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

Article Discussion

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!
  • Like
  • Haha
  • Love
Reactions: Foresight, Eric Rowland, Vanaja and 20 others
About author
Yannik Haustein
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

More in Project Motor Racing

Comments

A
John Bergman said:
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. :)
Click to expand...
Sorry I was just trying to point out the irony in you claiming people are "re-defining terms" when you're using language that has re-defined terms and is highly nonstandard.
 
J
And my original counter is then that modulated curves have their place, and can shine in ways. (and, again, personally not a fan of those, but they can do good things).
 
J
My use of semi-empirical is very accepted, even outside of tire models. It really mostly means: fit curves to data. Modulate those curves on known behaviors.
 
mclarenf1papa
John Bergman said:
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.
Click to expand...
Maybe the point to make is that a fully empirical model blindly simulates the entire tire as a whole, a fully physical model would simulate every quark. Anything in between is...anything in between. I think the models are too nuanced to make much distinction beyond that (otherwise it'll be debates as to whether or not e.g. a brush model is considered enough of a physical representation to be a "physical" model).

John Bergman said:
My use of semi-empirical is very accepted, even outside of tire models. It really mostly means: fit curves to data. Modulate those curves on known behaviors.
Click to expand...
Sure, but if, for example, an otherwise semi-empirical model uses the WLF equation (a theoretical/physically-derived equation) for its friction representation, is it still semi-empirical or does it become physical given that it has physical elements? My point was more that all tire models have both semi empirical and physical elements, so the distinction is a bit grey as to what tips the boat one way or the other.
 
A
John Bergman said:
And my original counter is then that modulated curves have their place, and can shine in ways. (and, again, personally not a fan of those, but they can do good things).
Click to expand...
Can I have some context? Have you used both in a professional setting or does this relate to an user-experience with a game product?
 
J
Then the term as you define it has become useless to discuss tire model categories.

As I use it, I could call rF1, AMS1, etc, semi empirical, and that would be useful to inform a modder that likes to play with curves.

And I could call iR, LFS, and AMS2 physical, and that would be useful (if they were easily moddable) to modders that like to build ground up.

But, ok.

I'm back to paints and canvas. Modulated curves (what I can call semi empirical everywhere else) are one sort of set of tools. First principles (yeah, nudged with data or data informed equations like WLF) are another sort of set.

Michaelagelo and Renoir don't want the same set. (er, that makes more sense if I mean David vs Promenade, as they kinda liked the same sort of palette in paint alone, adjusted for era).
 
Last edited:
J
I do think we have at least one tiny bit of common ground. Pacejka itself, in any of its forms, is very difficult to make useful in a real time human driver setting, without help.
 
mclarenf1papa
John Bergman said:
I do think we have at least one tiny bit of common ground. Pacejka itself, in any of its forms, is very difficult to make useful in a real time human driver setting, without help.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with your point re: semi empirical in general, I think the categorization just becomes tricky when most models are a mix of the two. There's a fair bit of common ground.

And yeah Pacejka needs significant/fundamental additions (and really, information about the test procedures as well) to be able to be used in any capacity. Its equations aren't always very good fits to begin, and it still depends on what data was fit and who was fitting it. e.g. we've received Pacejka models from manufacturers that (even with simple things like vertical stiffness) have very little to do with the actual response of the tire (be it from inadequate fitting accuracy, non representative test conditions, etc).
 
J
Well, one narrow way to get the gist of a tire model is to figure out where its Mz comes from. Sort of a litmus test.

Is it the result of some parameterized equations with things like velocity, angular velocity, and collision inputs?

Is it the result of a live finite element simulation where there is stick left at the front of the patch?

Is it bolted on as a result of a simple pneumatic trail concept?

(all three of those are in the wild now in sims)

Why would anyone (here) even care? Modders. What do modders have to work with? How powerful is it? How intuitive is it?

I think all three of those (and probably some other possibilities) are legitimate approaches. They have tradeoffs. Do the AI run the same physics? What is the min spec PC? What data is available? What kind of unbiased real life drivers are available?
 
Last edited:
Damage Inc
ArchTheSecond said:
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.
Click to expand...
"based on what".........based on the fact EVERY sim here get's user bashing it and NO-ONE knows which sim is actually more accurate than another...how about that, doesn't take a fecking genius does it? Seriously, you think the profesional represent the user base? and I didn't start the fecking name calling did I? All I got was condescending bollox, and an insult from a dev.
 
Damage Inc
mclarenf1papa said:
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.
Click to expand...
And do you not think this has been my point all along? I thank you for the insights into professional sims (was quite the eye opener), I just wish others were like you and we had less snidey "laughing emoji" types here.

Would a professional sim make a good racing "game" retailing at standard AAA game price? With multiple cars,Ai, with day/night, weather, series rules etc etc. I'm guessing not, which again makes me think Sim racing devs DO compromise.

I just wish people could understand why I am saying what I am saying, I was never talking about shite like bacteria on the track (like some snidey **** posted) it's actually pretty depressing seeing the amount that don't understand.
 
Damage Inc
John Bergman said:
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.
Click to expand...
THANK you, another one gets it.
 
