PC1 Pcars: A community divided

[Nathan Robinson]

Continuation of Part 1: http://www.racedepartment.com/forum/threads/banned-for-no-reason.47384/

Its hard to believe a game has taken a community over like this. Now with legal proceedings, its kind of become a joke for simmers. I have been at this a while now and have never seen a game invoke so much negative and positive reaction. May the discussions continue


Ps. While i continue to support pcars, i respect RD for allowing the freedom of expression to all its members.

 

[Chronus]

Hopefully, this will not be considered off topic because it relates to community, this project and how it is perceived by everyone.

What are the main obstacles when modeling tires?

The main obstacle is that nobody understands what's going on and nobody seems to be able to figure out a consistent and reliable way to test them, so they remain pretty much a black art.

Stefano's interviews (and Massaruto's as well) have always been quite candid. I like Stefano's style and the way he seems to be thinking, his ideas.

But the quote I posted above is something I disagree with. I studied/researched or worked with some tire models, from the classic semi-empirical to the simple physical like the Brush model. I have also paid attention to TNO's work on tire modelling for prediction purposes. There have been several advances made in this area in the last 14 years or so - some are quite obvious and well known, others remain under lock and key because tire companies are behind them. Clearly, not only tire modelling is no longer a "black art", but also thesis and scientific works have been made public that show a number of alternatives for predictive methods in complex tire modelling.

Were the quote above been stated by someone from SMS (for instance, AJ or Doug or Andy Garton) and everybody would assume they were trying to cover for something, when clearly that is not the case.

Some people, many right here, fall prey to this contorted "perspective": whatever SMS say or do, it must be fake/false/bad.

Lets make this clear (I know someone will say I am being a lawyer for SMS - which clearly shows how ignorant that position is, given my stance - known - in regards to Blimey and SMS): tire modelling is a complex subject. Not a black art in regards to the math or physics involved, but rather contingent upon its code implementation (algorithms, constraint solvers used, number of coupled/decoupled variables involved, type of integration methods used, etc).

There is no ONE WAY of doing things. You can follow MF-Tyre and merge it with MF-SWIFT and use it for prediction purposes, or you can devise more or less complex physical models that still cannot be used for prediction purposes. So, with that in mind, Kunos' approach is as valid as ISI's or as valid as iRacing's or as valid as SMS's. No one can claim, right now, they have the upper hand and that their methods are superior to others. Curiously, OTOH, given the many contingencies and the restrictions imposed by hardware and MONEY/TIME, yes, Stefano ends up being right: tire modelling for racing simulations (gaming wise) ends up quite a black art.

What I hope people understand is that some of you take the words and work of SMS and derive from it something incessantly and inherently negative, while at the same time excusing missteps from other companies. Example is qualifying SMS's marketing stunts as being "lies" while at the same time overlooking the over-the-top promises made by the PR/marketing dept. of iRacing in referring to the physics of iRacing as "unmatched", "real-world physics", "The best on-line racing simulation [...] in the world".

Two companies and two standards of judging them.

On another dimension, not staff related, some things said at WMD may constitute motive for some doubt.

David often talks (rightly so) about the BS some at WMD boast about. Well, I do think some members (not STAFF) at WMD are knowledgeable enough to know what they're talking about and their posts seem quite balanced; others, sadly, talk nonsense. Example would be a series of posts about simcade versus simulation, explaining (badly, wrongly) that simple physical models (e.g..: simple Brush) show a full loss of grip (from 100% to 0) in no time under certain circumstances, with the intention of explaining how the STM will be much, much superior. Nevermind the consequences of promoting something via a stream of misconceptions...It is pointless to argue with such people or even to introduce the mathematical reasoning for proving them wrong, best thing is simply to await for posts by the likes of AJ, Garton or Doug. I don't read any "marketing stunts" when these guys post - physics, math, figures is all they're interested in.

Whatever has happened here (RD) should have no bearing in how the physics guys at SMS are working - but people ,for some reason, persist in connecting the two.

