Physics thread

  • Thread starter LVracerGT
  • 1,459 comments
  • 129,157 views
2,498
United States
Iowa, USA
LVracerGT
There's a lot of us who haven't had the opportunity to try out Project CARS. We know it looks fantastic, but how does it drive? How does the FFB, overal car feel, weight transfer feel compared to GT, Forza, iRacing, AC etc.

Post your experiences/opinions here đź‘Ť
 
There's a lot of us who haven't had the opportunity to try out Project CARS. We know it looks fantastic, but how does it drive? How does the FFB, overal car feel, weight transfer feel compared to GT, Forza, iRacing, AC etc.

Post your experiences/opinions here đź‘Ť
You jumped me to it, thought about creating the very same thread this afternoon seeing there is a lot of unclarity (people saying it isn't up to par with AC, and reminds them of Shift in a way).

There's a lot of us who aren't able to test it for themselves, so feedback is very much appreciated from the ones that are lucky enough to be 'part of the game'.
 
There's a lot of us who haven't had the opportunity to try out Project CARS. We know it looks fantastic, but how does it drive? How does the FFB, overal car feel, weight transfer feel compared to GT, Forza, iRacing, AC etc.

Post your experiences/opinions here đź‘Ť

First of all... what car do you want to know about? Each car feels and drives differently because the FFB is actually based on the steering rack and suspension geometry data of each car.
So change your camber/toe/caster and it will feel different again. Change tyre pressure and it will feel different again. Etc etc etc.

Also with that in mind it things like the physical shape and geometry of a curbstone come into play. The shape of a bump in the asphalt surface. The change from one kind of asphalt to the next.
So depending on how hard or soft your tyre is, how your alignment is setup and how the car's rack works will determine how much of a jolt you will feel through your wheel.

So yeah... it's not a general FFB system like in other games. Like... let's stack some canned effects and that's it.
In pCARS we really have a live pure FFB system that continuously works in sync with the other physics systems within the game to provide you that accurate and real feel of being on a road with a car, and you can feel the difference.
So it's not like other games where you have different curbs but all curbs give a perfect sawtooth to send to the wheel. It's not like that at all.
 
For the record, I don't have beta access (I recently remembered that I snagged a forum account, so I can read the WMD forum but I can't post).

It's clear based on reports and forum posts that everything is still in progress. It's too early for anyone to know how the physics will turn out in the finished product; there isn't any car that has been "nailed down" yet, as far as I can tell. Certain cars are further along than others. Slightly Mad has been collecting feedback as they go, from their professional consultants (Ben Collins and Nicolas Hamilton) and from the players.

Given that Project CARS runs an evolution of the Shift 2 Unleashed engine, it appears they've already worked out the wacky uncontrollability of that game:

 
Indeed Wolfe. The cars are still evolving Physics wise as we speak as bugs are being squashed and features (read Physics elements) are still being added.

We have 3 Professional Consultants btw:

- Ben 'ex-Stig' Collins: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Collins_(racing_driver)
- Nicolas 'brother of Lewis' Hamilton: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Hamilton
- Oliver 'Oli' Webb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Webb

Oliver Webb was also the factory test driver for the BAC Mono ( http://www.bac-mono.com ).
Next to this we always have someone involved from Dubai Autodrome ( http://www.dubaiautodrome.com ). Have continues feedback from the guys of Gulf-Sport Racing LLC ( http://www.gulf-sport.com ), which are the ones behind the Formula Gulf FG1000.
Also we have constant interaction with McLaren (remember a discussion about how bright they (McLaren) thought a LED brake light should be), and other manufacturers. Who all in turn give us CAD data for their vehicles. If present at least, cause in olden days they didn't have CAD. So there we need to rely on reference pictures and measurements taken by hand.
 
Given that Project CARS runs an evolution of the Shift 2 Unleashed engine, it appears they've already worked out the wacky uncontrollability of that game:

Damn look like he is driving a waterbed there, i don't remember Shift 2 being that bouncy though so i'm guessing it's one of the jinxed cars or he screwed up the setup. Anyway what you guys said seems very promising.

