a litte perspective

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bozothenutter
  • 27 comments
  • 2,379 views
B

Bozothenutter

Messages
74
Messages
SudieB
The latest issue of EVO magazine has an article on the development of the Mclaren MP4-12C.
It is about the journo taking a ride in Mclaren's simulator.
In it the testdriver actually mentions that the 50Mil simulator cannot translate directly to the real car, and only because his experienc with both can he make a translation of cause and effect and vice versa..

puts the PS3 and GT5 into perspective...good yes, realistic...no way!
 
Well thats nothing new is it?
GT 5 is a game played with a pad or a "game"wheel.. so of course its not realistic it this way. But it can translate the feel of a car to a console very very well.. thats all :D

If PD says "best driving simulator" it is still a game ;)
 
After all this time I thought I spent $60 on a game that's drives like real cars? I want my money back... Better yet I'm just going to drive my real car... On second thought an 01' Focus is hardly realistic driving.......
 
I too read the article, and don't take that 50mil. budget for that simulator as all that impressive...GT5 is estimated to cost nearly double that in development costs alone...sure that includes licensing hundreds of other manufacturers and everything...but 50 million to development some sort of real time rendering simulator is simply par for the course any more...

Nothing virtual is going to perfectly simulate a situation where you are trying to see what it feels like to barrel down a track at 200mph...but effects on realistic handling and theoretical limits of a car are about as good as they are going to be for the time being...

I always liked this video...shows that GT5 is kind of big deal even as a real simulator, not just a game...sure one off test kits from car manufacturers can do certain things better...but its easily the best and most accurate readily available driving 'game' around...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=newX-mvGlm8
 
Bozothenutter
In it the testdriver actually mentions that the 50Mil simulator cannot translate directly to the real car, and only because his experienc with both can he make a translation of cause and effect and vice versa..

puts the PS3 and GT5 into perspective...good yes, realistic...no way!
Click to expand...

It's safe to assume GT5 cost about 50 million dollars in development as well. Money isn't everything ;)
 
I've seen it all. People are now favorably comparing GT5 to McLaren's devlopment simulator.
 
freedomweasel
I've seen it all. People are now favorably comparing GT5 to McLaren's devlopment simulator.
Click to expand...

Why is that so surprising? You think McLaren has some 'magic' way of programming a simulator that makes it light years ahead of GT5, or any other modern racing game with an emphasis on 'real'?...

I would bet everything that McLaren does pretty much nothing with that simulator in the first place...in terms of developing it...the simulator would be outsourced to some sort of developer that specializes in programming something of that nature...McLaren doesn't hire top tier developers/programmers for simulations and keep them around, the company actually is very small...They're money goes towards...you know, engineers and people that are actually making the real thing...The developers would work directly with said engineers and development of the actual car to accurately mimic every aspect of said car...to make a simulator for ONLY that one car...

and guess what PD is? A game developer that has made billions in the industry making games that are pretty accurate, but also pretty fun...There isn't some secret developer out there that knows all kinds of things that PD simply hasn't caught up with...the lack of realism in GT5 comes from the need to also make it fun to play...not to mention having a massive scope on the automotive industry...we can argue all day about where GT5 fails, with how you couldn't catch a car mid spin correctly in reality, or how more often than not if you drove in real life the way you do in GT5...you would die...

all I am pointing out is that its not because PD, or Turn 10, or countless other developers don't know how to make a 'simulator'...its just no one would buy it...i'm not overly defending PD or GT for that matter...GT5 was obviously rushed and everything, as most of the GT games have been...Its just with current home hardware and things available to consumers, its not going to get a whole lot more 'realistic' any time soon...
 
Last edited:
also Kleptic they have to cater for those people like me who just cant afford to get a steering wheel and stand setup. this seriously limits their ability to make it more real. when was the last time anyone drove around with a DS3 controller??? ;) haha so ur right I bet they know exactly how to make it a superb almost realistic game but its not possible when you get people who dont use a decent wheel setup :)
 
Kleptic
lots of text that I read
Click to expand...

