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

Important not to confuse good race sim/game with financial success.

I 'invested' in PC1 way back when they started fund raising. I think it netted me something like a 200-300% return on investment (should have invested thousands :().

But I never really played my 'free' copy ... cuz it turned out to be not my thing.
 
Ben Collins is actually right, because what he is talking about is not just levels of grip, but rather, is talking about car balance, and how you keep it to go fast.

Usually sims alternate between understeer and oversteer in a very binary way, both stages being somewhat undesirable, while in his view (and in reality) the car loses grip or changes its attitude in a much more cohesive way, one that implies a balance not just between those two ultimate states that he refers, but with a lot of nuance and stages in between.
 
I wouldn't call it most nowadays; the young generation of drivers is quite adept. It's a mildly different skillset - drivers who have grown up with sims can go between sims and reality nearly seamlessly. Those who came to sims late and/or have not put in much time will struggle (as you might expect when you take away half of their sensory inputs), regardless of their aptitude in a real car. Collins is in the latter camp and you can see it in his sim driving videos (he's always a bit "behind the car" and a bit imprecise). You can supplement the feelings quite well with extremely high end sims (via motion, haptics, etc), but ones that do it properly are few and far between, even amongst manufacturer programs.

A driver having difficulty on a sim, however, doesn't necessarily mean that the sim itself is too difficult. It usually just means the driver is bad at driving on sims; there shouldn't be an expectation of being as capable on a sim as in the real car if the virtual seat time isn't there. To drive the same car the same way on a sim and in reality takes a different set of skills - they inform each other, but both still have to be developed. A good example is steering feel. In a sim, you can easily isolate small differences in steering torque and correlate that via muscle memory to what the car is doing or about to do. In the real car, that is still there, but you also have significant G forces on your arms distracting from the forces of the steering (which in comparison to G forces, are not very high on cars with PS). This lends to drivers relying more on other sensory inputs in real cars which are generally not present on sims (and thus when those are removed, they struggle to adapt to sims).

So if you "fix" the cars to drive more easily for the "old school" drivers, it will be unrealistically easy for the drivers who are equally capable in sims and real cars.
the converse is also true, a race driver good at a sim racing doesn't neccessarily mean the sim is right. It can also just mean the driver has learnt to adapt to the sim and make the necessary driver inputs. Thus "fixing" the the cars to give that sort of driver a challenge make the games unrealistically hard.

Bottom line for me is almost ALL sims feel like crap at lower speeds, I refuse to believe a car that is lighter than my own car and has FAR sticker and bigger tyres will lose grip in a 40 mph corner the way it happens in a LOT of sims and my car does not (shitty clapped out 2005 Golf TDI auto)!
 
Premium
Some things Ian Bell is saying are very promising but how can you use GTR2 and PC as a reference at the same time? One is a sim racing classic the other a shitty arcade. AMS2 is flawed by its PC2 core.

So I'm not holding any expectations. Also worst name selection ever, what could be more boring than that
 
Last edited:
I like the naming throwback to Project Cars, but "Motor Racing" is kind of generic and doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. How about Project Racing Game
 
I was referring to the sandpaper data as the "reality"... As that sandpaper doesn't show much of a drop off laterally or longitudinally in any of the test data I've seen and getting hold of real data for a pleb like me isn't easy...

I know the real life drivers who are in touch with sim racing often state that too much yaw is allowed in todays sim racing games and therefore hustling the cars is far too easy... Having raced with many who have raced different disciplines over the years it's a common trend that got much worse around 2014...

However your statement matches mine in the 2nd half of the statement... "Sim racing devs have to add more drop off for it to meet reality" and "upwards of 20% too much grip for locked tyres vs reality"...

The fact that they haven't over the last decade or so is largely due to marketing to the casual race fan who doesn't care about respecting the talent of the professional drivers who do it in real life and not the hardcore sim racer who wants to leave every session feeling like the professionals earn their keep...

AC went after the casuals and so did rF2 under S397, I'm glad that S397 have gone the other way from ACC and have dialed back the grip over the limit over the years... And the less said about the grip passed the limit in madness engine titles the better... Oh wait this is a thread about how the new Project Arcade is going to be... :roflmao:
Sandpaper almost always has higher dropoff than asphalt, so I’m not sure what data you have seen. Especially if you’re looking at eg standard Pacejka models which include thermal effects (which are drastic on racing tires and skew the slip sensitivity). But maybe it’s just a language thing based on the rest of your comment. More dropoff = less grip past slip peak. Sims nowadays often have too little dropoff, meaning too much grip past the slip peak.
Name one car in iRacing that's easier than reality.
Dallara P2 car was much easier to slide around than a real P2 car last I drove it and was very insensitive to setup changes vs my expectations (we worked on the DPi variant). The tires that have predominantly been used in that category for the last 5 years or so are quite sensitive to temperature.
the converse is also true, a race driver good at a sim racing doesn't neccessarily mean the sim is right. It can also just mean the driver has learnt to adapt to the sim and make the necessary driver inputs. Thus "fixing" the the cars to give that sort of driver a challenge make the games unrealistically hard.

