Most realistic racing SIM?

[Harry Freq]

As I asked in my previous post, which tune, in addition which car, track track condition, etc.

Without the ability to know this and tests this for ourselves it's simply unsupported anecdotal claims.

Exactly the same with AC, stick him in one of the two Maserati classic GP cars, I'd love to see one of those driven hard without spinning with half an hour, same with the yellowbird on high boost (to name but a few).

Dont know, Hes moved to Baltimore these days so only talk properly a couple of times a week. At mines in AC is was a good few cars starting off with the MX-5 through to GT3 cars.

You say its an "unsupported anecdotal claim" i think i know my best mate of 23 years and he has no reason whatsoever to tell me he cannot get to grips with PCARS 2.

I think you have mistaken my post im not asking for your help im just telling of my best mate's experince thus far with PCARS 2 and the very little time he had with AC. He doesnt own AC so i cannot stick him in anything.

 

[Scaff]

Dont know, Hes moved to Baltimore these days so only talk properly a couple of times a week. At mines in AC is was a good few cars starting off with the MX-5 through to GT3 cars.

You say its an "unsupported anecdotal claim" i think i know my best mate of 23 years and he has no reason whatsoever to tell me he cannot get to grips with PCARS 2.

I think you have mistaken my post im not asking for your help im just telling of my best mate's experince thus far with PCARS 2 and the very little time he had with AC. He doesnt own AC so i cannot stick him in anything.

You know him, we don't.

So it's unsupported anecdotal evidence.

 

[bleeder]

All I have to say is that imo the default setups in pCARS2 are far better than they ever were in the first game. I'm having to do a lot less tinkering this time around and I'm grateful for that.

I always load stable and add some oversteer from there rather than try to take it out.

 

[Harry Freq]

You know him, we don't.

So it's unsupported anecdotal evidence.

Whatever

All I have to say is that imo the default setups in pCARS2 are far better than they ever were in the first game. I'm having to do a lot less tinkering this time around and I'm grateful for that.

I always load stable and add some oversteer from there rather than try to take it out.

Yeah i agree they were really bad in the first. 2nd is better in this regard though this could be due to the physics being a bit better and understanding more on how the game works rather. They have made great progress from Shift to PCARS and then onto 2. Better physics means more natural feeling and you which in turn makes it easier to drive.

Im still not convinced though that default tunes are good enough for your average Joe id like to see them do more. Let people download tunes which would make things much easier for those that struggle.

 

[Scaff]

Whatever

The attitude is not needed, if you can't support the claim with anything substantial then it's anecdotal.

 

[ThunderLips]

To me this question/argument about what is SIM has become a thing of the past with the current group of racers. IMO they are all doing a great job at representing what it's like to drive a car. Physics are subjective. They are only an interpretation of what it feels like and some titles will work/feel better than others depending how the developers interpretation feels to you. Of course there are varying degrees of sophistication within each titles physics model and FFB but where at a point now that these games are all striving for more realism. And for that I'm so very thankful.

Jumping over to the AC conversation quick. It's funny that game was the bar standard for me. I started playing PC2 because it had more to do. While playing I would always think to myself AC is just a bit better. Then when I went back to A/V I found my memory of how the game felt was actually better than the game itself and these titles were much closer thsn I thought. For me what Pcars lacks slightly in its FFB is totally made up for by everything else. It delivers an incredibly immersive and predictable driving experience for me.

Cars should be predictable and for the most part easy to drive harder to push. This is why I always found Forza to be a joke. It's the most "arcade" out of all of them yet completely difficult to drive and predict. You have to drive the cars based on the physics and not on the nature understanding of how a car drives.

Confusing rant over.

 

[simsimsheree]

You know him, we don't.

So it's unsupported anecdotal evidence.

Which part? The spinning out constantly for 2 weeks, or the racing around comfortably after 2 hours? LOL

Is he likely to lie about that?

You really only have to look at PC2's online multiplayer to see how restrictive the car choice is by most lower level drivers. There are a few cars with quite acceptable and controllable stock tunes, and it seems a good 50%+ of all racing is done on those. Would that be considered supported anecdotal evidence?

PC2's stock tunes differ wildly from how well they can be tuned. Some cars approach perfection, some aren't even in the same solar system!

