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

Just going to say this and nothing more, aimed at no-one in particular.

I'd wager 90+% of consumer sim users can't feel much difference between the various sims (ignoring FFB). What is happening here is feeding the toxic eliteist attitude within the sim community. I gave ample opportunity for it to be realised, yet some stubbornly refused to grasp my train of thought. (or too obsessed with data).
 
Just going to say this and nothing more, aimed at no-one in particular.

I'd wager 90+% of consumer sim users can't feel much difference between the various sims (ignoring FFB). What is happening here is feeding the toxic eliteist attitude within the sim community. I gave ample opportunity for it to be realised, yet some stubbornly refused to grasp my train of thought. (or too obsessed with data).
Wager based on *what*? There's people in this very thread who have actual experience and hard data in the field you are guessing at, and the extent of your interactions with them is namecalling once they elaborate.
 
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.
One side of this argument has well documented experience and knowledge on the subject, while the other...
You have no idea what i do, and who is paying me.
If he wants to stay behind a mask of anonymity, then his opinion will always hold little no weight.
 
Moderator
Premium
Well who'd of thought that less than 24 hours after I asked for a civil discussion we'd be back at the same place again.
I really don't want to be banning people so can we try to cut out the name calling.
If I'm understanding what's being currently argued, it almost seems like there's a misreading of each other's actual point, but maybe I'm missing that.
Anyway let's try and avoid provocative posts.
 
One side of this argument has well documented experience and knowledge on the subject, while the other...

If he wants to stay behind a mask of anonymity, then his opinion will always hold little no weight.
Opinions and arguments carry weight by themselves.

As for my "credencials", i, unlike others, dont come here to promote myself, my professional life, or my achievements. Nor do i come here to suck up to those who do. But i have enough of those to at least have an informed, rational, and poised conversation with those who are civil and respectfull. Which unfortunately, isn't the case.

So excuse me if i won't indulge in this measuring contest, altough, like i said, you dont know nothing about me that you can actually use to measure anything :)
 
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?
How exactly do you do that without ""graphics""? That's exactly what something like the graph I posted shows.

so why can't all devs get it right then? I see people moan about EVERY single fecking sim. Are all the devs stupid?
It's extremely difficult and extremely expensive (because it requires not making things up) in a way that is not sustainable in any capacity for game development. And even if they make something accurate, that's not generally what sells best, so there's not much incentive. In addition to that, there for sure is a range of aptitude; I wouldn't go so far as to say stupid though.

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).
...not what was said.

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
But i have enough of those to at least have an informed, rational, and poised conversation with those who are civil and respectfull.
FWIW, the reason people keep questioning credentials is that you write responses with shaky logic that consistently toe the ad hominem line. Saying someone "totally fails to see" something or that they are trolling is not particularly poised, civil, or respectful. Whether you see it that way or not is besides the point; people wouldn't be asking about credentials if your arguments were strong enough to stand on their own. If you gave some idea as to your experience, people might hold your opinion with higher regard (and give more of a pass for the...personal nature of your responses). Your refusal to put your cards on the table only pushes people in the other direction.


For those reading along, a simulator being the sum of all parts is for sure true. But maybe the better way to think of it is that it's the sum of all errors. That is to say that the individual accuracy of components is also quite important because it influences the sum. One thing can be +20% and another can be -20% and you might get the right answer in a given set of conditions, but maybe you change them and the first stays at +20% and the other goes to 0%, now you have 20% error and things go haywire.

An example to illustrate. Say you have a car with X power and Y tire rolling resistance, but you have no data. You end up guessing at the power, and you end up (unbeknownst to you) with 10% too much. Let's say you have some wind tunnel data and some on-track telemetry from a short track, and you tweak the tire rolling resistance until the acceleration and top speed at the end of straights line up pretty closely to the real car, so it anecdotally seems pretty accurate. But in actuality, your engine has 10% too much power and you have 80% too much rolling resistance, so you're going to burn 10% (ish) too much fuel and there will be a lot more heat going into your tires (rolling resistance is the loss of rolling efficiency to heat, so higher resistance means more heat generation). So now your stint length will be a few laps too short and your tires will be melting 10 laps before they're supposed to. Because rolling resistance is load dependent, when you go to a track like Daytona, with long, fast, high-load sections (banking), your tires will be overheating by lap 4. Because your tires are overheating, your pressures are now wrong, which is also causing the car to drive differently due to the effects on ride heights and tire grip (and other things). Now cold ambient temperatures are going to be way more beneficial to lap times than in real life. So you'll have to modify the thermal model of the tires to no longer follow real world principles so that at least your tires don't overheat. Did I mention the car will decelerate too quickly now as well? Or maybe the power in the real car is actually variable due to its ram air intake, so at low speeds you have 10% too much and at high speeds it's close to correct?

