Project CARS General Discussion Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Terronium-12
  • 20,830 comments
  • 1,854,659 views
Has there been any words about a demo ?

Im sorta undesided if I should buy PC or Xbox one version.

PC would be nice to use the wheel, and I think the community os better, online will proberly be more clean.

Console. More casual can race for fun with controller. but not able to use wheel, and lesser grpahics compared to Moderne PC.

I have and older I5 processor with older graphics card. Not sure if it will be able to run this game without having to turn every graphic settings to minimum.

I really hope a demo will be aviable so I can test before buying.
 
klondike
Has there been any words about a demo ?

Im sorta undesided if I should buy PC or Xbox one version.

PC would be nice to use the wheel, and I think the community os better, online will proberly be more clean.

Console. More casual can race for fun with controller. but not able to use wheel, and lesser grpahics compared to Moderne PC.

I have and older I5 processor with older graphics card. Not sure if it will be able to run this game without having to turn every graphic settings to minimum.

I really hope a demo will be aviable so I can test before buying.
Click to expand...
According to those that know, there will not be a demo.
Is it really neccessary given that the game has been played by WMD members for the last few years and there have been countless videos and comments about PCars?
I remember buying a racing title after playing the demo and the handling model had changed for the retail version, it was much worse, so I've personally not had much faith in demos anyway, as well as reading of many others who have had the same experience in a wide variety of games.
 
I only started pCars a week ago (even if I "invested" in 2011 :rolleyes:) but I find good ideas in it nearly everytime I play.

For exemple, in the assist menu there is a "Real" setting. If you choose it, cars will have assists such as TCS and ABS as they do in real life. That can seem obvious but most racing games do not have that option.

I have encountered many gamers who explained me that one had to drive assists free in GT , Forza or other games for the sake of realism ... forgetting that they were using cars that have part of those driving aids IRL.
 
Last edited:
TGR_Kefran
I only started pCars a week ago (even if I "invested" in it in 2011 :rolleyes:) but I find good ideas in it nearly everytime I play it.

For exemple, in the assist menu there is a "Real" setting. If you choose it, cars will have assists such as TCS and ABS as they do in real life. That can seem obvious but most racing games do not have that option.

I have encountered many gamers who explained me that one had to drive assists free in GT , Forza or other games for the sake of realism ... forgetting that they were using cars that have part of those driving aids IRL.
Click to expand...
That's a big improvement indeed 👍. Assetto Corsa also has it as 'factory' settings, and in R3R it is adjusted automatically with the 'get real' mode.
 
i might have missed it, but i dont think i got an answer for my question yet.

i have an old 40" sony lcd with 50hz only. any disadvantages to an 100hz or more panel i have to be afraid of!?
 
PRO_TOO
i might have missed it, but i dont think i got an answer for my question yet.

i have an old 40" sony lcd with 50hz only. any disadvantages to an 100hz or more panel i have to be afraid of!?
Click to expand...
Pseudopod
The game won't output more than 60 frames per second on consoles anyway. It is inconsequential for the game's performance.
Click to expand...

You didn't specify that your panel was 50hz back then. I still doubt it is though. Unless you know for sure that it can only do 50, I'm pretty sure it can do 60.
 
PRO_TOO
i have an old 40" sony lcd with 50hz only. any disadvantages to an 100hz or more panel i have to be afraid of!?
Click to expand...

100 hz or more TVs do not exist.
Marketting communicates on a frequency that is not the refresh rate of the panel itself but the one of some internal processing.

Today's 800 hz TVs only display 60 frames per second. This can be (very) misleading :rolleyes:
 
TGR_Kefran
100 hz or more TVs do not exist.
Marketting communicates on a frequency that is not the refresh rate of the panel itself but the one of some internal processing.

Today's 800 hz TVs only display 60 frames per second. This can be (very) misleading :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

What you say is (mostly) true of Plasma TV Panels but most LCD panels actually do have a refresh rate in excess of 50/60Hz now. The benefits are slight because there is minimal (read : almost zero) content available in these higher frame rates and as such every frame between each "real" frame is interpolated based on the frames before and after it.

Some Plasma's now do this but its much less common as they have always been better for moving images anyway, which is the main advantage of the higher refresh rate in LED/LCD TVs.

In all likelihood most TV sets will turn off this interpolation as soon as you go into "game mode" anyway in order to improve response times so this is largely irrelevant to gamers.
 