I was primarily amused with the remarks on "so what PD spent the same amount of money" as if that was at all valid.

McLaren spends $X on a very specific piece of kit that does one thing very well (presumably). PD spends the same amount of money on software that runs on a predetermined piece of hardware. That software simulates pretty darn well (arguably the best) for a console. That amount of money was also spent modeling the cars, getting license agreements, creating menus, creating car washes, getting music and sound effects for all the cars, AI, online multiplayer, etc.

PD has a 50 million dollar swiss army knife, and I expect McLaren has a 50 million dollar fixed blade. Sure the swiss army knife does a ton of stuff, but relatively speaking, not of it is done as well as the specific tool you could use instead.
 
You all should stop taking the word "realistic" or "real" to compare with games.

Take "comprehensible" as word to explain experiences, so it makes more sense in relationship to games.

Bozothenutter
In it the testdriver actually mentions that the 50Mil simulator cannot translate directly to the real car, and only because his experienc with both can he make a translation of cause and effect and vice versa..

puts the PS3 and GT5 into perspective...good yes, realistic...no way!
Click to expand...

That´s the basis of all of us to translate our feelings while playing a game ;)
The experience of our non-virtual life makes it possible to compare the experience in games.

It is a bit psychologically, but a fact and starting point of discussions.
 
freedomweasel
I was primarily amused with the remarks on "so what PD spent the same amount of money" as if that was at all valid.

McLaren spends $X on a very specific piece of kit that does one thing very well (presumably). PD spends the same amount of money on software that runs on a predetermined piece of hardware. That software simulates pretty darn well (arguably the best) for a console. That amount of money was also spent modeling the cars, getting license agreements, creating menus, creating car washes, getting music and sound effects for all the cars, AI, online multiplayer, etc.

PD has a 50 million dollar swiss army knife, and I expect McLaren has a 50 million dollar fixed blade. Sure the swiss army knife does a ton of stuff, but relatively speaking, not of it is done as well as the specific tool you could use instead.
Click to expand...

^^ That and.... That ^^ and.... That ^^ ...... i couldent agree more 👍....except the fact that is apocaliptic stupid to compare this 2 things.
 
freedomweasel
I was primarily amused with the remarks on "so what PD spent the same amount of money" as if that was at all valid.

McLaren spends $X on a very specific piece of kit that does one thing very well (presumably). PD spends the same amount of money on software that runs on a predetermined piece of hardware. That software simulates pretty darn well (arguably the best) for a console. That amount of money was also spent modeling the cars, getting license agreements, creating menus, creating car washes, getting music and sound effects for all the cars, AI, online multiplayer, etc.

PD has a 50 million dollar swiss army knife, and I expect McLaren has a 50 million dollar fixed blade. Sure the swiss army knife does a ton of stuff, but relatively speaking, not of it is done as well as the specific tool you could use instead.
Click to expand...

No that's cool...I was in a way saying the same thing, just started rambling.

I was just getting at that PD could EASILY create a simulator for a company like McLaren, too. I didn't include the context of the article this discussion was about, as in the article makes it as if McLaren has some secret ability to have a simulator built, by witches or something, that no other developer, or car manufacturer could build...

GT5 is what it is because of us...not because PD couldn't make it, or didn't know how to make it, more precise, more accurate, more 'realistic', or whatever adjective is deemed acceptable for the time being.
 
Kleptic
No that's cool...I was in a way saying the same thing, just started rambling.

I was just getting at that PD could EASILY create a simulator for a company like McLaren, too. I didn't include the context of the article this discussion was about, as in the article makes it as if McLaren has some secret ability to have a simulator built, by witches or something, that no other developer, or car manufacturer could build...