And again, acknowledging how critical tire pressures can be to that track setup, you only make more important that some kind of tire pressure advice from the Race Engineer is needed to make sure the casual racer doesn't flock back to GTS. If you really LIKE PC2, you don't really help further its success by calmly accepting its new player steep learning curve. PS4 Multiplayer online in PC2 is a barren wasteland of few players, mostly playing at low levels in the few GT3 cars that come with a decent stock tune. How is this going to help the game?

Console performance is already highly compromised against the PC version. No VR, lousy framerate replays, and general bugginess, add that how difficult it is to attract console players (who they burned pretty badly in PC1 by how bad the gamepad control was) and keep them, I don't hold out much hope for a continued console development. SMS have a bad habit of designing their games for the bleeding edge of PC CPU and graphics card horsepower, and console equivalency is something of a lost cause. That's not in the slightest likely to change as PC graphics cards outstrip consoles more and more every generation.

Add in lousy stock tunes, and no help at all with tire pressures, why would anyone want to play it if better handling stock tunes and a newcomer friendly introduction exist on other games?

First impressions in video games rarely get second impressions if the game unnecessarily goes out of its way to ensure that first impression is bad. PC2 badly needs a better pathway to acceptance. Or all it ends up with only players that are hardcore. That don't pay the bills, unfortunately!

Of course, this is only my uncorroborated anecdotal opinion. Maybe I've never played it at all, right? LOL

 

[Scaff]

Which part? The spinning out constantly for 2 weeks, or the racing around comfortably after 2 hours? LOL

Is the very definition of anecdotal.

Is he likely to lie about that?

Members here have done so about far less, not that it change the anecdotal nature of the claim.

You really only have to look at PC2's online multiplayer to see how restrictive the car choice is by most lower level drivers. There are a few cars with quite acceptable and controllable stock tunes, and it seems a good 50%+ of all racing is done on those. Would that be considered supported anecdotal evidence?

Not really given that the lobbies of AC are similarly awash with GT3 races at Monza.

PC2's stock tunes differ wildly from how well they can be tuned. Some cars approach perfection, some aren't even in the same solar system!

A point I have already addressed (for both titles in question).

And again, acknowledging how critical tire pressures can be to that track setup, you only make more important that some kind of tire pressure advice from the Race Engineer is needed to make sure the casual racer doesn't flock back to GTS. If you really LIKE PC2, you don't really help further its success by calmly accepting its new player steep learning curve. PS4 Multiplayer online in PC2 is a barren wasteland of few players, mostly playing at low levels in the few GT3 cars that come with a decent stock tune. How is this going to help the game?

Dittto AC, yet that was held up quite differently.

The favour GTS finds over both PC2 and AC has nothing to do with default tunes or tyre pressure advise (in which AC needs exactly the same doen and GTS doesn't even have).

Console performance is already highly compromised against the PC version. No VR, lousy framerate replays, and general bugginess, add that how difficult it is to attract console players (who they burned pretty badly in PC1 by how bad the gamepad control was) and keep them, I don't hold out much hope for a continued console development. SMS have a bad habit of designing their games for the bleeding edge of PC CPU and graphics card horsepower, and console equivalency is something of a lost cause. That's not in the slightest likely to change as PC graphics cards outstrip consoles more and more every generation.

Ditto AC again.

Add in lousy stock tunes, and no help at all with tire pressures, why would anyone want to play it if better handling stock tunes and a newcomer friendly introduction exist on other games?

And which games would they be?

First impressions in video games rarely get second impressions if the game unnecessarily goes out of its way to ensure that first impression is bad. PC2 badly needs a better pathway to acceptance. Or all it ends up with only players that are hardcore. That don't pay the bills, unfortunately!

Of course, this is only my uncorroborated anecdotal opinion.

Indeed it is.

Maybe I've never played it at all, right? LOL

Nope, its rather easy to prove.

I do however find it rather odd that members get into a situation that basically sees them ignoring the AUP over a very simple request for details on which car, track and tune (after all it could be up to one of three) this occurred with?

Simply proving that then allows any member who wishes to, to then have a go with the combo and provide feedback. Odd that such a simple request was responded to with avoidance and attitude.

