PC3 Next Project Cars "200% Better Than PCARS 2"

[Paul Jeffrey]

Slightly Mad Studios head man Ian Bell has taken to Twitter recently to praise their new game... claiming it to be "200% better" already than the previous release.

Now going under the name of Project CARS Revolution, the third instalment to the successful Project CARS franchise is already well under development at Slightly Mad Studios HQ - and progress is so far advanced that Ian Bell claims the title is already "at least 200% better" than anything Project CARS 2 had to offer.

Criticised by some and loved by others, the last Project CARS game certainly managed to do plenty right despite its often confused nature, so news that the new title is allegedly so far ahead at this reasonably early stage is indeed positive news - even if Bell himself admitted he can be prone to the odd bout of over optimism in the past..

Despite such solid beginnings, Ian Bell did go on to warn people that a release date will only be confirmed once the studio feel the software is ready to release, so don't expect it to be dropping anytime in the next few weeks.. although some more previews and information will surely start being drip fed by Bell and SMS as the hype train begins ahead of a public release.

Just to clarify - the above image is from PCARS 2..

Keep an eye out in the Project CARS Revolution sub forum here at RaceDepartment as a place to hang out and discuss the upcoming new game.

Like what we do at RaceDepartment? Follow us on Social Media!

 

 

[2112]

So you know how all cars should drive and if they are not crashing every third corner like in AC, they can't be right i guess. For me it looks like especially one title with just one point per tyre touching the track did some brainwashing regarding car-physics. I just believe in common sense: If you pay a fortune for a car, it's not build to crash every minute!

I have never, ever had an issue with cars in AC, ACC, rFactor, R3E or Automobilista crashing every third corner. As a matter of fact I have not had much trouble with handling cars in any of the aforementioned sims except when I have made an obvious mistake. Not even with the 917-10 or any other car that one would expect to be difficult to drive.

Yet, in PC and PC2 I always had cars looping out of corners or in chicanes because the physics were so wrong (pivot point in geographic center of car instead of just in front of the rear wheels) and the tires were wonky. PC tires were like the older iRacing tires: Glass.

Aside from the older iteration of iRacing, there is no other sim I have ever raced so unsuccessfully as PC and PC2.

It ain't brainwashing if it is one out of many.

Perhaps the problem you are running into with all the other sims lies not in the sim but the driver.

 

[Ryann]

...I also don't get why there is so much comments about money. The game these days costs something like 40 - 80 EUR depending on sale. Does people expect to pay this kind of money and get free lifetime support of the game with active development?

Although I get what you are saying, and I can't say I totally disagree, there is a but...

SMS' (doubtful) active support for their games is like one year max? (And don't get me started about Bell's never fulfilled promises.) Now look around. What about Kunos, Reiza, S3S or recently S397? They all support their games for years and they all seem to be able to manage financially. They do both improve the base game and also release DLC mostly in a balanced ratio. So there is a proof it is possible, probably not easier, but definitely possible.

So what is the difference? Well, in my opinion, it depends what is the primary driving factor for you. If the money and to get rich or the desire to create something special you can be proud of.

 

[Ryann]

Do you work for free?

Is someone forcing you to buy anything from Ian Bell?

Why do you care what other people spend their money on?

You were wondering and I tried to help you solve this mystery. Mystery, why Ian Bell is making games for this toxic community.

 

[After_Midnight]

Do you work for free?

After a quick look at my wage it seems to be close to work for free

 

[Richard Wilks]

I have never, ever had an issue with cars in AC, ACC, rFactor, R3E or Automobilista crashing every third corner. As a matter of fact I have not had much trouble with handling cars in any of the aforementioned sims except when I have made an obvious mistake. Not even with the 917-10 or any other car that one would expect to be difficult to drive.

Yet, in PC and PC2 I always had cars looping out of corners or in chicanes because the physics were so wrong (pivot point in geographic center of car instead of just in front of the rear wheels) and the tires were wonky. PC tires were like the older iRacing tires: Glass.

Aside from the older iteration of iRacing, there is no other sim I have ever raced so unsuccessfully as PC and PC2.

