GTR2: Why are Modern Sims Still Not as Good?

[Paul Jeffrey]

GTR2 is 11 years old, features a series that no longer exists and was developed for technology less advanced than a modern smart phone. Unbelievably it's still one of the best sims available today.

What I want to know is why? Why in the last 10 + years have some of the many awesome features found in this now long forgotten game not made their way into something more modern? Ok granted many different games feature some of the bits in GTR2, but no single title has taken what was already an incredible base and expanded upon it with the aid of much advanced technology we now have at our disposal.

Driving School? Check
Fully animated pit workers? Check
Animated flag marshals? Check
Day - night transition? Check
Weather cycle? Check
Full official series licence, over two separate seasons? Check
...and the list goes on and on...

Simply put GTR2 was massively overdeveloped, period. SimBin Studios quite literally took every single aspect of the then premier GT racing series in the world and recreated it all into a compelling racing experience that still stands out as a top simulation even by the standards of today, 11 years after the game hit our shelves.

I just find it all incredibility bizarre. In very few industries outside of sim racing will you see a decline in product quality and content as the years progress like we have to put up with today. When GTR2 first shipped in September 2006 the game was a complete package, not splattered with ridiculous bugs that prevented anyone having a good time, not bombarded by wave after wave of disparate DLC content with little or no relevance to the main experience and not hanging on by the merest thread for dear life as another iteration of something that's been released by someone else already. It really was a golden time for sim racing fans, and those who witnessed it all first hand really did think this would be the beginning of something big in sim racing.

Fast forward to 2017 and sadly the progress expected post GTR2 has quite simply not materialised. The game, the official simulation of the FIA GT World Championship, was probably the very last fully feature complete racing simulation we have seen in our niche genre. We've had loads of new games since then, some of which have even been released by the same people responsible for GTR and GTR2, but none have even come close to matching the level of features and polish afforded fans back in 2006. It's down right strange.

Take RaceRoom Racing Experience for example, developed as the next GT game from the people behind GTR and GTR2, when the title first hit public beta stage back in February 2013 what did we have? Basically a hotlapping simulation with limited content, no official series licence, no AI to race against and precisely zero multiplayer features. Added to the still missing animated flag marshals and a range of other GTR2 items that haven't made the move over with time, it's all rather a depressing scene in which to take in.

Ok I appreciate Sector3 have worked exceptionally hard at improving RaceRoom to get to a level where it is barely recognisable now to what it looked like on launch day, but still to even consider releasing a game that was basically stripped of everything that made GTR2 great is simply mind boggling.

And it's not just RaceRoom that are guilty of missing out some key features considered par for the course 11 years ago, everyone is doing it! You only have to look at one of the most popular sims on the market Assetto Corsa as a perfect example, they consider themselves to be perfectionists on a mission to produce the most true to life experience possible, and they even miss out the core basics like weather and day to night transition, never mind such "nice to have" features like a driving school, proper flag implementation and multiclass racing options. It's simply amazing to realise that these features quite simply only exist in a game that was designed and released over a decade ago. Unbelievable.

GTR2 still looks pretty good on top graphics settings, still feels very nice indeed with my trusty CSW V2 and still sounds like it belongs in the very top tier of audio experience. All that whilst replicating a seriously mega international championship in a exceptionally detailed simulation that really does pick out all the little features that makes driving on a virtual track feel like the real thing. With that said and the pretty compelling physics considering the age of the title added up with stuff that no other sim has all together in one package, this is why I still believe GTR2 is, without reservation, the very best simulation racing experience one can purchase during 2017.

I love the game, it's just a bit sad that no one has thought to try and make something similar in the following 132 months since it was released.

GTR was released by SimBin Studios exclusively for PC. The game is still available to purchase on Steam for £4.99.

Like GTR2? Well lucky you, we are seriously considering a brand new informal league! Check out the GTR2 sub forum for general GTR2 discussion or our new GTR2 RDGT Championship forum for more details of the new league season. To prepare for the league all we ask is you have Premium membership, a fresh GTR2 install and these two additional patches HERE and HERE. Get ready for a return of the legend....