How do you yourselves feel about the 'temporary' physics at the moment compared to other games, which yes are finished unlike PCARS, but i'd like to have an idea anyway ;)
 
How do you yourselves feel about the 'temporary' physics at the moment compared to other games, which yes are finished unlike PCARS, but i'd like to have an idea anyway ;)

It shows big promise to be right up there at the top. But tbh this thread makes more sense much later, around after the summer or so. So much still in progress.
 
Personal opinion of the incomplete here and now.

The cars are definitely naturally racable. Yet they still need a clutch bite/slip tweak here and there to make them better drivable (being worked on atm) to say... slowly exit your box without hitting your opponents pitcrew or car.

The overall driving experience is indeed very natural. I even put my mom (hasn't driven in a car in 10 years) behind the wheel, and she easily took off. Well, except she gave too little gas with the current amount of bite from the clutch.
The sensation the Physics systems give you are right on the money and I personally have no more moments where I think 'WTF just happened?'.

Like JVM says though, the guys are still working on a lot of things. For example due to intervention of Gulfsport we are now trying a different tyre and heating model. And that heating model is really complex, so it takes a lot of testing and back and forths still. I'd almost think it's as complex as the tyre model itself (so the rubber, the carcass... Etc).

To be honest I am amazed my computer can calculate it all in realtime as there is just so much going on underneeth the hood of this game.
I wouldn't want to try to run it on my old Commodore Amiga 2000 at least. :dopey:

But yeah, I am personally happy with how things look now. Wish we had more time to put more features and elements in there though. However, I think you guys would like a shot at it too at some point without thinking it is vaporware. :sly:
 
JvM
Or PS3/XB360 :sly:

Talking about those. I want to stress here that all these real-time calculations as we have now, would definitely not have been possible on those old consoles. And in my personal opinion without them or a fraction of some of these real-time physics elements and the rest done the old way; it would definitely have made pCARS feel like any other sim out there.

Think about things like throttle response, turbo/superchargers surges, brake fade, engine stall and bump starts, flash temperature changes, actively changing shape and size of the contact patch on a tyre.

Well, I could name a whole list of things. One thing is for sure that we wouldn't be at this level when sticking to old consoles.
Are we now a cut above the other simulators out there. Personally I think technically we definitely are, although maybe not with all things from all sims. At some parts we might equal sim X or Y. However, while we are technically advanced we still need to dial everything in and finalize stuff. So I can't say that we are actually gameplay wise there yet, but pCARS for sure has the technical capacity to get there easily enough.
 
Between rFactor and GTR2 which does pcars feel like the most?

pCARS feels like pCARS. The others just feel canned in comparison and... just don't compare anymore, sorry.
Which isn't such a bad thing that I say that. Sims of that age had to deal with more restrictions (i.e. worse hardware) than we do today.
So what I basically want to say is that the difference is day and night (in my opinion), and that we are basically talking about 'Last-Gen Simulations Physics' versus the 'Next-Gen Simulations Physics'; of which the difference is far to great for a fair comparison.

What you are basically asking in a different example, and in my eyes is how a Playstation 2 and a Playstation 4 compare with each other. To which the answer would be... "Well, they both play games and um... DVD's and a music CD here and there'.
Or in the case of rFactor/GTR2 versus pCARS... "Well, they both simulate Physics, are a racing game and have sounds and visuals to match their generation".

Without anymore sillyness, what I mean by canned is that you can anticipate what effect you will get, or that you will get exactly the same bump feel on every bump. Stuff like that.
For example, I can drive on the laser scanned Brands Hatch circuit for 100 laps if I want to. I might know where the bumps are and what the kerbs feel like by the end of it, but each lap I will attack the bumps and kerbs differently... with a different feel through the wheel as a result each time I do so.

So it really isn't as simple anymore as in the old days where we used to have predetermined reactions to every action the player makes with his virtual car. Everything with pCARS is more organic and dynamic in that respect, and I am sure others will follow at some point.

