Track Accuracy

I'm interested in my fellow GTPlanteers opinions on the tracks, mainly because I have read the occasional post here and on other forums about how wrong many track layouts are in PCars.
Many critics describe them as appalling or words to that effect. Are they really that bad, or are these posters who say this just exaggerating?
Some of the tracks complained about seem quite ok to me when I have compared footage with real life and other laser scanned games.
So they might be a bit different here and there, but not so much that the average player would really notice I think.
I would describe a track as appalling only if it varied greatly from the real thing.

 

This thread started out about Monza inaccuracies, but there might be some posts that talk about other tracks also. https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/monza-inaccuracies.334115/

 

it all comes down to licensing. Some tracks are just close approximations and not Exact replicas.
I'm not sure how many have been laser scanned if any at all..

 

I think three U.K. tracks have been scanned.

 

I wouldn't say it's appalling. The Crew's rendition of Laguna Seca, Sebring and various other USA tracks are what I would call appalling. But if you have driven these tracks in other more accurate sims and watched plenty of real life races on these tracks you will notice subtle things here and there that are a bit off (this excludes "fake" tracks that needs to be slightly modified to avoid licensing issues e.g. Sakitto). For a casual user it probably doesn't matter, but with most sims nowadays aiming for 100% track accuracy, it's a bit disappointing to see SMS not pay as much attention to the issue.

 

Only the MSV tracks are scanned and tbh I m not sure Snetterton is, neither. Silverstone definitely isnt and its the worst track in the game. That one deserves to be called apalling imho, especially since after a lot of community reports including pics and comparisons showing where its off, all SMS did was tarting it up with better textures and useless fluff like those ugly dirt tracks in the grass.

Also I downright hate all those immersion-braking PCARS/WMD/SMS logos everygoddamnwhere and the unrealistic amount of circus tents etc that they are bringing to many tracks.

 

One of my biggest grievances is with how massive some sausage kerbs are, and the lack of kerbing in some other spots,

For example the N24 first chicane layout, the circle style kerbing is missing, and has been missing from GT5 and GT6, yet these kerbs can be found in Hockenheim and Oschersleben,

The other issue I have with the Nurburgring is that you cant use the alternative N24 chicane in the latter part of the GP circuit,

Bathurst compares closer to the resurfaced circuit from 2015,

Dubai circuit seems extremely close to what it is in real life, again the most noticeable difference is the final corner,

 

If you try to discuss this issue on the official forum you just get a flood of replies saying "you've never driven on or been to that track, how do you know?" or "Nicolas Hamilton says it's perfect" .

I always thought Monza is a little bit off in terms of the banking on a few of the corners. Silverstone isn't too great but it doesn't bother me that much. I think in general, considering they've recreated the tracks using only reference material, they've done quite a good job with the majority of them. I'd like them to consider using laser scanning on more tracks in the future though.

 

I've found Road America to be noticeably bad in places. Especially turn 6, the kink and the final two corners, where the track seems to be wider and the corners not as tight / sharp as they should be.

 

One I've been wondering about is Circuit de la Sarthe. On the 24 hour track, once you pass Tetre Rouge and enter the Mulsanne Straight, the road has a slight kink. On the GT games, the track seems fairly flat there, whist on pCARS, it seems to have a large bill right in the middle of it. From what I've seen from watching some races there, that elevation change isn't there, as far as I can tell.

Question is, is it actually there, or is the GT version correct?

 

As somebody who stood at Tertre Rouge in real life and overlooked Mulsanne with his own eyes, I can tell you that its definitely there. It might be slightly exaggerated in pcars, though.

 

And they compensated with a lack of exaggeration in elevation change through the Porsche curves,

 

I wouldn't call any of them "appalling", but there are numerous inaccuracies in quite a few of the tracks in the game. Monza has some obvious ones, as does Bathurst and Sonoma. I started the Monza thread, as I'm a huge fan of the circuit, and as an Autobody repairer, I have a very good eye for detail, so I picked up on a few little issues here and there, and I wondered if others had picked up any similar issues in their favourite tracks.

 

what about the Dunlop chicane? The elevation change from the start of Dunlop curve to the big Dunlop sign after the chicane seems alot bigger on Project cars?

 

That is quite well represented imho. Its a surprisingly steep hill when you walk up there. Doesnt come across like that on TV.

 

I'm limited on commenting regarding the accuracy of some tracks in pCars, but from the tracks I can compare I can say this - they are way too smooth in pCars. Even with a stiff setup, the cars glide over most of the track. The concrete red apex markers at Laguna Seca, for example, are as smooth as butter in pCars.

Most of the tracks are close enough. It's only a game, after all. Clever marketing is the reason people treat it as the God of vehicle simulation. Trust me, it's not. There are a lot more car handling inaccuracies than track inaccuracies.

 

SMS stated that they exaggerated the up down bits of tracks to compensate for flattening you see on TV in interviews before the game was released.