Again I think we're more in agreement than it sounds - your examples of Namco and EA are examples I'd point to as not ones interested in the driving experience - they clearly have some other goal - cheap thrills, wowy explosions or whatever, which impacts on the modelling in such a way that it does not behave as you would expect or respond to your inputs the way a racing car would respond to a racing driver, so you have neither accurate physics nor a racing driver experience.
Well, their intention is to reach a wide audience through something they believe appeals to that audience: "intense, authentic racing experience". That is their professed motto, and that is what their marketing depts. sell. How they go about doing it, sadly, is most lacking.
I am fairly confident (though now lacking either a source or as accurate a memory as I used to) that the reason tyre physics were added to games like GTR:Evo is precisely because that helped create a better driver experience - things behave more like you expect, your inputs have more realistic outcomes, and the exaggerated movement helps make up for missing senses. I am sceptical that the tyre parameters were chosen a priori, or even with absolute reference to real data, but instead once the model was adapted they were adjusted until such a point that it 'felt' right and realistic.
We have to go back to the beginning of the godfather or racing simulations - Dave Kaemmer.
His intention was always to have a racing sim that effectively replicated the behaviour of racing cars. For that reason, he worked at several levels on the physics engine - from aerodynamics to tires.
All the way through GPL and beyond, computers were simply not fast enough to cope with the complexity of a wide scope simulation, encompassing everything from chassis to aerodynamics, engine and tires. So, he concentrated mostly on tires and an era where aerodynamics were not that important.
With faster computers they could model more areas of car physics.
ISI's creation encompasses everything. isiMotor2 (the basis for rFactor, GTL, GTR2, Race07/GTR Evo) has everything we could wish for - maybe not perfect, but very very powerful. Tire physics are just one aspect of pMotor2.
You don't add tire physics to the likes of rFactor or GTR Evo. Tire physics are a vital part of the entire physics engine, and a physics engine (whether that of a space sim, a flight sim or a racing sim) exists to simulate the physics of the real world for an intended target.
I'd say where you and I differ is the starting point.
You believe "tyre physics were added to games like GTR:Evo [...]because that helped create a better driver experience".
I believe the very reason for simulations to exist is solely because they simulate some aspect of the real world. You study that aspect and model it as accurately as possible - thus, a simulation is born.
We're both probably after good, realistic racing games. But you want something a bit different: a good racing experience, whereas I'm more interested in accomplishing the original goal of simulations. I suspect not everybody is after this and most people will tend towards your vision of racing simulations.
The other significant gain is for marketing - if you say your game has modelled tyre physics it's another check box in the feature comparison list that enthusiasts look for. Some people will like that for its own sake or the sake of making the game more realistic, others will like it for the hope that it helps recreate the driving experience better.
To be honest, there are 3 ways of looking at this issue, for 3 types of people:
- the usual thrill seeker, he cares more about having a good time than in racing properly. Having fun for the sake of it is the goal.
- the casual fan of racing sims, probably also the non hardcore simracer. He wants to simulate the atmosphere of racing in many of its vectors - inside the cockpit, the environment surrounding it, the colours and sounds, the lighting, the stands filled with people, probably good looking girls on the grid, probably a career mode. A stringent obedience to physical principles is not absolutely necessary for this simracer.
- the hardcore type. How the car reacts, the choices of setups, learning to drive as a racing driver, crashing and continuing to improve, the competition per se - above all, car behaviour is the one aspect that matters
Nothing wrong in belonging to any of these.
Different companies will cater for any or the 2 topmost types.
Also, it seems certain that the last type is the one that will be less advantageous from a financial point of view.
And, kalniel, gotta say, good discussion thus far.