Bottom line for me is almost ALL sims feel like crap at lower speeds, I refuse to believe a car that is lighter than my own car and has FAR sticker and bigger tyres will lose grip in a 40 mph corner the way it happens in a LOT of sims and my car does not (shitty clapped out 2005 Golf TDI auto)!
What you said in the first paragraph is for the most part true, however, you need to have a driver that is adept with both to even begin having a conversation about difficulty. Second paragraph seems like a perception thing as how fast a car can take a slow corner is generally a very simple physics equation.
 
Ben Collins is actually right, because what he is talking about is not just levels of grip, but rather, is talking about car balance, and how you keep it to go fast.

Usually sims alternate between understeer and oversteer in a very binary way, both stages being somewhat undesirable, while in his view (and in reality) the car loses grip or changes its attitude in a much more cohesive way, one that implies a balance not just between those two ultimate states that he refers, but with a lot of nuance and stages in between.
The lifeless and binary nature of many sims is generally due to suspension/chassis compliance and tire thermal modeling that most sims either pretty much skip out on or model quite inaccurately. It’s generally not feasible for studios to model cars accurately enough both due to lack of financial viability and also outright knowledge/aptitude.

A more ambiguous balance makes cars less predictable and more difficult to drive quickly, so I’m not sure that’s really what he was getting at, given that he cited difficulty and massive grip dropoffs being an issue of current sims.


Also not to forget that BC was the primary test driver for the PCARS series and those turned out to be as good as arcade games.
 
The lifeless and binary nature of many sims is generally due to suspension/chassis compliance and tire thermal modeling that most sims either pretty much skip out on or model quite inaccurately. It’s generally not feasible for studios to model cars accurately enough both due to lack of financial viability and also outright knowledge/aptitude.

A more ambiguous balance makes cars less predictable and more difficult to drive quickly, so I’m not sure that’s really what he was getting at, given that he cited difficulty and massive grip dropoffs being an issue of current sims.


Also not to forget that BC was the primary test driver for the PCARS series and those turned out to be as good as arcade games.
Thats not what he was talking about, neither was what i was talking about. Sure, chassis, and tire temperature have an effect in making driving more "dynamic". But they alone don't make a car be balanced like i was alluding to. The proof of this is sims utter inability to create a proper 60s or 70s F1, one that has wheelspin on demand on the dry, even in second gear, while keeping the car on its balance around a long corner. You either just have "lateral" oversteer, or the car needs to be kicked into a speed crippling drift for us to get a hint of that behaviour, and this is for the games that actually allow this, since in most you will just spin.
 
With those sandpaper tests, were they racing tyres? Were they at consistent temp before each data point? Was a new tyre used for every data point? If one takes a racing tyre and does an slip angle to force sweep, the tyre will heat up (and maybe cure, if new) through the sweep. Most testing deviations away from using a new (or equally cured) tyre per data point will induce a steeper post peak falloff than will happen on track. In other words data can be misleading. When manufacturers then fit their Pacejka parameters to the data, and don't even give you the raw data, it usually just makes this even more misleading.
 
Last edited:
The multi platform nature of the game means it'll do well. The only competition is from AC Evo and AC wasn't great on console.

When I talk to friends that like racing games their main complaint with PC2 wasn't about physics, it was about the AI and how they weren't affected by puddles/weather.

After giving PC3 another go, it got boring very quickly as the career mode was a grind-fest and the AI didn't improve. It reminded me of Forza Motorsport, which had pits but would've been fine without them. The tuning was an interesting take on the feature but was ultimately wasted in PC3 since it sold so poorly.
 
The multi platform nature of the game means it'll do well. The only competition is from AC Evo and AC wasn't great on console.

When I talk to friends that like racing games their main complaint with PC2 wasn't about physics, it was about the AI and how they weren't affected by puddles/weather.

After giving PC3 another go, it got boring very quickly as the career mode was a grind-fest and the AI didn't improve. It reminded me of Forza Motorsport, which had pits but would've been fine without them. The tuning was an interesting take on the feature but was ultimately wasted in PC3 since it sold so poorly.

Arcade games with good graphics and licensed cars sell well because there's a lot of casual out there who don't care about physics accuracy...

It's the only reason heavily derided series like Forza, Gran Turismo and pCARS sell well...

@achi.nin money greases a lot of wheels, and arcade games sell well...
 
Last edited:
Sandpaper almost always has higher dropoff than asphalt, so I’m not sure what data you have seen. Especially if you’re looking at eg standard Pacejka models which include thermal effects (which are drastic on racing tires and skew the slip sensitivity).

I haven't seen any asphalt data... So I can't compare... But what I have seen on sandpaper makes most Pacejka slip curves I've seen seem too drastic... Maybe that's some road tyre data that gets passed around modding circles...