Which is really the point we want to get at really. Nature by itself is a dynamic and organic entity that never stands still, so eventually we will have to work towards recreating such an environment virtually as well. In a way making worlds like you see in a Star Trek holodeck, or the virtual world in the movie The Matrix. In both of those virtual systems every molecule is recreated and has a reaction to one another, and all of that has to be calculated in real-time. Something our supercomputers still can't do today.
So until we get to that point the game developers of these great simulation games will have to make due with the limited computer resources that we have, and with each generation that passes they will have to make an improvement... making the next Crysis of the Racing Sim World. ;)

ps. Sorry for the long answer. :embarrassed:
 
pCARS feels like pCARS. The others just feel canned in comparison and... just don't compare anymore, sorry.
Which isn't such a bad thing that I say that. Sims of that age had to deal with more restrictions (i.e. worse hardware) than we do today.
So what I basically want to say is that the difference is day and night (in my opinion), and that we are basically talking about 'Last-Gen Simulations Physics' versus the 'Next-Gen Simulations Physics'; of which the difference is far to great for a fair comparison.

What you are basically asking in a different example, and in my eyes is how a Playstation 2 and a Playstation 4 compare with each other. To which the answer would be... "Well, they both play games and um... DVD's and a music CD here and there'.
Or in the case of rFactor/GTR2 versus pCARS... "Well, they both simulate Physics, are a racing game and have sounds and visuals to match their generation".

Without anymore sillyness, what I mean by canned is that you can anticipate what effect you will get, or that you will get exactly the same bump feel on every bump. Stuff like that.
For example, I can drive on the laser scanned Brands Hatch circuit for 100 laps if I want to. I might know where the bumps are and what the kerbs feel like by the end of it, but each lap I will attack the bumps and kerbs differently... with a different feel through the wheel as a result each time I do so.

So it really isn't as simple anymore as in the old days where we used to have predetermined reactions to every action the player makes with his virtual car. Everything with pCARS is more organic and dynamic in that respect, and I am sure others will follow at some point.

Which is really the point we want to get at really. Nature by itself is a dynamic and organic entity that never stands still, so eventually we will have to work towards recreating such an environment virtually as well. In a way making worlds like you see in a Star Trek holodeck, or the virtual world in the movie The Matrix. In both of those virtual systems every molecule is recreated and has a reaction to one another, and all of that has to be calculated in real-time. Something our supercomputers still can't do today.
So until we get to that point the game developers of these great simulation games will have to make due with the limited computer resources that we have, and with each generation that passes they will have to make an improvement... making the next Crysis of the Racing Sim World. ;)

ps. Sorry for the long answer. :embarrassed:
Keep up with the long answers please:tup: My anticipation grows with each post:cheers:
 
Psysics change daily for me, there is very little point having an opinion on it atm. It's showing all the signs of being a bit special. I'm sure you'll all love it.
 
Thanks for going into so much detail @LogiForce :cheers: I hope the PS4 version of pCARS is as good as the PC version. It sounds like the feel of everything is above everything else at the moment.

Besides what you can feel through the wheel with FFB, how do the cars feel overall? I've been hearing some concerns about pCARS still feeling arcade-ish.
 
Thanks for going into so much detail @LogiForce :cheers: I hope the PS4 version of pCARS is as good as the PC version. It sounds like the feel of everything is above everything else at the moment.

Besides what you can feel through the wheel with FFB, how do the cars feel overall? I've been hearing some concerns about pCARS still feeling arcade-ish.
You've gotta ask yourself who are the ones saying pCARS feel arcade-ish. The ones I've heard were GT fans in an effort to prove one is better than the another. But one thing is for sure: if pCARS is arcade-ish, so is GT6.
 
Thanks for going into so much detail @LogiForce :cheers: I hope the PS4 version of pCARS is as good as the PC version. It sounds like the feel of everything is above everything else at the moment.

Besides what you can feel through the wheel with FFB, how do the cars feel overall? I've been hearing some concerns about pCARS still feeling arcade-ish.

Arcade-ish? Like the wheel position hasn't any relation to the rate of turn in? That arcade-ish?

I think most people might refer to it as 'floaty' feeling. However, I noticed most people that feel this way have older (often gear-driven) wheels. I don't have this to be honest, and it all feels as close to real as possible. I just keep running into limitations of my sim racing gear.