I say, let these guys finish their job and judge it then. Otherwise, it's just a rehash of old discussions always hammering the same points.

 

[David Wright]

I do agree with the assertion that pCARs staff quotes are often twisted and interpreted in a negative fashion.

At the same time this thread came to life, ISIs spokesman suggested that owners of Logitech steering wheels who were using rF2 should "buy another wheel" or "disable FFB entirely". Since most of the sim-racing community probably use Logitech wheels and the alternative belt driven Thrustmaster and Fanatec wheels are very expensive, it did cross my mind that this could be construed as dividing the sim-racing community and perhaps as rather arrogant.

Of course I have twisted Tim's quote and interpreted it in a negative fashion, but I hope the point is made.

 

[Marco80]

A. If you do some research, infact I just explained this on the previous page, there is nothing wrong with rf2 and a g25/g27, every game other than rf2 filters their ffb, every single game and sim you play, so all you have to do (for the time being) is change some settings around and voila, regular ffb like in all other games/sims.

It's not ISI's fault that pure unfiltered ffb shows the faults of outdated gear drive wheels. Regardless, there is a simple settings fix anyways.

B. To question Kunos' answer regarding a lack of understanding of tyres, shows just how arrogant and un-knowledgeable you really are in this subject. Formula 1 engineers who are some of the brightest and smartest people on this subject on the entire planet still say tyres are a black art, yet you come out here and say it's not? WOW that's arrogance at it's fullest,

Kunos isn't saying they are idiots and have no idea about tyres and the sim they make is going to feel like driving on blocks, they obviously dont mean that they are stupid and un-knowledgeable on the subject. They are just saying that there are still many areas of tyres that NOONE understands, not even super smart and borderline genius engineers who have been studying engineering for 30+ years like Ross brawn and such.

You totally took what Kunos said out of context. It's people with your mindset that encourage companies to talk with their complete over hyped bs when it comes to their product, because as soon as you hear a real honest answer you start negatively questioning the product with a pessimistic attitude, and obviously that's bad for a companies business. I bet if Kunos changed his words around and said something like "although tyres are still not fully understood by anyone, we are constantly making great advancements and improvements into understanding them, and this greater understanding will definitely show in assetto corsa (relative to Netkar pro)."

I bet if he said something like that, then everyone would be raving, but since he worded it differently in a more blunt, honest, and less PR marketing crap way, then everyone takes it the wrong way and starts thinking or worrying that Kunos and the team are completely clueless and know nothing about tyres, and that couldn't be further from the truth.

 

[David Ignjatovic]

I do agree with the assertion that pCARs staff quotes are often twisted and interpreted in a negative fashion.
.

Isn't it mainly the big investors......their main concern is to ensure funding is completed, and it looks like that'll happen 6months before Gold, so no worries regarding securing the full amount to build the game, so it's now down to whether this is a sim and or a good racing game.

I'd be surprised as hell if this doesn't end up being a decent racing game....it's got good content, good GFX, potentially good-great weather/day night cycle, should have good-very good wheel support, it's really only a sim vs simcade discussion, and unless they loose the CPPP physics and give me/us the feeling of a distinct front and rear, can't see how any rational person will maintain this is a sim.

Also, if you drive GTR Evo Dodge SRT, that has sensational simulated braking FFB, ie, both weight and detail, so you can feel when to back off and the relationship between the FFB, the braking sound and car behaviour is impressive, same as the 60F2/3 in rf2, but pcars simulated braking FFB is a gross signal output that lacks that level of detail and synchronization.

I didn't rate GTR EVO as one of the best sims on my sim index as a fanboy act, I did so as it was the sim that most reminds me of driving real cars and has one of the best 1:1 relationships with controller and car......and to my simple mind, that's worth a 1000x more than whatever the maths or the marketers say, of course, GTR evo maths/physics must be very precise regardless of how "accurate" they truly are, otherwise the level of detail and full time connectedness wouldn't exist.

re-pcars, we also have to think longterm, ie, the next road racing game from SMS, ie, if the community at large is tolerant of a simcade as a sim, then not only is that all we'll ever get from them, they might even dumb it down further.

