PC1 Banned for no reason!

[Bram Hengeveld]

Yes its all virtual racing. One game is a bit more difficult than others but none of them give you the feeling of sitting in a real racing car.

Also I don't understand why simracers always feel the need to discuss this topic as it will never end When we log in to RD in 2023 this exact same topic will be started in a Gran Turismo 8 forum or in RACE 23 or Project iMario Kart Evolution Factor Corsa for Windows 16.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Yes its all virtual racing. One game is a bit more difficult than others but none of them give you the feeling of sitting in a real racing car.

But that wasn´t the point though.

We should obviously separate real sims from simcade titles. This is very important.
Not just for us but for the developers spending years building simulators within the simulator.

 

[Bram Hengeveld]

Why is it very important to label a game with arcade or simulation and why must there be a clear distinction between the two/three?

I've enjoyed so many different race games over the last two decades. Some were arcade and some were sim. The fact I enjoyed them is important. Not the label imo.

Because of the difficulty level I also prefer a simulation game over arcade titles and the fact that most sims have a great support for communities.

But I can assure you that if for example F1 2012 The Game would come out with the same arcade physics as in 2010 & 2011 but with 30 online slots and dedicated server support I would be hooked

 

[Kazumi]

Dunno, already made my point of genre definition clear in #560

I can only write the same again... http://www.racedepartment.com/forum/threads/banned-for-no-reason.47384/page-28#post-1142422

We discussed this before at NG, I believe.

It is not and should not be hard to quantify or prove which sim is better in terms of physics. It is not and never will be a matter of subjective reasoning.

Lets put aside suspension design or data, engine data or even physical constraints (inertias, dimensions) - if a sim is open to modding, then a simple editing of physics files will correct these.

Say a car (from sim YYY) is travelling at a certain speed through a corner. Simple physics will tell you how how high is its lateral force. From that you can easily calculate the friction force(s) needed to keep the car in its trajectory. Finally, you can calculate how high the vertical load on the car must be. With that info you will know how high is its downforce.

Say that the car from sim YYY achieves the proper results. Peaks aside, you try your best and the car will not corner above a certain speed.

Now pick the same car but modelled in sim ZZZ. You go through a similar corner (maybe the same, if the track is also modelled there) and you find you can get away with cornering speeds 40 or 50 kph above what simple physics would tell you is possible. You edit everything which is open to modding, and still the sim will allow you to perform at miraculous cornering speeds.

(...)

Now, we know there are many things involved: tires, aerodynamics, roll-centers (and chassis distortion), but in the end, physical constraints (limits) do exist and they should apply to any car - from a "reasonably priced car" to a Daytona Prototype. Whichever racing sim obeys to these constraints/rules, is the best. Period.

You might say, "yes, but maybe sim YYY gets it right in terms of tires, chassis physics and aerodynamics but fails in suspensions, whereas sim ZZZ has really good suspension modelling". That might happen (though from XMR to ISI-based racing-sims and iRacing, suspensions have been surprisingly well modelled, even if this or that physics engine cannot model ALL suspension designs), but in the end, the racing simulation that obeys the most to physical rules will always outbest others.

No subjectivity involved, simple math/physics should suffice to prove whether a racing sim gets it RIGHT.

With or without full theoretical physics modelling, with or without empirical modelling behind its physics engine.

Now, if we move to the other side of the fence, "realism" by photo-realistic depiction of racing...Lots of subjectivity there and probably no one will ever agree which sim is best.

Yes . But what you say isn't easy to prove / quantify for

- someone with average knowledge of all those things

- someone who don't want to spend time on research

and we also in case of pCars don't have sufficient data.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Why is it very important to label a game with arcade or simulation and why must there be a clear distinction between the two/three?

I've enjoyed so many different race games over the last two decades. Some were arcade and some were sim. The fact I enjoyed them is important. Not the label imo.

Because of the difficulty level I also prefer a simulation game over arcade titles and the fact that most sims have a great support for communities.

But I can assure you that if for example F1 2012 The Game would come out with the same arcade physics as in 2010 & 2011 but with 30 online slots and dedicated server support I would be hooked

Why we should separate them?

Because some developers spend years simulating the mechanics of the real world.

Others just re-brand the same **** all the time.
Actually i find it a bit disrespectful to disregard the minds behind some of the greatest Sims and put them in the same folder as games created for the large masses.