God please give me a SimSteering steeringwheel. :bowdown:

What I currently use is:

Steering wheel: Thrustmaster T500 RS + 350mm aftermarket rim + GT rim + Ferrari F1 rim
Pedals: Fanatec Clubsport Pedals v2 (with some small mods)
Shifter: Fanatec Clubsport Shifter SQ


Back on topic though. All this talk that is still going on about 'arcadish' and 'floaty' has reached the ears of SMS their Physics guru, Andrew Weber. So he started a 'Floaty Steering' topic and asked the community to explain it all to him why they feel like that, with what hardware and so on. Currently we are on a quest to try to nail down where it comes from and remedy any remaining issues that might cause someone with any hardware to feel that way about the Physics driven FFB.
Currently that topic contains 37 pages (10 post per page) and is about a month old, and still counting.


So please rest assured that SMS and the WMD community are trying everything in their power to give you guys the best experience out there.


With that I leave you guys with a comment from a guy who lives in the same small city as me, which he made on Race Department about the fundamentals of FFB. Niels Heusinkveld!

Enjoy...

FFB is always an interesting discussion! These are just my personal thoughts, and don't necesarily fully reflect what we at Reiza will end up doing.

For cars with downforce, it would be a good idea to have a speed dependent FFB multiplier, so hairpins and fast bends both 'max out' the FFB, giving you as detailed feedback as possible. This is not technically too hard either.

There is low speed and low speed; on the race track low speeds will still be 30mph / 45km/h. FFB behaviour near standstill is a different thing but not really important as race sims are not parking sims. The latest realfeel can mix some Leo with some TechAde so you get some resistance at standstill, so it doesn't feel completely weird! For GSC and in real life, at low speeds you encounter fewer track bumps per second, and their impact on the car is less. Road information through the wheel will fade out as you go slower, but that is logical. Other than that, I can't really see what could be 'missing' from low (30+mph) speed, only that downforce cars have weak FFB at these speeds. So my question is, what tends to be missing in sims / low speed FFB?

Adding effects to compensate for not being in the real car is something I never felt the need for. I use experience and my eyes / ears to 'feel' the car. FFB doesn't tell me, because it simply doesn't always work like this, if I've reached the maximum grip or when the back end is sliding. It all depends on what is happening. FFB is a force that tries to keep the front tires rolling in the direction the car is moving or sliding. This is great because the center of steering isn't always 'straight ahead'.

Getting in oversteer, the center of steering moves towards opposite lock. FFB will guide you towards this new 'center' and helps you apply just the right amount of opposite lock. Too much opposite lock will make the FFB force change direction again. So in short, opposite lock is first aided by FFB, then after you've reached the ideal amount of opposite lock, FFB will try to prevent you from applying more. FFB will try to catch the silde for you!

Getting out of oversteer is hugely important. Doing it badly can cause nasty tank slappers and expensive crashes. FFB should have prevented you from applying too much opposite lock, but as you take throttle away and the car begins to straighten out, FFB again will help you find the new stable center position of the wheel, which is likely to be more or less straight ahead. Both the timing and the amount of steering is very important and a good FFB wheel in a 'sluggish big car' might even get out of oversteer by itself!

Letting go of the wheel in oversteer is NOT a good idea (most of the time), as you probably want to manually apply some over or under correction combined with your experience as a driver to get the car to do what you want. FFB is just a HUGE help, it tells you where the car is happy so you can make small adjustments from this happy place to get the car doing what you want. This goes for drifting but just as much for racing at smaller angles. FFB tells you where the 'center' of steering is, and all the action happens say within 45 degrees of steering wheel lock around this center.

All I really care about here is to feel forces build up as I move away from the center. Ideally this is stong enough to really let me feel where the wheel wants to be, but all I care about is "a force" in "the direction towards the current FFB center". I do NOT look for any specific micro detail. There is no wheel that will tell you the tires are 80 or 90 degrees, or if they are 20kpa over inflated. I'm sure my Bodnar wheel will notice it, but while driving, us humans are busy with a load of things. A few % change in forces are unlikely to be noticed.

The other part I find very important is locked brakes. FFB will go very light when you lock both front tires. It doesn't always tell you the inside wheel is locked because this is usually a lightly loaded tire that only has a small effect on the total FFB. The outside front, highly loaded tire is the one causing the main forces, but this is the case in real life as well.

