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

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.


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.


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).

Very well put...

My short hand version of this is that "Sim racing developers always fudge the numbers to fit their world and their flavour of racing due to the limitations of the home PC not being able to handle the data points needed to relate a proper real life tyre model..."
 
Very well put...

My short hand version of this is that "Sim racing developers always fudge the numbers to fit their world and their flavour of racing due to the limitations of the home PC not being able to handle the data points needed to relate a proper real life tyre model..."
It's more that the time and money you'd need to spend developing an accurate model of any given sim car or tire is not feasible for games that have dozens or hundreds of vehicles. Modern PCs can handle a rather high level of complexity, but if you don't have the right data to enter (and game devs simply won't for the time/cost/experience reason), then that complexity gets you nowhere. And if you don't know things are that complex in real life, then you never strive for that complexity in the first place (you don't know what you don't know...).

It's also just a very difficult thing from an engineering perspective. Even most racing manufacturers (and certainly racing teams) struggle to make accurate sim models.
 
It's more that the time and money you'd need to spend developing an accurate model of any given sim car or tire is not feasible for games that have dozens or hundreds of vehicles. Modern PCs can handle a rather high level of complexity, but if you don't have the right data to enter (and game devs simply won't for the time/cost/experience reason), then that complexity gets you nowhere. And if you don't know things are that complex in real life, then you never strive for that complexity in the first place (you don't know what you don't know...).

It's also just a very difficult thing from an engineering perspective. Even most racing manufacturers (and certainly racing teams) struggle to make accurate sim models.

Oh yeah there's that as well, iRacing might be the one exception to the "not having time or money"... But they haven't bothered yet either because there's no other developer going that far... So have no competitive reason to do it...

Developers still have to account for the minimum spec potato PCs out there on top of most games not using multiple cores of a CPU... Which also leads to slower tick rates which causes issues with more complex data...

The marketing of the last decade has led a lot of people to believe we have real world physical tyre data in these tyre models and therefore no need for any talk about slip angles in sim racing, which is just not the case... We are a couple of generations away from that level if the OEMs that currently keep it all close to their chest suddenly put the data out there...
 
"The biggest problem with sims is that nearly always the cars are too difficult to drive, and that there's a massive drop off in grip, either the front or the rear or both."

Put in a driver who's old school (ie grew up without sims) and not comfortable/fast in sims and you will get this feedback. Put one who's comfortable/fast in sims and you will not. Cars are often too forgiving in sims. Pretty out of touch comment.
Well ask any Indycar driver and they tell you all sims are crap that simulate an Indycar.... no wonder they race other cars in Sims. Even the ones who grew up with sims. :)
 
Last edited:
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.
We also need a driver to understand the differences, as you say later it IS all about perception. If a race driver who also sims has to drive a sim car different then the sims physics are surely incorrect, but would a race driver who also sims know they are driving different? I suppose the only way to truly compare is telemetry (depending on the sim compatability with telemetry software I presume) even then seeing as sims don't properly simulate changes track temps due to weather and I'm pretty sure none simulate wind properly (if at all) how accurate are comparisons?

Perception is key IMO, because it all boils down to how a car "feels" to the driver. If it all comes down to numbers and equations then it's going to be flawed despite the accuracy of the numbers (although can you hand on heart say the numbers are always right, that there's no fudge work or guessing involved in any aspect of car physics simulation?!).

Then we come down to what I said earlier about "seat of the pants", without that early warning system (for want of a better term) then the physics do need to tone down the cars reactions to compensate for that delay in the human applying the neccessary inputs.

When I drive (and I tend to drive fast (not excessively though), my wife and Mother in law always comment about how they can feel the cornering forces (not words they use!) on a roundabout when in my car) It's all about the "feel", not just lateral but longitudinal (especially braking). It's SO much easier to judge braking in a real car than a sim, because in a sim I feel absolutely nothing with regards to the cars deceleration.

