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!

 

 

[Michal Burisin]

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.

It's trully different approach - have the base for the game and upgrading it for many years bit by bit. The downside is, that the base gets dated very quickly and you're adding lot of work on something that's not good by now new standards. You cannot achieve lot of stuff and you have to do more workarounds in the code than some meaningful development. And even these workaround are compromises. For example, I think lot of these old sims still don't / didn't have until recently weather, night etc. because the engine wasn't prepared for it along with many other things. For this long term approach, the benefit is that it can build bigger community around the game over longer period of time.

Other approach is more rapid changes of the base for game, PC2 reworked most of the stuff from the scratch, created engine with night and weather in mind, live track, bigger changes to physics engine etc., and it did drastic jump from PC1. In some areas it's now in top of the field (engine, livetrack...). I kind of like this approach, because it allows developers to keep up with modern technology development. However the community suffers with new versions. I'm really looking forward to PC3 and how will it do.

What approach is better is probably for users to decide.

Regarding hardcore sims, I haven't tried anything beside AC, ACC. I mainly play PC2.

I haven't tried the old sims as I couldn't stand dated graphics, I know shallow, but it was just too distracting to me to play something that looked like from year 2000 Also the cockpit view in AC felt somewhat wrong (couldn't place the car on road properly - especially on narrow roads, on race circuit it was better). In PC2, the cockpit felt natural from beginning.

So I'm not simmer, probably just simcader as PC2 is my main game.

AC physics and FFB felt quite odd from PC2 and I couldn't stay on road. In PC2 I was able to drive quite ok from start intuitively, probably because it's more arcade . However I'm not sure if I should / would crash in race car in first corner IRL and it should feel undrivable Maybe the physics in AC is good, but I didn't understand the FFB what it was trying tp tell me, I'm still not sure, I tried couple of hours, but it just felt wrong.

From other sims, I saw some videos, I think it was raceroom and the author of the video praised how fun the game was, as you can crash in other cars and nothing happens and indeed the cars were pushing themselves around on track and no one seemed to notice, not sure if that should work like that IRL, but it didn't feel very sim-like

PC2 has many cars that feel weird or are really undrivable, but lot of cars feels good to me, especially with custom FFB files. I'm no expert though as I said before

Bottom line, from my point of view is, that each of these games has own audience and there is no point hating the other games (this is not directed at you @Ryann). I'm all for constructive criticism, PC2 has lots of room for improvements, for example I really hate AI not using physics model as player, really destroys lot of races. Also multiplayer management sucks as the server info isn't updated correctly lot of times, some cars are impossible to drive... But other than that I really like it and looking forward to revolution

 

[Leynad777]

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.

I've almost 2k hours on my Steam-account in AC, but there is no proper off-throttle oversteer in the physics unlike rF2, Raceroom, AMS and pCars 2 as well. The FFB was always tame in pCars 2 regarding race-cars, but the excellent tactile-feedback and some additional Accuforce-effects were helping me. The road-cars have IMO better FFB than the race-cars in pCars 2 and just take the LaFerrari or P1 for example.

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.

Yes, it got a lot better despite the one point model, but it's still erratic and feel a bit like hard-rubber tyres without flex.

 

[avenger82]

Well, still mixing different topics here...
A) Niels not working on AMS2 but eventually he will chime in if interested (see latest Renato interview) and he has a contract with S397 for now
B) PC tyre model is quite complex, it simulates carcass, deformation, lateral forces, etc etc it's the way you use it, the numbers you put on it to give you the best results both in handling and ffb.
C) Reiza adopted the engine and they are working with WMD guys in order to master it and add the features they need so we can suppose this will bring a mutual advantage to both teams
D) Renato hinted Ian Bell asked them to work together to a new project (this should happen after AMS2 but we can suppose PCR is the new IP)
E) When PC1 was released it was intended as direct competitor of AC and to be honest it worked well on consolle
F) why you guys are so biased towards a game?
I mean...I barely played PC1 and didn't bought PC2 but this doesn't mean we can't just take note a new title will be released without going personal against a dev...
Sometimes silence is the best form of protest (because talking if him is already giving visibility to new title for free).

“PC tyre model is quite complex, it simulates carcass, deformation, lateral forces, etc etc it's the way you use it, the numbers you put on it to give you the best results both in handling and ffb.”
Ok I can agree , but who puts the numbers? It’s not like there’s modding community to adjust and support stopped after a year. Besides developers’ praise I didn’t see complements from real racing drivers that tried pCars.
C) From what Renato said they don’t plan do major improvements in the physics engine, at least for now. Anyway I’m not that sure the supposed changes will be merged to SMS “branch” as by the time they will probably have another iteration.

 

[Richard Wilks]

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.

Thats exactly why i asked you for factual hard proof. To avoid the "my friend knows more than your friend" nonsense.

So now you admit you are exagerating? And proceed to say its because of a physics engine you know nothing about? "Cars oversteer too much" isn't the same as "simcade pivot point madness engine".

You obviously have some axe to grind, because the test i proposed you to do is really simple. If you can't do it, you have no leg to stand on your claim.