It ain't brainwashing if it is one out of many.

Perhaps the problem you are running into with all the other sims lies not in the sim but the driver.

You do realize that ProjectCars physics engine is the ISI engine with a different tire model and added features, do you?

That "central pivot" thing is nonsense, because the way the core physics work in PCars2 is exactly the same as in AMS, R3E and rfactor2.

Perhaps you should do some research before telling others how good a driver they are or not...

 

[Miguel Batista]

I'm not sure if your comment is constructive at all, I don't see anything specific why DR2 is bad game or some suggestion how to make it better .

But I see where are you going with your comment. Codies are big company sure, but the game itself needs to make living for itself and then something extra for hungry managment otherwise, they won't be bothered to do DR3 next time. It's not charity and they can't fund this game for niche community from their other games income if this project itself is losing money.

I'm not sure about this, but I think think the audience for this game is quite small (it's still niche compared to another genres with AAA titles) so probably the profits from game sales are not so great, so they have to make cash flow in some other way - DLC, Facebook VR support etc. At least for me, the games costs are quite small compared to other costs in sim racing in general, so I'm happy to pay something extra for content and support further development if I like the title. I don't feel like I'm being ripped off.

I'm really glad they're doing another sim and not Dirt 5 or something more arcady for wider audience - for example Forza Horizon where they would earn lot more.

The developers usually really love their job and try to make the game the best they can, but have some constraints in manpower, budget etc.

If you have information DR2 is highly profitable and the management is on Bahamas drinking Mojitos instead of giving at least some money back to the development, that would be another story, but I'm not so sure that's the case.

Codemasters made over 60 million dollars in profit last year and are fully committed to a "GaMe As A lIvE sErViCe" business plan. Mind you, this was before the release of F1 2019. They are doing fine and even if the development costs were $200M, rehashing previous content that you don't need to scan, prepare, model and implement first is dubious at best and at worse is a rip off (game uses same engine. No doubt a couple of man hours were spent porting tracks to new game but not the 500 hours per segment they claimed the first time they sold us those tracks!).

The game was consider a commercial success with steamspy reporting between 100k and 200k copies sold. with PS4 selling comparable numbers (usually a bit higher) and Xbox one lagging a bit behind... Normally. Still, even if the game cost $200M (which it didn't) they would have enough to cover the whole costs and this is without adding DLC (which Codemasters attributes 1/3 of their revenueso add 33% to the total estimated sales). Bottom line is, they are fine! The game sold fine! They don't need our charity.


Sorry for the off topic.

 

[Rui Santos]

You were wondering and I tried to help you solve this mystery. Mystery, why Ian Bell is making games for this toxic community.

Exactly, they're making GAMES, nothing against main goal is the profit, so my only criticism is that they advertise it as a driving SIMULATOR, when it's clearly not!

 

[Richard Wilks]

Although I get what you are saying, and I can't say I totally disagree, there is a but...

SMS' (doubtful) active support for their games is like one year max? (And don't get me started about Bell's never fulfilled promises.) Now look around. What about Kunos, Reiza, S3S or recently S397? They all support their games for years and they all seem to be able to manage financially. They do both improve the base game and also release DLC mostly in a balanced ratio. So there is a proof it is possible, probably not easier, but definitely possible.

So what is the difference? Well, in my opinion, it depends what is the primary driving factor for you. If the money and to get rich or the desire to create something special you can be proud of.

You are not comparing equivalent things here.

Reiza worked on top of a proved old engine, and altough they improved aspects of the core physics, the bulk of the work (and investment) was done by a previous company, and they funded themselves with a crowdfunding campaign.

S3S also worked on the same engine, and they have been adding mainly content for years and years after the original release of said engine.

S397 has release mainly content in these past 3 years since they own rf2 engine.


Now lets compare with the PCars franchise. Not only they have a LOT of licensed content that costs money, they developed a whole new graphics engine with VR, a rewrite of the tire model and many other parts of the original ISI engine, as well as the Livetrack technology, as well as the rating aspects of the multiplayer aspect. This involved considerable more resources than the companies you mentioned have put into their respective products, and now one of those companies is going to benefit from all this work.