If i took F1 2011 and moddes it so the difficulty level is 500 times harder, would you then call it a sim? i think not.

 

[martinsalat]

Why we should separate them?

Because some developers spend years simulating the mechanics of the real world.

Others just re-brand the same **** all the time.
Actually i find it a bit disrespectful to disregard the minds behind some of the greatest Sims and put them in the same folder as games created for the large masses.

If i took F1 2011 and moddes it so the difficulty level is 500 times harder, would you then call it a sim? i think not.

"Others just re-brand the same **** all the time"so you mean simbin"? they are a typical example for that.and they are simcade?and codemasters, sms, t10 ... dont work hard?

 

[Kazumi]

There´s a clear definition of an arcade title and a full blown simulation title.
Let´s take DK or Stefano who put years reading books about tires and then creating a model that will simulate a tire.

Would you put them in the same folder as MarioKart? No that would be insanity.

Good point, but, uhh, those 2 guys are people, Mario Kart is a racing game.

What Stefano and his crew do are racing sims without compromises.

 

[Nathan Robinson]

Why we should separate them?

Because some developers spend years simulating the mechanics of the real world.

Others just re-brand the same **** all the time.
Actually i find it a bit disrespectful to disregard the minds behind some of the greatest Sims and put them in the same folder as games created for the large masses.

If i took F1 2011 and moddes it so the difficulty level is 500 times harder, would you then call it a sim? i think not.

Most repeat titles are rebranded. Rfactor 2's menu setup is awfully similar to Rfactor and the stock material doesnt look terribly different either (o wait, it's still in development ) but with some changes to help move it forward. Race 07 has had so many rebrandings I cant even count em all. Iracing is just one continuous evolution so it doesnt fit in here. I'm sure assetto corsa will feel more familiar to nkpro drivers than the ones that never ran nkpro.

It is all down to the person experiencing the feelings from the wheel and the screen. Just because some drivers dont think it feels right, doesnt mean that it doesnt feel right period, just because they say so. In the same sense, just because some drivers think pcars feels great, doesnt mean that it is the best feeling racer out there. Thats why I dont understand the outcry.

Some people feel like SMS lied in beginning to get people onboard that might not have otherwise done so, by saying it will be a true simulation. Maybe so, but I dont get that feeling at all. I just feel this whole thing has started to unfold and very rarely does a plan stick to the original script. Life isnt fair for sure, but why sit around and cry foul play day after day after day. Eventually we must move on and focus on the positives in life and not this silly nonsense as I highly doubt the offended people are going to cause some kind of genre defining revolt

Arcade,simcade, simulation, hardcore simulation, BFD. Drive what you like and enjoy your hobby

and to quote the famous conversation ending of chronus

"Period."

 

[Anthony Levene]

There´s a clear definition of an arcade title and a full blown simulation title.
Let´s take DK or Stefano who put years reading books about tires and then creating a model that will simulate a tire.

So even though iRacing tyres temperatures bear no relation to real life, they barely degrade, don't flat spot and your fastest lap is your first lap on cold tyres it is still regarded as a sim?? Just because there is a promise that it will be better in the future (sounds a bit like SMS to me!)
I think it's sad that certain people here can't appreciate different games (sims) for their various strong points. Personally sitting in a superbly rendered vehicle (such as in pCars) adds a certain realism that I don't get from sitting in a blocky & pixelated iRacing car...and the ffb in GSC adds a level of realism I don't get from any other game...but in the past 24 hours I have played GSC, pCars & iRacing and enjoyed them all for what they are.

But maybe I'm just plain wrong and can't evaluate a game without the help of a sim index

 

[Hampus Andersson]

"Others just re-brand the same **** all the time"so you mean simbin"? they are a typical example for that.and they are simcade?and codemasters, sms, t10 ... dont work hard?

Of course they work hard. But that´s to produce a game.

Stefano and DK are trying to reproduce reality. You won´t see Turn10 spend 3 years reading books about tires then get the idea to create a tire model from scratch.

No they called Pirelli and got tire graphs they put in the game so every car in the game runs on Pirelli tires and work based on a graph instead of simulation the internal processes.

 

[Hampus Andersson]

So even though iRacing tyres temperatures bear no relation to real life, they barely degrade, don't flat spot and your fastest lap is your first lap on cold tyres it is still regarded as a sim??

I think you only tell half the story though. If you consider what iRacing is doing things will be clearer.

In Motorsports, tires are the most researched thing in the world.
But it´s also the least understood one.

