PC1 Sim Discussion Monday - PCARS 1

[Paul Jeffrey]

Monday morning blues? No worries, let's talk Project CARS 1!

Next up for the 'Sim Discussion Monday' feature of articles is the very first release from Slightly Mad Studios - Project CARS 1.

Now the intention of these articles is to talk about a particular sim with like minded individuals, discuss how to get the most from the game in terms of performance and satisfaction, share you wheel or game settings, discuss particular likes and dislikes and generally just chat about anything and everything related to the title.

I appreciate discussion about PCARS can often get a little... tasty, so I ask you to please don't get into a silly flame war or throw around trolling comments. We are (mostly) adults here, let us remember that before we type and keep up the generally good behaviour we display in the various comments sections throughout the site.

With Project CARS 2 on its way in a couple of weeks, this should be a nice opportunity to have a look back at the first game after the benefit of time and experience has helped shape our opinions.

Mondays boring? Nope, Mondays be like...

 

[Shiimis]

Here's the thing people, Objective Fact, going by dictionary descriptions PCars IS a simulation. Like it and lump it, some of you can spout nonsense all you like but that is Fact.

Your argument is based on conflating two senses of "simulation"/ "simulator". No one is disputing the fact that pCARS is simulator in a weaker , more generic sense. It does try to mimic car racing which implies mimicking some aspects of reality. In that sense it is of course a simulation, but then you would have to agree that also Mario Kart is a racing simulator as it have vague semblance to reality and so is Pong in relation to table tennis.
People mostly talk here about "simulation" in a stronger sense, namely one which implies certain standard that must be met in terms of realism of simulation. Now to be fair, this standard seems quite unclear and is subject to discussion, however this much can be said: in context of racing games, the emphasis is on handling of the car and communication with the driver through the means of FFB, which of course itself is not an accurate representation of what it feels like to be driving a car. Since cars are driven using wheels, we can at least assume if a racing game does not have wheel support at all, it is further removed from simulating reality than a game which has wheel support, being more dissimilar to the real thing. This can be used as grounds for distinguishing racing simulators from games that do not meet the standards of racing simulator (in a stronger sense). This is enough to demonstrate that not everything that is a simulation in a weaker sense qualifies as simulation in stronger sense. Since what constitutes a good racing simulator (in a stronger sense) is mostly a matter of opinion and context, labelling something as simulator (in a stronger sense) can't be solved by referencing the basic fact you mentioned, namely that PCARS undeniably is simulation in a weaker sense.

 

[Damage Inc]

but then you would have to agree that also Mario Kart is a racing simulator as it have vague semblance to reality and so is Pong in relation to table tennis.

No they are not they mimic reality but have no bearing whatsoever in reality. I honestly cannot believe someone brought up Mario Kart...I mean what the hell, it is the quintessential arcade game, not trying to simulate reality at all . Trying to justify Mario Kart as a sim to somehow lump sims you (and others) do not like in with it is also the quintessential sim snobbery.

that PCARS undeniably is simulation in a weaker sense.

Once again no that is an opinion, it is not undeniable at all. Yes you can have that opinion, it's an opinion I file away with "moon landings never happened" and "the world is flat". Which is my opinion of your opinion. Don't throw hyperbole like "undeniably" around that's just daft.

Let's take most complaints around realism (ignoring generic stuff like MP and controller issues or whether it's moddable)

Pcars is too grippy so it's less of a sim.....most real world racer comments I've read says most hardcore sims are not grippy enough

Pcars has physics errors/flaws so it's less of a sim....So have all the others, not only that, many sims don't even simulate fundamental aspects of a cars or a tyres phsyics...that to me is far more damning of a games "sim" pedigree.

I mean come on people it's epeen wanging of the worst kind. Just enjoy the sims you like and ignore the ones you don't (the only one I don't play often is iRacing as I have no interest in MP or subscriptions. If they did a stand alone product with Ai a decent amount of cars and tracks I'd get it in a heart beat as I love all the simulators).

 

[Andy_J]

If they did a stand alone product with Ai a decent amount of cars and tracks I'd get it in a heart beat as I love all the simulators).

That's called Nascar Racing 2003, still used by me and many more and still the best offline Oval racing simulator with superb AI.