 

[Wolfe]

I'm no beginner, but I have not actually been tuning anything since the SMS revamped the loose/stable defaults. Almost everything I pick up is good to go with one default tune or another. Roadcars, Group A, Rallycross, Vintage GT, Group B, GTO, Touring Cars...those are the sort of cars I mostly drive.

To me this question/argument about what is SIM has become a thing of the past with the current group of racers. IMO they are all doing a great job at representing what it's like to drive a car. Physics are subjective. They are only an interpretation of what it feels like and some titles will work/feel better than others depending how the developers interpretation feels to you. Of course there are varying degrees of sophistication within each titles physics model and FFB but where at a point now that these games are all striving for more realism. And for that I'm so very thankful.

A car either reacts correctly to given input in a given situation, or it doesn't. You can test and experiment with such things, and they can be recreated by other players or in the real world. Therefore, physics are objective. The issue of being unable to distinguish "feel" from physics tends to be something I see from a portion of wheel users who conflate FFB with physics.

There's no point dropping the subject when games are still more or less accurate than others, in some easily apparent ways in some cases. I think the debate is not settled so long as you can prove a game simulates something inaccurately or more/less accurately than another game. PCARS2 is certainly not above this, with its fuzzy tire temperature modelling and low-speed oversteer physics being two examples that aren't hard to notice.

 

[ThunderLips]

Of course there's some hard math in certain areas. But you're wrong to think it's objective. There is no math equation that can fill in the gigantic gap between the experience of being in a physical car vs sitting in your playseat. There is a ton of interpative work being done to translate that feeling to be delivered through a single piece of hardware. I guarantee they are constantly adjusting off the real numbers to get a better feel. PCars low speed overseer - you really think there is just a hard number or equation that would fix that?

 

[raven214]

Of course there's some hard math in certain areas. But you're wrong to think it's objective. There is no math equation that can fill in the gigantic gap between the experience of being in a physical car vs sitting in your playseat. There is a ton of interpative work being done to translate that feeling to be delivered through a single piece of hardware. I guarantee they are constantly adjusting off the real numbers to get a better feel. PCars low speed overseer - you really think there is just a hard number or equation that would fix that?

As mentioned above, physics and FFB are two different things. They relate to each other, of course, but FFB merely tries to suggest what the physics are doing to the car. So yes, low speed oversteer, for example, can be tested in-game and compared vs. the real world. With the proper tools you can define what is right for the car to do in the game.

FFB, I think, is more subjective. Some rumble and counterforce is basically all we have as physical indicators of what's going on with the car. That's not much to convey all the forces you feel when in the seat of the real thing, so there's an interpretation of how all the real-world sensations should translate to a video game's limited options. Combined with visual cues such as screen movement/shake or blur, and sound such as screeching tires, and you can simulate the experience better, but there will always be a fundamental limitation until we can all afford VR or a 3-screen setup with a motion rig - and even then it's still only a simulation.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Gotta be honest here, F1 Race Stars has got to be hands down the most realistic racing sim I've seen or played. Pcar2 isn't even close to the same.

 

[Wolfe]

Of course there's some hard math in certain areas. But you're wrong to think it's objective. There is no math equation that can fill in the gigantic gap between the experience of being in a physical car vs sitting in your playseat. There is a ton of interpative work being done to translate that feeling to be delivered through a single piece of hardware. I guarantee they are constantly adjusting off the real numbers to get a better feel. PCars low speed overseer - you really think there is just a hard number or equation that would fix that?

It's all math, just like the physics that govern our universe by can be defined with math. The limits of today's gaming hardware requires devs to take some shortcuts, but ideally those shortcuts should still produce behaviors that align with real physics, which are mathematical and objective.

It's not about the "experience", but what the car does when you perform X, Y, or Z at the controls. Every time I get myself a new sim, I spend some time with a variety of cars tossing the car around, shifting its weight around, getting on and off the throttle suddenly, drifting, doing donuts and burnouts, etc., looking for clues that something isn't right. Anyone can do the same and we can discuss our findings. We may have different interpretations or expectations, but reality is the benchmark.

Half the point of such discussions, in my opinion and experience, is to root out unrealistic concessions made for the sake of playability, as you mentioned.

