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

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:
Then read back the thread, maybe then you will learn something, because aparently you weren't paying atention to what i wrote.
 
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 :)
Indeed I thought the painting analogy was excellent.

pro sims is almost like a photo, but in black and white as colour isn't needed for what they are doing.

EVERY other sim is various styles of painting, none fully representative of reality.

This whole discussion got into the depths of tyre and chassis phsyics, which fair enough presuming the data is complete and correct (and let's face it I highly doubt the data on the classic cars is complete!! So there's guess work there), is the basic building blocks of getting as real as possible...the "foundation" (to change it to a building analogy) so to speak.

But (which was missed) I was talking about reality in general, not just in the tyre and chassis area.

ALL my favourite sim expereinces are not "Gosh this car's feeling and handling JUST like that sports car I've NEVER driven".

No my faves are racing Nords in the dark, racing Le Mans in the dark in a GT3 car passing a GT4 car then having 2 LMPs blast past either side of me.....that was a "F**king HELL" moment.

I want the experience of a race, the visceral experience as close as possible.
 
trying to use raw data to prove that one sim is "better" than other is an utterly pointless exercise,
“ Raw” data, why raw? Data is one piece of the puzzle, the question should be if possible, is using precise and realistic data better than the alternative, I let you decide.
Opinion from drivers for sure have their place
Opinion from real race driver, as long as we all remember they are opinions, not gospel, should be welcome as long as they are elaborate in describing what particular aspect of the Sim we are discussing and in which context.

we can't say that the driver "needs to adapt" to the sim
We all need to adapt to any Sim, driver as much, if not more, than casual driver. Yes, the physic is an approximation tinted by interpretation, but the peripheral used in SIM, even in the most elaborate (2024) rig is totally alien to driving even the most mundane econo box, let alone an Hypercar on a modern track.

As we continue our Sim journey, my money is on better data and better peripheral, not more elaborate fudging, to get closer to simulating real racing/driving.

Meanwhile, as far as I am concerned, I have my favorite interpretation, like everybody else, which does not mean I do not enjoy different interpretations, but for any of those interpretations, I recognize as more important enablers (in that particular order of importance), my VR goggles, my load cell brake pedals and my DD wheel base to reach the best level of immersion (make believe) I have reached to date in my daily Sim indulgence.
 
Last edited:
Indeed I thought the painting analogy was excellent.

pro sims is almost like a photo, but in black and white as colour isn't needed for what they are doing.

EVERY other sim is various styles of painting, none fully representative of reality.

This whole discussion got into the depths of tyre and chassis phsyics, which fair enough presuming the data is complete and correct (and let's face it I highly doubt the data on the classic cars is complete!! So there's guess work there), is the basic building blocks of getting as real as possible...the "foundation" (to change it to a building analogy) so to speak.

But (which was missed) I was talking about reality in general, not just in the tyre and chassis area.

ALL my favourite sim expereinces are not "Gosh this car's feeling and handling JUST like that sports car I've NEVER driven".

No my faves are racing Nords in the dark, racing Le Mans in the dark in a GT3 car passing a GT4 car then having 2 LMPs blast past either side of me.....that was a "F**king HELL" moment.

I want the experience of a race, the visceral experience as close as possible.
But you do get that experience you are describing for the most part, and yes, there are things that could be implemented for an added wow factor. Or to "complete" the game as you put it. And yes, each sim / simcade implements something the other doesnt, none has it all. You were hitting a wall getting your point across because I think this mess got split into 2 views. How accurate a sim car is, and how accurate of an enviroment the sim racer wants it to be.

I think one of the main points of this discussion is, a pro race car driver is focused on getting to the finish line as quick as possible. And to him/her, not much from the external factors are of great importance when the goal is to be one with your car, real and simmed.

Anyways, thats my opinion.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't be so sure that the "real data" that's being talked about here is being interpreted correctly or even trustable at all.

If you believe that you can't input real, accurate, correctly interpreted, correctly adjusted data into a mathematical model and get correct behavior out of it, you should also believe the same for all fields of science and engineering. That kind of logic insinuates that accurate measurements aren't reliable or usable in *anything*.
 
