No I don't think that at all - it's not a two-way relationship. A 'realistic' car driving model is very difficult to drive fast, that's why there are professionals.
The above is in response to David, but if you don't mind I'd like to comment on it.
I have touched on that subject previously (on the difficulty and realism issue) and elsewhere, so no point in revisiting the whole matter.
But no. a realistic car driving model is difficult because it will allow you (or should) to do as they (pros) do. Actually, in order for you to be really fast in a realistic simulation, you have to work hard and follow the same steps/techniques real life pros do. To do that you have to max out every single time on a number of parameters - concentration being one of them. This is not easy.
Professional drivers discussed this issue with me, so I'm 100% behind their ideas and claims in this respect: a realistic physics model does not make driving difficult. The experience is made more difficult due to what I mention above. For me, that is all there is to this matter.
That doesn't mean that a difficult game is therefore realistic though. It does mean that an easy game is not 'realistic' unless it's also easy to drive those cars fast in real life. But shooting for that kind of realism is going down the route of simulation/modelling for a sake other than making you feel like you are a racing driver, and isn't of interest to me or some other people.
Indeed. Some people are content with pushing every single button in the start sequence of a F-16 C Block 50, and for them Microprose produced Falcon 4. Others can't stand that level of detail and seek the Ace Combat series produced by Namco.
Big difference indeed.
Going down the route of simulation for the sake of simulation is what pushes the envelopes for simracing development. High fidelity physics requires massive computational power, and on top of this we have AI, shiny graphics and great sound. Developers have to scratch their heads hard to make it all work. Having shiny graphics and merely acceptable physics (a la Novalogic flight simulation era) does not cut it in the long run; on the other hand, having all this on top of a good,solid physics engine changes everything and allows for a far better racing experience.
But humans are multitudinous and there are no doubt some people who like that sort of thing, in fact some games have little point other than to present a hard challenge and people simply enjoy conquering that challenge for its own sake - it's not for me to judge how other people should enjoy their games.
Kalniel, I see more people frustrated over unwinnable races against the AI in eye-candy racing games such as S2U than I see people frustrated over the likes of FVA or Race Room 2.
Curiously, the more developers build on on the gfx & sounds front, the more difficult they seem to forcefully make their racing games - probably to atone for the lack of a proper physics engine?
Detail in validating a model is not the same thing has needing a detailed model, but yes, you need the detail in the critical areas.
One cannot live without the other. I imagine you work in high energy particle software systems, I have also been working in an industry for a number of years for which the demand for detailed, adaptable systems is very high.
From my vantage point, for sure.
To what end though? For the sake of it is well and good, but is not efficient use of money/time. I'm suggesting that my gaming style requires that you should have the physics fidelity needed to give you the impression of being a racing driver. Any other physics modelling is wasted effort that could be better spent on improving the physics/compensations/enhancements better for me.
I have no doubt games development investors and publishers like EA/Virgin/Namco think exactly like that.
Your gaming style, as you call it, has different requirements from mine, and does not inevitable translate to being more viable from a commercial point of view or a financial point of view.
If we were talking about a simulation that took to the extreme of simulating how an isolated, out of sight fuel tube bounces and interacts with moving parts or walls, then I'd say you're right, no point in going that far.
In regards to tire physics, chassis physics and aerodynamics, I completely disagree. Any added detail is not wasted effort, it is however yet another step in the ladder towards greater realism. And the same can be said about the engine - even though it may, for instance, not necessary to fully model the temperature variations of a piston throughout a stint.
I don't think we're in disagreement here - the question is more of intent: Is the best way of giving the driving experience to simulate as much as we can, or is it to simulate to a lesser extend and tweak things to compensate for the computational power and media the game is presented through?
Ok.
What is the racing experience? If you (or anybody) is willing to live with a little bit less realism in order to increase detail in other areas, than you have to face the inevitable question: can we talk about racing experience as the most valuable trait in a racing sim when you are not able to mimic that experience fully? Are you able to, in pursuit of the "exciting racing experience", simulate most sounds (even those less frequent)? No. Are you able to simulate the temperature inside a cockpit or a cabin? No (unless you go to funny extremes like a guy that dresses up in sauna-like suits before each race). Are you able to replicate most events in a cabin (vibration, smells, heat, sound)? No.
So, what you call "racing experience" is much more compromised than what we hardcore want: physical realism.
Plus, we should not forget something: it is far less complicated to produce premium gfx and sounds than it is a first rate physics engine, it is relatively easy to hide a third rate physics engine behind a wall of hyped up absurd marketing claims and eye-candy gfx.
Yep, and I'm just taking that to its conclusion by saying is it really a fail if you, as the driver, feel no difference between the 95 and the 99% accuracy?
No, no fail. Double that difference and I am certain it is a fail and any competent, intelligent driver would know the difference.
Now move on a bit and ask: "If I can drop to that 95% level and it saves me some time/money, can I put that time/money towards enhancing another aspect of the game that makes the player feel more like a driver, like say FFB or screen representations of weight transfer via floating huds etc.?"
That is exactly what is happening nowadays due to limitations of current cpu-gpu abilities. So, in order for you to take that to the letter, we would be talking about differences in accuracy as big as 10 to 15%, which in my opinion is unacceptable.
With GTR:Evo they worked on improving the driver experience - I don't think the sim is massively higher fidelity (might even be less in some areas) - but they enhanced some things to help compensate for the fact you're sitting behind a screen - sounds, exaggerated motion to reflect weight transfer etc.
You may not see the improvements in the tire model and globally in the physics engine, but they are there and SIMBIN told us about it.
I disagree with you on your take of what SIMBIN did with GTR Evo.
But how do you define 'better'?
To me, it's about recreating the racing driver experience, to which underlying physics etc. are a useful tool, over and above 'realism', which when experienced behind a screen might actually seem less like the driving experience
The fact that we cannot get simracers killed or hurt (other than standing up, tripping and falling over gear and monitor) or sweaty does not mean physical fidelity is out of reach.
For you, the subjective "racing driver experience" is the most important. I respect that.
Accept that, for me, the very objective physics fidelity is the most important thing.