Look at F1 today, not even Pirelli understands their own tires it seems.

Now imagine making a full blown tire model that will simulate a wide range of tires, you just tap in the mixture, the size and width etc and this model will produce a tire with the right characteristics.

This part will take more then 3 years, as you know it´s still in BETA but the point is it´s getting better.
You have to start somewhere you know and right now every car has the same type of tire.
Probably to make things easier to understand the changes to it.

When NTM 2.1 comes out you will start to see the next evolution of the tire model.
You have to build the basement before you start building the first floor my friend.

 

[David Ignjatovic]

. I know it's flawed in the driving model, I've said that countless times. Whats to expose?? If you read back through these forums, there aren't very many pcars supporters calling this a true sim. .

Just the truth, nothing more, and I made the mistake of buying netkar pro and then going back to pcars at Donnington, and boy, what a letdown, the FFB weight, it's continuity, all just plain bad, not to mention that the way the cars move from side to side feels terribly awkward and digital, ie, no real connection to the road.

And you can go VLR or scores/hundreds of ytube vids with people proclaiming it's a sim, so maybe you should expose yourself to the truth.

 

[David Ignjatovic]

It would be much better if we ditch arcade, simcade, and simulation and just replace it with virtual racing as that is what it is basically.

Not sure, I'm not sure those who prefer games like GSC, FVA, rf1/2, iracing, GTR1/2/RACE++++,netkar would prefer that.
I can accept that most sims are harder than RL, but in Dirt3, in so-called full sim mode, you can slam on the brakes at what seems like any speed any track position for instant smooth braking on dirt/gravel.....but try doing that with netka Lambo or iracing Cadilac or many other sim cars on tarmac and see what happens.

 

[David Ignjatovic]

So even though iRacing tyres temperatures bear no relation to real life, they barely degrade, don't flat spot and your fastest lap is your first lap on cold tyres it is still regarded as a sim??

But maybe I'm just plain wrong and can't evaluate a game without the help of a sim index

LOL, you just used the the no1 factor in the sim index{the physics} to justify your position, then turn around and make a mockery of it, LOL.
This is why I keep saying that some of you guys keep talking out of both sides of your mouths.

People can deny reality, they just can't escape from it.

 

[Anthony Levene]

LOL, you just used the the no1 factor in the sim index{the physics} to justify your position, then turn around and make a mockery of it, LOL.
This is why I keep saying that some of you guys keep talking out of both sides of your mouths.

People can deny reality, they just can't escape from it.

If you actually bother to read what I am saying instead of your usual mealy mouthed accusations of lying you might understand that I couldn't give a toss about whether you think game x is a sim or not...as I have repeatedly stated I enjoy all kinds of racing games...NONE of them are realistic...so getting your knickers in a twist because one of them (in a pre-release state) isn't as sim-tastic as you would like seems a bit sad.
I was using the example of iRacing because plenty of people hold it up as a beacon of what a sim should be, even if the tyres are apparently 3 years away from performing in a realistic manner (according to Hampus).
I just wonder about the level of vitriol directed at pCars here as opposed to the easy ride given to equally unsim like racing games on these forums...seems kind of personal for one or two posters??

 

[Bram Hengeveld]

When NTM 2.1 comes out you will start to see the next evolution of the tire model.

Again? I thought the revolution started with 2.0 already. The NTM where you lock up your tires already by just looking at the brakes.

I thought DK studied those tires for the last seven years in closest detail? Now he needs another three years to implement them?

Anthony made a very good point though that the tire temperatures and pressure are way off. Real life drivers rate the look of the car models and tracks exceptional in iR but the handling and especially the braking isn't even close to reality. Unless you only listen to the expert views of the real drivers in the service of course. They have a complete different opinion.

Every game has their own Ben Collins, Mario the Plumber, Anthony Davidson, Ken Block, Travis Pastrana or Dale Junior nowadays parroting what developers/publisher want them to say. It's called marketing.

How about we go back on topic?

 

[Chronus]

This "simcade" being realistic and simracing being unrealistic in that it is far above the difficulty racing drivers experience in real life... Well, there's a first time for everything.

A good racing sim has solid physics. Period. If some gamers can't take its cars without spinning when its driving aids are off, then that is no problem of the physics engine of the sim - provided, again, the physics engine is reliable and outputs the proper results. And, again, this has been discussed previously, from real world racing drivers, to devs and even Dr. Beckman: yes, there are many way of checking if a racing sim has proper physics or not. Thinking otherwise is comfortable for sure, but it is nevertheless ignoring facts, math/physics.