SMS as a company stands to make millions from this game, and potentially could make a bucketload if it sells extremely well, so they won't need a lousy 2 million from the community, although they might still persist with the community funding model for the sake of beta testing and promo vids etc{which is ok by me}.

 

[gh69]

re-pcars, we also have to think longterm, ie, the next road racing game from SMS, ie, if the community at large is tolerant of a simcade as a sim, then not only is that all we'll ever get from them, they might even dumb it down further.

Or maybe by pushing more sim aspects into pCARS than standard GT or Forza type games, many more people will demand more Sim stuff in the next iteration? Have you ever thought there might be an upside? You really are a glass half empty kind of guy.

Your statement also relies on everyone agreeing with you that pCARS will be nothing more than 'Simcade' when it is clear evryone does not.

I'd also have to ask why the hell you give a damn if thats all we get from them, you can keep playing GTR EVO (or whatever game you have decided is Sim enough for you) and be happy in your own world.

I would also have to ask if the WMD route makes them 'bucket loads', why would they not go that route again? Especially if they are the 100% greed driven company you make them out to be....

 

[David Ignjatovic]

I would also have to ask if the WMD route makes them 'bucket loads', why would they not go that route again?

That's what I said.....
the rest of your post isn't worth replying to.

 

[Nathan Robinson]

Simcade or simulation, ive had some f**king awesome clean battles with the multiplayer.

 

[Chronus]

B. To question Kunos' answer regarding a lack of understanding of tyres, shows just how arrogant and un-knowledgeable you really are in this subject. Formula 1 engineers who are some of the brightest and smartest people on this subject on the entire planet still say tyres are a black art, yet you come out here and say it's not? WOW that's arrogance at it's fullest,

Personal attacks? That is the best you can do? Poor fellow.

I for one never said Stefano had a lack of understanding, simply disagree with his answer.

Formula 1 engineers being the brightest "blablabla"? Pleaaase. If the "some of the brightest and smartest people" guys said they'd tested an F1 car with a pig at the wheel would you simply believe them? You probably would, oh boy. Again, that's the best you can do?

Your reasoning skills and your writing sound oddly familiar - say a certain someone who's got more than one username and got banned from, last I checked, 3 racing forums?

Kunos isn't saying they are idiots and have no idea about tyres and the sim they make is going to feel like driving on blocks, they obviously dont mean that they are stupid and un-knowledgeable on the subject.

That IS the best you can do. Ok. As you completely missed the point and are spiralling out of control...I'll leave it at that.

I bet if he said something like that, then everyone would be raving, but since he worded it differently in a more blunt, honest, and less PR marketing crap way, then everyone takes it the wrong way and starts thinking or worrying that Kunos and the team are completely clueless and know nothing about tyres, and that couldn't be further from the truth.

You come here and try and derail 2 threads with all the venom you can muster, I find that a bit silly...to say the least.You obviously have a personal problem with SMS (and probably someone at WMD), but even so you could make an effort to make proper comments.

You end up sounding like someone (some of us suspect who) who read a couple of F1 magazines and comes out believing he actually knows something about racing...and tires. Re-educate yourself, become acquainted with a number of subjects related to racing sims, cars and racing (and tires), that's the only sure way to avoid looking silly.

I didn't rate GTR EVO as one of the best sims on my sim index as a fanboy act, I did so as it was the sim that most reminds me of driving real cars and has one of the best 1:1 relationships with controller and car......and to my simple mind, that's worth a 1000x more than whatever the maths or the marketers say, of course, GTR evo maths/physics must be very precise regardless of how "accurate" they truly are, otherwise the level of detail and full time connectedness wouldn't exist.