But i will give you a hand. You are experiencing slip angle. If its more or less than the reality thats debatable, but slip angle isnt "pivot point turning" physics.

 

[Ryann]

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.

Funnily enough, at the begining, R3E, which is also based on ISI engine, had similar car rotation problems not far from what you are describing. Not that I can confirm or deny your claim regarding PCars, just saying.

 

[Nevini]

I also fail to understand the hate, Project cars franchise is bloody good at what it does, after all its only a computer game.

Computer games primary aim is to entertain and on that level project cars franchise works. Unless a triple A and the main aim is to milk customers dry.

 

[melanieuk]

Observation time, at 13 pages deep 240+ comments.

rFactor 2 and Project CARS 2, receives the most negative comments here on Race Department.

This Project CARS 2 news has had the most negative comment, with most of the toxic comments coming from Assetto Corsa fan boys - FACTS, How do I know this, I always check peoples comment history when they have such a negative comment towards another sim, so Yes 85% of the negative comments on a Project CARS news is coming from those, that support Assetto Corsa in a positive way via positive comments.

Who needs negative sites like PRC when we have Race Department, no wonder no SMS staff would ever do an interview with RD. It's in stark contrast to reading the comments posted on GT Planet to comments posted here, where the devs are fully engaged with readers on gtplanet compared to here.

 

[Rui Santos]

I also fail to understand the hate, Project cars franchise is bloody good at what it does, after all its only a computer game.

Computer games primary aim is to entertain and on that level project cars franchise works. Unless a triple A and the main aim is to milk customers dry.

Another one who didn't discovered the realistic simulation part of "computer software" yet...

 

[Tobiman]

I wonder how much of an effect the Reiza guys had on handling, if any.

 

[Dan Costa]

200% better wouldn't even begin to fix 10% of the bugs Pcars2 has and never got fixed.

 

[avenger82]

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 pro drivers’ opinions varies, but most of them don’t speak highly about handling in pCars2 to say at least. Most of them play iRacing, most probably because of online competition experience , but if physics were bad they wouldn’t play it. Don’t get me wrong pCars2 is still big improvement from the pCars1in general. I think many people were burned by handling in the first version so when they try few random cars without tuning setup and FFB they still think it’s simcade. But I guess if the cars were more consistent and really tested and tuned it would get much better reception.

 

[wicken]

Interesting article, can't confirm its reliability.

https://vc.ru/finance/76386-partner...rabotchika-gonochnyh-igr-slightly-mad-studios

It's not a rumor as it's fully reported on their website.
https://www.slightlymadstudios.com/...-acquisition-talks-with-slightly-mad-studios/

 

[DaVeX↯]

Doesn't sound good to me...

 

[2112]

Thats exactly why i asked you for factual hard proof. To avoid the "my friend knows more than your friend" nonsense.

So now you admit you are exagerating? And proceed to say its because of a physics engine you know nothing about? "Cars oversteer too much" isn't the same as "simcade pivot point madness engine".

You obviously have some axe to grind, because the test i proposed you to do is really simple. If you can't do it, you have no leg to stand on your claim.

But i will give you a hand. You are experiencing slip angle. If its more or less than the reality thats debatable, but slip angle isnt "pivot point turning" physics.

Yes, I was exaggerating; hyperbole what ever you desire to call it. Yes, because of the physics engine which was developed for simcades that encouraged physics that are not real. Yes, oversteer is a result of wrong pivot point. Perhaps I did not put it in words acceptable to you. Again, the issue, no matter what you choose to call it: slip angle, pivot point, etc... ( I used the term I learned as a professional driver-not of race cars but of vehicles that I was required to drive and know how to handle in emergency situations, sorry i did not use the accepted race-car terminology).

Your slip angle, the one in PC is not reality. Sorry to tell you. It is not even remotely similar to slip angle (or the angle of slip that one would experience when understeering or oversteering in a car, or what any other sim has. And no, slip angle does not describe what I am talking about, I am referring to incorrect pivot point of the engine which influences slip angle and all other cornering characteristics.

Do I have an axe to grind with PC? Not really. It is a passable sim with issues that I have used extensively. I just do not prefer it to others which far more realistically reflect car physics. I make no claims that any sim is perfect, I just have my preferences and if asked will offer my opinion. If pressed I will tell why I do not like a certain sim as much as another.

What I have a problem with is those who will call others (who do not hold the same slavish loyalty as they do) haters, stupid, fan boi's, and even though those who are making the accusations do so while at the same time doing the very same thing they accuse others of.

I realize that this is ridiculous. There will always be those who complain about everything, those who complain about some things, those who have issues and will express them in a (hopefully) forum as a discussion, those that do not care at all and those who seem to invest their whole personality in one sim, defending it despite obvious flaws.

None of the sims I race are perfect. If asked I could come up with a laundry list of things I do not like about each of the sims I own, because they do something that I do not like. iRacing has glass tires (they are getting better), rFactor has bad gfx and tire wear (you can race with pressures at the lowest with no penalty), R3E tends to understeer and the FFB has to be dialed down a lot, AC tends to understeer and I do not like that servers cannot rotate tracks like every other sim (except ACC...), an on and on.