I talk to and have talked to real life racing drivers, I believe I have some idea why some (not all) cannot even adjust to simracing or find it "too difficult". So, using some racing drivers as the basis for establishing that "simracing is unrealistic" is odd if not a fallacy.

I refer you to Soheil Ayari's interview by Autosimport and his views on the tools we use for simracing (cockpit, screen, wheels&pedals, etc).To complement his comments, these are also some of the things racing drivers miss when simracing:
- full situational awareness
- full view of things
- no g-forces when cornering or braking
- no vibrations
- "insufficient sound cues" - this is a direct and curious quote from a pro
- no physical sensations - seat of the pants and such

When these drivers go past the difficulties of adapting to the "cheap" setup most of us use at home, they do not complain about spinning and having to turn on all driving aids. They just drive to their best simracing abilities and actually perform quite well.

It is true that in the past, Henrik Roos admitted to having turned on certain aids as that made the sim more realistic. But that was with GTR, and the reasons were exposed by SIMBIN in an interview by SIMHQ (participants included Ian Bell, Henrik Roos and Marcel Jung):

Q: Henrik Roos is quoted on some sites to have said that in his opinion GTR is more realistic with some of the driving aids switched to "on". If that is indeed the case, which driving aids are they?

Henrik Roos: Today we don't have force feedback in the normal retail versions of the pedals. So the driver can have some problems giving the brakes the right pressure and so also with the gas pedal. I drive with low ABS and low traction control. But nevertheless the real pros of GTR sim racing have already adapted to this and can already control this better than me. But beware I am learning.

It is obvious this has become sort of a myth for some people, so they simply echo what somebody said, without thinking properly on why some drivers turn some of their aids on.

It is also obvious that by establishing this falacy ("simracing is more difficult than real life") and praising "semi-arcades/simcades" for their realism (unbelievable...) some are cleverly promoting the work done by some devs versus the work done by other devs (SIMBIN, ISI, iRacing, E. Cojocar, SCAVIER, etc).

And...because this is a thread about bans...

Got a post from a friend. He was temp banned at guess-where for saying that the views were slanted towards you-know-who...

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Again? I thought the revolution started with 2.0 already. The NTM where you lock up your tires already by just looking at the brakes.

I have no problems with locking up brakes, perhaps that´s an individual issue?

And you are right, the revolution started with 2.0, it has it´s flaws right now but it´s still miles better then the drift contest we had before.

I thought DK studied those tires for the last seven years in closest detail? Now he needs another three years to implement them?

Comments like this shows you have never read a book about tires ever.

Maybe in 10 years you will have a tire model that accurately simulates everything a tire goes through.

It´s clear you do not really understand what kind of project this is.

Anthony made a very good point though that the tire temperatures and pressure are way off. Real life drivers rate the look of the car models and tracks exceptional in iR but the handling and especially the braking isn't even close to reality. Unless you only listen to the expert views of the real drivers in the service of course. They have a complete different opinion.

That´s because the tire model is still a work in progress.
However it is still 100 times better then the OTM which had no relation to reality, it was all fantasy numbers.

Every game has their own Ben Collins, Mario the Plumber, Anthony Davidson, Ken Block, Travis Pastrana or Dale Junior nowadays parroting what developers/publisher want them to say. It's called marketing.

Again you show you simply have no grasp on the project that is building a tire model from scratch. Which is understandable because you put F1 2011 in the same folder as NKPro.
It was expected to say the least.

How about we go back on topic?

Sure.

 

[Chronus]

In Motorsports, tires are the most researched thing in the world.
But it´s also the least understood one.

Tire physics is one of the most complex subjects in the world.

It is also one of the most researched, but least understood?!

One thing is the complexity inherent to bringing the mathematical/physical models of tires to the world of 1s and 0s - doing so and in such a manner as to use the full capacity of today's computing power is indeed quite a challenge. There also several models to choose from, and several mathematical frameworks to analyse and predict the behaviour of tires. Not an easy task and we're probably not there yet in terms of computing power needed to achieve full prediction.

Another thing is:do we understand them? Yes. Obviously, there are as many circumstances as there are tires. You pick a tire and the same tire will perform differently in the same track and used by the same car and driver. All it takes is different track temperatures, humidity, some dust, some rubber.