Which brings us back to the notion some (a lot) refuse to accept: there is not a single way of doing things, a single way of modelling car and tire physics. However way we go about it, in the end it is only this this matters for those that really care: realistic car behaviour and acceptable feel.

re-pcars, we also have to think longterm, ie, the next road racing game from SMS, ie, if the community at large is tolerant of a simcade as a sim, then not only is that all we'll ever get from them, they might even dumb it down further.

Yeah, it's undeniable some are trying to blur the frontiers between arcade and simulation. By using the word "simcade" so many times, David, you aren't helping either. A racing title is either arcade or a simulation. By introducing hardcore elements (racing aspects) a title doesn't stop being arcade by itself. It's only when the basis for it is really physics (e.g.: netKar Pro) and racing (all ISIMotor2 based sims) that you can call something a "sim".

By making the notion simcade or "almost sim" or "what the heck is a hardcore racing sim" acceptable we are paving the way for opportunists.

Thing is, investors and some manager level members aside, that is not what the folks at WMD want. You know that threads and posts posing questions about hardcore realism exist and haven't been erased. It may be a bit difficult to answer these questions at this time, but they're there and some (AJ, Garton, Doug) do take their time to provide valid answers.

Only time will tell, true, but my hopes for pCARS still stand.

SMS as a company stands to make millions from this game, and potentially could make a bucketload if it sells extremely well, so they won't need a lousy 2 million from the community, although they might still persist with the community funding model for the sake of beta testing and promo vids etc{which is ok by me}.

If they fail to deliver, there won't be any community backing left for use in the future. I'd bet everyone is aware of that.

 

[David Ignjatovic]

A. If you do some research, infact I just explained this on the previous page, there is nothing wrong with rf2 and a g25/g27, every game other than rf2 filters their ffb, every single game and sim you play, so all you have to do (for the time being) is change some settings around and voila, regular ffb like in all other games/sims.
.

Not the least bit true from my G27 POV.
I can't find one FFB profile that ensures even similar cars like the F2 and F3.5 drive well, also, rf2's FFB whether filtered or not, is coarse.
I'm very lenient with rf2 as I suspect that between the AVALANCHE of logitech owners complaints once rf2 goes gold, and the modders, a proper fix will be found.
rf2 still has the most potential of any sim IMO , but it could take 12-24months to reach it.

As far as pcars tyre model, given that console sales are supposed to generate the bulk of sales, it might be the case that the bulk of programming time is spent ensuring that consoles perform well within their limits.

I should take this opportunity to point out that I don't dislike Ian Bell*....so I hardly want pcars to fail, all I've ever wanted is the opportunity to express my views on this sim racing fad of mine, anyway, pcars funding is rocketing towards the goal line, so I doubt I've done any harm, in fact, it appears the funding spike is related to the inclusion of the MP component, so nothing to do with sim vs simcade debate.

*based on my PM discussions with Ian during the "crisis", I don't believe he had any intention of suing, and he was extremely courteous towards me.

 

[André Azevedo]

The main falt in my opinion is that the weight transfer in most cars simply doesn't exist. The Gumpert for example is like a GT5 car, you can't feel anything, it's a bit boring... The F1 is good fun but still full of physics bugs. At Spa for example i can't pass over some places without starting to fly or without loosing engine power after passing in a particular corner for the second time... At least in TT. It's very clear that the physics are still very artificial but they still have time to fix them... Really hope so because the graphics are amazing.

 

[David Ignjatovic]

By making the notion simcade or "almost sim" or "what the heck is a hardcore racing sim" acceptable we are paving the way for opportunists.

I think simcade is a reasonable term, but like you, I judge a sim from the ground up{to the best of my ability}, so if it doesn't drive in a convincing manner, no amount of fancy features can transform the game into a sim.

 

[Ryan Vickery]

I gave GT5 a blast again recently after not touching it for probably close to a year, I have to say the Gumpart Apollo in PCARS is a lot easier to drive than any GT5 car, I had a bloody hard time of things in GT5 because it feels so different and there appears to be a lack of rear grip, so you're fighting with oversteer as a result of the rears spinning up, a lot.

