can see that it's not remotely close.

Would random variations add something to the experience of driving? Sure. But it's much, much more influential to get the things that aren't random in the ballpark first, as they provide the vast majority of the driving experience. People are focusing on the wrong things if they're looking for low hanging fruit.
If you think looking at graphics determines if the racing in the said sim will be any closer or farther from the real thing, well i got news for you...


For decades now, some people have hyperfocused on such things, trying to narrow the scope of their "simulation" to an insane degree, totally failing to see, just like you do, that simulating the act of real life driving is the sum of all parts, many of them not even tangible (will my car break, will the next bend be a bit more slippy than last time i went through there, etc), others very much tangible like, does the car react or "talks" to the driver at the same speed as the real one? Is the differences in grip and load sensitivity in various situations properly calibrated so that the driver can have confidence or not in the car?

These things are far more important than graphic obsessed individuals care to admit. And its even funny that, because you and "lord kunos" here started this whole conversation saying that he intentionally fudged grip levels in the original AC to make it "feel right" (and i am avoiding the use of "dumbing down" here, to not be misquoted).

So now after all this fluff, you two went full circle, and are telling me and others that after all, data is king, real numbers are king, and we can definitely say "this sim is better than other" based on those?..

Like i said, elaborate troll and derailing exercise...
 
Last edited:
If you think looking at graphics determines if the racing in the said sim will be any closer or farther from the real thing, well i got news for you...


For decades now, some people have hyperfocused on such things, trying to narrow the scope of their "simulation" to an insane degree, totally failing to see, just like you do, that simulating the act of real life driving is the sum of all parts, many of them not even tangible (will my car break, will the next bend be a bit more slippy than last time i went through there, etc), others very much tangible like, does the car react or "talks" to the driver at the same speed as the real one? Is the differences in grip and load sensitivity in various situations properly calibrated so that the driver can have confidence or not in the car?

These things are far more important than graphic obsessed individuals care to admit. And its even funny that, because you and "lord kunos" here started this whole conversation saying that he intentionally fudged grip levels in the original AC to make it "feel right" (and i am avoiding the use of "dumbing down" here, to not be misquoted).

So now after all this fluff, you two went full circle, and are telling me and others that after all, data is king, real numbers are king, and we can definitely say "this sim is better than other" based on those?..

Like i said, elaborate troll and derailing exercise...
You're not speaking from experience though. You just make assumptions based on things you've heard. Maybe there's a reason that every professional who actually works in an actual job and gets paid actual money "looks at graphics".
 
You're not speaking from experience though. You just make assumptions based on things you've heard. Maybe there's a reason that every professional who actually works in an actual job and gets paid actual money "looks at graphics".
You have no idea what i do, and who is paying me. Maybe if you make less assumptions and actually have respect for other people and their views, you wouldnt end up banned so many times :)
 
You have no idea what i do, and who is paying me. Maybe if you make less assumptions and actually have respect for other people and their views, you wouldnt end up banned so many times :)
Yes, exactly. Post your credentials. Last I checked you haven't shipped a professional product, and judging by how you talk about simulation, I don't exactly see you being able to create a suitable one.

Ironic coming from you, seeing as you're the person who originally started insulting the industry leading professionals.
 
Premium
You're not speaking from experience though. You just make assumptions based on things you've heard. Maybe there's a reason that every professional who actually works in an actual job and gets paid actual money "looks at graphics".
Sorry Arch, but being a professional doesn't make you good or even proficient at a job, it merely means that you are being paid for the process.

As for your claims of Richard just making assumptions on what he's heard, well, that's just you making assumptions on stuff you just made up... unless you know him personally that is.

This site has three and a half million members, only a few score of them bother posting on the forums, most players just play the games and fall off more times per lap than they'd admit to, having a 100% accurate tyre model might be a badge for a dev to wear but I can't see it being a fixation for most buyers, as long as it drives ok* most would be happy, if you added variables like engine blow ups and the problems that can cause those following, it's a fun thing... for a while, till the player goes to the settings screen and turns it down/off.
I guess you've got to look at how many units you's aiming to sell (might have just lost one though) as to the direction and level of detail you wan't to take the sim/game to.

But judging by the response of some studio folk here the old saying of "the public wants what the public gets" is ringing throughout the office

* I prefer the handling of the Simbin cars to those I've run in AC, I found them far too unpreictable and often found myself turning in early simply because I didn't have the confidence in the car
 
Last edited:
Sorry Arch, but being a professional doesn't make you good or even proficient at a job, it merely means that you are being paid for the process.

As for your claims of Richard just making assumptions on what he's heard, well, that's just you making assumptions on stuff you just made up... unless you know him personally that is.

This site has three and a half million members, only a few score of them bother posting on the forums, most players just play the games and fall off more times per lap than they'd admit to, having a 100% accurate tyre model might be a badge for a dev to wear but I can't see it being a fixation for most buyers, as long as it drives ok* most would be happy, if you added variables like engine blow ups and the problems that can cause those following, it's a fun thing... for a while, till the player goes to the settings screen and turns it down/off.
I guess you've got to look at how many units you's aiming to sell (might have just lost one though) as to the direction and level of detail you wan't to take the sim/game to.

But judging by the response of some studio folk here the old saying of "the public wants what the public gets" is ringing throughout the office

* I prefer the handling of the Simbin cars to those I've run in AC, I found them far too unpreictable and often found myself turning in early simply because I didn't have the confidence in the car
F1papa is a top-level professional who runs his own simulation company. Stefano is one of the founders of the most successful (non-live-service) consumer racing sim game.

I'm not saying they're always right, but completely dismissing their opinions seems strange when the people doing it don't have 1% of their experience or data to use to back up their views. I thought you're supposed to learn from more experienced and successful people, not fight them when they're trying to make you successful too.
 

Latest News

Article information

Author
Yannik Haustein
Article read time
5 min read
Views
14,802
Comments
280
Last update
Back
Top