I guess my point is, sim devs should not concentrate on the top 1% of sim drivers who can adjust to the lack of that feeling, but rather seek to compensate for the lack of feeling a sim racer gets (as only a miniscule fraction of us can afford motion rigs). Personally I feel the transition from grip to no grip is usually far to sudden with a tiny window of "starting to lose grip" so that a driver can compensate before "total loss of grip" occurs.

Didn't mean to write a wall of text, just trying to convey (as a layman) how things feel to me on what is a very complicated subject.
 
We also need a driver to understand the differences, as you say later it IS all about perception. If a race driver who also sims has to drive a sim car different then the sims physics are surely incorrect, but would a race driver who also sims know they are driving different? I suppose the only way to truly compare is telemetry (depending on the sim compatability with telemetry software I presume) even then seeing as sims don't properly simulate changes track temps due to weather and I'm pretty sure none simulate wind properly (if at all) how accurate are comparisons?

Perception is key IMO, because it all boils down to how a car "feels" to the driver. If it all comes down to numbers and equations then it's going to be flawed despite the accuracy of the numbers (although can you hand on heart say the numbers are always right, that there's no fudge work or guessing involved in any aspect of car physics simulation?!).

Then we come down to what I said earlier about "seat of the pants", without that early warning system (for want of a better term) then the physics do need to tone down the cars reactions to compensate for that delay in the human applying the neccessary inputs.

When I drive (and I tend to drive fast (not excessively though), my wife and Mother in law always comment about how they can feel the cornering forces (not words they use!) on a roundabout when in my car) It's all about the "feel", not just lateral but longitudinal (especially braking). It's SO much easier to judge braking in a real car than a sim, because in a sim I feel absolutely nothing with regards to the cars deceleration.

I guess my point is, sim devs should not concentrate on the top 1% of sim drivers who can adjust to the lack of that feeling, but rather seek to compensate for the lack of feeling a sim racer gets (as only a miniscule fraction of us can afford motion rigs). Personally I feel the transition from grip to no grip is usually far to sudden with a tiny window of "starting to lose grip" so that a driver can compensate before "total loss of grip" occurs.

Didn't mean to write a wall of text, just trying to convey (as a layman) how things feel to me on what is a very complicated subject.
I absolutely agree.

All this talk about tire tests is useless if a racing driver is saying that the car feels as if it has no grip in game. And we have many examples of that, Not just Ben Collins.


And "we can't simulate reality" is also not a good answer either, no matter with how many words is explained.

Drivers, or the general user, should not have to "adapt", or "grow up" with sims. Even though we use different sensorial data to drive in sim, the sim should be intuitive and give you signs that you are on the limit.

I think this obsession with numbers and real "grip" is exactly the problem. Dynamics and car balance is far more important than those, so that the driving is intuitive and enjoyable.And so far, most sims fail to account for this, and the reply cannot be "we cannot simulate reality".
Its up to the physics people and car implementers to bridge that gap (hence i guess that 20% more grip that AC seems to have), and this is not "unrealistic" per se, because the whole process is already compromised by the fact that are things from "reality" missing, so we are now back to square one, when we say that dynamics and response and desired output in game is more important than raw "real" input numbers.

And in that sense, Ben Collins, and many other drivers are "right", not in absolute meaningless terms, but in feel and response in game terms.
 
There's paid for comments like those of Ben Collins and then there's unpaid comments from various racing drivers stating there's too much yaw and grip in sim racing titles...

It's easy to take those written within a marketing line as just that... Marketing... And write them off as making the gamer who wants to feel like a rock star feel justified for thinking that these cars were that grippy... Some fall for the marketing, others don't...

As wheelbases and FFB effects improve we should be receiving less grip not more, but the industry has gone the other way...
 
Moderator
Premium
This discussion reminded me of a Walt Whitman poem.

When I heard the learn’d astronomer,
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,
When I was shown the charts and diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them,
When I sitting heard the astronomer where he lectured with much applause in the lecture-room,
How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
Till rising and gliding out I wander’d off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look’d up in perfect silence at the stars.
 