 

[gamer19]

Of course. Every thread that hold up to its reputation must finish in strong style - comparing original game to legendary Nascar Racing 2003. Otherwise... it would all look pointless yes.

 

[Shiimis]

No they are not they mimic reality but have no bearing whatsoever in reality. I honestly cannot believe someone brought up Mario Kart...I mean what the hell, it is the quintessential arcade game, not trying to simulate reality at all . Trying to justify Mario Kart as a sim to somehow lump sims you (and others) do not like in with it is also the quintessential sim snobbery.

Once again no that is an opinion, it is not undeniable at all. Yes you can have that opinion, it's an opinion I file away with "moon landings never happened" and "the world is flat". Which is my opinion of your opinion. Don't throw hyperbole like "undeniably" around that's just daft.
.

I'm not sure why you wouldn't allow that mimicking reality is what simulation means. I mean for simulation you need some kind of reference - something that is simulated (faked). Claiming that Mario Kart has no relation to reality is absurd, since that game simulates such things as three dimensional space and motion which are usually accepted as aspects of our reality or at least how we perceive reality. In that sense Mario Kart is also a simulation of reality, albeit not a very detailed or exact one. The very fact that you can navigate the "world" of Mario Kart (and other games) easily, just proves your familiarity with this type of environment and allow you to immediately recognize the reference of simulation - our world as we perceive it. In this sense these games are all simulation. I'm not sure how you can make this a matter of opinion.
On the other hand, if we try to establish to what degree and how successfully a game simulates (fakes) the real world, that is also not a matter of opinion - in some aspects simulation is quite good in some aspects it is lacking. One of aspects that can be measured is game physics. If they follow the same rules and laws, then we can say that it is a good simulation of this particular aspect. What is the matter opinion is when we agree (or as it seems cannot agree) that certain game belongs to a genre (in this case Simulation as opposed to genre Arcade). As I said earlier, there is no clear standard which allows us to determine if a game belongs to either an arcade or simulation genre, so naturally it is a matter of opinion.
My point is , that there is a difference in claiming that a game simulates reality to a certain degree and that this game belongs to a racing simulator genre. Those are completely separate issues and should not be conflated at all, the first can be proven but usually is evident to the gamer, the second one is a matter of opinion at least until we can come up with exact criteria for something to qualify as a racing simulator.

 

[Cote Dazur]

Unfortunetly, like many other, I could not find satisfaction in driving in PCars, even dough I tried very hard. But I have to command them on driving in VR, as In PCars, the feet of the driver are moving, the driver shift in the right gear, when using H shifter, no other racing game does that.
The day to night, weather transition, overall lighting, is also excellent. So if I could also have satisfaction driving in PCars, I would love it.
My expectation on PCars 2 are very low, but I wil try it at the first opportunity and check what it feels like, and buy it on special, like I did for PCars, anyway, just because they do part of the simulation right.

 

[Damage Inc]

That's called Nascar Racing 2003, still used by me and many more and still the best offline Oval racing simulator with superb AI.

Ah not a huge oval racing fan, I suppose that's another reason for not playing iRacing beyond a month trial offer! Still my cup floweth over with Sims....I need more time!

 

[Damage Inc]

I'm not sure why you wouldn't allow that mimicking reality is what simulation means. I mean for simulation you need some kind of reference - something that is simulated (faked). Claiming that Mario Kart has no relation to reality is absurd, since that game simulates such things as three dimensional space and motion which are usually accepted as aspects of our reality or at least how we perceive reality. In that sense Mario Kart is also a simulation of reality, albeit not a very detailed or exact one. The very fact that you can navigate the "world" of Mario Kart (and other games) easily, just proves your familiarity with this type of environment and allow you to immediately recognize the reference of simulation - our world as we perceive it. In this sense these games are all simulation. I'm not sure how you can make this a matter of opinion.
On the other hand, if we try to establish to what degree and how successfully a game simulates (fakes) the real world, that is also not a matter of opinion - in some aspects simulation is quite good in some aspects it is lacking. One of aspects that can be measured is game physics. If they follow the same rules and laws, then we can say that it is a good simulation of this particular aspect. What is the matter opinion is when we agree (or as it seems cannot agree) that certain game belongs to a genre (in this case Simulation as opposed to genre Arcade). As I said earlier, there is no clear standard which allows us to determine if a game belongs to either an arcade or simulation genre, so naturally it is a matter of opinion.
My point is , that there is a difference in claiming that a game simulates reality to a certain degree and that this game belongs to a racing simulator genre. Those are completely separate issues and should not be conflated at all, the first can be proven but usually is evident to the gamer, the second one is a matter of opinion at least until we can come up with exact criteria for something to qualify as a racing simulator.