 

[BreakerOhio]

GTS graphics are fantastic but it does get a bit old to me. So I still come back to PC2 for something fresh and more variety in cars and tracks. I clock in more solo time in PC2 than in GTS. GTS i sometimes play for the grind to get the mileage and cars...it has become more of a game and not so much the enjoyment of driving. When Im playing PC2 I have the enjoyment of driving the cars on the many tracks in the game. The camera and HUD options in PC2 are superior to GTS and helps to make the immersion better. I feel more satisfaction being able to drive well in PC2.

The PC2 patches have been great. The stable setup works well for almost all the cars. The drifting could improve with more opposite lock steering angle. The AI in PC2 is impressive.

Ive had some great races against the AI and their aggression turned up. Im impressed by the AI in PC2.

 

[Scaff]

As mentioned above, physics and FFB are two different things. They relate to each other, of course, but FFB merely tries to suggest what the physics are doing to the car. So yes, low speed oversteer, for example, can be tested in-game and compared vs. the real world. With the proper tools you can define what is right for the car to do in the game.

FFB, I think, is more subjective. Some rumble and counterforce is basically all we have as physical indicators of what's going on with the car. That's not much to convey all the forces you feel when in the seat of the real thing, so there's an interpretation of how all the real-world sensations should translate to a video game's limited options. Combined with visual cues such as screen movement/shake or blur, and sound such as screeching tires, and you can simulate the experience better, but there will always be a fundamental limitation until we can all afford VR or a 3-screen setup with a motion rig - and even then it's still only a simulation.

Even with FFB it's possible to get some elements of it objectively right, in particular self aligning torque and how it relates to the tyres slip angle. Particularly how it builds and then as the slip angle passes the point of the tyres limit drops off.

AC is still the best at this, with PC2 not far behind and GTS simply gets it wrong.

 

[simsimsheree]

AC is still the best at this, with PC2 not far behind and GTS simply gets it wrong.

OK... light starting to come on. Moderator 'opinion' is supported anecdotal evidence , anybody else's is unsupported.

Got it.

 

[Gr8_Lakes]

Even with FFB it's possible to get some elements of it objectively right, in particular self aligning torque and how it relates to the tyres slip angle. Particularly how it builds and then as the slip angle passes the point of the tyres limit drops off.

AC is still the best at this, with PC2 not far behind and GTS simply gets it wrong.

To me, GTSport lacks the feeling of weight transfer from front to back during throttle on/off situations. And the absolute need to use rapid downshifting for heavy braking zones makes the game feel less realistic to me. I do enjoy it's "fire up and race" convenience at times though.

 

[Scaff]

To me, GTSport lacks the feeling of weight transfer from front to back during throttle on/off situations. And the absolute need to use rapid downshifting for heavy braking zones makes the game feel less realistic to me. I do enjoy it's "fire up and race" convenience at times though.

The single biggest difference I find is the 'shaking' you get when you exceed the front slip angle and start to understeer in GTS.

The physics of how self aligning torque functions shows this to be incorrect (the torque curve drops straight off), it's impossible to say to exactly what degree AC and PC2 differ in this regard, but they both get the drop off of torque correct.

 

[2112]

Current figures quoted at SMS's forum indicate 50% PC at least. As does the traffic on each platform's forum. Don't forget, PC2 sales figures (those quotes are for PC1, right?) on console may very well reflect the mass fleeing of PC1 console players back to games set up far more for their console and abilities, combined with migration from console to PC for those that DID like the game but realized how compromised it was graphically and feature-wise (there's SO much more you can control in the PC version). PC1 was pretty close to unplayable on a gamepad, and you seldom get a second chance at that first impression.

Please also don't forget, 'physical sales' doesn't count Steam, probably the main way PC2 is played on PC.

But yes, I also agree that PC2 is the absolutely best current sim/videogame. But I am afraid I also think that, for the more casual player, it is a steeper (far steeper!) learning curve, even with TC on (which many online rooms ban if not accurate to IRL) and all that is doing is making the so-called 'best' game one of the least popular. And popularity is what sustains the breed, pays for bugfixes, development, new content and progress.

SMS eschew it at their peril!

Doesn't anyone believe in practice anymore? What happened to patience and the old saw about practice makes perfect?