Do you still enjoy GTR2? What did the sim do right in your opinion? Why do features present in GTR2 still not appear in moderns sims? Let us know in the comments section below!

 

[TzZyO]

Well they where final products!
It is not like physics are expiring.
I would argue that Rf2 only got small changed to rf1/ simbin physics. Yes it also got added physics like chassis flex and new tire model.
And Rf2 got better physics than any other sim today.


Physics, AI and gameplay doesn't count for much anymore see how excited people are over a few screenshot of ACC.
Calling it the true successor to GTR2 by looking at a couple of screenshots.!

The only ones more excited than the fanboyz are Kunos bank managers.

I'd only call them final products if they were still useful physics-wise.
rF2 having the best physics of them all? I don't know, really... It definitely is relatively good compared to the rest of the bunch, but I'm not nearly as excited about it as I was once.
The worst thing about it is the lack of content... And the fact that ISI decided to quit on it is severely disappointing. On the other hand, the progress rate was appalling, to say the least. Well, still better than LFS

Who knows, maybe KS have finally decided to make a next step and develop a truly decent physics engine this time around. I'll still be checking ACC after it's out. If there won't be much change at all, that would mean that the genre has basically died... You don't really see any fresh good sims anymore. And the devs of the current ones appear to think that they've already done everything that could be done and you simply cannot make any better car dynamics / tire models. I wish I could agree with them, but in my opinion that's not very close to the truth.

 

[jgf]

I'd only call them final products if they were still useful physics-wise.....

They, and innumerable other games, were final products because the developers finished them, put them on the market, and moved on to other projects. Unlike the perpetual beta games today.

By your standards - "still useful physics-wise" - we should all dump every sim except the most recent simply because its physics are "better". Sim physics are probably the most debated aspect of anything in computer games, and to this day there is no consensus for which sim has the "most realistic" physics. And the fact remains that you receive so much input from the car while driving in reality and so little while driving in a sim that it is virtually impossible to compare the two; and when you factor in that most sim racers have never driven any real world race car, much less many of those represented in sims, how accurate can any assessment of "realism" be for any sim?

It is all a matter of opinion and personal choice.

 

[TzZyO]

They, and innumerable other games, were final products because the developers finished them, put them on the market, and moved on to other projects. Unlike the perpetual beta games today.

So, would you rather prefer a GTR 2 reskin then? Since I highly doubt it's possible to make anything more advanced with a small team within a span of few years into a "complete product". Heck, even with pretty rudimentary graphics it takes some a good portion of their life to bring a product to a somewhat usable state, but giving it better graphics would surely prolong the developing process significantly.
Why do you believe it's ok for general software products to be "perpetual betas", but not for sims? Because that's what they are. Even OSes these days are "perpetual betas". I think it's about time to adopt a new mentality over the matter... I'm not happy with this either, mind you, but I do understand that modern software development is no laughing matter.

By your standards - "still useful physics-wise" - we should all dump every sim except the most recent simply because its physics are "better".

I've all but dumped every single sim currently. They are all far from perfect. But at least I believe that if developers keep researching while improving their "perpetual betas", things are going to change for better sooner or later.

Sim physics are probably the most debated aspect of anything in computer games, and to this day there is no consensus for which sim has the "most realistic" physics. And the fact remains that you receive so much input from the car while driving in reality and so little while driving in a sim that it is virtually impossible to compare the two; and when you factor in that most sim racers have never driven any real world race car, much less many of those represented in sims, how accurate can any assessment of "realism" be for any sim?

Errr... Before we could talk about whether certain nuances are correct or not, tire models and the dynamics in general need to get to a more believable level. And as sims are now, you don't even need to feel the g-forces to see something is fundamentally wrong with any of them... At the very least when it comes to the out of the envelope behavior.

It is all a matter of opinion and personal choice.

It is. But once again, would you really rather have a GTR 2 reskin? "Complete", yet looking and driving on par with the original. Not to mention that if I was as happy with GTR 2 as most people in this thread seem to be, it would make things so much easier for me, since I'd only be sticking with that title alone. I don't mind using the same sim over and over again as long as I feel its behavior is believable enough. I don't have the gamer mentality where I'd be buying one to walk it through and then discard it for the next one simply because I've completed the game. I don't care about games or gamey elements at all. But I do care about how the physics feels. Even if one car behaves like some other car in reality, that's still better than when it behaves like no real car at all.