 

[randomcallsign]

OK, Ian. OK.

 

[Will Mazeo]

You do realize that ProjectCars physics engine is the ISI engine with a different tire model and added features, do you?

That "central pivot" thing is nonsense, because the way the core physics work in PCars2 is exactly the same as in AMS, R3E and rfactor2.

Perhaps you should do some research before telling others how good a driver they are or not...

Dont want to get into this topic but just one thing: just because it's the same engine doesn't mean content is made equal (and the engines have been udpated during these years anyway to fit the developer needs). You can do weird stuff like having the fuel tank outside the car for example (URD PX)

 

[Ryann]

You are not comparing equivalent things here.

Reiza worked on top of a proved old engine, and altough they improved aspects of the core physics, the bulk of the work (and investment) was done by a previous company, and they funded themselves with a crowdfunding campaign.

S3S also worked on the same engine, and they have been adding mainly content for years and year after the original release of said engine.

S397 has release mainly content in these past 3 years since they own rf2 engine.


Now lets compare with the PCars franchise. Not only they have a LOT of licensed content that costs money, they developed a whole new graphics engine with VR, a rewrite of the tire model and many other parts of the original ISI engine, as well as the Livetrack technology, as well as the rating aspects of the multiplayer aspect. This involved considerable more resources than the companies you mentioned have put into their respective products, and now one of those companies is going to benefit from all this work.

Of course we can compare these. Just because some title takes longer to make it on the market doesn't mean it can't be actively supported longer than for a year.

Anyway, even though it doesn't matter, you are right just about Reiza here.

S3S started off with the original ISI engine. But they significantly dumbed it down for R3E because they weren't aiming for a hardcore simulation. After years they changed direction back to full simulation, adding features back and massively improving the physics. According to S3S there is less than 30% left of the original ISI engine. So they were all the years and still are full at work. Look at the change logs, they clearly keep developing.

S397 - they release only content? Well, it might seem like this recently, but what about the big things like DX11, incoming complete UI rework and other things? These things take time. The core simulation is currently top in the genre, so there is no big pressure to change tire physics every year (ehm). Instead, they decided to focus on things that lack.

And all of this is valid development and support. Not that they are slacking and just making DLC. They are just thinking long-term.

PS: Maybe you forgot about SMS and WMD crowd funding for both games?

 

[2112]

You do realize that ProjectCars physics engine is the ISI engine with a different tire model and added features, do you?

That "central pivot" thing is nonsense, because the way the core physics work in PCars2 is exactly the same as in AMS, R3E and rfactor2.

Perhaps you should do some research before telling others how good a driver they are or not...

You do realize that the physics engine for PC is the Madness Engine, right? ISI developed their own engine for rFactor, one that was actually developed for sims to be used by real race teams, while the Madness engine saw it's first iteration in that paragon of accurate racing sims: Need For Speed, Shift. I do not think there is one race team or race car designer out there that is using any iteration of the Madness engine to develop their real cars. Of course, if you can provide the info, please do.

Since your assertion that the PC engine is based on the ISI engine, (if anything Madness engine may, and I stress may, have a lineage that dates back to the GTR 2002 mod, which it itself was a mod based upon EA's F1 2002 game) is false, then to make the claim that the central pivot is nonsense, is in itself nonsense. That Madness was based on architecture of the isiMotor does not mean that the current iteration is anything like the engine used by rFactor at this time. They merely share a base code.

If nothing else, the fact that the Madness engine was initially used in simcades like NFS and Skid Racer (both games which model physics in such a manner that encourages drifting instead of actual racing) the center pivot (which is the best manner to model drifting without having to spend too much time coding true physics for drifting) assertion is not far off at all.

I have done my research, it is obvious you did not do yours.

 

[jpalesi]

I have done my research, it is obvious you did not do yours.

Search again.