There are many variables at play, and scientists quite probably have a clear view and understanding on what those are. Problem is integrating this into a whole and use it to correctly explain certain phenomena and safely predict behaviour under the same circumstances. Not an easy task, but that doesn't mean we understand little of tires and their behaviour.

Look at F1 today, not even Pirelli understands their own tires it seems.

That's an exaggeration. Newer compounds, new car regulations - it is not easy to predict tire degradation for a large range of track temps, cars and pilot driving styles.

People are probably asking the impossible.

When NTM 2.1 comes out you will start to see the next evolution of the tire model.
You have to build the basement before you start building the first floor my friend.

DK has been at it (NTM) for at least 3 years. He made some decisions that ended up costly (egg: his "theoretical thermodynamics" model).

The NTM was already announced as the "big revolution". Turns out the preview was better than the official 2.0 release. We discussed this for weeks at iRacing forums with DK himself. We know what some of his and his staff responses were. And we now know certain things didn't work out exactly as they intended and predicted. Finally, in the past 3 or 4 months, a series of updates brought the NTM back on track.

So, maybe we should refrain from jumping on the bandwagon and believe every milestone will be the next big revolution or evolution.

That´s because the tire model is still a work in progress.
However it is still 100 times better then the OTM which had no relation to reality, it was all fantasy numbers.

It is clear you have given a lot of thought to these matters and have closely followed DK's work.

However, do remember when they (iRacing) and fanboys yelled to the world that the OTM was much, much better than anything else - isiMotor2 and NKP included. Do remember when they said that it was already based on accurate calculations, even if based on an empiric model.

Changing OTM to NTM is, to most people, a buzz word. A buzz word they swallow and parrot all day long without the slightest hint of what both models entail.

DK is following, so he says (I tend to believe him), a full theoretical model. Ok. But, today, even tire companies are still using variations of Pacejka's work. If it is that bad, why are chemists/physicists/mathematicians/engineers working for Pirelly, Dunlop, Michelin and whatnot still employing variations of Pacejka's work? Obviously, you have to look at the math to understand why and why is it that full theoretical models present so many, many problems that tire and racing teams still employ other models.

Think about it. Think about what a full theoretical model entails: from thermodynamics, to materials science and chemistry. The amount of work to actually make it work is such that not even DK will go that way because there's simply not enough time, man-power or money to correctly research and develop such a model. What DK is actually doing is an approximation of a full theoretical model, with its inevitable compromises.

But that's ok. Most models in chemistry and physics have to overcome difficulties and compromises, eventually.

Bottom line is, whether it be from a empirical model, or a semi-empirical one, or a full theoretical, you have NO WAY OF KNOWING how much "fantasy numbers" are being used - unless the developer chooses to tell you.



Oh, this being a thread about bans and reasons...

AJ (WMD) made several interesting comments on isiMotor2 and iRacing's NTM (some I agree with, some I don't). Why then can't people freely discuss all these things, freely make comparisons?

 

[Hampus Andersson]

Tire physics is one of the most complex subjects in the world.

It is also one of the most researched, but least understood?!

Yes it is the least understood element of motor racing, bar none.

That's an exaggeration. Newer compounds, new car regulations - it is not easy to predict tire degradation for a large range of track temps, cars and pilot driving styles.

Not that much of an exaggeration if you compare this years tires to any other year.
No team really understands these tires, i doubt Pirelli has them locked down as well.
The only testing they have done is with a 2 year old car.

Sure they can see the data from teams in the pits but so does every other team, it´s complete transparency with Pirelli. Every question from a team get´s publicized for all the teams to see.

DK has been at it (NTM) for at least 3 years. He made some decisions that ended up costly (egg: his "theoretical thermodynamics" model).

The NTM was already announced as the "big revolution". Turns out the preview was better than the official 2.0 release. We discussed this for weeks at iRacing forums with DK himself. We know what some of his and his staff responses were. And we now know certain things didn't work out exactly as they intended and predicted. Finally, in the past 3 or 4 months, a series of updates brought the NTM back on track.

So, maybe we should refrain from jumping on the bandwagon and believe every milestone will be the next big revolution or evolution.

And yet you still can´t deny NTM 2.0 is indeed a revolution.
And you can´t deny it´s a work in progress.
And as you say, it gets better.
As i said, you have to build the basement before you start building the first floor.
Right now we are in the basement, working out the fundamentals of the tire model.