 

[Shovas]

You guys really don't see RF2 as the clear tire model leader right now? At least as far as consumer sims go?

To me it's the obvious leader in that it feels closest to the way a real car feels contacting the road surface.

Remember even GTR2 was built on top of GTR1 and that was built on top of previous work. You got a complete package one at a time but still you didn't get to GTR2 without all the previous releases.

I wouldn't call IR/RF2/AMS/AC/R3E perpetual betas, either. Sure they're perpetually updated but the basic functionality has long existed in those games that one could reasonably expect in this era. Only R3E actually felt like a perpetual beta for a long time.

Now you've got IR/AMS2/ACC building on top of their previous work. You had to get here somehow, though, either through separate retail releases or ongoing updates.

 

[TzZyO]

You guys really don't see RF2 as the clear tire model leader right now? At least as far as consumer sims go?

Well, if it was possible to get all the AC's content with rF2 physics, I'd certainly be much more happier. As for the "clear tire model leader", I wouldn't quite go that far. The only "clear modeling leader" for me at the moment is DCS World, and even that thing has its issues. Car sims? Well... They still have quite a long way to go.

To me it's the obvious leader in that it feels closest to the way a real car feels contacting the road surface.

Don't you feel that the onset of the loss of grip while nearing the edge is about as gradual as in any other title to date? And that the sliding that ensues could use a bit more tightness as well... Still, one of the best over-the-edge models for sure.

Remember even GTR2 was built on top of GTR1 and that was built on top of previous work. You got a complete package one at a time but still you didn't get to GTR2 without all the previous releases.

I wouldn't call IR/RF2/AMS/AC/R3E perpetual betas, either. Sure they're perpetually updated but the basic functionality has long existed in those games that one could reasonably expect in this era. Only R3E actually felt like a perpetual beta for a long time.

Now you've got IR/AMS2/ACC building on top of their previous work. You had to get here somehow, though, either through separate retail releases or ongoing updates.

So, is there really any problem with developing the same title "perpetually"? Because, clearly, there is no such thing as perfect physics (nor there could be perfect audio or visuals).
In fact, I believe that all these should be made into plug-ins with common architecture, so that it would be easier for developers to work on the physics, for example. Particularly, for the modders.

 

[Kenny Paton]

TzZyO
jgf
Nice to see such an interesting and civil discussion.

 

[TzZyO]

TzZyO
jgf
Nice to see such an interesting and civil discussion.

Thank you, I really appreciate that. I've grown too used to people calling my opinion on things anything but civilized. This is a really nice change of pace.

 

[Kenny Paton]

Thank you, I really appreciate that. I've grown too used to people calling my opinion on things anything but civilized. This is a really nice change of pace.

It's a nice change for me, as normally I'm posting to warn people about the opposite.

 

[GTR233]

Yep, no trolls/haters here, only purists/specialists left : gentlemen drivers
I guess you will be more busy in GTR3 forum Kenny, when I see trolls/haters posting messages for a game which is not even in preview

 

[Kenny Paton]

I guess you will be more busy in GTR3 forum

Would that it was only that one forum, it saddens me that such a niche community can be so prone to internecine warfare.

 

[wide2tele]

@TzZyO, yes, GTR2 reskin would be fine. Quality over quantity. You are suggesting with the modern process developers should try and use everything that is possible with current technology. Throw it all in the game package and if the game is rubbish so be it, "Hey, this sim shows 2,000 different types of reflections on the hood alone! Awesome!"
If developers developed within their means, with a deadline to target, there is no reason to not see finished games. People are just willing to accept unfinished games. Developers back in the "new version a year" period had to hold things back to meet the game's deadlines so they didn't try and throw everything into it. They had restrictions to ultimately come up with a "finished" game. Today those deadlines and restrictions are gone and so is any intention of ever providing a finished product.