That kind of logic insinuates that accurate measurements aren't reliable or usable in *anything*.

It comes down to what you are trying to measure and how.
Consider the very good example about laser scan track data vs tyre data. You can be pretty confident laser scan data is going to give you want at an accuracy level that is easy to estimate.
Tyre data tho is on a totally different level... one thing is a tyre on a tarmac surface, a whole different thing is a tyre measured on a sandpaper like surface... also how fast the sweep over the slip was? how are you going to separate temperature buildup effects from pure adhesion effects? It's way more complex to gather tyre data that can be trusted and inserted into a sim with confidence.. so no, the fact that one source of data might be non-optimal doesn't automatically invalidate every data out there.
 
Last edited:
It comes down to what you are trying to measure and how.
Consider the very good example about laser scan track data vs tyre data. You can be pretty confident laser scan data is going to give you want at an accuracy level that is easy to estimate.
Tyre data tho is on a totally different level... one thing is a tyre on a tarmac surface, a whole different thing is a tyre measured on a sandpaper like surface... also how fast the sweep over the slip was? how are you going to separate temperature buildup effects from pure adhesion effects? It's way more complex to gather tyre data that can be trusted and inserted into a sim with confidence.. so no, the fact that one source of data might be non-optimal doesn't automatically invalidate every data out there.
The majority of sim players aren't aware of factors like that and will reduce the complexities to "real data doesn't work" and I think everyone would have a better experience if they were more open minded about it.

"Reality is too complex so all sims are just as bad" is awfully defeatist. It doesn't seem to cross people's minds that maybe there's just more they don't know they don't know rather than there being some kind of esoteric artistic truth to simulation development.
 
"Reality is too complex so all sims are just as bad" is awfully defeatist.

so much this.
Sadly this is now a very popular feeling online... think about how many people react to new discoveries and doubts in astronomy with "ah science was proven wrong in this thing therefore science is all wrong and wortless".. when the appropriate feeling should be one of excitement... but what can you do? It's pretty worthless even trying to discuss with these types as this thread so clearly shows.
 
Last edited:
Premium
Well, perhaps the forums of a gaming site aint the best place for an indepth University lecture.
I've understood a little more by reading through each post...sometimes more than once,(though I learn a little more each time I read The Universe in a Nutshell) but, like many here, I'm just a bloke who has an interest in his entertainment coming from racing, sometimes real and often simulated, as for the trials a tribulations of the super gifted and mega clever that make these games, really the only thing I'm interested in the end is can I enjoy what I gave you my money for, most of my customers didn't want to know what effort it is to paper their 3rd floor ceiling, and I never got asked why I did certain things like heating a wall, or standing the paper, they just pay and get it done
 
It comes down to what you are trying to measure and how.
Consider the very good example about laser scan track data vs tyre data. You can be pretty confident laser scan data is going to give you want at an accuracy level that is easy to estimate.
Tyre data tho is on a totally different level... one thing is a tyre on a tarmac surface, a whole different thing is a tyre measured on a sandpaper like surface... also how fast the sweep over the slip was? how are you going to separate temperature buildup effects from pure adhesion effects? It's way more complex to gather tyre data that can be trusted and inserted into a sim with confidence.. so no, the fact that one source of data might be non-optimal doesn't automatically invalidate every data out there.
Yeah maybe the distinction is that track data is (oversimplifying, but essentially) “this dot goes here, end of story”. Tire data has hundreds of reasons a given dot is in a given place, so a person’s ability to understand the underlying physical principles (and translate them to data analysis) is as important (actually probably more important) as the data itself. A lot of the issues I’ve seen with using real data is just wrong interpretation of trends. And if it’s Pacejka “data”, then there isn’t even a way to isolate the trends, and by nature of the modeling, it sends people down the wrong path.


pro sims is almost like a photo, but in black and white as colour isn't needed for what they are doing.
I get what you’re saying here, but the elements (missing from pro sims) you seem to imagine as critical are fairly insignificant to the overall experience. Certainly not the difference between b&w and color.
 
