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

Semi empirical (Pacejka, ISI rF1 spec, etc) are not useless for sim. Not ideal for all artists, sure. They might just be pastels. But they are not useless.

(for the record, I'm not a semi-empirical tire model fan, but I cede that they have their moments)
 
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.


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.


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.
So let me get this straight: According to you, all the sims we have are bad, none of them have the "grip level" They should have, because your little graph shows us they are wrong, against a tire test you have?

Talk about bold claims hey? And please stop playing the victim, it's embarassing.

Yes, they had tire data. Maybe they realized that trying to corelate that data point by point in the sim is useless, because it doesnt translate to a driving experience anything close to real life, ever thought of that?

Why did Stefano "fuged" the grip then? Tell us, or he can tell us, since he has followed your ramblings so closely. Why did he choose to make that "mistake"? He didnt know any better?

Why others make the same mistake? Iracing have that data, so why are they wrong too?

Oh wait, you are going to tell us nobody can drive the "real deal", not even real drivers, so we all have to drive "dumbed down" kids racing games? Gee, i never heard that one before...

You know what is really wild? That you spent all this time and effort to tell us something that every keyboard warrior has told in the last 25 years since GPL came out. Now thats wild.

So no, i dont agree, i dont think your Data proves your point, because i happen to know a thing or two about sim implementation and real world data, and surprisingly i am backed up by guys like Josef N and others, who, and i am sorry to say, have a lot more "cred" than you.

Now how is that for an ad hominem?...
 
"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."

"provide one iota of first person experience"
 
Semi empirical (Pacejka, ISI rF1 spec, etc) are not useless for sim. Not ideal for all artists, sure. They might just be pastels. But they are not useless.

(for the record, I'm not a semi-empirical tire model fan, but I cede that they have their moments)
Note that I said Pacejka explicitly. There is massive variation in semi-empirical models (all models in all sims on the market are different flavors of semi-empirical). Pacejka specifically is not directly useful as non modified versions of it omit temperature sensitivity among other significant things. And that's if the fit was even done well to begin with.

"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."

"provide one iota of first person experience"
Not having any first person evidence to back otherwise baseless claims (the actual relevance of credentials, not the credentials themselves) is quite different than using credentials alone to say "I'm right, you're wrong". To reiterate, no one is saying the latter is in any way relevant.

So let me get this straight: According to you, all the sims we have are bad, none of them have the "grip level" They should have, because your little graph shows us they are wrong, against a tire test you have?
Do show me where I wrote that :)

Talk about bold claims hey? And please stop playing the victim, it's embarassing.

Yes, they had tire data. Maybe they realized that trying to corelate that data point by point in the sim is useless, because it doesnt translate to a driving experience anything close to real life, ever thought of that?
Only one embarrassing himself here is you, bud. People who can't get anything usable out of tire data are missing something, ever thought of that? Would be great to see the tire data these devs had and how they analyzed it. Even throwing you the bone to say they had something comparable, analyzing it and implementing an accurate model are huge jobs that are easily done wrong (to disastrous effect).

Why did Stefano "fuged" the grip then? Tell us, or he can tell us, since he has followed your ramblings so closely. Why did he choose to make that "mistake"? He didnt know any better?

Why others make the same mistake? Iracing have that data, so why are they wrong too?
Yes, Einstein, the general cause of models being poor is modelers who didn't know better (usually because they didn't have good enough data or didn't know what to do with what they had). That's not a slight, it's just an incredibly complex task which again requires huge investment for little gain. And the parametrization part of the process was Aris's job in AC anyway.

You know what is really wild? That you spent all this time and effort to tell us something that every keyboard warrior has told in the last 25 years since GPL came out. Now thats wild.
Not much time and very little effort. Also very mature of you to say this. Again really hitting home runs on the humanity front.