All of these uncertainties and errors caused by the error of one "basic" parameter.

These errors stack. There's a point of no return when enough accrue that the car simply isn't going to drive the same as the real one anymore under any circumstance. A good sim engineer will be able to look at that picture as a whole and figure out e.g. the estimated engine power was probably too high (at least under certain conditions), and get closer to reality with the rest of the parameters. But most car model developers (certainly for consumer games!) will miss it and continue to tweak other parameters (that may have even been correct before, and now won't be) until the overall behavior lines up under one circumstance, but odds are that the behavior will be dead wrong under another circumstance. Same goes for one driver's opinion vs another; adjusting the model to match one's preference may make it worse for the other, etc.

Someone competent can get pretty close by guessing (though honestly, only if they have a lot of experience with actual data to back up their guesses), but the reality is that you'll never converge to a solution by guessing alone. Convergence is what you might call the holy grail of simulation, and it's when your component error margins are low enough that the sum in all situations is within an acceptable tolerance to say that the car responds "correctly". It is generally extremely expensive (we are talking hundreds of thousands) to accomplish this.

So, things like the errors in the tire graph I posted aren't negligible, and to dismiss it is a bit shortsighted. Maybe the engine power example would ultimately be pretty inconsequential to the driving experience, but for example, the sim tire in the graph would run the outlap on cold tires about 20s/lap faster than the real car. A huge, not even remotely negligible margin (and also not one you can correct by fudging things other than the tires, thus the error genuinely matters).

All of that isn't to say that a simulator can't be fun or still realistic in a broad sense (it feels like a car) with inaccurate data, but to dismiss it entirely.....
 
Opinions and arguments carry weight by themselves.

As for my "credencials", i, unlike others, dont come here to promote myself, my professional life, or my achievements. Nor do i come here to suck up to those who do. But i have enough of those to at least have an informed, rational, and poised conversation with those who are civil and respectfull. Which unfortunately, isn't the case.

So excuse me if i won't indulge in this measuring contest, altough, like i said, you dont know nothing about me that you can actually use to measure anything :)
You always in disagreement with various community members over various topics which often turn into heated discussions? It’s never informative or rational.

And you got that right, pretty clear there’s nothing to measure :)
 
How exactly do you do that without ""graphics""? That's exactly what something like the graph I posted shows.


It's extremely difficult and extremely expensive (because it requires not making things up) in a way that is not sustainable in any capacity for game development. And even if they make something accurate, that's not generally what sells best, so there's not much incentive. In addition to that, there for sure is a range of aptitude; I wouldn't go so far as to say stupid though.


...not what was said.



FWIW, the reason people keep questioning credentials is that you write responses with shaky logic that consistently toe the ad hominem line. Saying someone "totally fails to see" something or that they are trolling is not particularly poised, civil, or respectful. Whether you see it that way or not is besides the point; people wouldn't be asking about credentials if your arguments were strong enough to stand on their own. If you gave some idea as to your experience, people might hold your opinion with higher regard (and give more of a pass for the...personal nature of your responses). Your refusal to put your cards on the table only pushes people in the other direction.


For those reading along, a simulator being the sum of all parts is for sure true. But maybe the better way to think of it is that it's the sum of all errors. That is to say that the individual accuracy of components is also quite important because it influences the sum. One thing can be +20% and another can be -20% and you might get the right answer in a given set of conditions, but maybe you change them and the first stays at +20% and the other goes to 0%, now you have 20% error and things go haywire.

An example to illustrate. Say you have a car with X power and Y tire rolling resistance, but you have no data. You end up guessing at the power, and you end up (unbeknownst to you) with 10% too much. Let's say you have some wind tunnel data and some on-track telemetry from a short track, and you tweak the tire rolling resistance until the acceleration and top speed at the end of straights line up pretty closely to the real car, so it anecdotally seems pretty accurate. But in actuality, your engine has 10% too much power and you have 80% too much rolling resistance, so you're going to burn 10% (ish) too much fuel and there will be a lot more heat going into your tires (rolling resistance is the loss of rolling efficiency to heat, so higher resistance means more heat generation). So now your stint length will be a few laps too short and your tires will be melting 10 laps before they're supposed to. Because rolling resistance is load dependent, when you go to a track like Daytona, with long, fast, high-load sections (banking), your tires will be overheating by lap 4. Because your tires are overheating, your pressures are now wrong, which is also causing the car to drive differently due to the effects on ride heights and tire grip (and other things). Now cold ambient temperatures are going to be way more beneficial to lap times than in real life. So you'll have to modify the thermal model of the tires to no longer follow real world principles so that at least your tires don't overheat. Did I mention the car will decelerate too quickly now as well? Or maybe the power in the real car is actually variable due to its ram air intake, so at low speeds you have 10% too much and at high speeds it's close to correct?