GT5 is what it is because of us...not because PD couldn't make it, or didn't know how to make it, more precise, more accurate, more 'realistic', or whatever adjective is deemed acceptable for the time being.
Click to expand...

Exactly, comparing PD to the people who made the setup for McLaren is one thing. Comparing GT5 to the setup is totally different. :cheers:
 
I think there is some confusion between hardware and software here.

The McLaren sim cost is surely including hardware ... probably some 5/6 axis huge thing. The software is likely based on one of the existing physics engines available.

When in comes to building software for simulation, there isn't much left to be done to make it perfect. You have to realize that they are attempting to translate physics, which are fixed, in to a virtual world. It would be simple to just plug-in real world values for things and say it's the most accurate simulator.

Creative license comes in here as the developers have to take these real world values and make them "feel" like the real world in an environment with no feedback in most situations. The only real developments in the field are related to the accuracy of data, such as more tire segment samples and cross sections, material wear, etc.

PD wanted to create an experience that feels "real" to the player, where I'm sure McLaren wanted close to real-world data from their simulator as well as the "feel" of the car.

These 2 aren't really comparable, and definitely not at an investment level.
 
Whoa whoa whoa. Engineering is all about mathematics. McLaren’s mechanical engineers run these numbers in their sleep for real cars and fully understand them.

The difference here is McLarens's mechanical engineers are actually sitting down with the software engineer’s day in and day out to design this. Perfecting every single last item calculation and ensuring it is as accurate as possible.

One can't put PD in the same boat as that. PD is simply taking arbitrary numbers from sources and putting together a simplified mathematic calculation.

The PS3's processor can only do so many calculations per second (the thing was designed specifically for media) and it probably comes nowhere close to the hardware in a real simulator. A real simulator most likely has separate processors running different calculations, not just forcing a directed stream of simplified code to one of the SPE's. Real simulators also aren't wasting cycles for crap like 1080p, 5.1 digital audio, 3DTV processing, an XMB in the background, online status and profiles, power saving, trophies, etc etc etc.
 
Last edited:
Bozothenutter
The latest issue of EVO magazine has an article on the development of the Mclaren MP4-12C.
It is about the journo taking a ride in Mclaren's simulator.
In it the testdriver actually mentions that the 50Mil simulator cannot translate directly to the real car, and only because his experienc with both can he make a translation of cause and effect and vice versa..

puts the PS3 and GT5 into perspective...good yes, realistic...no way!
Click to expand...

It sounds to me that you are comparing a one-off $50 million simulator to a $60 videogame and assuming that the McLaren simulator is more realistic than GT5 simply because of cost.

First of all, just because it only costs us $60 to buy GT5, that does not mean that it took lesser of an investment to develop compared to the $50 million of the McLaren simulator. As several have already pointed out, GT5 dev costs most-likely surpass that $50 million.

Second, disregarding user interaction (steering wheel, pedals, cockpit, etc), what makes you assume GT5 is less realistic in the physics department?
 
TouringBubble
When in comes to building software for simulation, there isn't much left to be done to make it perfect.
Click to expand...

I disagree. While people can make pretty accurate codes, they'll run into the issue of finding a computer that can run said code. There's plenty of work done to make simulators as realistic as possible while also being as simple as possible. Even the $50,000,000 sim in question probably cheats here and there when it won't hurt the final accuracy all that much. Enough error accumulates to make the simulator flawed in some manner though.

As for GT5 vs the McLaren sim, the former probably pales in comparison. Tire grip as a constant, fixed CD, drag and downforce all wrong. GT5 is leagues behind. It's not because of cost though.

TouringBubble
PD wanted to create an experience that feels "real" to the player, where I'm sure McLaren wanted close to real-world data from their simulator as well as the "feel" of the car.
Click to expand...

Not an attack, but I don't see how purposely making the physics less realistic helps what you think PD's goal is in any way.
 