So I just want there to be a force around the 'center' of steering, where the center can move about depending on under/over steer. I really don't look for 1% changes in FFB because of tire wear or heat, as even though my Bodnar wheel will measurably feel different, us humans won't really feel the difference. On a G25 class wheel, subtle force effects are simply more likely to exist between the ears rather than between the hands.
smile.png


Even something seemingly simple as the FFB telling you how much grip the tires have isn't so easy. In steady cornering, FFB will start to fall when grip is still increasing. Sure you can feel the FFB is increasing and stabilizing, or falling off, but that tells you nothing about your G forces. If you only felt the tire part of the FFB, some cars would have NEGATIVE force feedback by the time you reach maximum grip. Odd eh! So FFB is a rubbish G meter.

Given limitations of the G25 class wheels, adding speed dependent FFB for downforce cars makes sense. You would feel a decent amount of FFB in hairpins rather than feeling pretty much nothing, while having no clipping of forces occur at higher speeds. I see no real reason for adding other effects, like vibration around 'peak grip' or canned bumpyness or kerbstone effects. If the circuit modeling is good, you will feel kerbs and the road just fine.

But that is my 2 cents (well, more like 2 euro!) on the matter. Again, even with my G25 I never really wanted to feel specific things. It did the main job that I explained above. Nowadays with my Bodnar wheel it does the same, just a lot better and stronger so it is even more of a help telling me where 'neutral stering position' is. Then its up to my experience to make the car go quickly around the circuit..

But that doesn't mean there aren't any good ideas to improve FFB, so if you have ideas, I can offer my perspective on them.
 
Thanks again @LogiForce for all the detailed insight. It sounds like SMS is creating the dream sim, I can't wait to try it for myself. I almost bought into it when it was first announced, but I didn't (actually still don't) have a gaming PC. I was surprised with a PS4 last Christmas though đź‘Ť

I'll have to read the FFB book later :lol: I know a bit about FFB from my time on rFactor and GTR2 back when my gaming PC could handle everything still but it's been a while and I'm sure FFB has evolved just as much as the physics themselves since then.
 
Okay, here is a bit of WMD for you guys. This has already been solved a LOOOOOONG time ago.

In response to how the game felt in the summer of 2012 (two years ago!!!) I wrote the following post. Which was still when the system for it in place was still a place holder from the Shift 2 times, since development had just been started on pCARS.

In return Slightly Mad Studios developers went to the drawing board because of this and others their posts, and now we have what we call 'Volumetric Throttle Response' and the turbo and super charger system is making use of it too.
In other words, rather than linear RPM control that is hooked up to your throttle pedal we now take into account how much air goes into the engine when you open the throttle body. This means the game takes into account atmospheric pressure and all that good stuff. Which changes as the weather and elevation changes... etc.

All in all the new system really gave each car in the game their own character on the part you use the most, the throttle pedal. Also it gives beasts like the Lotus 89T a monstrous character, as those turbos feel right on the money.


Anyway, I just wanted to give you guys a piece of WMD level of talk to show how each subject of a car gets treated (e.g. think brakes, clutch, turbo, transmission, tyre compound, tyre carcass, tyre tread, tyre wear, tyre heat, engine heat, damage model, rain modeling, etc).
Each of such posts often result in a long discussion by the community and developers alike. So often each question any of you guys might have now have already been discussed in a manner as below within WMD by everyone on the inside. After all, we are the same sim racers as you guys are... with those same questions. Heck, having access raises more questions sometimes. ;)

So here is a snippet of what I once wrote... and remember this has been replaced by a complete new system so it is not relevant to the current condition of the game. I will assure you that throttle/engine response feels right on the money now.


Christiaan van Beilen
Hi guys,

I don't know if it has been mentioned yet, but I feel the throttle response is incorrect in the game as it currently is. However, I would first like to say I am no mechanic what so ever, thus I might be wrong here and there below. Also the numbers are fictional to represent the rough representation of the response from a car according to what is happening.


A go at trying to explain what I am getting at:

What is wrong in my opinion is that the throttle/gas pedal does not seem to be regulating the fuel/air mixture at all, but rather the RPM value of the engine which is only the result of the workings of an engine. Actually, the name "gas pedal" says it all really. It regulates the gas/air mixture intake of the engine, after which you get the Suck, Squeeze, Bang and Blow take place. The mixture going into the cylinder creating a particular size of Bang, which results in the increased RPM of the crankshaft. Which connects to a whole heap of things.