All of these uncertainties and errors caused by the error of one "basic" parameter.

These errors stack. There's a point of no return when enough accrue that the car simply isn't going to drive the same as the real one anymore under any circumstance. A good sim engineer will be able to look at that picture as a whole and figure out e.g. the estimated engine power was probably too high (at least under certain conditions), and get closer to reality with the rest of the parameters. But most car model developers (certainly for consumer games!) will miss it and continue to tweak other parameters (that may have even been correct before, and now won't be) until the overall behavior lines up under one circumstance, but odds are that the behavior will be dead wrong under another circumstance. Same goes for one driver's opinion vs another; adjusting the model to match one's preference may make it worse for the other, etc.

Someone competent can get pretty close by guessing (though honestly, only if they have a lot of experience with actual data to back up their guesses), but the reality is that you'll never converge to a solution by guessing alone. Convergence is what you might call the holy grail of simulation, and it's when your component error margins are low enough that the sum in all situations is within an acceptable tolerance to say that the car responds "correctly". It is generally extremely expensive (we are talking hundreds of thousands) to accomplish this.

So, things like the errors in the tire graph I posted aren't negligible, and to dismiss it is a bit shortsighted. Maybe the engine power example would ultimately be pretty inconsequential to the driving experience, but for example, the sim tire in the graph would run the outlap on cold tires about 20s/lap faster than the real car. A huge, not even remotely negligible margin (and also not one you can correct by fudging things other than the tires, thus the error genuinely matters).

All of that isn't to say that a simulator can't be fun or still realistic in a broad sense (it feels like a car) with inaccurate data, but to dismiss it entirely.....
I am pretty sure at this point you lost everybody in the audience, so i dont know who will bother to read this wall of text except me, but as far as i am concerned, i am not the one that keeps bringing my "profession" to try to convince people about my arguments, you are. As for those asking about my credencials, they are your usual lackeys who show up whenever you are being challenged, which seems to happen often enough that we already know who they are.

As for the rest of your post, seems just like a long diabrite about nothing i even said or implied. I never said data wasn't important to a degree. I never said one should ignore all of it. What i said is that the sum of all parts, makes taking isolated things like the graph you posted, with a grain of salt. That graph in isolation proves nothing, and for sure it doesnt prove that some sim is better than other on its own.
 
That graph in isolation proves nothing
Proves pretty unequivocally the tire model is not accurate in a way that significantly affects the driving experience, those magnitudes of errors aren’t a “tweaked for feel” or “sum of parts” kind of thing. It’s 45% error in some spots. Inaccurate tire model means compromises are being made elsewhere to compensate (in a way that won’t be as accurate, as those things are not the actual source of error). That was my point in the long part of my last post (data needs to be the foundation of any model because error stacks), which was not actually directed at you despite your inference. And sure, doesn’t mean one sim is better than another, but could very easily mean one sim’s tire model is better than another - that somehow not worth distinguishing?

And you should look up the definition of diatribe before trying to use it as a descriptor.


As for those asking about my credencials, they are your usual lackeys who show up whenever you are being challenged, which seems to happen often enough that we already know who they are.
You notice people asking for anyone else’s credentials in here besides yours? What’s the actual common thread here…

And regardless, experience and credibility is relevant in any discussion; you’re going to (and should) trust a registered accountant to do your taxes more than you would trust someone who can’t balance a check book. Refusing to share your background is only going to make people assume you’re closer to the latter camp than the former (and statistically, it absolutely correlates). If you’re an open book about it (which I tend to be, to your evident dismay), the basis the opinions are founded on is at least clear. It’s the same as you using a Josef Newgarden video as evidence; clearly even to you, credibility matters, and not just the opinions themselves.
 