All it needs is common sense, if by your definition of sim Mario Kart is a sim, then Call of Duty is a war simulator, purely because it replicates the visual aspects of warfare with the ability to move around in a 3d environment and fire guns......but it's not and neither is Mario Kart. Because if Mario Kart is anything like reality for you then I suggest three things:

1) stop taking mind altering drugs.
2) Invent a dimensional shifting device to get out of the surreal world you clearly inhabit.
3) politely ask the drivers around you to stop lobbing turtle shells and banana's at you.

PS the 3rd option will likely see you taken away by men in white coats.

STOP trying to justify calling Pcars arcade, it's just daft.

 

[Damage Inc]

Just a quick question because I still really get confused over the complaints about Pcars physics. Is this primarily a FFB feel issue? or is there proof (e.g. the camber issue which I fully admit is a flaw and I believe not fully fixed)

regarding FFB, with Jack spades files and using a Fanatec CSR I feel connected with the cars in Pcars. It seems many complaints are a lack of that "connection", many I see are Logitech users....is this an indication of the game being less than ideal with Logitech? (like the AMD issues). Or is it people who need to feel more force (personally I don't have full ffb on in game and on my CSR. In fact I'll often adjust on the fly if I feel a light car feels too heavy or a car shouldn't have (in my unexpert opinion) power steering). The only feel I don't get in Pcars compared to other sims is the almost constant light rattly feeling of driving over slight imperfections, I agree that without this background "noise" the Pcars tracks feel a bit too smooth. But all other feelings seem identical within reasonable tolerance of every other Sim I play.

regarding physics flaws, apart from the camber issue what proveable flaws exist in the game? I'm sure there's more. But what sim game has no provable flaws in it's physics?

 

[Shiimis]

All it needs is common sense, if by your definition of sim Mario Kart is a sim, then Call of Duty is a war simulator, purely because it replicates the visual aspects of warfare with the ability to move around in a 3d environment and fire guns......but it's not and neither is Mario Kart. Because if Mario Kart is anything like reality for you then I suggest three things:

1) stop taking mind altering drugs.
2) Invent a dimensional shifting device to get out of the surreal world you clearly inhabit.
3) politely ask the drivers around you to stop lobbing turtle shells and banana's at you.

PS the 3rd option will likely see you taken away by men in white coats.

STOP trying to justify calling Pcars arcade, it's just daft.

I never said that Mario Kart is a game that belongs to simulation genre. But yes, unless you have some good reason to use the word "simulation" in a very specific sense, then there is nothing extraordinary about saying that Mario Kart simulates basic aspects of our reality. And I agree that COD is simulation of reality to a certain degree, again not necessarily as war simulator.
The answers you provide however have little support besides claiming that is is common sense to think the way you do without providing any real arguments. Also please keep in mind that I never personally attacked or ridiculed you for having a different take on this problem and frankly I do not understand why you think that best response is arguing ad hominem. Probably for the sake of entertainment.

 

[Shiimis]

regarding physics flaws, apart from the camber issue what proveable flaws exist in the game? I'm sure there's more. But what sim game has no provable flaws in it's physics?

How about you check actual values in pCARS physics files. You will find that values are neither accurate in terms of car data nor believable. They are tweaked for better feel. If a game uses different data, then it is either because calculations done in engine are wrong and need to be compensated by modifying data, or because developers wanted to achieve certain feeling in terms of how cars handle, which means that they were not necessarily after the realism in this case.