I know I grew up in the days when monolithic creatures roamed freely but I also prefer to race cars from that monolithic age. Wanna talk about learning curve? And you say children are being scared off because they are having a hard time controlling a GT3 with TC, ABS and SC? Lemme know where they live so I am sure I am not on the road while they drive a real car.

No wonder I cannot get anyone to race Gp. C, Gp, 4, Gp. 5. Gp. 6, GP. A, etc...with me: It seems they are incapable of handling a car that handles all the fiddly-bits for them thusly grossly unable to handle anything that requires a modicum of driving skills.

Can't wait for self-driving race cars, then our "sims" will be of us in the stands watching robots...

GET OFF MY LAWN YOU WHIPPERSNAPPER!

In all seriousness: Sure, if you come from GT or Forza the learning curve may be steep but that is because you have come from a game that does a lot of hand holding for the player. If you come from one of those games with the expectation that PC/PC2 are "the most" you will be disappointed that it is not as difficult as you thought (See growing up in the Gp. 4,5,6 era) and wonder why you wasted your money. I was of the latter until I realized racing is not that hard, just takes a lot of practice to be successful in it.

And in real life, money.

P.S: I race with a lot of guys who are a lot faster than I am who only race stock tunes. Why? They cannot tune for poop; too lazy. They just jump in and drive. Fast. We do endurance races so they also do it for a long time.

 

[simsimsheree]

I guess it depends on what we want.

Me, I want loads of online rooms with lots of players and lots of choice (like I get on GTS). I want a fully-funded game developer that can afford to throw manpower at fixing bugs and adding DLC content, and still have time to develop the next game.

I don't see how this can possibly achieved with SMS's current strategy. If hand-holding the kids, if making an entry-level tier that takes FAR less skill and practice to have fun with is what it takes to achieve success, where is the harm in this..? As long as the challenge to 'master' the game stays where it is, only snobbishness could explain the resistance to adding a more noob-friendly entry level.

Or a seriously self-destructive instinct!

 

[killerjimbag]

I guess it depends on what we want.

Me, I want loads of online rooms with lots of players and lots of choice (like I get on GTS). I want a fully-funded game developer that can afford to throw manpower at fixing bugs and adding DLC content, and still have time to develop the next game.

I don't see how this can possibly achieved with SMS's current strategy. If hand-holding the kids, if making an entry-level tier that takes FAR less skill and practice to have fun with is what it takes to achieve success, where is the harm in this..? As long as the challenge to 'master' the game stays where it is, only snobbishness could explain the resistance to adding a more noob-friendly entry level.

Or a seriously self-destructive instinct!

Off to GT Sport ya go then.

 

[raven214]

If hand-holding the kids, if making an entry-level tier that takes FAR less skill and practice to have fun with is what it takes to achieve success, where is the harm in this..?

You mean the Ginetta GT5? I've found it very easy and fun to drive. Then there is the Ginetta Jr, which I reckon would be even easier. The entry-level tiers are already there.

 

[DesertPenguin]

And the Renault Clio Cup car, and the lower powered Radical. And the Formula Rookie...

 

[Scaff]

And karts, then turn on all of the assists and adjust the AI to match your needs.

On a purely personal note I actually find it harder to be quick and consistent in GTS, as no matter how 'approachable' the physics are, they don't act as they should in enough areas to be quite the barrier.

I don't find the same to be true of either AC or PC2, regardless of the default set-up.

 

[2112]

I guess it depends on what we want.

Me, I want loads of online rooms with lots of players and lots of choice (like I get on GTS). I want a fully-funded game developer that can afford to throw manpower at fixing bugs and adding DLC content, and still have time to develop the next game.

I don't see how this can possibly achieved with SMS's current strategy. If hand-holding the kids, if making an entry-level tier that takes FAR less skill and practice to have fun with is what it takes to achieve success, where is the harm in this..? As long as the challenge to 'master' the game stays where it is, only snobbishness could explain the resistance to adding a more noob-friendly entry level.

Or a seriously self-destructive instinct!

Ok. As long as they did it as you state: Keep the game as it is at (when it comes to skill level) but add some things to make it more accessible to others. I could go with that. A driving academy would be nice and a good way to get people to learn.