So what am I getting at, what is different you probably wonder? Well, it's the amount of RPM increase at a certain gas pedal position. Currently it's very linear and seems to be directly connected to the amount of RPM's.
Let's visualize the flow of gas a bit here using a simple old fashioned gas pedal with a wire to the throttle valve.

So we start the engine (injection engine) first with our gearbox in neutral (manual car). We put the car key into our key hole and turn it to contact. At this point electricity flows from the battery to the ECU (car computer) which boots the cars start up sequence with an engine diagnosis. If all is green the warning lights on your dash should go out (as per car manual), the fuel pump should be initiated and fuel starts to flow from the gas tank to the engine stopping at the fuel valve.

We turn the key to ignition. The ECU regulates the gas valve and air valve a bit electronically and makes sure the engine gets the proper fuel mixture to start the engine and run idle depending on the engine temperature. Gasoline now flows from the tank through the fuel pump, past the fuel valve after which it gets mixed by an electronically regulated air valve then goes on to all (assuming a 4 cylinder engine) 4 fuel electronic injectors which spray fuel into the cylinder champer according to the ECU.
Let us warm up the engine in our minds and it should rev around ~900 rpm.

Now what happens next is of interest, remember we are in neutral so no resistance of the parts that make the car move.
We start to push the gas pedal down a bit (about 1 to 2 mm) and the engine responds and increases its rpm to about ~1200-1500 rpm. Push it down to 6 to 7 mm and we end up with 2500 - 3000 rpm. 12 mm and it's 5000 to 6000 rpm. What is happening here?
What is happening is that when the engine's RPM increases it becomes far easier for the engine to spin it's crackshaft around via the Bangs made by the cylinders. And the easier the it gets the faster it will spin with the minimal amount of gas injected into the cylinder. Before reaching the half way point of your throttle pedal you will be most likely at or just before your rev limiter of your car.

Now what happens in 1st gear. With a gear engaged we have more resistance and the engine has to use more fuel mixture going into its cylinders to produce a bigger bang to rotate the crackshaft freely enough.
Let's drive off shall we? We put the gear in first, raise the engine to 1500 rpm (throttle pedal is about 3 mm in) and then slowly disengage the clutch until we feel the clutch plates barely gripping into each other. At this point you will notice a rpm drop of around ~500rpm and the engine (and car entirely) start to vibrate heavily, because the engine is near its idle point and about to stall due to the added resistance. So we need to bring the rpm back up to 1500. So we need more fuel in the cylinder to create a bigger bang. So down goes the gas pedal to about 5- 6 mm in (yes, almost at or equal to neutral at 2500 rpm cause of added resistance). The clutch plates start slipping more heavily now, so we bring up the clutch pedal some more to further disengage the clutch and keep matching our gas pedal accordingly. We are now rolling at around 1500 rpm. Let's increase our virtual speed (in our minds) to match about 2000rpm and run in 3rd gear. Now our pedal is pushed down about 8mm in.

Now I want you guys to do a little experiment (you have done it many times to overtake someone). Please visualize the revs increase and the time it takes for the revs to increase following tests. In each test I want you guys to let the car rev up to 6000rpm.
What I want to get at with this test is how much Bang and rev increase (and time to increase revs in) you get with the latter half of the pedal pressed down or not.

This is just your run of the mill car, with average acceleration. Like a 0-100 km/h in 10 seconds.

Acceleration test 1: Drop down the gas pedal to the floor and accelerate. See and hear the RPM increase from your engine. Also measure how much time it will take for you to go from 2000 rpm to 6000 rpm in 3rd gear with this gas pedal position.
You will notice that the revs increase are quite fast as expected. Let's assume you did the increase in RPM in about 5 seconds roughly with the gas pedal all the way down.