 

[Cote Dazur]

regarding FFB, with Jack spades files and using a Fanatec CSR I feel connected with the cars in Pcars. It seems many complaints are a lack of that "connection", many I see are Logitech users....is this an indication of the game being less than ideal with Logitech? (like the AMD issues). Or is it people who need to feel more force (personally I don't have full ffb on in game and on my CSR. In fact I'll often adjust on the fly if I feel a light car feels too heavy or a car shouldn't have (in my unexpert opinion) power steering). The only feel I don't get in Pcars compared to other sims is the almost constant light rattly feeling of driving over slight imperfections, I agree that without this background "noise" the Pcars tracks feel a bit too smooth. But all other feelings seem identical within reasonable tolerance of every other Sim I play.

I am also with Fanatec, the FFB in PCars, even after extensive test, jack spade and other, never gets to a point where what the feedback reports to not be always a little off. The car does one thing and the wheels says something else, not like need for speed, but not like a good SIM either.
The physic itself may or may not be totally accurate but I believe that could be said for any SIM, as I believe, even the one who claim accuracy by numbers are also tweaked by feel by the developers as numbers alone, in the present state of software/hardware can only take you so far.
In comparison to the usual SIM suspect, PCars feels weird to many. If one title ever deserved the "Simcade" designation, it is PCars, as being so close but yet so far.
If we are honest we, the users, also judge with what we feel, and most of SIM enthousiast are struggling with what we feel with PCars.

 

[Kurupt CDN]

How about you check actual values in pCARS physics files. You will find that values are neither accurate in terms of car data nor believable. They are tweaked for better feel. If a game uses different data, then it is either because calculations done in engine are wrong and need to be compensated by modifying data, or because developers wanted to achieve certain feeling in terms of how cars handle, which means that they were not necessarily after the realism in this case.

Sim (simulated) racing is the collective term for computer software that attempts to accurately simulate autoracing, complete with real-world variables such as fuel usage, damage, tire wear and grip, and suspension settings.

Key word "attempt".....
Pcars attempted all these it may not be up to your standards but it still allows itself to fall under the simulation genre.

Not all the data from the manufactures commutes properly in sims due to the limitations of the physics engines and sometimes needs to be tweaked to make it work or they dont have all the data which happens alot. Every sim does it, thats why cars get updates, new tire models come along etc.
Data is provided, than good titles will have the cars tested by pro drivers than tweaks are made based on the drivers feedback....than sent to betatesters where tweaks could be made again due to bugs/limitations/etc.
Ive gotten to test a couple of titles over the yrs and had the chance to sit in during testing with pro drivers and devs and they have all said the same thing.
You can put 2 pro drivers in the exact same car and they will give you 2 completely different feedbacks. Why?
Different setups/preferences/senses/tire compound etc.
Majority of drivers will also tell you that no simulation compares physics wise to the real thing and alot just use them for familarizing themself with new tracks.

Now the devs have to translate that verbal data into the games to attempt making the car handle like the feedback from the pro driver.
Do you stick with the data provided by the manufacture or make tweaks based on a real life drivers feedback that says the car does not feel like that?
At the end of the day no sim replicates real driving perfectly and if realism/physics is what your after jump in your car and go for a drive to your local go kart track or track.
These are nothing more than video games play what you want and have fun doing it

Cheers
David

 

[Shiimis]

Sim (simulated) racing is the collective term for computer software that attempts to accurately simulate autoracing, complete with real-world variables such as fuel usage, damage, tire wear and grip, and suspension settings.

Key word "attempt".....
Pcars attempted all these it may not be up to your standards but it still allows itself to fall under the simulation genre.

Not all the data from the manufactures commutes properly in sims due to the limitations of the physics engines and sometimes needs to be tweaked to make it work or they dont have all the data which happens alot. Every sim does it, thats why cars get updates, new tire models come along etc.
Data is provided, than good titles will have the cars tested by pro drivers than tweaks are made based on the drivers feedback....than sent to betatesters where tweaks could be made again due to bugs/limitations/etc.
Ive gotten to test a couple of titles over the yrs and had the chance to sit in during testing with pro drivers and devs and they have all said the same thing.
You can put 2 pro drivers in the exact same car and they will give you 2 completely different feedbacks. Why?
Different setups/preferences/senses/tire compound etc.
Majority of drivers will also tell you that no simulation compares physics wise to the real thing and alot just use them for familarizing themself with new tracks.