TGR_Kefran
100 hz or more TVs do not exist.
Marketting communicates on a frequency that is not the refresh rate of the panel itself but the one of some internal processing.

Today's 800 hz TVs only display 60 frames per second. This can be (very) misleading :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
There are 100hz panels on the market doing 800hz by processing. Are you very sure that there is only 60hz???

Pseudopod
You didn't specify that your panel was 50hz back then. I still doubt it is though. Unless you know for sure that it can only do 50, I'm pretty sure it can do 60.
Click to expand...
Cool. thank you.
novcze
I also have old 40" Sony LCD made in 2007 and it can do 60Hz and 50Hz without any problem.
Click to expand...
Mine is 7 years old to. When I could play ntsc games on it, is that a good indicator?!

Good to know I don't have to get a new tv.
 
You're good, @PRO_TOO

No TV today displays more than 60 actual frames per second. Even if they could, there is no content for use on TVs that delivers more than 60 fps, with the exception of 3D content for 3D TVs, which may deliver 60 fps per eye for a total of 120, but don't think about that, it's not important.
 
Pseudopod
No TV today displays more than 60 actual frames per second. Even if they could, there is no content for use on TVs that delivers more than 60 fps.
Click to expand...

They do, a huge huge number of modern TVs do and have done since I was selling them several years ago. You are correct about the content but as I mentioned above the TVs will interpolate frames. They all have their own names for this, I think Sony call if Motionflow, someone calls it Intelligent Frame Creation, etc, etc.

Bottom line is a lot TVs can and will display more than 60FPS.
 
You're right ,they display additional interpolated frames, but those frames don't carry extra information that the initial 60 frames do not already have .That's what I meant by "actual frames", probably not the best term to use for it i'll admit. What's most important is however that using a standard 60hz tv for gaming is not going to put anyone at any sort of disadvantage.

I wouldn't want to use interpolation features for gaming anyway, as this extra signal processing is sure to introduce additional input lag (hopefully most of these TVs also have "game modes" that try to cut down on input lag). What's more important than frame interpolation in my opinion, is the ability for the display to keep each frame on screen for the same period of time. A 60 hz display displaying 60 fps content will be matched 1:1 and each frame will have the exact same frame-time.

A 100 hz display displaying 60 fps content will however not, so to get it smooth you'll need additional image processing or we'd get a jittery image, such as is seen when 24fps movies have camera panning scenes and it often looks stuttery. On a 50 hz display, a 24fps vide would display each frame for two update cycles, except two, which will be shown for 3 update cycles. That's 50% more screen-time than the other frames get and that looks stuttery. A 60 hz display showing 24fps conten would have the same effect, but even more frames would be displayed unevenly.

A 240hz monitor will however be able to display every single frame for exactly 10 update cycles so it looks entirely smooth. At the same time, a 240hz monitor would be able to display 60fps content for exactly 4 update cycles each, keeping this video stream smooth as well, even without additional image processing. That's the main advantage in my opinion, not frame interpolation :).

Sorry if i'm saying things you already know now.
 
ElBasque
All hands to shopto to take advantage of that £5 may 8th guarantee! Win/win (kinda).
Click to expand...

Haha yeah!! Still bad if it is delayed though..... And doubts will start to appear too..... We will see!
 
Pseudopod
You're right ,they display additional interpolated frames, but those frames don't carry extra information that the initial 60 frames do not already have .That's what I meant by "actual frames", probably not the best term to use for it i'll admit. What's most important is however that using a standard 60hz tv for gaming is not going to put anyone at any sort of disadvantage.

I wouldn't want to use interpolation features for gaming anyway, as this extra signal processing is sure to introduce additional input lag (hopefully most of these TVs also have "game modes" that try to cut down on input lag). What's more important than frame interpolation in my opinion, is the ability for the display to keep each frame on screen for the same period of time. A 60 hz display displaying 60 fps content will be matched 1:1 and each frame will have the exact same frame-time.

A 100 hz display displaying 60 fps content will however not, so to get it smooth you'll need additional image processing or we'd get a jittery image, such as is seen when 24fps movies have camera panning scenes and it often looks stuttery. On a 50 hz display, a 24fps vide would display each frame for two update cycles, except two, which will be shown for 3 update cycles. That's 50% more screen-time than the other frames get and that looks stuttery. A 60 hz display showing 24fps conten would have the same effect, but even more frames would be displayed unevenly.