PD's goal was to create a driving experience that, as close as possible, mimics a real life driving experience. If exaggerating pitch/roll/yaw, exaggerating "speed," modifying friction capabilities/downforce, etc creates a better user experience, I guarantee they chose the experience over exact realism.

This is why 10 different companies can produce racing simulators and they all feel different when driving. Even comparing titles like GTR2, rFactor and Race you can tell you're driving a different piece of software, and they all use the exact same physics engine. If these things were based purely on exact physics then they would all feel basically identical.
 
It still seems to me that to get a driving experience that feels real, you need more accurate physics, not exaggerated physics. The things that bother me about driving in GT are those things that aren't realistic. They stand out. Realism on the other hand creates immersion. But it could just be me. Though I do agree that it is a possibility that PD purposely limited realism to make the game "better".

Regarding the other sims, they are all based on the same physics. They just don't use the same code. One code (yes engines are the same, but the coding might differ) might handle tire deformation better, while another might be be more accurate in terms of aerodynamics. I doubt that any of them were significatly tweaked to "feel better". I'd think that the differences come from the limitation of hardware/software to mimic real life.
 
Bozothenutter
The latest issue of EVO magazine has an article on the development of the Mclaren MP4-12C.
It is about the journo taking a ride in Mclaren's simulator.
In it the testdriver actually mentions that the 50Mil simulator cannot translate directly to the real car, and only because his experienc with both can he make a translation of cause and effect and vice versa..

puts the PS3 and GT5 into perspective...good yes, realistic...no way!
Click to expand...

Really?

50 million?

Gt5 gives more than 1000 cars for the same amount of money!
 
Dennisch
Really?

50 million?

Gt5 gives more than 1000 cars for the same amount of money!
Click to expand...

"can't tell if serious meme"

Is this a case of sarcasm failing to get through the internet, or do you not understand the difference?
 
freedomweasel
"can't tell if serious meme"

Is this a case of sarcasm failing to get through the internet, or do you not understand the difference?
Click to expand...


Ah dang, my sarcasm failed. Sucks to be me.
 
unusual_sarcasm_notice.jpg


freedomweasel
We need a specific sarcasm font or something. :cheers:
Click to expand...
 
Exorcet
It still seems to me that to get a driving experience that feels real, you need more accurate physics, not exaggerated physics. The things that bother me about driving in GT are those things that aren't realistic. They stand out. Realism on the other hand creates immersion. But it could just be me. Though I do agree that it is a possibility that PD purposely limited realism to make the game "better".

Regarding the other sims, they are all based on the same physics. They just don't use the same code. One code (yes engines are the same, but the coding might differ) might handle tire deformation better, while another might be be more accurate in terms of aerodynamics. I doubt that any of them were significatly tweaked to "feel better". I'd think that the differences come from the limitation of hardware/software to mimic real life.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on this. Ideally he most accurate physics would render the most accurate simulation ... and that's true. A real simulator (like the McLaren one mentioned int he OP) would be about as true-to-life as possible.
With things like GT5 and Shift and Forza, they have to consider that many people will be playing with a controller and not a wheel with load cell pedals and 6-axis motion chassis. This is why I feel that concessions are made against realism and for "immersion" to fill in for the lack of feedback from the game.

In sims made more for wheel users, there would be, in my line of reasoning, less of this occurring and more of the true-to-life physics would stay in tact. The wheel offers slightly more feedback that's more like a real car, and therefore less modification to real-world numbers would be needed to "fake" the sensations.

And you are correct about how the different software handles different pieces better/worse. For instance, Live For Speed has a great tire model for tuning with like 28 cross sections and 3 areas of the tire that are all heated/worn independently. Being able to flat-spot your tires if you lock brakes is a cool trick. This happened, as you said, because computers can now handle it. This is the kind of thing I was referring to in my initial post ... these are the types of things that are improving. Implementation of physical properties if you will. How tires work hasn't changed ... they have just found better ways to translate that data and relay it to the end user.
 
Back