Now the devs have to translate that verbal data into the games to attempt making the car handle like the feedback from the pro driver.
Do you stick with the data provided by the manufacture or make tweaks based on a real life drivers feedback that says the car does not feel like that?
At the end of the day no sim replicates real driving perfectly and if realism/physics is what your after jump in your car and go for a drive to your local go kart track or track.
These are nothing more than video games play what you want and have fun doing it

Cheers
David

I completely agree. However the point I made was to counter the position that project cars is a simulation and it is a fact that needs no further evidence. It would be a fact only if it would be measurable 1:1 exact replica of the real thing which as you elegantly put it , is simply impossible. Since it is impossible, it is up to the community to decide, whether pCARS meets a certain standard e.g. it is good enough, to qualify as a racing simulation, which is a matter of opinion not fact. Also I was trying to say that arcade games are not antithesis of simulation games, because in a way they too simulate some things, however the simulation is not exact or detailed, and it isn't the case that bad attempt of a racing simulator is necessarily a good attempt at arcade racer.

 

[Damage Inc]

I never said that Mario Kart is a game that belongs to simulation genre. But yes, unless you have some good reason to use the word "simulation" in a very specific sense, then there is nothing extraordinary about saying that Mario Kart simulates basic aspects of our reality. And I agree that COD is simulation of reality to a certain degree, again not necessarily as war simulator.
The answers you provide however have little support besides claiming that is is common sense to think the way you do without providing any real arguments. Also please keep in mind that I never personally attacked or ridiculed you for having a different take on this problem and frankly I do not understand why you think that best response is arguing ad hominem. Probably for the sake of entertainment.

Oh come on that was a little bit of humour injected, no malice intended.

By your reasoning then no current racing game on the market is a true sim, all are simcade/arcade.

 

[Damage Inc]

I am also with Fanatec, the FFB in PCars, even after extensive test, jack spade and other, never gets to a point where what the feedback reports to not be always a little off. The car does one thing and the wheels says something else, not like need for speed, but not like a good SIM either.
The physic itself may or may not be totally accurate but I believe that could be said for any SIM, as I believe, even the one who claim accuracy by numbers are also tweaked by feel by the developers as numbers alone, in the present state of software/hardware can only take you so far.
In comparison to the usual SIM suspect, PCars feels weird to many. If one title ever deserved the "Simcade" designation, it is PCars, as being so close but yet so far.
If we are honest we, the users, also judge with what we feel, and most of SIM enthousiast are struggling with what we feel with PCars.

I find that really weird, I get all the ffb info in Pcars that I get in other sims. Strange how it's so bad for you. That's one of the game biggest flaws that I can sympathise, that it is very much hit and miss for many regarding the ffb.

but once again FFB has nothing to do with the validity of the physics system per se. FFB is just how the game conveys arbitrary feelings to the player via their controller device. There is nothing in reality in the mass market wheels we can buy (I have no idea about the high end stuff).

 

[Damage Inc]

I completely agree. However the point I made was to counter the position that project cars is a simulation and it is a fact that needs no further evidence. It would be a fact only if it would be measurable 1:1 exact replica of the real thing which as you elegantly put it , is simply impossible. Since it is impossible, it is up to the community to decide, whether pCARS meets a certain standard e.g. it is good enough, to qualify as a racing simulation, which is a matter of opinion not fact. Also I was trying to say that arcade games are not antithesis of simulation games, because in a way they too simulate some things, however the simulation is not exact or detailed, and it isn't the case that bad attempt of a racing simulator is necessarily a good attempt at arcade racer.

You say you agree completely with what Kurupt says but then you continue to deny Pcars is a sim despite agreeing with Kurupts sentence:

Key word "attempt".....
Pcars attempted all these it may not be up to your standards but it still allows itself to fall under the simulation genre.

So you contradict yourself there, if you deny Project cars is a sim then you do not "completely agree".

What is opinion is how "good" the simulation is, not whether or not the game is a simulation.

This is my point all along.

Once again if 1:1 accuracy is what you need to quantify if a racing game is a sim then none of the current games on the market qualify. We all play simcade/arcade games.