Proves pretty unequivocally the tire model is not accurate in a way that significantly affects the driving experience, those magnitudes of errors aren’t a “tweaked for feel” or “sum of parts” kind of thing. It’s 45% error in some spots. Inaccurate tire model means compromises are being made elsewhere to compensate (in a way that won’t be as accurate, as those things are not the actual source of error). That was my point in the long part of my last post (data needs to be the foundation of any model because error stacks), which was not actually directed at you despite your inference. And sure, doesn’t mean one sim is better than another, but could very easily mean one sim’s tire model is better than another - that somehow not worth distinguishing?

And you should look up the definition of diatribe before trying to use it as a descriptor.



You notice people asking for anyone else’s credentials in here besides yours? What’s the actual common thread here…

And regardless, experience and credibility is relevant in any discussion; you’re going to (and should) trust a registered accountant to do your taxes more than you would trust someone who can’t balance a check book. Refusing to share your background is only going to make people assume you’re closer to the latter camp than the former (and statistically, it absolutely correlates). If you’re an open book about it (which I tend to be, to your evident dismay), the basis the opinions are founded on is at least clear. It’s the same as you using a Josef Newgarden video as evidence; clearly even to you, credibility matters, and not just the opinions themselves.
The common thread is i am the one challenging your assumptions, thats the common thread. Something your and your followers seem to be alergic about.
You are not an open book about it, you are a megaphone blaring it to anyone who cares to listen (nobody at this point). Sure credibility matters, but since i am not in a crusade to convince anyone, unlike you, i am not that hot and bothered to show my credencials, something you desperately cling on, every time the conversation doesn't go your way.

As for the graph that you insist on discussing, do you know what other factors the physics engine would take into account? Do you know if there are other values or curves that the engine is blending in? Do you know how they all interact? Do you know the ramifications of the clock speeds the engine is running at, and how they affect the results? Do you know if said curve is a result of first principles applications, an empiric model, or a mix? Is that curve purely an output of the numbers, or a realtime data plot of the car running around in game? If so, is that plot the result of the sum of all things, but just one of them in isolation? is there no noise or other things afecting it?

You see, so many questions.... the proof is in the puding in the driving, and the results. Ironically something that, shock and horror, a real driver might have some valid input in... the same input you spent pages dismissing.

Because you see, the difference between you and your followers and me, is that i dont come around saying i have the whole truth on my side, and proceed to spout meaningless graphics to try to shock and awe the audience, in order to yet again recycle the whole "my sim is bigger than yours" nonsese. I happen to know that there is a lot more than meets the eye in a physics engine, things that sometimes even their creators dont forsee.
 
so i dont know who will bother to read this wall of text except me
I gladly read what @mclarenf1papa wrote, no bother at all, actually would be grateful to have more, from him but also from other, like him. People with a long experience on the science behind the simulation. Factual conversation about a subject that interest me very much. Rather than the ubiquitous, sim x is better than sim y because the poster (who as zero credentials) say it is.
regardless, experience and credibility is relevant in any discussion
Absolutely. Thank you for taking the time to help shine some light on what simulation is really based on.
 
So we are saying that "cred and name dropping" matters, instead of the content of the posts (over time, from a given poster)?
 
Speaking of a diatribe…:roflmao:

Will address this part at least:
As for the graph that you insist on discussing, do you know what other factors the physics engine would take into account? Do you know if there are other values or curves that the engine is blending in? Do you know how they all interact? Do you know the ramifications of the clock speeds the engine is running at, and how they affect the results? Do you know if said curve is a result of first principles applications, an empiric model, or a mix? Is that curve purely an output of the numbers, or a realtime data plot of the car running around in game? If so, is that plot the result of the sum of all things, but just one of them in isolation? is there no noise or other things afecting it?
It’s a real time tire+wheel simulation using the exact same inputs (ambient/track temperatures, velocities, loads, slip velocities, cambers, etc) as the real test. So everything you mentioned is not a consideration besides simulation time step (which for quasi steady state curves is completely irrelevant as long as the solver is stable) and noise (which in this data is negligible for the plot shown and inputs used). It’s the sum of all parts of the model and thus, like I said originally, a representative picture of the model’s overall accuracy.

In this case I do know the answers to the rest of the questions if you’d still like them answered though.

I wouldn’t exactly say the conversation isn’t “going my way”…

So we are saying that "cred and name dropping" matters, instead of the content of the posts (over time, from a given poster)?
For sure no one is saying that.
 
A simulation engine is math. A bunch of mathematical models, each solved using presumably the numerical methods best suited for the use case.

That is the paints and canvas.