Edit: Should also add: This modern method of producing games is also the reason they really aren't getting that much better than games from 10-20 years ago in the areas that count. It's a case of developers becoming producers of lots of cool new tech but masters of nothing. Games aren't moving forward. There is as much moving backwards going on as there is forwards.

 

[TzZyO]

It's a nice change for me, as normally I'm posting to warn people about the opposite.

Ah, I missed you are a part of the staff Sorry if you came across some of my posts that might sound rather harsh, but stirring up trouble is never my intention. I just do have my own opinions on things

 

[TzZyO]

yes, GTR2 reskin would be fine.

Hmm... Then we seek for different things in sims.

Quality over quantity.

Same here It's the quality of the physics engine and the FFB that matters to me the most, though.

You are suggesting with the modern process developers should try and use everything that is possible with current technology.

Again, only where it matters. You wouldn't be accusing Matlab of being a poor game, right? And a car or a flight sim, or any other sim for that matter, is closer to professional software suites at heart. You can have fun with it, yes. But people also have fun creating meshes in Blender, for example.

Throw it all in the game package and if the game is rubbish so be it, "Hey, this sim shows 2,000 different types of reflections on the hood alone! Awesome!"

Wrong Otherwise I wouldn't be using Automobilista. It doesn't look much better than GTR2, certainly it doesn't have thousands of different types of reflections... Do you really think I care about minute details like that? I wouldn't mind better graphics at all. But if I have to choose between better graphics and better physics, hopefully my choice is clear enough
Throw all the advancements in tire models and vehicular dynamics into the package, great FFB to boot... and certainly, I won't care if the "game" is rubbish. I don't need a game, I need a sim. I'm pretty much done with playing games for a while already.

If developers developed within their means, with a deadline to target, there is no reason to not see finished games. People are just willing to accept unfinished games. Developers back in the "new version a year" period had to hold things back to meet the game's deadlines so they didn't try and throw everything into it. They had restrictions to ultimately come up with a "finished" game. Today those deadlines and restrictions are gone and so is any intention of ever providing a finished product.

All that only applies to the actual games, not sims. And only if you are not taking the complexities of developing modern games into account. But I will agree with one thing: something needs to be done to prevent developers from abusing the trust of the supporters (we are no longer customers anymore, right? )

Edit: Should also add: This modern method of producing games is also the reason they really aren't getting that much better than games from 10-20 years ago in the areas that count. It's a case of developers becoming producers of lots of cool new tech but masters of nothing. Games aren't moving forward. There is as much moving backwards going on as there is forwards.

No, that's not the reason, really. The actual reason is the difference between the developers then and now. Younger people have their own preferences and methods of working. And those are usually not in sync with ours. Sure, they can also be lazier when it comes to the overall quality and the attention to detail, but you are again forgetting just how much more complex the development process has become.
In the early days you could get away with writing a game fully in the Assembly. These days the process can be complicated even while using ready made 3rd party engines and libraries. Not to mention that those engines and libraries are "perpetual betas" in themselves and they can very well contain their own bugs.

The development process will never be the same. Sure, you can take a Fokker Dr. I on a flight to another country. But that will be vastly inefficient, even if lots of fun. Similarly, game devs have to deal with the modern game making pipelines if they want to come up with something appealing. And that will lead to more work, longer development times and more bugs to hunt down. There's simply no way around that. Apart from using the old approaches to making games. And some do just that. Many indy developers make "retro"-styled games. I'm fine with that. I think that's great even. However, there is less chance those games will receive as much appreciation as the old games due to a variety of reasons.

Indy retro-style games are fine. But that's games... Driving/racing games can be made that way too, probably. But not serious simulations! Well, unless they sport outdated visuals, yet the underlying physics is where all the time, money and other resources went into. In that case, however, it will still be a perpetual beta and will take a lot of development time while producing a lot of bugs that will most likely be very hard to catch and remove for good.

 

[jgf]

So, would you rather prefer a GTR 2 reskin then?

I would prefer the development teams to work as engineering projects, including software development, have always done - within a budget and a timeframe. Otherwise you will always reach a point of diminishing returns. A year's work may give you 90% of your original goal, another six months gets you to 95%, another six months and you are at 96%. Whether you are an artist or cabinetmaker or software developer you will always notice something you would have done differently, but you must reach a point where you say, "I'm done", release what you have and move on to the next project.