A 240hz monitor will however be able to display every single frame for exactly 10 update cycles so it looks entirely smooth. At the same time, a 240hz monitor would be able to display 60fps content for exactly 4 update cycles each, keeping this video stream smooth as well, even without additional image processing. That's the main advantage in my opinion, not frame interpolation :).

Sorry if i'm saying things you already know now.
Click to expand...

Ahhh, sorry if I misinterpreted your post, I thought you were saying (as I think others above you have) that panels with refresh rates about 60Hz didn't exist.

I agree with you on your analysis of the above, personally I like a nice plasma at 60Hz :)
 
No worries, I was expressing myself inadequately. I have a 60/100hz plasma tv myself, unfortunately it looks like it is going to die before 4k oleds become affordable :(.
 
Pseudopod
No worries, I was expressing myself inadequately. I have a 60/100hz plasma tv myself, unfortunately it looks like it is going to die before 4k oleds become affordable :(.
Click to expand...

I picked up a Panasonic a few years ago and it turned out to be one of the last years they made them in a big way, brilliant TV :)

4K doesn't bother me that much, I am far enough away from the set for it to not actually make any real difference, OLED however I do want!
 
Hah, it's actually a panasonic I have too. Their second last generation of plasma displays, it turned out to be. The problem is that one of the colors is starting to lag behind the others. It's fine most of the time, but when sharp contrasts move fast, they usually gets a discolored shadow trailing after them.

I wouldn't notice 4k at my typical TV watching distance either, but when I play, I like to sit as close as possible, for that extra immersion.
 
Pseudopod
Hah, it's actually a panasonic I have too. Their second last generation of plasma displays, it turned out to be. The problem is that one of the colors is starting to lag behind the others. It's fine most of the time, but when sharp contrasts move fast, they usually gets a discolored shadow trailing after them.

I wouldn't notice 4k at my typical TV watching distance either, but when I play, I like to sit as close as possible, for that extra immersion.
Click to expand...

I think that might be the generation I have got. Mine is the ST50 👍

Makes sense, I would love to make a simulation-rig with a curved ultrawide OLED screen set very close to the wheel!
 
Yeah, exactly. 1080p at less than a meter's viewing distance on a big screen just looks a bit muddy :p. This current console generation might not be able to do 4k, but I hope to keep my next TV for a lot longer than just a single console gen. After all, almost no PS3 games ran in 1080p either even if my TV could do it.
 
i also bought the ST50! 55" at a great price when they were being cleared out. love it, it's fantastic. sadly i do my gaming on a slightly older Panasonic plasma, but i can't have everything. i think OLEDs might be the only tvs that would come close to top end plasmas in my opinion but i've got no plans to get one anytime soon
 
Pseudopod
Yeah, exactly. 1080p at less than a meter's viewing distance on a big screen just looks a bit muddy :p. This current console generation might not be able to do 4k, but I hope to keep my next TV for a lot longer than just a single console gen. After all, almost no PS3 games ran in 1080p either even if my TV could do it.
Click to expand...

Not sure about consoles doing ultrawide but as an alternative to a 3 screen setup something like this with a powerful PC would be ace for a sim setup I think.
 
Pseudopod
Hah, it's actually a panasonic I have too. Their second last generation of plasma displays, it turned out to be. The problem is that one of the colors is starting to lag behind the others. It's fine most of the time, but when sharp contrasts move fast, they usually gets a discolored shadow trailing after them.

I wouldn't notice 4k at my typical TV watching distance either, but when I play, I like to sit as close as possible, for that extra immersion.
Click to expand...

Fair enough point. That's why I'm waiting for VR headsets primarily for immersion...


ElBasque
All hands to shopto to take advantage of that £5 may 8th guarantee! Win/win (kinda).
Click to expand...

Now back on topic ;), I have given up on announcements about dates as they lost all credibility after three delays. I will not expect anything until they announce that game's gone gold and sent out for production than I will believe we're a month away.

Given still nothing then safe to say to expect further delays? Any WMD member have anything to add or NDA?
 
bleeder
i also bought the ST50! 55" at a great price when they were being cleared out. love it, it's fantastic. sadly i do my gaming on a slightly older Panasonic plasma, but i can't have everything. i think OLEDs might be the only tvs that would come close to top end plasmas in my opinion but i've got no plans to get one anytime soon
Click to expand...

Brilliant TV.

I am the same with OLED, I have never been impressed with an LCD panel, they are very bright but I haven't found one that I liked as much as a decent plasma.
 

Latest Posts

Back