 

[Leynad777]

Pcars2 once dialed in properly is better than AC in terms of FFB and simulates more physics than AC. Certain cars in A.C. are better simulated (F1, LMP1 for instance) but generally, PCARS2 is better.
Last weekend I had a non paid racing driver test a lot of different cars in different sims and he rated pcars2 very highly except for karts where he found rfactor2 the best (karts suck in pcars2).

I guess you mean Kartsim for rF2, since the 'free' karts are far more off than pCars 2, which comes 2nd after Kartsim for me. At least the FFB and steering in pCars 2 is strong and direct unlike AMS.

I have never, ever had an issue with cars in AC, ACC, rFactor, R3E or Automobilista crashing every third corner. As a matter of fact I have not had much trouble with handling cars in any of the aforementioned sims except when I have made an obvious mistake. Not even with the 917-10 or any other car that one would expect to be difficult to drive.

I've the opposite experience and pCars 2 was the first sim i felt like in a real car with sufficient grip and matching lap times unlike AC with too much understeer and no bite while braking, crazy random spins over curbs, wrong countersteering and drift-logic, weird damper-behavior, illogical aero-physics, no different grip on different parts of the track, weird differential-logic, crazy tyre-temperature-behavior which are obviously wrong when looking in the real world. etc. The tactile feedback and motion is better in pCars 2, the setup-logic is almost the same than rF2, which is today my benchmark. But when pCars 2 came out, rF2 had a strange mid-corner slip i couldn't deal with and which they fixed later. Since that rF2 is clearly the boss and pCars 2 feels more like a light version when it comes to racecars (Rallycross and Road feels better). Dirt Rally 2.0 feels awesome as well, just motion seems a bit off. ACC fixed a lot for me and great motion-feedback. Now i hope i get a better tyre-model once i'm back home

PS: Still holding the Nordschleife-record with the 917/10 in pCars 2

 

[2112]

Search again.

Yeah, read my edit.

 

[Richard Wilks]

You do realize that the physics engine for PC is the Madness Engine, right? ISI developed their own engine for rFactor, one that was actually developed for sims to be used by real race teams, while the Madness engine saw it's first iteration in that paragon of accurate racing sims: Need For Speed, Shift. I do not think there is one race team or race car designer out there that is using any iteration of the Madness engine to develop their real cars. Of course, if you can provide the info, please do.

Since your assertion that the PC engine is based on the ISI engine, (if anything Madness engine may, and I stress may, have a lineage that dates back to the GTR 2002 mod, which it itself was a mod based upon EA's F1 2002 game) is false, then to make the claim that the central pivot is nonsense, is in itself nonsense. That Madness was based on architecture of the isiMotor does not mean that the current iteration is anything like the engine used by rFactor at this time. They merely share a base code.

If nothing else, the fact that the Madness engine was initially used in simcades like NFS and Skid Racer (both games which model physics in such a manner that encourages drifting instead of actual racing) the center pivot (which is the best manner to model drifting without having to spend too much time coding true physics for drifting) assertion is not far off at all.

I have done my research, it is obvious you did not do yours.

I haven't? Its history that the SMS engine started life as a new graphics engine on top of the ISI physics one, that Bell had licensed from ISI since the GTR times. This can be verified by any search online, or by asking SMS employes. Or maybe you want me to tell you specifics of said game engine that work just like the ISI one physics wise and are easy to spot? Or maybe you want me to drag quotes from Bell itself stating this as true fact? Even yesterday i was talking with a beta tester of said game that just confirmed this once again. But what do i know, i clearly don't have the power of the "simcade" word in my argument arsenal...

But i challenge you to prove this central pivot thing, pick any car of PCars2, drive around in a circle with full wheel lock very slowly, and post it here.