So no, i dont agree, i dont think your Data proves your point, because i happen to know a thing or two about sim implementation and real world data, and surprisingly i am backed up by guys like Josef N and others, who, and i am sorry to say, have a lot more "cred" than you.
You....happen to know a thing or two? That's genuinely your rebuttal? I suppose that says it all. :roflmao:
 
Only one embarrassing himself here is you, bud. People who can't get anything usable out of tire data are missing something, ever thought of that? Would be great to see the tire data these devs had and how they analyzed it. Even throwing you the bone to say they had something comparable, analyzing it and implementing an accurate model are huge jobs that are easily done wrong (to disastrous effect).


Yes, Einstein, the general cause of models being poor is modelers who didn't know better (usually because they didn't have good enough data or didn't know what to do with what they had). That's not a slight, it's just an incredibly complex task which again requires huge investment for little gain. And the parametrization part of the process was Aris's job in AC anyway.


Not much time and very little effort. Also very mature of you to say this. Again really hitting home runs on the humanity front.


You....happen to know a thing or two? That's genuinely your rebuttal? I suppose that says it all. :roflmao:
Oh , getting agressive are we, did i struck a nerve? :)

So everybody either a) didnt have the magic data you had, or b) were incompetent, or didnt bother doing the incredibly hard work that is to put a convincing car in a game.

Bonus points for throwing Aris under the bus i guess, so we should ask him instead?...

No, thats not my rebuttal, but is a statement of fact, or a difference in style i suppose, you like to biggie yourself, i dont need to.

But lets be honest, what are you trying to prove here? That only YOU can do the "real true sim" cars? is this what this is all about? That everybody else is wrong? That all the sims are crap? That we shouldnt listen to real drivers because they are all wrong?

You changed your tune so many times, i am afraid nobody can know for sure anymore...
 
You changed your tune so many times, i am afraid nobody can know for sure anymore...
Only possibility to think that I've in any way changed my tune is if you misunderstood my various points along the way. Which seems likely given the rest of your post history. The others seem to be following along alright.

No, thats not my rebuttal, but is a statement of fact, or a difference in style i suppose, you like to biggie yourself, i dont need to.
So, just to be clear, your rebuttal is a "statement of fact" that you know one or two things, according to yourself.
 
Only possibility to think that I've in any way changed my tune is if you misunderstood my various points along the way. Which seems likely given the rest of your post history. The others seem to be following along alright.


So, just to be clear, your rebuttal is a "statement of fact" that you know one or two things, according to yourself.
Your points are not what i asked. I asked what is the point of all this, WHY are you so engaged in this. What are you trying to prove. You didnt deny any of the points i made, so those are clear, but what i want to know is the reason, the motive, of why are you spending so much energy in this.

Will you answer or not?
 
Your points are not what i asked. I asked what is the point of all this, WHY are you so engaged in this. What are you trying to prove. You didnt deny any of the points i made, so those are clear, but what i want to know is the reason, the motive, of why are you spending so much energy in this.

Will you answer or not?
Didn't respond to your questions because they're a bit ridiculous. I've made my points in this thread very clear; not trying to prove anything and have nothing to prove. This is about having a discussion in free time, not much more than that, and it's certainly not a big energy sink. The comedy of the responses is quite entertaining which gives some incentive to stay invested in the discussion. Furthermore, it's actually interesting to present a reasonably constructed argument and have it countered (although like I think I said earlier in the thread, would be more interesting if the counterarguments were better founded).

"(all models in all sims on the market are different flavors of semi-empirical)"

Categorically not true.
"Physical" models model physical elements of tires given empirical input data (material properties, stiffnesses, etc). The semi-empirical models you're thinking of also model physical elements of tires, just in a less comprehensive matter (e.g. they'll model the vertical stiffness of the tire with a spring rate and damping coefficient that's then solved in a physics simulation). They're all semi-empirical (or all physical, depends on perspective a bit), it's just where you decide to draw the line.
 