...Why do you believe it's ok for general software products to be "perpetual betas", but not for sims? Because that's what they are. Even OSes these days are "perpetual betas".

This equates apples and oranges. An OS is a major programming compromise; it must work equally inefficiently for a variety of applications, and the developers cannot predict what issues will arise once it is "in the wild". So a string of "updates" are inevitable as developers learn of odd combinations of hardware and software which do not play well together. (If you research windows updates before installing you will notice the vast majority address issues not even pertinent to most systems, "this update corrects a possible problem when using V.229 Magnetic Blit drivers on a system with Plebney BIOS".)

Games/sims, on the other hand, are developed to perform on a specific OS with certain minimum hardware requirements. There is no need for a continuing stream of updates, this is merely the developers ignoring the concept of diminishing returns (and embracing the concept of "job security").

...I've all but dumped every single sim currently. They are all far from perfect.

The concept of a "perfect" sim is so far beyond the capabilities of home computing that it isn't even in the foreseeable future. Which is one reason I always question the many discussions of "realistic" physics; until you can feel in a sim the myriad physical cues you process subconsciously while driving in real life, debating the nuances of chassis and tire models is futile, only gross inaccuracies are evident (if your Corvette spins out at 30mph or your Mini laps Nurburgring in five minutes there's a good chance the physics are suspect). Also, and I've had heated "discussions" about this, if you have not driven a particular car in real life you have no basis for an authoritative judgement of how realistically it is depicted in a sim.

As an aside, the term "sim" has taken on an entirely new meaning the past few years. Where it once defined something recreated as realistically as possible within the confines of home computers, it now designates any program allowing you to do something you can do in real life, regardless of realism. A perfect example being farming "simulators" that do not even exhibit seasons. And I believe a new generation of gamers looks at the latter definition in regard to racing "sims".

...Not to mention that if I was as happy with GTR 2 as most people in this thread seem to be, it would make things so much easier for me, since I'd only be sticking with that title alone. I don't mind using the same sim over and over again as long as I feel its behavior is believable enough. I don't have the gamer mentality where I'd be buying one to walk it through and then discard it for the next one simply because I've completed the game. I don't care about games or gamey elements at all. But I do care about how the physics feels. Even if one car behaves like some other car in reality, that's still better than when it behaves like no real car at all.

I do not stick with one title simply because different sims seem better for different series. GPL remains popular because nothing has been developed since which does what it does any better; everything about it is dated, but it is still fun, and isn't that why we are all here? GTR2 is still popular because it provides nearly all the features most players want in one well balanced package, which is where many newer sims have failed. I'm perfectly happy with both, but will galdly move to a new sim when I see it as a replacement. Whatever is the "best" sim ten years from now, I assure you people will still be debating "realism" and still complaining of features which should or shouldn't have been included.

 

[jgf]

TzZyO
jgf
Nice to see such an interesting and civil discussion.

Thank you. Though is it not a sad commentary on the internet that our conversation elicits such a response.

 

[TzZyO]

I would prefer the development teams to work as engineering projects, including software development, have always done - within a budget and a timeframe. Otherwise you will always reach a point of diminishing returns. A year's work may give you 90% of your original goal, another six months gets you to 95%, another six months and you are at 96%. Whether you are an artist or cabinetmaker or software developer you will always notice something you would have done differently, but you must reach a point where you say, "I'm done", release what you have and move on to the next project.

Within the same budget (even less, if you take inflation into consideration), within the same timeframe... Yet you apparently don't want it to look the same, sound the same and behave the same as the titles from a while ago. What gives? You should be willing to pay extra for it. And even then I'm not sure developers are going to be ok with working on a several times more hectic schedule compared to what was already far from a walk in the park.

I hope you at least do agree that GTR 2 and, say, PC2 require incomparable amounts of workload to be developed? If anything, just look at the folder sizes for either. A modern racing game is about 20 times larger. Of course, hardly a significant amount of the size difference goes into the code, but it still requires more work than it used to. Graphics assets and sounds don't really create themselves either.

