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

Then how do I - someone interested in the conversation, take your “scrutiny” as something of any value?
By the validity of the arguments themselves of course. I mean, last time i checked none of us is a multi race winner like Josef F, yet, his position of authority is discredited anyways, so why should the position of authority of anybody else give more weight to any argument? You can't have it both ways...
 
By the validity of the arguments themselves of course. I mean, last time i checked none of us is a multi race winner like Josef F, yet, his position of authority is discredited anyways, so why should the position of authority of anybody else give more weight to any argument? You can't have it both ways...
Right, so your entire argument is biased on opinions from race car drivers whom may or may not have any experience in decent simulators

I expected no less but had a glimpse of hope you could actually prove something around here instead of the typical keyboard warrior behavior we usually endure.

Till next time :D
 
You know as well as me that the data you speak off usually isn't all done in the same way, with the same conditions, using always a new tire. Also, post peak measurements are rare, and subject to even bigger margins for error. Add that to the margin of error and deviations of input the results into mathematical models, and your 100% certainties start to get very shaky, specially if they don't match real life observations, which most of the "classical" curves don't.
Did you read my pretty long post about how the tests are conducted and how analysis of them is approached? All of the things you mention are addressed. We also have quite a bit of asphalt testing data and of course significant amounts of on-track data to supplement rig testing.

You see, you are not the only one that looked into tire data.
"Looking into" tire data is not the same as conducting big-budget tire tests for the explicit purpose of tire modeling. There is a reason every automotive (and tire!) manufacturer has a huge tire testing program. (And it's not to gather useless data.)

And its funny, you accuse me of "trolling", and yet, you are the one that says that what Josef Neugarten says can't be trusted, while i am the one giving the beneffit of the doubt to either him, Ben Collins, or whoever, instead of making claims about other people's credentials to speak, or how "realistic" the other games are.
Can't be trusted without supporting data? Yes, that's what I'm saying. Benefit of the doubt only works if there's no comparison point. If you have one driver who thinks a car is fine and another who thinks it's wrong, you can't trust both. So by extension, it's not unreasonable (and from experience it's actually more than reasonable) to distrust all of them without supporting quantitative evidence (which is how all of science works anyway). Especially if a driver self-admittedly "fairly well sucks" at simracing... And regardless, you're repeatedly referencing one example in iRacing, a sim with historically wildly variable car quality (as I mentioned earlier, some fine, some not) as some reference for how sims behave in general.

By the validity of the arguments themselves of course. I mean, last time i checked none of us is a multi race winner like Josef F, yet, his position of authority is discredited anyways, so why should the position of authority of anybody else give more weight to any argument? You can't have it both ways...
That "100m" driver I mentioned earlier was an average of 0.7s/lap faster then Josef the last time they raced the same car. So at the very least, equally "authoritative". But left to his own devices, said driver would have come to an inaccurate conclusion about something as simple as brake point (let alone things having to do with car control). I don't think anyone would be questioning "authority" (really, experience) if there were more cohesive arguments being presented...
 
Right, so your entire argument is biased on opinions from race car drivers whom may or may not have any experience in decent simulators

I expected no less but had a glimpse of hope you could actually prove something around here instead of the typical keyboard warrior behavior we usually endure.

Till next time :D
I am not trying to "prove" anything. Your friend his.
 
Did you read my pretty long post about how the tests are conducted and how analysis of them is approached? All of the things you mention are addressed. We also have quite a bit of asphalt testing data and of course significant amounts of on-track data to supplement rig testing.


"Looking into" tire data is not the same as conducting big-budget tire tests for the explicit purpose of tire modeling. There is a reason every automotive (and tire!) manufacturer has a huge tire testing program. (And it's not to gather useless data.)


Can't be trusted without supporting data? Yes, that's what I'm saying. Benefit of the doubt only works if there's no comparison point. If you have one driver who thinks a car is fine and another who thinks it's wrong, you can't trust both. So by extension, it's not unreasonable (and from experience it's actually more than reasonable) to distrust all of them without supporting quantitative evidence (which is how all of science works anyway). Especially if a driver self-admittedly "fairly well sucks" at simracing... And regardless, you're repeatedly referencing one example in iRacing, a sim with historically wildly variable car quality (as I mentioned earlier, some fine, some not) as some reference for how sims behave in general.