If I have to choose between a simulation with "real tyre data" (read: basic curve fit on a tyre model from the 90's to measurements taken on sandpaper) that drives like garbage, or a hand-tuned tyre model that provides an intuitive driving feel that resembles real-life onboards, I'll take the latter every time.
 
There's paid for comments like those of Ben Collins and then there's unpaid comments from various racing drivers stating there's too much yaw and grip in sim racing titles...

It's easy to take those written within a marketing line as just that... Marketing... And write them off as making the gamer who wants to feel like a rock star feel justified for thinking that these cars were that grippy... Some fall for the marketing, others don't...

As wheelbases and FFB effects improve we should be receiving less grip not more, but the industry has gone the other way...
So was Josef here "payed" too?

 
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)!
Are you talking about FWD or RWD? Losing grip at 40 mph with a RWD due to lift off or a change of camber of the asphalt is believable. Well, at least with shitty street tyres, less so with semi-slick.
 
Oh yeah there's that as well, iRacing might be the one exception to the "not having time or money"... But they haven't bothered yet either because there's no other developer going that far... So have no competitive reason to do it...

Developers still have to account for the minimum spec potato PCs out there on top of most games not using multiple cores of a CPU... Which also leads to slower tick rates which causes issues with more complex data...

The marketing of the last decade has led a lot of people to believe we have real world physical tyre data in these tyre models and therefore no need for any talk about slip angles in sim racing, which is just not the case... We are a couple of generations away from that level if the OEMs that currently keep it all close to their chest suddenly put the data out there...
Question is... Is there any interest in doing so by the tyre manufacturers? I don't think Pirelli would love to share its data publicly and let Michelin, Dunlop, Metzeler etc study them.
 
I see a lot of people here falling into the same "binary behavior" they accuse sims of: if it's not 100% correct then it's crap. :D
And this is also absolutely true. There shouldn’t be an expectation of any consumer sim being super accurate. Only part that’s bothersome/problematic is when developers tout hyper realistic simulation and their pro driver connections and then make blanket statements about sims in general. End up with discussions like this. And pretty much all of the studios on the market exhibit this behavior to some degree, so it’s a broad market issue.


We also need a driver to understand the differences, as you say later it IS all about perception. If a race driver who also sims has to drive a sim car different then the sims physics are surely incorrect, but would a race driver who also sims know they are driving different? I suppose the only way to truly compare is telemetry (depending on the sim compatability with telemetry software I presume) even then seeing as sims don't properly simulate changes track temps due to weather and I'm pretty sure none simulate wind properly (if at all) how accurate are comparisons?

Perception is key IMO, because it all boils down to how a car "feels" to the driver. If it all comes down to numbers and equations then it's going to be flawed despite the accuracy of the numbers (although can you hand on heart say the numbers are always right, that there's no fudge work or guessing involved in any aspect of car physics simulation?!).

Then we come down to what I said earlier about "seat of the pants", without that early warning system (for want of a better term) then the physics do need to tone down the cars reactions to compensate for that delay in the human applying the neccessary inputs.

When I drive (and I tend to drive fast (not excessively though), my wife and Mother in law always comment about how they can feel the cornering forces (not words they use!) on a roundabout when in my car) It's all about the "feel", not just lateral but longitudinal (especially braking). It's SO much easier to judge braking in a real car than a sim, because in a sim I feel absolutely nothing with regards to the cars deceleration.

I guess my point is, sim devs should not concentrate on the top 1% of sim drivers who can adjust to the lack of that feeling, but rather seek to compensate for the lack of feeling a sim racer gets (as only a miniscule fraction of us can afford motion rigs). Personally I feel the transition from grip to no grip is usually far to sudden with a tiny window of "starting to lose grip" so that a driver can compensate before "total loss of grip" occurs.