A
Damage Inc said:
"based on what".........based on the fact EVERY sim here get's user bashing it and NO-ONE knows which sim is actually more accurate than another...how about that, doesn't take a fecking genius does it? Seriously, you think the profesional represent the user base? and I didn't start the fecking name calling did I? All I got was condescending bollox, and an insult from a dev.
Click to expand...
If they prefer a specific sim(s) to others and bash the others, doesn't that mean that users *can* tell a difference? Maybe they don't have the language and the proof to back their views up, but surely it means they know something is different, right.

You got insults directed at you because your responses to other people's arguments are very self-centered and abusive. I feel like you would fly off the handle even if everyone is agreeing with you. It's not super conducive to discussions about something very specific like sim physics.
 
Last edited:
Damage Inc
ArchTheSecond said:
If they prefer a specific sim(s) to others and bash the others, doesn't that mean that users *can* tell a difference? Maybe they don't have the language and the proof to back their views up, but surely it means they know something is different, right.

You got insults directed at you because your responses to other people's arguments are very self-centered and abusive. I feel like you would fly off the handle even if everyone is agreeing with you. It's not super conducive to discussions about something very specific like sim physics.
Click to expand...
How was my responses abusive? Go on find where I started it.....coz I fecking did not. I had a fecking well respected dev justify people laughing at me and called me pretty dense, I think I'm in the right to tell him to ****ing do one, I don't give a rats crack who he is NO-ONE ****ing talks to me like that END OF. I was civil, the entire way, even though the jist of what I was saying was not being understood. Then you had the snidey shits laughing at my posts and contributing NOITHING to an interesting discussion.....is it any wonder I got ****ed off?
 
Damage Inc
ArchTheSecond said:
If they prefer a specific sim(s) to others and bash the others, doesn't that mean that users *can* tell a difference? Maybe they don't have the language and the proof to back their views up, but surely it means they know something is different, right.

You got insults directed at you because your responses to other people's arguments are very self-centered and abusive. I feel like you would fly off the handle even if everyone is agreeing with you. It's not super conducive to discussions about something very specific like sim physics.
Click to expand...
Yes it does mean they can tell a "difference"...but WHOS to SAY that difference is more real than another (which is my point), Also most of the time on this site people are moaning about the FFB FAR more than the actual handling of the car.

and yes the phsyics of the tyres and suspension are quantifiable in numbers (presuming the data from the manufacturers is correct and complete), but there's a LOT more to simulating a race than that, yes I realise it not as big a factor as I thought and I ACKNOWLEDGED that. But it got to a point I was hitting my head against a brick wall when trying to convey that last little bit of realism is where a lot of the immersion is....otherwise we may as well "play" pro sims and have perfect conditions to remove random elements to know if our setup changes are making a real difference or not. That's NOT a sim game I want to play.
 
Richard Wilks
Damage Inc said:
Yes it does mean they can tell a "difference"...but WHOS to SAY that difference is more real than another (which is my point), Also most of the time on this site people are moaning about the FFB FAR more than the actual handling of the car.

and yes the phsyics of the tyres and suspension are quantifiable in numbers (presuming the data from the manufacturers is correct and complete), but there's a LOT more to simulating a race than that, yes I realise it not as big a factor as I thought and I ACKNOWLEDGED that. But it got to a point I was hitting my head against a brick wall when trying to convey that last little bit of realism is where a lot of the immersion is....otherwise we may as well "play" pro sims and have perfect conditions to remove random elements to know if our setup changes are making a real difference or not. That's NOT a sim game I want to play.
Click to expand...
I totally agree. And my point was that in terms of tire and vehicle dynamics, trying to get 1:1 results with tire tests has failed time and time again to produce a realistic feel and dynamic from vehicles in many situations, as even real drivers (with big credencials) pointed out, hence the "fudges" that even guys like Aris and others have to make, because the data that exists doesn't seem to tell the whole story. And this is something industry insiders already aknowledged.

Like Bergman here said, physics models are a canvas and paint kit, and then its up to the car implementer to paint on it, and use those tools and what they allow to the best of their ability to convey how the scenary looked. NO physics engine is going to correlate 1:1 with reality, by virtue of their own simplification and reduction of reality nature, so trying to use raw data to prove that one sim is "better" than other is an utterly pointless exercise, like i stated before, and this is where opinions from drivers for sure have their place (sure not all drivers will be helpfull, but some will) and we can't say that the driver "needs to adapt" to the sim. If the picture is well painted, people would imediatly recognize what it is, and not need coaching about what the blobs of paint are representing. If you need to relearn how to drive in the sim, then your sim is NOT simulating real driving.

These were my points all along, and i think its enough going back and forth in this thread now, so i will bow out :)
 
Richard Wilks
Johnr777 said:
Yes we can... without hardware to compliment all the other senses, all drivers need to adapt in some capacity.

If your boy BC has a multi-million dollar state of the art simulator, then sure... you could claim your point as valid
Click to expand...
I already adressed that point in this thread.

Also, the condescending tone as you say "your boy BC" reveals your intentions :)
 
Johnr777
Richard Wilks said:
I already adressed that point in this thread.

Also, the condescending tone as you say "your boy BC" reveals your intentions :)
Click to expand...
There have been many points, many contradicting ones. I'm just going by whatever latest opinion you decide to write down when trying to steer the narrative.

And lighten up, you have had your play on the tone of messages for a while now as well. :cool:
 
Last edited:

Guides

Latest News

Article information

Author
Yannik Haustein
Article read time
5 min read
Views
14,761
Comments
280
Last update
Join the discussion

Share this article

Back
Top