Acceleration test 2: Same as test 1, except now you depress the gas pedal to the half way point when reaching 4000 rpm.
At this test you should notice that it takes slightly longer to reach 6000 rpm. However, there is no real noticible de-acceleration going on. You just to continue to increase the revs of your engine, since the engine is still getting settled with the bigger bangs. What I mean is that the engine is still accelerating due to the engine running more freely due to the increase as mentioned earlier. The 6000 rpm should have been reached in about 8 seconds.

Acceleration test 3: It is the inverse of test 2. You start with a half depressed gas pedal and then go all the way down when you are at 4000 rpm.
Here you should start to notice that you are pretty quick already with the rev increase from 2000 to 4000. This is because the fuel mixture going into a cylinder will be maxing out the capacity of the cylinder with almost the biggest Bangs possible. Thus you create the most torque gain in the first half of the pedal. Now when you have put the foot all the way down you don't feel much speed increase in you gaining revs. This is because again the Bang is at its biggest in the cylinder and it is trying to force the other cylinders on the crankshaft to work harder then they can. While wanting to but being able to overcome this resistance that easily, the revs only continue to increase gradually.
So yeah, the size of the Bang in the cylinder difference the most in the lower half of the gas pedal, from 0-50%.


What I wanted to get at:
In pCARS and most games I feel that because the gas pedal seems directly connected to the RPM's you most of the time have to control the engine in the upper half of the gas pedal (50-100%). You get the feeling that you most of the time can just slam down the gas pedal, while this shouldn't be the case. The engine should be most sensitive in the lower half of the gas pedal.
iRacing does seem to have a good throttle response on their game. The Mazda MX-5 cup responds like my car in the real world.
So with this thread I hope to create some awareness of the throttle response of a car, and hope pCARS will get a real gas pedal response in it equal to or better if possible then iRacing.
It makes a difference when it comes to being able to more naturally control the car with the gas pedal.


If this has been brought up already, I am sorry for not being aware of it, but I tried to search the forum for something alike.

Cheers,
Christiaan
 
That's nifty. I can see what you mean by the game engine representing a "next gen" in simulation. đź‘Ť

I appreciate hearing more about stuff that isn't FFB, because although it comprises feedback from physics-level events, I don't consider FFB to be physics. I think well-developed FFB effects have a tendency to mask physics flaws for a lot of players (eg. Gran Turismo), while poor FFB effects can ruin the driving experience of a simulator with no other serious problems. FFB is very important to wheel users, but it says relatively little about how the game recreates vehicle handling and different cornering maneuvers.
 
That's nifty. I can see what you mean by the game engine representing a "next gen" in simulation. đź‘Ť

I appreciate hearing more about stuff that isn't FFB, because although it comprises feedback from physics-level events, I don't consider FFB to be physics. I think well-developed FFB effects have a tendency to mask physics flaws for a lot of players (eg. Gran Turismo), while poor FFB effects can ruin the driving experience of a simulator with no other serious problems. FFB is very important to wheel users, but it says relatively little about how the game recreates vehicle handling and different cornering maneuvers.

Actually that's what has happened during the development already. Before we went to the pure steering rack based FFB system we have now, we the members of the community and devs didn't feel something was wrong with certain cars. The FFB felt really good even though we used some canned effects here and there.
Once we switched to the system we have now the SMS crew actually noticed small geometry enty typos and other small issues that resulted in issues with the FFB that were otherwise missed or blurred by the layers of canned effects.
Even now when something new is being tried (new heating model, new tyre model, etc) sometimes things like oscilation at standstill and/or low speed might pop up on some cars but not the other. Such things can now be investigated right away, because we can feel the possible issue coming through the FFB system.

So you are indeed right on the money with that statement right there, Wolfe. đź‘Ť :cheers:
 
Another example into the level of detail that is involved in creating pCARS, although not physics related, is the 2013 BMW 320TC E90 reference collection. The CAD data that BMW supplied to SMS did not any interior, suspension, engine or undertray, so the gauntlet was thrown out to the community to find some refs (as it has been with other cars).

This time however, one of the manager-level members, mimaximax, contacted a racing team called PBRacing, who not only offered to take shots of what SMS wanted (and by that, I mean they supplied about 60 pictures covering everything, taking a frame-by-frame shot of the underside, measurements, detailing the dashboard equipment, ECU, engine (both in-situ, out of the car, and the empty engine bay), gearbox, door cards, just about everything you can think of), they also offered to give the devs all of the set-up sheets (suspension, engine, gearbox, etc.) for the 2013 season, and also their driver to test the car once it is in game.
 