Games/sims, on the other hand, are developed to perform on a specific OS with certain minimum hardware requirements. There is no need for a continuing stream of updates, this is merely the developers ignoring the concept of diminishing returns (and embracing the concept of "job security").

That's in theory and preferably on a console. In reality there are so many different PC components out there, software still manages to work great on some machines while refusing to work at all on the others, minimum specs notwithstanding, even though you'd expect the OS to rule out any differences in the hardware. But the same thing seems to happen even on Android. Java virtual machine? Hardware abstraction? Yet the apps still work better on some phones, worse on others and not work on some other ones yet. Talk about "apples and oranges".

The concept of a "perfect" sim is so far beyond the capabilities of home computing that it isn't even in the foreseeable future.

Well, I hoped I was clear enough that by "perfect" I merely meant "fairly decent unless you are into nitpicking".

Which is one reason I always question the many discussions of "realistic" physics; until you can feel in a sim the myriad physical cues you process subconsciously while driving in real life, debating the nuances of chassis and tire models is futile

That's a convenient excuse not to discuss it, but you are forgetting that the visual side of things tells a lot too, especially when you can record replays and play them back later from a multitude of perspectives.

only gross inaccuracies are evident (if your Corvette spins out at 30mph or your Mini laps Nurburgring in five minutes there's a good chance the physics are suspect).

Well, different people have different observational skills, but in general they tend to notice even pretty minute details of cars behavior, especially while watching from a stationary point of view. You shouldn't just assume all people are practically blind to anything but the most obvious of things.

Also, and I've had heated "discussions" about this, if you have not driven a particular car in real life you have no basis for an authoritative judgement of how realistically it is depicted in a sim.

And even if you have, that doesn't necessarily make your word on the matter absolute. Someone else with the same experience will most likely have a different opinion, or at least some other one.
Still, that's just another excuse. Yes, it's almost impossible to tell who is exactly right and who isn't, but you should be able to at least come up with your own opinion based on the researched material, even if your "realistic sim" is not quite realistic for someone else.

As an aside, the term "sim" has taken on an entirely new meaning the past few years. Where it once defined something recreated as realistically as possible within the confines of home computers, it now designates any program allowing you to do something you can do in real life, regardless of realism. A perfect example being farming "simulators" that do not even exhibit seasons. And I believe a new generation of gamers looks at the latter definition in regard to racing "sims".

Why should we even discuss that at all? Surely, that's not what interests us in particular, is it?

I do not stick with one title simply because different sims seem better for different series. GPL remains popular because nothing has been developed since which does what it does any better; everything about it is dated, but it is still fun, and isn't that why we are all here? GTR2 is still popular because it provides nearly all the features most players want in one well balanced package, which is where many newer sims have failed.

To me different sims appear to fare better at modeling different aspects of the cars behavior. So, the resulting synthetic experience takes me closer to having that "perfect simulator".

I'm perfectly happy with both, but will galdly move to a new sim when I see it as a replacement

To be honest, I doubt you ever will, because you are not willing to accept the need for new developing and marketing paradigms. You will be always writing off any deviation off the old process as the devs not doing their job properly. And that's a pity. You'd enjoy it much more if you let go of the old habits.

Whatever is the "best" sim ten years from now, I assure you people will still be debating "realism" and still complaining of features which should or shouldn't have been included.

What's wrong with that? That's exactly what I was talking about: a simulator cannot be "finished". "Completing" one and "moving on to the next project" is just an abstraction. There is absolutely no need to come to the point where you'd call it "complete". It's like science itself. Let's call it "complete" and move on to something else just because of the diminishing returns? Well, actually, for science that might work... But not for a sim. Just name me a single reason a sim should be developed within a span of several years and then be mostly abandoned. Simply because that's how it used to be?

 

[jgf]

Within the same budget (even less, if you take inflation into consideration), within the same timeframe... Yet you apparently don't want it to look the same, sound the same and behave the same as the titles from a while ago. What gives? You should be willing to pay extra for it.