As it's very hard to get technical data from a racing tyre even for developers I'd expect that to be somewhat the case...

Thermal drop off is huge and happens on both the tyre and the track... And most track physics aren't up to snuff these days, Livetrack, Realroad and any other track side physics simulation just isn't close to reality, so the sim developers need a larger drop off than what the real tyre data would show anyway...

But maybe it’s just a language thing based on the rest of your comment. More dropoff = less grip past slip peak. Sims nowadays often have too little dropoff, meaning too much grip past the slip peak.

Yeah I often get english mixed up, I'm far better with maths than english... If that's on me or not this time I'm not sure... Maybe it's because current sims don't offer enough drop off and you thought I meant they do?

But that is exactly the meaning I was going for in my original post... We need more drop off and less yaw than what is currently allowed by sim racing games to meet reality...

Another thing is that the sidewalls are too soft in a lot of sims, none more so than the SETA tyre model... Which allows for the TC type feeling many people complain about in titles with it...
 
With those sandpaper tests, were they racing tyres? Were they at consistent temp before each data point? Was a new tyre used for every data point? If one takes a racing tyre and does an slip angle to force sweep, the tyre will heat up (and maybe cure, if new) through the sweep. Most testing deviations away from using a new (or equally cured) tyre per data point will induce a steeper post peak falloff than will happen on track. In other words data can be misleading. When manufacturers then fit their Pacejka parameters to the data, and don't even give you the raw data, it usually just makes this even more misleading.
You seem to have some background here but I'll cover the testing for those who don't, and maybe address the things you mention in the process. The tests run at the high levels are quite comprehensive. Talking on the order of hours (or days...) of run time, not seconds, and dozens of tires. Specific dependencies (liner/surface temperature, pressure, slip, etc) are then separated and analyzed in isolation. The most recent test we did was on the order of 500 million data points and that can easily surpass 1 billion depending on budget. After analyzing, you get quite a good picture of the individual dependencies for a given tire on the test surface. Sandpaper has a pretty different spectral distribution than asphalt and thus causes different pressure distributions (among other things), which generally lend to the tire being less forgiving than on track (due to different flash temperatures, disturbance frequencies, peak grip from hysteresis/adhesion, etc). Talking an order of magnitude higher than anything tire-relative (e.g. rubber curing, which is also monitored in these tests, for what it's worth). So then comes quite a bit of material science, empirical correlation, and occasionally FEA (depending on what you're looking at) to "convert" that data to something representative of what you'll see on track. All of this is extremely expensive and is well out of range of the majority of game developers both in cost and engineering capabilities.

To your last sentence, this is why developers saying they were provided "tire data" is usually meaningless. The tests run by manufacturers to provide to teams etc are usually quite bare bones, and the resultant data is directly fit by Pacejka models with no care or correction for testing conditions. I have never seen raw long/lat force data provided in any category of motorsport from GT3 up to F2 and GTP/LMDh (possible that it happens in F1 though).

So yes, it can be very misleading! Without a lot of experience, it's very easy to run into the ACC situation I mentioned, where you fit your sim model to that "data" and it's undriveable. Sim game developers just tend to end up walking it back until it's a bit too easy again. And in fairness, that's what the majority wants.

Thats not what he was talking about, neither was what i was talking about. Sure, chassis, and tire temperature have an effect in making driving more "dynamic". But they alone don't make a car be balanced like i was alluding to. The proof of this is sims utter inability to create a proper 60s or 70s F1, one that has wheelspin on demand on the dry, even in second gear, while keeping the car on its balance around a long corner. You either just have "lateral" oversteer, or the car needs to be kicked into a speed crippling drift for us to get a hint of that behaviour, and this is for the games that actually allow this, since in most you will just spin.
The characteristics you mention as missing are primarily the result of (inadequate) tire and compliance modeling. It's small margins of error (single digit percentages) to cause issues with on-the-limit behavior like you're describing, and the majority of off-the-shelf/vanilla sims (for sure RF1, GTR2, Race07, AC, AMS, and realistically, probably everything else as well) do not have accurate/complex enough modeling to be within a certain margin of error. 60s/70s tires were wildly different than now and there's 0 useful data even for current tires (unless you have deep pockets), so no surprise there aren't great models available.

I haven't seen any asphalt data... So I can't compare... But what I have seen on sandpaper makes most Pacejka slip curves I've seen seem too drastic... Maybe that's some road tyre data that gets passed around modding circles...
Pacejka models are 99% of the time fit to raw sandpaper data, and then the overall friction is just multiplied down to be closer to asphalt levels. So, odds are that many or all models you've seen are sandpaper-based. This is mostly driven by the automotive sector (not racing), as things below the slip peak are still relatively representative on sandpaper (as long as overall grip is scaled), so it can be used for figuring out anticipated loading on components, on-center input response, etc. Thus the majority of tire testing customers don't need the past-the-peak info, so it's not researched as heavily (and the OEMs that do independent research hold it close to their chest).
 

Latest News

Article information

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