I don't know about adding gee-whiz things to the game though. I would shudder to see a story line, or even "power-up" modes in the game. One must understand that this game is not about powering up and making money to turn your corrolla into a 1000 hp monster. This game is predicated upon taking real race cars( or a simile when we bring up the SMS cars), with realistic (as best as they can get them) features and racing them competitively in a manner that simulates real races.

Sure, GTS is easier to use but that game is also a console game made to be used with a controller. PC is a PC game ported to console, made to be used with a controller but directed to the consumer that uses a wheel and even a sim rig. GTS has the "Hand Of God" to help you control the car. PC does not. Once that becomes part of the game it becomes just another GT game sold under a different dev name.

 

[Gr8_Lakes]

And karts, then turn on all of the assists and adjust the AI to match your needs.

On a purely personal note I actually find it harder to be quick and consistent in GTS, as no matter how 'approachable' the physics are, they don't act as they should in enough areas to be quite the barrier.

I don't find the same to be true of either AC or PC2, regardless of the default set-up.

Yup, I totally agree. I do very little online racing in GTSport because I don't want to "figure it out." AC, PCars 2: A little tuning perhaps, and practice will make you competitive. But GTSpurt requires learning how the physics handle certain situations in certain cars. Some things are a little unpredictable for me, and more frustrating when the same thing is repeatable. For example, I remember an understeer situation on Nordschleife that seemed really odd, and I went off track. Reset to the start of the lap and had the exact same thing happen in the same place next lap. To make the corner I had to approach it in a different manner than I would in the other two games. Changing driving habits to accommodate one game is disappointing for me - I don't want to form bad habits. But to be highly competitive in GTSport's online community these habits are required. So I stick mostly to occasional races against AI, and occasional cruises in VR mode. (Actually, a free drive or practice mode in VR would be really nice.) For the record, I don't despise GTSport. I just don't think it deserves to boast "The real driving simuator."

 

[Paulzx]

PC2 is hands down the best authentic console racer in my book. For what it offers, it can't really be equalled. AC is great but lack of content and under par visuals do make it feel like a runner up. GT Sport is a paradox and ultimately a failure through the overall experience, despite undoubted sales, contributed to by the masses etc. Visually, it's something you want to indulge in and spend time on, yet realism and physics are so badly lacking that it feels really unfulfilling. It has a kind of super grip to help players go fast without being punished, very unlike real racing. And it's soul-less when driving.
The online in GT Sport is where it fails ultimately though, because it's open season for fools to surround you.

For every few players you come across in GT sport who know what they're doing, there are many more who have a childish mind set. Racing in a lobby recently, the host evidently got hit in the race early on, and because he was unhappy with said driver, proceeded to trundle around slowly and drive into every car that passed him. When asked why, this cretin justified ruining everyone's race because one person ruined his...and he was the host! I haven't seen anything really like that online with PC2.

PC2 is a bit heavy on the tinkering and set up side, but very rewarding when you actually drive it, so along with the massive content, I would suggest anyone who is actually good at sim racing would be better off putting their time into this game as opposed to any other (especially GT Spotty)

 

[Spurgy 777]

It's been a while since I played PC2 but the last time I played the handling of a lot of cars was quite unrealistic with nearly uncontrollable oversteer on turn in. If they haven't fixed that then it's far from the most realistic sim. As for GT Sport physics being unpredictable, I don't really see that, maybe I'm just used to it by now but I don't feel as if I'm doing any particular tricks to go quickly and I don't think I change my driving style for other games at all, yet can still do fast lap times.

 

[Bealdor]

It's been a while since I played PC2 but the last time I played the handling of a lot of cars was quite unrealistic with nearly uncontrollable oversteer on turn in.

Increase the engine braking compensation slider in your car setup and your turn in oversteer should be history.

 

[Scaff]

Increase the engine braking compensation slider in your car setup and your turn in oversteer should be history.

Also change down later and blip that throttle plenty if your using a h-pattern.

That said I can't think of a car in PC2 that I have driven recently that does this unless I've messed up (downshifted too early) or is supposed to get unsettled on corner entry (FWD Touring Cars).

Regarding GTS, I have to adjust quite a bit compared to other titles, mainly in regard to braking and managing understeer.