Whether or not GT5 is more/less/similar in realism I'm not gonna say, some cases less and some cases more, one thing is for sure though and that is it's far more challenging to drive in GT5 than it is in Project Cars (or most other sims for that matter, Lol). I was driving on cars with sports tyres, I always remembered the racing tyres in GT5 as turning the game to junk anyway.

Surprisingly rubbery feel to GT5 too, moreso than PCars. I think I lost my point, I dont think the Gumpart feels very GT5 at all from my recent experiences, it certaintly does lack in detail of feel though (the gumpart) and is overly stable with what seems like a fair bit too much grip.

 

[André Azevedo]

Other important thing that i forgot is corner cutting/extending... After some good effort did the 11th time at Spa with F1. Once i was almost in the limit put the ghost of the first place to see how it was done and it's absurd what we can do without invalidating the lap... That was the main reason i stopped playing codemasters F1, more than anything, and if they don't fix this i won't loose anytime driving against other people that are driving in a track of their own... For me the most important principle in motorracing is that every driver must drive the same track. If the white lines are there for aesthetical reasons and everyone is driving in a different track, the race, the Q ot the TT are a farse.

 

[David Ignjatovic]

For me the most important principle in motorracing is that every driver must drive the same track..

The track physics should be all encompassing, so if going off hurts, then the grip levels should reflect that.

 

[Chronus]

I think simcade is a reasonable term, but like you, I judge a sim from the ground up{to the best of my ability}, so if it doesn't drive in a convincing manner, no amount of fancy features can transform the game into a sim.

I have serious doubts about this and similar terms. It feels like it is opening the door for two opposing things:
- bash a sim at will
- protect a sim from serious inquiry

The world is not black and white, sure, but it seems quite obvious: if you're not making an effort to simulate a real world physical system (car & tires) then there's no point in using these 4 little letters (sim) anywhere near a game.

iRacing's Kevin Bobbitt said in the blog, about 2 and a half years ago:

To me there are a few distinct differences between a game and a simulation.

First and most importantly to be a simulation the title must be replicating something that takes place in the real world (sorry World of Warcraft fans, living your life as an elf doesn’t count).

Second, to be a simulation the title must require the same or at least very similar inputs or controls as what the real world activity requires. For example, the Madden Football franchise gets excluded from simulation status because wiggling your thumbs around and pressing a series of buttons to control your players bears no resemblance to what you would do if playing football in the real world.

The third thing that qualifies a title as a simulation vs. a game is that the ‘player’ should be able to learn skills that will transfer to the real world if and when they participate in the real world version of said simulation – the space shuttle simulator is used by astronauts to prepare for space travel for example.

Obviously, just an opinion, but one that I and many others happen to share.

Curiously, this one of the things these people (trying to blur the frontiers between simulation and arcade/game) target when they ape out a "huh...this is just a game dude, in the real world you die dude, in the real world you sweat, dude".

Re: tires and physics. There is a widespread misunderstanding in regards to this subject, in part fuelled by how people read into the writings of Dave Kaemmer or Stefano Casillo (not to mention the comments posted under pressure and frustration by team engineers when their pilots and cars fail to perform). I have said this at WMD to Remco (redi?): no doubt tires are complex, but they aren't inherently complex (contrary to QED or String Theory, for instance), it's the juxtaposition and interrelations of many fields of knowledge (thermodynamics, chemistry, molecular physics, materials science, etc) that makes it hard for programmers and tire engineers to model them.

This mix of different sciences and fields is made all the more complex for predicting tire behaviour because tire companies do not share their data (I recall that Michelin sells a single set of tire coefficients for upwards of 5 000 Euros).

Reason why there are many different strategies and techniques to model tires. On top of all this, racing sim devs have to contend with costs: the more realistic/precise a tire model is to be, the more complex it becomes, the more time and people it needs to become a reality. Budgets being what they are, this is not acceptable, hence the compromises. But there's more, as we all know: the more complex and precise a tire model is (and I am talking about tire models only, leaving out aerodynamics, chassis, AI, track modelling, gfx, sounds, prediction code/netcode), the more powerful a end user's machine has to be in order to be able to run the "game" in its full "glory".