 

[2112]

I've the opposite experience and pCars 2 was the first sim i felt like in a real car with sufficient grip and matching lap times unlike AC with too much understeer and no bite while braking, crazy random spins over curbs, wrong countersteering and drift-logic, weird damper-behavior, illogical aero-physics, no different grip on different parts of the track, weird differential-logic, crazy tyre-temperature-behavior which are obviously wrong when looking in the real world. etc. The tactile feedback and motion is better in pCars 2, the setup-logic is almost the same than rF2, which is today my benchmark. But when pCars 2 came out, rF2 had a strange mid-corner slip i couldn't deal with and which they fixed later. Since that rF2 is clearly the boss and pCars 2 feels more like a light version when it comes to racecars (Rallycross and Road feels better). Dirt Rally 2.0 feels awesome as well, just motion seems a bit off. ACC fixed a lot for me and great motion-feedback. Now i hope i get a better tyre-model once i'm back home

PS: Still holding the Nordschleife-record with the 917/10 in pCars 2

Funny, I have obviously had the opposite. I had always felt that the cars in PC felt dead. I do agree that AC cars gave me fits with understeer but once I learned to set them up that problem fell away.

After I got my new rig I thought perhaps it was my old G27 that caused the issues in PC, but when I went in there, after a few months in rFactor2 (that was where our league was at the time), I could drive with more confidence but the cars still felt dead. No matter my FFB settings the only way I could get the car to pivot in a manner that approached real, was to loosen up the rear to levels that were unreasonable.

One thing I do like about PC is that you can, indeed, attack corners in a more realistic manner than, say, AC. ACC had an issue during the pre-launch and I have heard others complain about the "killer kerbs" but upon release of version 1 I never experienced that, and I am a driver who has a love affair with using kerbs to help me rotate the car.

 

[Kenny Paton]

Gentlemen and ladies, we could be heading into ya boo sucks territory, which does nobody any favours.
Look I love an even more niche genre, cricket games, and I would kill for there to be more than one developer competing to bring an up to date game out. We may have our favourites but at least we have a varied choice in what we race.

 

[avenger82]

Project CARS games are not perfect, but I think more "hate" is generated by the Mr. Bell's person than by the game quality itself. If you never heard of PC/2 before and just tried it, I think most would be positive about it and some maybe even surprised by some of its features.

From WMD I know there are some incredibly talented people working on the game. They work really hard and are very passionate about what they do. And now imagine this egoistic ****-talker, who only generates this amount of hate in people toward your work. If he knew to shut up, there would be 75% less of this.

It’s not just over promise, by Ian but refusing to admit issues until new version is released which again claims not only to fix all issues but wipe all competitors. I understand many appreciate features like LT3, day/night transitions etc. but I would rather they make the cars handling less inconsistent on dry tarmac before implementing snow or dirt.

 

[2112]

I haven't? Its history that the SMS engine started life as a new graphics engine on top of the ISI physics one, that Bell had licensed from ISI since the GTR times. This can be verified by any search online, or by asking SMS employes. Or maybe you want me to tell you specifics of said game engine that work just like the ISI one physics wise and are easy to spot? Or maybe you want me to drag quotes from Bell itself stating this as true fact? Even yesterday i was talking with a beta tester of said game that just confirmed this once again. But what do i know, i clearly don't have the power of the "simcade" word in my argument arsenal...

But i challenge you to prove this central pivot thing, pick any car of PCars2, drive around in a circle with full wheel lock very slowly, and post it here.

Madness was based upon the isiMotor. We both share common heritage in that we are human, does that make me anything like you other than base DNA? You are going to tell me that the Madness physics are identical to the physics in rFactor?

If you wish to use Bell as a bellwether for truthfulness and integrity then knock yourself out, but how much of that engine was modified when it became Madness? If you wish to use beta testers to bolster your claim I can use my own to bolster my claim. I can even state that I personally know a professional IMSA driver for a factory GTLM team who has tested PC and called it crap based upon the tires and the pivot point. Your "Beta tester" comments mean nothing in this context as we could spend all day tossing out unidentified "experts" like National Enquirer tosses out "unidentified people close to (insert star here)".

So you come up with one test to make your point? I am willing to admit that my claim that the pivot is in the geographical center of the cars is a bit hyperbolic, but I am also willing to stand behind my assertion that the pivot point is so far off that the cars oversteer more than they should and that is due to the simcade pivot of the Madness Engine.