It is good enough to portray differences in any engine configuration, firing order, manifold configuration, thermodynamic cycle, aspiration type, gas exchange timing and method (valves, ports etc.), fuel and so on.
They have filter options already, although I can't quite tell how they're used. You should be able to do a lot with the basic open pipe sound already, and I'd love to tweak the settings myself.
A lot of the settings are the same between cars - I suspected from the start that they were custom, temporary tunings. This apparently minimal modification from car to car, plus a lot of missing / null values, more or less confirms that. The upshot is that it's like putting the exact same exhaust pipe on each of the otherwise quite different cars.
The fact using the fake sounds for real cars is unfair. But PD has said that major updates regarding to sounds are coming in future updates of GT6.
What a shame... 👎
The Ralt, like just about every other car in GT, completely lacks just about all the subtle character that makes cars come alive. From intake sounds, to off throttle to downshifting and upshifting etc. etc. etc. it's completely clinical and pure which real cars on the track are not. It doesn't sound even close to a real car in the game. The sample is better than a typical GT car, but it's nowhere near close to sounding convincingly like a real race car. As Kaz himself has said, "it's too perfect".
The sound system is not an issue for me. Like I said, it's a step in the right direction, I can hear what they are trying to do, but it still sounds clinical and pure to me, it lacks character and personality. It sounds like an electronically created sound not a real engine, which is the goal IMO.
How is it negative when I said it's better and improved, just not realistic just yet? I can see things from many sides I'm not a one dimensional human being who thinks if something is good or better than it was, that we mustn't say anything negative about it.
The AES cars have varying off throttle ability, the Subaru being the best. The extra controls they added for that one car are so powerful. What most people don't realise is that harmony they seem to celebrate elsewhere could be an order of magnitude better if it didn't rely on naive blending of fixed content.
Found another intake vid.
Compare exhaust, and interior.
Despite the louder exhaust, the intake sound is still prominent in the cabin.
(Ignore different models, not significant.)
Intake's super important.
Regarding that sense of "being there", you'll never get that with recordings (in a game), partly because ears don't work like microphones, but mostly because recordings are fixed. You could do fairly well with binaural recordings, but they're still fixed, and only work for people with similar head and ear size / shape as the "dummy" used. They only work with headphones, too, and that means they're quick to "break" if you look around (HMDs).
You need to (at least approximately) simulate acoustic transfer. PD are the only (car game?) developers I know of who are doing that, and have been doing since GT5P. Of course, it helps little when you use awful samples, but it's there waiting nonetheless.
"Acoustic transfer" is tricky to remove from recordings, in order that you may apply your own according to the situation in the game, so it will be the almost sole domain of generated sound if it's true power is to be realised.
We agree to disagree..or at least I do
If you want to know my general posting demeanour, then "follow" me and keep track of my posts. If you see something you disagree with then challenge it. Everyone is welcome to do so.
Thanks, I've had a go at this sort of thing, so I'm quite excited at the prospect of a mainstream game adopting such a risky strategy!
Thanks, I've had a go at this sort of thing, so I'm quite excited at the prospect of a mainstream game adopting such a risky strategy!
GT5P was the first GT game to get a "sound simulation" credit, and it was mostly to do with how the sounds we're mixed, processed, filtered etc. according to the physical principles that govern the real thing. There was a bit of physically correct synthesis going on, too. AES is more like a continuation of that approach, another piece of the jigsaw.
Acoustic transfer is all about how structural vibrations "transfer" to the air (where vibrations are called "acoustic"). I use it more generally to mean mapping the 3D propagation of sounds from complex sources, be they structural, acoustic, whatever.
Most games use monopole sources, the simplest imaginable kind (perfect spherical radiation pattern), and theoretically impossible: unphysical. They work well with mono recordings, because they add no extra colouration, which would otherwise clash with the colouration already in the recording. That colouration comes from the mic placement (and its type etc.) relative to sound sources and the environment, i.e. where it sits in the resulting (real) 3D sound field and its hugely complex interference patterns.
Codemasters use a mixing method that captures the virtual 3D sound field at the listener's location, but only if that sound field had been created by monopole sources. It's better than the unphysical "panning" in the usual multichannel mixes, but the transfer is still more important because it yields more realistic interference patterns at the listener, which would be obvious even in a mono mix down.
Generated sounds don't have any colouration, so the use of more complex source models does not reduce the quality; in fact it is absolutely necessary to guarantee quality!
come with intake sound, no straight pipe and less raspiness? I'll probably be back to day one release with GT7 if they do, rather than the wait for review camp I'm currently bivouac'd in.