Then there is the what the artists do. They try to create an image using the paint and canvas. The paint and canvases will never be the real thing.

Is there an ideal image of a scene? Is there an ideal image of a feeling or sense of "being there"?

Or are there schools of thought. Baroque? Renaissance? Impressionism? Symbolism? Art Deco?

What is the most authentic Group C experience possible on a PC? Exact laptime at Le Mans? Same sweat after a stint? Same skill needed to hit optimal pace? Same toxic relationship with a sponsor? Same joy in an angry grindy wheelspinny exit from La Source?

What is the best paints and canvas for what you want? Or for what the artist (modder or studio) wants?

None of this is clear, and it all inherently has tradeoffs, unless of course we are down to those protons after all.

Even if you have the math dead on for a thing, for your CPU budget, you still have to choose a something over something else. And maybe that something else was what Renoir preferred.
 
Speaking of a diatribe…:roflmao:

Will address this part at least:

It’s a real time tire+wheel simulation using the exact same inputs (ambient/track temperatures, velocities, loads, slip velocities, cambers, etc) as the real test. So everything you mentioned is not a consideration besides simulation time step (which for quasi steady state curves is completely irrelevant as long as the solver is stable) and noise (which in this data is negligible for the plot shown and inputs used). It’s the sum of all parts of the model and thus, like I said originally, a representative picture of the model’s overall accuracy.

In this case I do know the answers to the rest of the questions if you’d still like them answered though.

I wouldn’t exactly say the conversation isn’t “going my way”…


For sure no one is saying that.
It is going your way? Well you can answer all my questions sure,but i must remind you that you are the same person that is clinging on to your credencials to validate your points, while you were the one that started this whole conversation by dismissing both Ben Collins and Josef Newgarden. But i guess their "credentials" don't count, because they are real drivers, while yours are the ones that matter, right? :)

Accuracy towards what? replicating the same curve as a static tire test? A static tire test just like all the others that all sim devs have had access to in the last 20 years?

I don't know what i find most amusing, the fact that you think you discovered the gun power with this, or the fact that you have spent pages and pages here trying to prove that all sims have "too much grip", according to your magic data, when real drivers are saying the opposite in your face, and yet, you are asking ME for my credencials...
 
but i must remind you that you are the same person that is clinging on to your credencials to validate your points, while you were the one that started this whole conversation by dismissing both Ben Collins and Josef Newgarden. But i guess their "credentials" don't count, because they are real drivers, while yours are the ones that matter, right? :)
Not clinging to credentials at all, using them to show some basis for my viewpoints instead of just being another faceless keyboard warrior in this thread.

On the driver point (and speaking to why credentials/experience matter), I can speak to my experiences with the drivers we work with because I understand fully the environment they were working in when they made those comments (and can relate it to specific things in the hardware/software, and the analysis and model changes we tried on the day). That’s a way more valuable data point than using an off-comment of any given driver regarding if they think a sim is good or bad. Given that experience, I also have learned how much variability there is in driver feedback, even at the top level, which is the point I actually made in this thread.

And yeah, no concerns from my end with how the thread has gone. Currently replying to someone who’s had to consistently resort to ad hominem to try to get his points across; not exactly the mark of a strong argument.

Accuracy towards what? replicating the same curve as a static tire test? A static tire test just like all the others that all sim devs have had access to in the last 20 years?
Interesting how they’ve apparently had this data for 20 years and still don’t make accurate tire models. Almost like the only way to actually get comparable data is to spend $50k per tire set to have it measured, which only iRacing and Forza (of all things…) have publicly said they’ve done (when you spend that much, pretty likely you make a big deal out of it in your marketing campaign). And then spend probably that much again developing a tire model that can reasonably represent that data. It’s not garden variety Pacejka (which is actually what devs have had access to for 20 years and is generally useless for sim input).

And that’s besides the point anyway, arguing that 45% error is fine is wild. And discrediting industry-standard data based on quite literally nothing at all is also pretty wild.

I don't know what i find most amusing, the fact that you think you discovered the gun power with this, or the fact that you have spent pages and pages here trying to prove that all sims have "too much grip", according to your magic data, when real drivers are saying the opposite in your face, and yet, you are asking ME for my credencials...
Not particularly trying to prove anything, just participate in the discussion. Nor is that even remotely a reasonable summary of the points I’ve made in this thread. And yep, still asking since you’ve yet to provide one iota of first person experience to support a single claim you’ve made. Which realistically says enough in and of itself anyway.
 

Latest News

Article information

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