That "100m" driver I mentioned earlier was an average of 0.7s/lap faster then Josef the last time they raced the same car. So at the very least, equally "authoritative". But left to his own devices, said driver would have come to an inaccurate conclusion about something as simple as brake point (let alone things having to do with car control). I don't think anyone would be questioning "authority" (really, experience) if there were more cohesive arguments being presented...
Yes i have read your long posts. You didn't prove a) that the tests are reliable enough and b) that they correlate in any way shape or form to the conclusions you are making, 100%. Because if you did, you would be a liar,

Fine, distrust all of them then. Thats your problem, not mine or anybody else's. Still that doesn't prove that a) Their opinions are worthless for everybody, and b) That all sims have too much grip, and this is somewhat "racers who didn't grew up with sims" fault.

Ah interesting, so maybe you should call Roger, and have this guy replace Josef, maybe we are losing a star in the making here :)
No only is that story incredibly funny, it doesn't proove anything. So your mythical super driver can't read brake markers, Maybe thats why Josef is sitting in the indycar, and he isn't :)
 
You would be surprised then (especially if you consider input from non pro drivers). 100m is a case we have had before at a fast track with a (gold rated, very fast) pro driver. Felt like the 100m board in real life, was more like the 200 board in sim and real life (within 2 meters of each other, sim being on the later side). Track model and board placement was accurate, car model was accurate. If you made the car capable of braking at the 100 board, it would be 4s a lap too quick and brake probably 30m too late on average. And be useless for the other pro driver who did not have that perceptual bias. There is never a “right” answer when you start catering to perception, as everyone’s is different. Which is my pretty logically founded point.


Which is something I explicitly said in the same post you’re quoting.


And you might as well consider the full quote, nothing elitist here.

Just saying you can’t take feedback at face value because there are way too many variables to consider, and with sims it’s as likely to be perceptual bias as something actually wrong with the car. Lowest common denominator is the one who has the biggest issue with the sim and makes the most noise about it, usually also correlates with the one who has spent the least amount of time on sims.
As I replied to Arch, I'm astounded. Did NOT know that sort of thing was requested. I understand that "perception" is impossible to quantify, but surely there can be some common sense logic applied to have a larger window of "losing grip" before "loss of grip" (as I said).

I'm not talking about making sims like arcade games and allowing players to brake 1 cm before the apex and have corner speeds of 100mph in hairpins whilst drifting! :) I mean just the little window where the tyres are starting to lose it, so the car is not operating at peak grip but nor is it trying to kill me by sliding into the tyre barriers in the equivalent of a planes flat spin! Also (as mentioned) more emphasis on SLOW speed handling, get the cars feeling realistic at slower speeds and scale it up.

Ok I get your point now! Sorry for misunderstanding. But I see those edge cases (BOTH upper and lower) as incorrect.

I hope you understand my point a little bit more now!
 
It's a shame where this discussion is heading to, because I believe that both are correct on their assessments (at least I agree with several points made by the two), but neither is willing to concede a thing to the counterpart, and the whole thing is becoming a dick measuring contest.
 
...I understand that "perception" is impossible to quantify...
Not wanting to debunk your point, but as science progresses, more studies are done, and the learnings from these are used for evolving models and devices, this is becoming a possibility.

I remember an article made by a website covering a driver training center, which name I cannot recall (I think was something like iZone) where they took Sebastian Job (successful esport level simracer), and they made him do several runs, measuring several techniques of his driving. The most eye-catching one (pun intended) was that they had a system to track what his eyes were doing and where was he looking for tackling corners. He was explained that he was looking at the wrong places and he should try to visualize and focus at different points. This came after having done several runs and being stuck in his laptime progression, but with this knowledge he instantly unlocked several tenths!
 
It's a shame where this discussion is heading to, because I believe that both are correct on their assessments (at least I agree with several points made by the two), but neither is willing to concede a thing to the counterpart, and the whole thing is becoming a dick measuring contest.
The primary argument from the other side is “the data used by automotive manufacturers is useless, you would be a liar to say it isn’t, and you can’t disregard drivers’ feedback (except the dozens you’ve actually worked with) because they know best.” Only reason there’s disagreement from my end is I have professional experience showing that that’s very often not the case, and there have been no logically sound arguments or case studies presented on the contrary. Believe me, I would be ecstatic to see one (anything that can improve our output as a company is invaluable, and a good counterargument to what I’ve presented would essentially be more research data for us). But it is a “you are wrong because I think so” presentation of the argument.

As I replied to Arch, I'm astounded. Did NOT know that sort of thing was requested. I understand that "perception" is impossible to quantify, but surely there can be some common sense logic applied to have a larger window of "losing grip" before "loss of grip" (as I said).