What I, or anyone else, is willing to pay is not what we've been discussing. The point is, why cannot modern development teams "finish" a project and release it? By your standards, apparently, it is impossible to ever "finish" any project because there will always be something more to do, some improvement to be made. Thus, instead of there ever being a GTR3 the team should have kept GTR2 under continuous development these past years. But at some point you must say "this is as far as we can reasonably develop this, it's time to start a new project from a clean slate", then release a "final" version and move on.

I hope you at least do agree that GTR 2 and, say, PC2 require incomparable amounts of workload to be developed? If anything, just look at the folder sizes for either. A modern racing game is about 20 times larger. Of course, hardly a significant amount of the size difference goes into the code, but it still requires more work than it used to. Graphics assets and sounds don't really create themselves either.

As you said, much of the size increase in modern games is larger graphics; going from 1024x1024 to 2048x2048 is a 4x increase in file size, but has nothing to do with programming. Are you saying it was less difficult to program years ago for DX9 than to program today for DX12? DX has been streamlined, programming tools are more efficient, and developers have another ten years of experience and technology on which to draw.

"Graphics assets and sounds don't really create themselves". No but I can create a 4k image as quickly as a 2k image, a 32bit sound file as quickly as a 16bit. These are peripherals to the main programming - the exe and dlls - which always requires the most time to develop and debug.

I still say if these modern teams were working under deadlines these projects would be completed in a timely manner; and if they were working with a budget instead of a steady stream of subscriptions/donations/investments they would have further incentive to actually finish something.[/QUOTE]

... In reality there are so many different PC components out there, software still manages to work great on some machines while refusing to work at all on the others...

It is exceedingly rare for a game to not work on a system with the proper OS and meeting the hardware requirements. In fact nearly every game designed for XP will work in W10 ...those developers did not have to release a string of updates. And I recall many games ca. '95-'00 which came with DOS, W95, and Mac versions on one disc; if developers could do that back then certainly it shouldn't take 3+ years to turn out a similar game for one OS today.

But the same thing seems to happen even on Android. Java virtual machine? Hardware abstraction? Yet the apps still work better on some phones, worse on others and not work on some other ones yet. Talk about "apples and oranges".

Now we're discussing phones? How many racing sims are you playing on your phone? I won't even install one on a laptop.

That's a convenient excuse not to discuss it, but you are forgetting that the visual side of things tells a lot too, especially when you can record replays and play them back later from a multitude of perspectives.

So, how much can you tell about a car's handling watching from trackside?

Well, different people have different observational skills, but in general they tend to notice even pretty minute details of cars behavior, especially while watching from a stationary point of view. You shouldn't just assume all people are practically blind to anything but the most obvious of things.

And even if you have, that doesn't necessarily make your word on the matter absolute. Someone else with the same experience will most likely have a different opinion, or at least some other one.
Still, that's just another excuse. Yes, it's almost impossible to tell who is exactly right and who isn't, but you should be able to at least come up with your own opinion based on the researched material, even if your "realistic sim" is not quite realistic for someone else.

So, to whose opinion do we give weight when debating the "realism" of any aspect of the physics? Whose opinion is correct regarding how accurately any car is modeled in any sim? If someone says "the tire model in this sim isn't right", why should anyone pay attention? With all due respect, you say you do not like the physics in any of the current sims, but on what is that based? Provide some facts to support that assertion. If that is just your opinion, fine; but by your own admission it is no more valid than mine or that of anyone else here. So those with the ability tweak their games to something more to their liking, and some share those tweaks, and many try them and think they are an improvement and some don't like them so don't use them. But no one has offered factual data to substantiate any of this is more "realistic" or more "correct" than the default game. What we each have in our own sims is our own opinion of realism, tempered by our concept of fun.

To be honest, I doubt you ever will, because you are not willing to accept the need for new developing and marketing paradigms. You will be always writing off any deviation off the old process as the devs not doing their job properly. And that's a pity. You'd enjoy it much more if you let go of the old habits.

What I will or will not do is irrelevant to this discussion. But I will not pay for anything I deem an unfinished product nor will I accept installation of any extraneous software or software which must "phone home".