Didn't mean to write a wall of text, just trying to convey (as a layman) how things feel to me on what is a very complicated subject.
Pro drivers are paid to understand the differences in how a car drives corner to corner in every phase of the corner, and that’s easy to transfer to the sim. Pro sim engineers make sure what the driver is saying makes sense vs the data, taking the perceptual differences, when present, into account. This would include calling a driver out for driving differently than the real car, or driving poorly on the sim in general. Telemetry is absolutely a useful and pretty much required tool in this process (at least for a few cars, which then determines the broader design of the sim and gives you a box to work in - for consumer sims there’s no need or possibility to do make every car hyper accurate, but you need a good behavior baseline). Something that Kunos did a good job at with AC; no, the individual cars are not necessarily very accurate, but all 200 or so have a cohesive design philosophy and they all for the most part drive like cars. You could do the same with a better baseline and end up with a better simulator (maybe not a better game though). iRacing a good example of the opposite; very little cohesion in their offerings so some cars are actually pretty decent and others are quite poor (fundamentally, not a “real car is a bit more understeery at high speeds” kind of thing).

The problem with perception is that everyone’s is different. It’s not measureable and varies massively from one driver to the next, some guys really struggle without the “seat of the pants” feeling, some simply do not. Just because a few Indycar drivers (many of whom did not grow up with sims or do not spend any appreciable time on them at home) who were forced to compete on iRacing complain about cars being too difficult does not mean they should be made easier (nor does it mean they’re not too difficult - point is that from that feedback alone, you can’t tell). The more you consider perception without data as reference, the more you end up catering to the lowest common denominator (or the average sim racer, who frankly does not have the necessary skillset to drive most racing cars, sim or real, quickly without crashing). Again, sim driving is a different skillset and people shouldn’t expect it to be the same. People are much more accepting of the other direction (“oh that sim driver had a hard time in the real car because it’s scary to go that fast and it’s a very overwhelming experience in general”) and don’t like to consider that real->sim has the same boundary that you can’t fix by just making the cars easier to drive or have more grip, etc. It’s a bit like paling water out of a sinking ship. Yes, it helps to remove the water, but you’ll still be at risk of sinking; if you had just fixed the hole in the hull, there wouldn’t be an issue to begin with. A bad sim driver will still crash a car that’s too easy to drive, a good sim driver will avoid crashing one that’s too difficult; but the good driver at least has a chance of relaying that it’s too difficult, where the bad driver will always think it’s too difficult. Simply put, if your perception is that you should be able to brake 100m later than you do in reality, it’s not a problem with the sim.


Question is... Is there any interest in doing so by the tyre manufacturers? I don't think Pirelli would love to share its data publicly and let Michelin, Dunlop, Metzeler etc study them.
Tire manufacturers generally don’t even give their clients good data, let alone publishing anything. Granted they all test each other’s tires anyway…
 
Question is... Is there any interest in doing so by the tyre manufacturers? I don't think Pirelli would love to share its data publicly and let Michelin, Dunlop, Metzeler etc study them.
For an answer, here is a real life fact.

Bridgestone was the supplier of tyres for F1 until the end of 2010, last race being at Abu Dhabi. Two days after the race was run, a test would take place at the same track, with teams running the Pirelli tyres for the first time.

Between the race and the test, Bridgestone themselves did a mechanical and chemical washing of the track, to leave the track completely clean and free of all bits and traces of their tyres.
 
Tire manufacturers generally don’t even give their clients good data, let alone publishing anything. Granted they all test each other’s tires anyway…
Yeah of course, it's cheap stuff for them. Even sportscar manufacturers like Ferrari, Lambo, Porsche and so on buy their rival models for hundreds of thousands of dollars every year to study them and set a benchmark.
 
For an answer, here is a real life fact.

Bridgestone was the supplier of tyres for F1 until the end of 2010, last race being at Abu Dhabi. Two days after the race was run, a test would take place at the same track, with teams running the Pirelli tyres for the first time.

Between the race and the test, Bridgestone themselves did a mechanical and chemical washing of the track, to leave the track completely clean and free of all bits and traces of their tyres.
Gosh! Didn't know that... insane anecdote.
 