Didn't respond to your questions because they're a bit ridiculous. I've made my points in this thread very clear; not trying to prove anything and have nothing to prove. This is about having a discussion in free time, not much more than that, and it's certainly not a big energy sink. The comedy of the responses is quite entertaining which gives some incentive to stay invested in the discussion. Furthermore, it's actually interesting to present a reasonably constructed argument and have it countered (although like I think I said earlier in the thread, would be more interesting if the counterarguments were better founded).
I countered you in the same capacity you made your point, you showed a graphic of a tire, i showed you real drivers talking, you showed me your resume, i showed you that your arguments dont have a leg to stand, because there is no way you can conclusively say that "sims have too much grip", or "have too little dropoff compared with real life" , except for trying to prove it through indirect means.

So spare me your condescending demeanor. If you have nothing more to say, then i also have nothing more to say, unless you want to keep promoting yourself, at the expense of the whole industry, which i think is the true motive behind all this :) but if so, please, continue without me.
 
I countered you in the same capacity you made your point, you showed a graphic of a tire, i showed you real drivers talking, you showed me your resume, i showed you that your arguments dont have a leg to stand, because there is no way you can conclusively say that "sims have too much grip", or "have too little dropoff compared with real life" , except for trying to prove it through indirect means.

So spare me your condescending demeanor. If you have nothing more to say, then i also have nothing more to say, unless you want to keep promoting yourself, at the expense of the whole industry, which i think is the true motive behind all this :) but if so, please, continue without me.
Well, you showed someone else's opinion.
 
I'm sorry. You don't get to just re-define terms.

1723778133348.png


Semi Empirical is well known to be a term to specify data informed modulated curves/equations. Like the magic formula(s) and ISI (or an approach with those same set of tradeoffs, per Pacejka's nifty diagram above).

(although to be fair to ISI, I mean the rF1 model. The rF2 model with the QSA bit informing a more open dynamic bit is not really semi empirical)

I'm guessing (pure conjecture) that the LFS has nearly no empirical of any real measure in it at all. I'm not sure the term could be stretched to LFS in any honest way at all. But LFS is Monet. A great Impression of really racing a dirty grungy discount race car. With flowers (not sure what I mean with that...but, um, Monet).
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry. You don't get to just re-define terms.

View attachment 776898

Semi Empirical is well known to be a term to specify data informed modulated curves/equations. Like the magic formula(s) and ISI (or an approach with those same set of tradeoffs, per Pacejka's nifty diagram above).
"Physical models" are by definition semi-empirical because you need to measure/estimate some properties to input into them.

There's a reason the graph says "approach more".
 
No. They are not. The commonly used definition is not that. Words and terms have value based on their common accepted meaning. Not on some stretched plausibility basis.

Try re-defining cancer and then going in for treatment. The real world works better when terms change meaning as slow as possible.

Or extending the definition of vaccine. :)
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry. You don't get to just re-define terms.

View attachment 776898
These are the categories used by Hans Pacejka, yes, but there aren't industry standards for the terms. A bit more specific would be to say "structure" model (since that implies a mechanical element structure ala FEM), but "physical" is not a loaded word. Simulating a mass+spring+damper, for example, is a physical model; it's a gradient. Same goes the other way, with even "physical" models like RF2's using theoretical equations that are empirically parametrized (e.g. the WLF equation for temperature/slip sensitivity). Again, gradient. Like I said, it just depends on where you draw the line. e.g. could argue multiple ray casting is a form of physical modeling (see: brush model), and really it's just a discretization of the semi-empirical model.

This is splitting hairs from my end though, in fairness. Point was just to distinguish that there's a huge range of what constitutes a semi-empirical model. Pacejka is on the simpler end, especially if it's a version without transient modeling, and receiving that kind of model without reference to the test conditions does not provide enough information for something "proper".
 
The original assertion that I disagreed with is that all in sim use tire models are semi empirical. If the definition of semi empirical is basically anything with any data at all informing it, that is a useless assertion. So if this discussion is to make any sense, we seemingly lost that term. That original assertion needs to be re stated.
 

Latest News

Article information

Author
Yannik Haustein
Article read time
5 min read
Views
14,761
Comments
280
Last update
Back
Top