What's wrong with that? That's exactly what I was talking about: a simulator cannot be "finished". "Completing" one and "moving on to the next project" is just an abstraction. There is absolutely no need to come to the point where you'd call it "complete". It's like science itself. Let's call it "complete" and move on to something else just because of the diminishing returns? Well, actually, for science that might work... But not for a sim. Just name me a single reason a sim should be developed within a span of several years and then be mostly abandoned. Simply because that's how it used to be?

So Dave Kaemmer should still be working on "Indianapolis 500: the Simulator" and we would never have had ICR1&2, Nascar Racing 1, 2, 3, 4, 2002, 2003, Nascar Legends, or GPL? Simbin should still be working on SCGT and never created GTL or GTR2?

"...a single reason a sim should be developed within a span of several years and then be mostly abandoned"
Because at some point it is simpler to start from a clean slate than keep trying to update old programming to work with new OS and hardware.
FS98 was "abandoned" so they could release FS2000, FS2000 was "abandoned" so they could release FS2002, all the way to FSX. By your argument we should be using FS98 V6.4, patched and tweaked and cobbled together over twenty years to still work in W10.

 

[Easty]

If you still have your copy of GTR2 and or GT Legends you can use the install code to register them on STEAM . Start up STEAM, click on the GAMES tab at the top, choose activate product on steam, enter code leaving out the " -" symbols and you should be good to go.

 

[DucFreak]

I still say if these modern teams were working under deadlines these projects would be completed in a timely manner; and if they were working with a budget instead of a steady stream of subscriptions/donations/investments they would have further incentive to actually finish something.

Yep. In the end, this is the biggest non-visible change, and it certainly makes a dramatic difference. It's also one of the least discussed (ignored?) points as well, funny enough.

GTR, GTL and GTR2 were developed by SimBin and Blimey!Games (after their split), which had a given (generous?) budget by the publisher, 10Tacle Studios AG (insolvency in 2008), whom in their turn excercised some control in the background, also to ensure things were made within the given target/schedule (and within the budget).

The funny bit is that, as gamers (the users), we tend to think of all publishers as if they're the devil (EA and Ubisoft the most disliked - rightfully so), and we blame them as easily when something goes wrong.
But we forget those which were often composed also by enthusiasts (not just bean counters) willing to risk the investment into a complex project built for a gaming niche (e.g, racing sims, flight sims, etc), also a reason why we had so many games that were landmarks over a decade, or two, back in time.

Since 99% of the current sim-racing developers are now "indie" (self funded and/or crowd funded), that tighter control and final target set for public releases (previously exercised by the publisher) is mostly vague, perhaps even gone.
Some claim that this ensures more freedom all around for such devs, though the "safety net" is (obviously) far, far weaker for everyone involved in such project.

Considering previous experiences, I take job offers from indie devs as less serious (which also affects personal investment in it), due to bigger instability involved, also because I've often perceived those in the lead roles as less serious persons.
The incentives (especially in case of success) may still be there but, in my experience, are proeminent only for those in leading positions within such indie project(s), and not at all for those involved as mere "workers" in given tasks - who now are, more than ever, like small mercenaries working temporarily for any and all developer who pays better/faster.
(and actually, in my experience, now paid far worse than before, also forget any type of royalties)
BTW, the crunch BS still happens, if not worse than before.

Whereas before a project had to be finished at the given release date (possibly with one or two patches released after game launch), now the development is kept going, on and on, and on. Many times following a confused path, with several setbacks.
Games are launched as "Early Access", and kept as such for years and years, like in some sort of eternal 'Beta' stage. With clever (viral) marketing and hype to keep the userbase interest going (for things that, before, we surely expected to see at launch).
The "safety net" (for such an indie dev team) should be also provided by going this way but, looking at the stagnation of this scene/genre of gaming (and of others as well), my guess is that it's not working, not for all and not on the longer term.

 

[jgf]

If you still have your copy of GTR2 and or GT Legends you can use the install code to register them on STEAM . Start up STEAM, click on the GAMES tab at the top, choose activate product on steam, enter code leaving out the " -" symbols and you should be good to go.

If I have standalone copies of such games, why on earth would I want Steam involved?