In a nutshell, that is it: there are many ways of modelling cars and tires. Many variables, many contingencies, many uncertainties. Also why we really need to make a distinction between those devs that do make the effort of achieving "simulation" status with a product versus a dev that throws in money, people and good PR, shake and bake and voilá it's a sim.

-

An interesting quote from Dave Kaemmer's blog at iRacing:

Why not just use an empirical model and be done with it? Wouldn’t that be easier?

Well, it would be easier to code up the model, but it’s much more complicated to tweak and tune it so it has the right characteristics in all sorts of conditions (different loads, pressures, temperatures, etc.)

Empirical models work well when the conditions can be considered to be fixed, as they might be for a passenger car with the recommended pressures travelling at highway speeds and below.

But they become unwieldy in the racing environment, with large temperature changes, pressure changes, aerodynamic downforce and high loads from high-speed, high-banked tracks, along with the need to model curb hits well, and so on. There are just too many different things to measure, and it would be too expensive in terms of tires and time to test them in all necessary conditions.

A decent THEORETICAL model, though, should give reasonable responses even when the tire is doing crazy stuff, which on a race track is a lot of the time.

I had a bloody hard time of things in GT5 because it feels so different and there appears to be a lack of rear grip, so you're fighting with oversteer as a result of the rears spinning up, a lot.

Spot on. GT5 feels quite good in regards to weight transfer and the "feel" of inertia, but it'll always amaze me when people say GT5 cars are "too grippy" when their tails stick out as easy as they do.

It'll be interesting to see comparisons (from GT5/Forza fans) when pCARS hits the shelfs.

 

[André Azevedo]

Of course, but that's not the case. Even the curbs are there only to your eyes, you can pass over them like nothing...

I'm not saying this will be arcade/simcade or simulation, just saying that right now it has a lot of flaws: you can't feel wheight transfer, you can cut/extend the track in mayn many places, you can attack curbs like they weren't there. Plus the clar bugs, when your car strats flying for no reason. If they fix all this i'll play it a lot, i'm sure.

 

[David Ignjatovic]

I have serious doubts about this and similar terms.

Well, if I start using the term arcade to describe pcars in future, make sure to back me up, lol.
As for Bobbits 2nd sim qualification, he's just blowing his own genre's trumpet, ie, we're lucky that affordable and effective racing wheels/gear can be made, though I'm not sure how we'd mimic a football match in our loungerooms.

 

[Chronus]

lol

I can't imagine "driving" rF/Race07/iRacing/NKP with a gamepad. Or understanding how the cars are actually reacting to "real world" input (i.e., steering, braking, accelerating) with a gamepad. For testing purposes, well, more or less ok, but for actual driving, no way.

I agree with him fully.

 

[David Ignjatovic]

lol

I can't imagine "driving" rF/Race07/iRacing/NKP with a gamepad. Or understanding how the cars are actually reacting to "real world" input (i.e., steering, braking, accelerating) with a gamepad. For testing purposes, well, more or less ok, but for actual driving, no way.

I agree with him fully.

But how do we physically simulate football matches?....with racing sims, we can use a $100 DFGT, but what can we use for football?

 

[Chronus]

Ah. Forgot that one.

Yeah, I don't agree with him completely then.

I dunno. lol

There may come a time when we play against holographic players (european or american football) and have a holographic ball at our feet and we can run in some form of dynamic astroturf all the while being followed by some motion capture system...Until then, there's no way to mimic real world input for most sports games. In that case...For instance...PES: if player collisions and movement are realistic, if the ball collision/movement is dictated by impulse (feet, head, etc), friction, drag and coriollis forces, then it's a sim. PES is a sim. Ah.

Back on topic...

Except for a few hiccups, debate around pCARS is now settling into a more acceptable mode. Which is quite welcome.