I'm not talking about making sims like arcade games and allowing players to brake 1 cm before the apex and have corner speeds of 100mph in hairpins whilst drifting! :) I mean just the little window where the tyres are starting to lose it, so the car is not operating at peak grip but nor is it trying to kill me by sliding into the tyre barriers in the equivalent of a planes flat spin! Also (as mentioned) more emphasis on SLOW speed handling, get the cars feeling realistic at slower speeds and scale it up.

Ok I get your point now! Sorry for misunderstanding. But I see those edge cases (BOTH upper and lower) as incorrect.

I hope you understand my point a little bit more now!
And yep better understood, I think my argument in how it applies to your thoughts is that (in my experience) most consumer sims already take some liberties with how big of a window the tires have vs reality (intentionally or not). And thanks for being civil :)
 
Premium
Did you read my pretty long post about how the tests are conducted and how analysis of them is approached? All of the things you mention are addressed. We also have quite a bit of asphalt testing data and of course significant amounts of on-track data to supplement rig testing.


"Looking into" tire data is not the same as conducting big-budget tire tests for the explicit purpose of tire modeling. There is a reason every automotive (and tire!) manufacturer has a huge tire testing program. (And it's not to gather useless data.)


Can't be trusted without supporting data? Yes, that's what I'm saying. Benefit of the doubt only works if there's no comparison point. If you have one driver who thinks a car is fine and another who thinks it's wrong, you can't trust both. So by extension, it's not unreasonable (and from experience it's actually more than reasonable) to distrust all of them without supporting quantitative evidence (which is how all of science works anyway). Especially if a driver self-admittedly "fairly well sucks" at simracing... And regardless, you're repeatedly referencing one example in iRacing, a sim with historically wildly variable car quality (as I mentioned earlier, some fine, some not) as some reference for how sims behave in general.


That "100m" driver I mentioned earlier was an average of 0.7s/lap faster then Josef the last time they raced the same car. So at the very least, equally "authoritative". But left to his own devices, said driver would have come to an inaccurate conclusion about something as simple as brake point (let alone things having to do with car control). I don't think anyone would be questioning "authority" (really, experience) if there were more cohesive arguments being presented...
Most of the stuff you're talking about is indeed going over my head, but I feel I have reason to believe that what Ben Collings says about sim racing is more likely to be true because he races cars across the spectrum, and if he has to unlearn what racing has taught him, then there is some divergence in the two disciplines, and if he says that he doesn't get the same feeling of a real car in a seat of a sim frame, thus rubbish at sim racing... who am I or you with your alleged tyre data tests, to tell him different, He's the racing driver (I have no idea who you are) and, after all I'm just a bloke that buys and plays sim race games... not for a living but for fun, so when Ben Collings says "it's not the same" then, with or without data he's gonna have me and other sim players listening.
 
Most of the stuff you're talking about is indeed going over my head, but I feel I have reason to believe that what Ben Collings says about sim racing is more likely to be true because he races cars across the spectrum, and if he has to unlearn what racing has taught him, then there is some divergence in the two disciplines, and if he says that he doesn't get the same feeling of a real car in a seat of a sim frame, thus rubbish at sim racing... who am I or you with your alleged tyre data tests, to tell him different, He's the racing driver (I have no idea who you are) and, after all I'm just a bloke that buys and plays sim race games... not for a living but for fun, so when Ben Collings says "it's not the same" then, with or without data he's gonna have me and other sim players listening.
I don’t think he’s saying he has to unlearn what racing has taught him, more that he thinks sim models are generally less forgiving than real life. My argument is that that’s just as likely to be because of the absence of G forces etc (and him not being comfortable with that), and not necessarily something to do with how forgiving the models themselves are. So then to say that the models themselves are “nearly always” too unforgiving is misleading.

And I agree it’s expected that sim players are going to listen to pro drivers (that’s a lot of why sim studios pay them after all), but I think it’s important for sim racers to understand that what real drivers say is not gospel (thus the ensuing discussion in this thread with the examples provided etc).

I have no idea who you are
And this is why I usually make some reference to credentials so people can tell it’s not just keyboard engineering. There’s a picture from our most recent “alleged” tire test on the consulting page of our website.
 