I think aside from a few cosmetic and aerodynamic changes (which would be covered in the CAD), the underpinnings should be the same.
 
I'll tell you what, the level of detail going into pCARS is making me walk a little funny :sly::lol:

IIRC isn't pCARS being developed by the guys behind GTR2? Or is that misinformation?
 
It's kind of right. SMS were founded by some of the head guys from Simbin; Ian Bell took some of the lead designers and programmers to SMS, and the first titles were the Shift titles. The remainder of the Simbin staff after SMS left developed the Race Pro/07/GTR Evo games.
 
I'll tell you what, the level of detail going into pCARS is making me walk a little funny :sly::lol:

IIRC isn't pCARS being developed by the guys behind GTR2? Or is that misinformation?

Correct. The history of Slightly Mad Studios is as follows.

Simbin Studios -/split/-> Blimey! Games -/sold to/> Slightly Mad Studios

Now let's make the big chief wookie the center of this history lecture, Ian Bell.

Ian Bell was one of the founders and managing director of SimBin Studios. With them he created "GTR - FIA GT Racing Game" in 2005.
After this Ian Bell took the core group of what was than the SimBin Development Team and split off and created Blimey! Games. He was than contracted by SimBin Studios to create two games "GT Legends" (2005) and "GTR 2 - FIA GT Racing Game" (2006).
After this they acquired the Ferrari license in 2006 and wanted to create a game with it together with 10tacle Studios AG. However, after insolvency of 10tacle in 2008 the remainder of Blimey! Studios and its assets got sold to another company of Ian Bell, Slightly Mad Studios. This included the business and assets, and so also the Ferrari license and whatever assets have been made under that.
So now going under the Slightly Mad Studios flag the initial core Simbin Studios Development Team got contracted by Electronic Arts Incorporated to create "Need for Speed: Shift" in 2009. After its success they got contracted to do the sequel as well called "Shift 2: Unleashed".
In the end the developers of Slightly Mad Studios were not satisfied with the result from their dealings with Electronic Arts Incorporated, as the team loves racing simulations as much as we all do (and it shows in their earlier titles as deducted above).
So while they did learn quite a deal of working under the pressure of a big publisher, they went ahead and cut themselves free with the money acquired and created "World of Mass Development" or WMD as we all know it best now.
For their first independent project they wanted to go back to their roots, since "GTR - FIA GT Racing Game" was created by a team of community modders (that is what they were originally).
So they thought up the concept of "Project C.A.R.S." or in full "Project Community Assisted Racing Simulator".

During all the time above people have come and gone. Some did some (I think) freelance work for Simbin, EA, iRacing, etc. They went all over the place to acquire more skills and experience along the way, seeking new challenges to conquer.
Each and everyone of the team is very experienced in their field, and it shows in their resume. Doug Arnao (car Physics and AI) has for example worked with Dave Kaemmer (from iRacing) under the "Papyrus Design Group" on a little well know game... "Grand Prix Legends".
Project CARS' sound designer "Greg Hill" has also a cool resume. Working on titles like iRacing, rFactor, GTR 1 & 2, GT Legends, DIRT 1, GRID 1, FlatOut 1 & 2... and many more (just check his website... linked).

That's just two people, but there are a total of 110 people within Slightly Mad Studios as we speak... and growing. So imagine the amount of knowledge and experience within this team being combined with the community in an effort to create the best... can you? It blows my mind at least when I think about it.

Anyway, the Ferrari license and game was sold to Atari and was made into a game we now know as "Test Drive: Ferrari Racing Legends" of which the profits made were put to good use for Project CARS.
Furthermore Slightly Mad Studios has gotten a contract from My.com USA to create a new MMO arcade racing game called "World Of Speed". This game is being developed at the same time as Project CARS. The assets and game engine tech created and knowledge gained are (to some extend) being shared between both games, aiding in a shortened development time for both games.

Anyways, that's the history of Slightly Mad Studios in a nutshell I think. :lol: Though its a big nut looking back at my post. :eek:
 
Back