A text message doesn't have a tone, the tone is defined by our minds when reading it, and it's extremely subjective. So don't fall in traps that the stuff between our ears lures us to :) (and this also applies to how we interpret simulations :p).
 
I'd take a van Gogh over a photo any day to get a more accurate human experience.

Really. Go on a really cool hike up a mountain. Look around. Take a pic. The pic is absolutely nothing like what you see. If a master painted it, it'd be a lot closer than the pic.

Further, I see opportunity here, in the gaps, in that a medium is representing reality. Capturing something to experience or feel (including when the goal is realistic wrt the human skills), without the cost (risk of dying, money, etc), is, straight up, art. Art informed by engineering, and therefore also engineering, but still an artistic endeavor.

In some sense, this is probably how Enzo would see it.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: pai
Not a fan of the art analogy. I never found developing sim physics to be like making art at all, even professional art with quite literal design documents steering it. Certainly not like hobbyist art ala Van Gogh. The only part that is similar is that the ideal solution isn't always immediately clear, so you need to do a lot of back and forth with the client, but that's pretty much every job to some point.

It's not a terrible analogy but I think this "sim physics = art" thing can mislead uninitiated people tremendously, because the majority of people don't know what making art is like *to begin with*, so they will associate it with the *idea* of being an artist.
 
Fair. But the way I think about it is maybe more like Brunelleschi's Dome or even the Brooklyn Bridge. (Tower Bridge is overrated though). But you are right...art, as in a painting, under emphasizes that there is real engineering and math in play.

In any case, ok, maybe an art/architecture/civil-engineering analogy works a little better.

Although, I still like the "feel" pop of Impressionism in the mix, because for racing (and trying to capture some extra for sim), I do think the violence, heat, smell, and dirt of real life are really part of it. Smelling all that rich exhaust on the grid is a thing. You have excitement, fear, and butterflies immersed in a soup of overloaded senses.

(and more than anything...that that crazy local beside you will cost you ten grand into T1).
 
Last edited:
Fair. But the way I think about it is maybe more like Brunelleschi's Dome or even the Brooklyn Bridge. (Tower Bridge is overrated though). But you are right...art, as in a painting, under emphasizes that there is real engineering and math in play.

In any case, ok, maybe an art/architecture/civil-engineering analogy works a little better.

Although, I still like the "feel" pop of Impressionism in the mix, because for racing (and trying to capture some extra for sim), I do think the violence, heat, smell, and dirt of real life are really part of it. Smelling all that rich exhaust on the grid is a thing. You have excitement, fear, and butterflies immersed in a soup of overloaded senses.

(and more than anything...that that crazy local beside you will cost you ten grand into T1).
I would wager it's closer to architecture, but architecture isn't "really" an artistic field. Some argue even entertainment production art isn't; but there is still a lot more design freedom than in something more objective where there's only a narrow range of valid outputs. In art production, the valid range of outputs is more decided by another human, like an art director or series director and not objective reality based concerns.

I think anything artistic in simulation modeling is just because sim developers don't know what they're doing in every possible case (because simulation is hard and you can't know everything about everything) and think it has some kind of artistic aspect to it when they don't understand the output. Every single "Hmm, this needs to be bigger/smaller but I don't know why" I've ran into eventually has an actual empirical explanation present itself if you prod more. At least at the kind of level I've been exposed to. I don't know if that's an absolute.

I don't think you should be thinking about things like smell or sound or temperature when making a simulation physics model for a vehicle. They're separate and there's not really a way to exactly replicate it in a practical way. Metagame incentives like "if you crash, you're out of the season" or "if you drive the car too hard it will break and reduce future performance due to budget issues" can at least provide context to the simulation-game as a whole. I think the discussion is strictly about vehicle modeling, though.
 
I see that there is still a MASSIVE disconnect between players who want an immersive sim and those who just want a data sim....oh well, let the futile and pointless "sim wars" continue...
 

Latest News

Article information

Author
Yannik Haustein
Article read time
5 min read
Views
14,637
Comments
280
Last update
Back
Top