 

[Shiimis]

No we don't. Arcade games are not failed simulators.
The thing is that you admitted that there is no game that simulates everything perfectly. Still even arcade games simulate something (although far less and far more basic than simulators). So if nothing is simulated perfectly, yet everything is simulated to some degree (regarding racing games), we must agree, that there are two senses of the world "simulation". In basic sense of the world, both arcade games and simulators qualify for this. In the advanced sense, there is distinction between arcade genre and simulator genre. Now there is no way to determine exactly whether game belongs to arcade , simulation or somewhere between unless you can provide CLEAR criteria to which everyone agrees. Even then, it is a matter of convention and opinion not fact, as you claimed at the beginning.

This whole discussion can be reduced to a couple questions:
1. What is a fact? Consider a group of people watching the weather. Suppose it is raining. Now ask yourself if it is a fact that it is raining outside, would there be so much discussion and arguing about whether it is raining outside? Or could the discussion be easily solved just by pointing a finger at the sky where everyone can see that it is raining? The feature of facts is that they can be demonstrated and thus proven.
2. What is an opinion? Do you consider that things like genres are characterized purely by facts or rather by opinion? When you have a standard which describes what a racing simulator is, do you form this standard from facts? Wouldn't it mean that there must be perfect racing simulation available to us which is virtually indistinguishable from the real thing and is just numerically different from it? Since you admitted that there is no perfect simulation, it means that we come up with standards based on opinion what is more important and what is less important. This can vary from person to person and cannot be demonstrated as being true or false.
3. Don't you agree that some words can have multiple meanings in different contexts , and although the meanings are related they are not the same? Would you consider that "simulation" is such a word, which when used generically is true for most games, but when used as a genre label, is applied only to certain games which meet a certain standard (which itself is a matter of opinion not fact)?
4. Where did you come up with an idea, that I think that pCARS is not a simulator? I never said, I just merely pointed out that it is not a fact that it is a simulator or if you want to be a fact, then you have to lower the bar so low, that almost anything that does mimic aspects of reality , qualifies as simulation.

 

[Damage Inc]

1) what is fact...ok, the "facts" of words are their meanings as defined in publications like dictionaries....within those meanings Pcars is a simulation so that is why I say fact. understand?

2) opinions.....that is how a gamer "feels" personally whether or not the sim is as real as it can be. This is highly subjective and the cause of mucho bad feelings. It is when ill informed people spout opinion as fact that narks me off, hence my original post.

3) Yes words can have different meanings in different context, but arcade game emulate that very lowest level of control reality and everything else is non reality. To even compare a sim to something arcade is indicative of a severe lack of intelligence in the person saying so or it is purely malicious and used as a derogatory insult (which I believe is against the sites rules). The two are about as far apart as you can get, yes (as I mentioned before) the very basic "turn left, turn right, accelerate, brake" are similar....after that there are no similarities between reality and an arcade game. In fact the key issue is the devs of an arcade game do not even bother to attempt to simulate reality closely apart from the basics I mention above. Please do not muddy the waters further by bringing in the physical arcade machines. I'm not talking about them just the term "arcade" when it comes to personal computers and consoles.

4)I came to the conclusion you didn't think Pcars was a sim when you posted arguing against me. All you've done is play devils advocate in very muddy waters that justifies what is basically sim discrimination within the sim community.

Yes of course there are a few exceptions to all rules (usually arcade cabinet racers), but to clarify as defined by almost all dictionaries Pcars is a sim and that is a fact and not opinion.

I hope that clarifies my stance on fact and opinion for you and please stop playing devils advocate and arguing tiny semantics.

oh one last thing I forgot about..."gameplay", if the gameplay is arcade then that can be used to justify a games arcade leanings.

so Drive Club and the PGR series are what I would call simcade games, arguable GT and Forza too as they simulate the cars and tracks to a certain level but the gameplay of no practise, no qualifying, start last etc etc is most certainly arcade based.

 

[willz]

what is a forum ?? is it where people express their opinion ??? and suggest changes to the game in question ?? or is it a battlefield of destruction on other peoples opinions ???
personally i thought pcars was crap,, but if any of you reading this think its the best game ever then i would like to point out that i have no problem with that..