I do not have a favorite but I have preferences that I go to more than others. I had issues with PC and when our league went to rFactor I had no problems with it. I will, occasionally, race PC but I like the others better as I think they simulate truer (pay attention to the term) physics than PC.

I like the LA Rams, the LA Angels, the Lakers, I do not like LeBron; Aaron Rodgers is god, but getting old, I like sports car racing and indy road racing but do not like F1 much and have a deep dislike for NASCAR. I like long walks on the beach and playing guitars badly.

Others may disagree with my choices and I welcome their difference of opinion as long as we can discuss it civilly.

I especially like it that others do not see things the same way I do and I respect their differences in view that I do not immediately call them fan boi's, brainwashed, blind, stupid, etc... I do not like loyalty so blind that it fails to even acknowledge that others have legitimate issues based upon their own personal observations.

So yeah, I have an axe to grind it you wish to call it that: I do not like others who ridicule and call others the above labels when they are incapable of seeing the same behavior in themselves. Above all I do not like that I allowed myself to become involved in this morass of opinion in which all of us and none of us are, truly, right.

You are an ardent supporter of the PC franchise. I am not, though I truly do wish they could get it right the third time. I will not pre-order as I did PC and PC2, I will wait. I do not have issues with your support if it makes you happy.

Sorry to have had a difference of opinion with you, I did not realize to do so would be so insulting to the ardent supporters of PC.

I guess I thought that most others considered this a past-time and thus did not place so much importance on sim racing, (thus being so offended by differing opinions), as I did.

Obviously I am mistaken and should have known better. My bad. Please consider yourself the winner in this discussion as I no longer am interested in continuing. There are far more important things to do.

Like race.

 

[Miguel Batista]

I guess pro drivers’ opinions varies, but most of them don’t speak highly about handling in pCars2 to say at least. Most of them play iRacing, most probably because of online competition experience , but if physics were bad they wouldn’t play it. Don’t get me wrong pCars2 is still big improvement from the pCars1in general. I think many people were burned by handling in the first version so when they try few random cars without tuning setup and FFB they still think it’s simcade. But I guess if the cars were more consistent and really tested and tuned it would get much better reception.

It depends of so much stuff... When did they test it, what wheel were they using, how much time did they spend tuning the car and the FFB, what cars did they use, what were the track conditions, etc etc.

I can tell you I went to try out VR sim racing at a massive entertainment company in the UK and had a terrible experience due to the setup of the FFB. Wheel was a T150 which doesn't help since I am used to a TS-PC but still, it was quite a bad experience because the FFB was poorly setup. They even had a motion rig and it did nothing but make me extra sick due to the latency (probably poorly setup too).

When the pro driver came to test my system, my racing chair hadn't arrived yet (playseat challenge due to space constraints) and he got a bit defensive when he saw a dinghy plastic chair and a wobbly table. Still, he loved it even though he lost part of the feedback due to the harmonics. When he came back for more the next day he was really impressed by the way the sim handled especially the Formula rookie and the LMP2s from the cars he tested. he disliked the Karts (he is currently a Karting instructor). Not that they did anything wrong but he didn't feel the chassis as well as he did when he tried karts in rfactor 2.

I mean, honestly, the game's baseline setups are not great and it takes some tinkering and there are some cars that are just hopeless (F1 for instance). But when it works... It just feels amazing. You know, you pop in to some tuning of a GT3 car and all of a sudden you have been driving around for one and a half hours just fiddling with setups and things.

Yeah, I never played iRacing because I can't afford the time investment and it is an expensive game to play just once or twice a week but from what I hear, the physics are good enough and it is the competition that brings out the best drivers. rFactor 2 is another one where you can face off against Verstappen and Norris in special events but those are highly advertised affairs usually. That game has amazing FFB out of the box though and usually better than PCARS2 (smoother... a lot smoother).

 

[Richard Wilks]

@2112

So many words to dodge my question.

I am not supporter of any particular game. I am a science man. So i like to get facts and hard data on things. You were so certain of what you were saying, using so many fancy words like "simcade" so i though you had hard data to back it up, or could provide it for us all to see. That would make an interesting technical conversation. But after all, it's just your "opinion"...

Indeed moving along.

 

[avenger82]

It depends of so much stuff... When did they test it, what wheel were they using, how much time did they spend tuning the car and the FFB, what cars did they use, what were the track conditions, etc etc.
...
rFactor 2 is another one where you can face off against Verstappen and Norris in special events but those are highly advertised affairs usually. That game has amazing FFB out of the box though and usually better than PCARS2 (smoother... a lot smoother).

I know FFB and handling is the reason I play rF2 also online here on RD

I wanted to try some leagues in pCars2 because AI is not enjoyable and online lobbies are mess, but quick search didn’t give good results so far.

 

[Professor.Rick]

 

[mr Sw1tchblade]

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

He is making cross platform games. So community present here is just a small part of total userbase.

 

[wajdi]

I never played pcars1 and pcars2 and never thought to do so I’m 200% sure that I won’t play pcars3.