Most of the stuff you're talking about is indeed going over my head, but I feel I have reason to believe that what Ben Collings says about sim racing is more likely to be true because he races cars across the spectrum, and if he has to unlearn what racing has taught him, then there is some divergence in the two disciplines, and if he says that he doesn't get the same feeling of a real car in a seat of a sim frame, thus rubbish at sim racing... who am I or you with your alleged tyre data tests, to tell him different, He's the racing driver (I have no idea who you are) and, after all I'm just a bloke that buys and plays sim race games... not for a living but for fun, so when Ben Collings says "it's not the same" then, with or without data he's gonna have me and other sim players listening.
I think there's a case of idolization going on. Someone being competent in a real car doesn't automatically make them competent in a virtual one. It's not there yet where all the sensations are identical. You need some training time to be able to accurately perceive the virtual car.

It's not a hard idea to comprehend, yet people have a huge problem with it.
 
Premium
I still have no idea who you are though I guess you're with a company/organization, however if you're telling me that all of your data is only 100% accurate if the correct G-forces are applied into the equation, but as they're not then the equation is incomplete, it doesn't provide the information that the masses need to get the most out of it, you have to substitute, to have a tell, a sign, an inkling of the point a tyre is slipping and if the G-forces can't do that then the programmers/devs/designers and their testers have some work to do to make up for the shortage of feeling, that takes us right back to the Ben Collings bit... it's not the same as when you're in the real car, you have to do things differently, then there's the problem of the fastest driving line, this is often different to varying degrees to the real track, and what car is the base AI line set for, hopefully with the advances in AI this can be adapted for each track.
 
Premium
I think there's a case of idolization going on. Someone being competent in a real car doesn't automatically make them competent in a virtual one. It's not there yet where all the sensations are identical. You need some training time to be able to accurately perceive the virtual car.

It's not a hard idea to comprehend, yet people have a huge problem with it.
I think someones got a little superiority issue here.
 
I still have no idea who you are though I guess you're with a company/organization, however if you're telling me that all of your data is only 100% accurate if the correct G-forces are applied into the equation, but as they're not then the equation is incomplete, it doesn't provide the information that the masses need to get the most out of it, you have to substitute, to have a tell, a sign, an inkling of the point a tyre is slipping and if the G-forces can't do that then the programmers/devs/designers and their testers have some work to do to make up for the shortage of feeling, that takes us right back to the Ben Collings bit... it's not the same as when you're in the real car, you have to do things differently, then there's the problem of the fastest driving line, this is often different to varying degrees to the real track, and what car is the base AI line set for, hopefully with the advances in AI this can be adapted for each track.
Thats exactly my point. It doesnt matter what the very limited and incomplete real data says. If you sit a real driver, in your rig, with your mod, and he can't use any of his skillset to even be confortable driving it, let alone do decent laps, then you failed. Saying the driver didnt "grew up with sims" is if anything, actually worsening it, because maybe this simdriver learned to drive in flawed sims, and now will apply his skewed perceptions and feedback in your new thing, thus perpetuating the errors of the past.
 
Your mistake in my opinion, don't make your response personal.
Throwing in a IMO or IMHO would not hurt either ;)

IMHO this whole thing goes backwards, more sims, more engines means less compatibility and more bugs.
People complaining about a 2 decade old engine that personally they should have come to terms with 10 years ago.

What I think we need is a multi studio effort to examine the feasibility of a universal engine.
I mean at least take 10 seconds to think of Pros and Cons ;)
 
Last edited:
And yep better understood, I think my argument in how it applies to your thoughts is that (in my experience) most consumer sims already take some liberties with how big of a window the tires have vs reality (intentionally or not). And thanks for being civil :)
No probs, I apologise again for getting abit arsey earlier.

Very complicated issue. Bottom line is....it's not possible to keep everyone happy! But I still say the liberties are only at the upper speed ranges and at slower speeds the transition from "losing grip" to "loss of grip" is still too harsh in many sims. I understand that at higher speeds the likelyhood is I've overcooked it and loss of grip is expected, but many slow speed spins tend to leave me scratching my bonce.

I'm wondering how F1 simulators do SOP (seat of pants) if at all, as most I've seen don't seem to be motion rigs. I'm wondering if that's why Lewis doesn't like the sims...he needs SOP, and without that feeling cannot adjust to a sim.
 
I'm wondering how F1 simulators do SOP (seat of pants) if at all, as most I've seen don't seem to be motion rigs. I'm wondering if that's why Lewis doesn't like the sims...he needs SOP, and without that feeling cannot adjust to a sim.
The ones I know of all have motion. Yaw is prioritized. Dynisma has a pretty decent offering that there’s quite a bit of information about.
 

Latest News

Article information

Author
Yannik Haustein
Article read time
5 min read
Views
14,777
Comments
280
Last update
Back
Top