The problem with perception is that everyone’s is different. It’s not measureable and varies massively from one driver to the next, some guys really struggle without the “seat of the pants” feeling, some simply do not. Just because a few Indycar drivers (many of whom did not grow up with sims or do not spend any appreciable time on them at home) who were forced to compete on iRacing complain about cars being too difficult does not mean they should be made easier (nor does it mean they’re not too difficult - point is that from that feedback alone, you can’t tell). The more you consider perception without data as reference, the more you end up catering to the lowest common denominator (or the average sim racer, who frankly does not have the necessary skillset to drive most racing cars, sim or real, quickly without crashing). Again, sim driving is a different skillset and people shouldn’t expect it to be the same. People are much more accepting of the other direction (“oh that sim driver had a hard time in the real car because it’s scary to go that fast and it’s a very overwhelming experience in general”) and don’t like to consider that real->sim has the same boundary that you can’t fix by just making the cars easier to drive or have more grip, etc. It’s a bit like paling water out of a sinking ship. Yes, it helps to remove the water, but you’ll still be at risk of sinking; if you had just fixed the hole in the hull, there wouldn’t be an issue to begin with. A bad sim driver will still crash a car that’s too easy to drive, a good sim driver will avoid crashing one that’s too difficult; but the good driver at least has a chance of relaying that it’s too difficult, where the bad driver will always think it’s too difficult. Simply put, if your perception is that you should be able to brake 100m later than you do in reality, it’s not a problem with the sim.
You keep falling into the trap of relating what Ben Collins remarked as absolutes. Absolute grip, absolute difficulty, absolute numbers.

Nowhere in that interview did he say that "devs should just dial up the grip knob". Even because that actually wouldn't make driving any sim any easier, Paradoxical for someone who sees only absolutes i imagine.

Again, the "problem" with sims is not how much grip they have. You dismiss Josef N opinion because he didnt grew up in sims.

THIS DOESNT MATTER!

If a real driver can't use any of his skill set in your "sim", you failed. It doesnt matter what numbers you put there then, if the experience has no relation with reality(even discounting the different sensorial inputs you need in sim vs real life) Then your "sim" is no more "realistic" than micromachines.


Besides, if you yourself admit that our current models can't "simulate reality", why are so concerned if someone dials up or down some knobs, based on hardly verifiable or accurate tire data? That seems a pretty unrelated bar to cover. Much more important would be to indeed make something where a guy like Ben Collins can sit and feel confortable with, regardless of he "grew up with sims" or not.

I grew up with fighting games, so is street fighter a "sim", and it doesnt matter if Bruce Lee would suck at it, because he didnt "grew up" with fighting games? Or is the "Problem" the fact that a fighting game actually has no translation of skill set to real fighting?

Are you implying that ALL the sims we have are so removed from reality to the point they are meaningless for someone who didnt learn a specific skillset for them, and that we cannot hope to have anything that translates in terms of skillset to real life until we have some quantic computers that can simulate reality at a molecular level or something? Strange if thats so, considering your line of work.


Anyway, sorry, but i don't agree. And again, i dont think someone like Josef Neugarten needs "pandering" to drive a car, even if in game. His onboard videos show clearly that the falloff of the tires can't be that dramatic, or else he can't go that sideways without spining, and instead he uses that to his advantage.

Not to mention other things like rally driving on tarmac, or even drifting would be nay on impossible.

So we even have visual confirmation that in that case, the sharp drop off from iRacing is wrong. And i say this because he is not an average Joe, he knows very well the limits of the real thing, where he should brake, etc. Now, you can still argue that he is overstepping these limits in game, but to say that ALL of them do that, unless they grew up with sims, and that there is this new "trend" of making sims too "easy", is a massive over reach.
 

Latest News

Article information

Author
Yannik Haustein
Article read time
5 min read
Views
14,650
Comments
280
Last update
Back
Top