Why I think there are so many bugs in PCARS.

Believe what you believe.

With the Clio, WMD have noted my observation regarding Clio Cup inconsistencies, this shows SMS do care

 

Great stuff to read thanks

 

I believe I didn't mention anything about the innaccuracies of the stock settings in PCars, and everything about the accuracy of PCars physics if you are really intent on making cars in game, drive and perform like real cars.

 

He is of the impression that if the numbered data is wrong, then the physics are too.

 

No he isn't, he's just saying they went with Nic Hamiltons feel and applied that.

 

Yeah, that's right, you know better than I do. I never said the physics engine is wrong, I never once put the pcars physics in bad light, it's the object data ( car data ) that needs correction where there are inaccurate data. I was more concerned with the outcome of inaccurate data like this FQ400 final gear example.

Do you have/play Pcars ? Try the FQ400 Evo X, drive it and notice how long each gear is. The car has 6 speed SST final 4.062, while it's supposed to be 4.687 as the FQ400 is 5MT. Do you think this needs to be corrected or not ? It does not perform like a real FQ400 should ( acceleration and top speed ) The real FQ400 has 8000RPM revlimit. What makes me wonder, no one has ever raise this issue ever since the FQ400 is in pcars build ...how many testers and how many years ...

There are more from FQ400 like caster

I'm discussing this with WMD member who have much better understanding of my intention. He's passing over my infos to Casey Ringley ( SMS Physics Lead ) and I got replies already ( from Casey )

 

Not talking about this thread, I'm talking about what he's said before.

I find that odd, since you said exactly that.

 

You misunderstood what I said, I meant the outcome is messed up ( not like it should if the data is correct ) The last part, is where I doubt the credibility of the process + result , that leads to stock setup if they used inaccurate data. To get to certain feel that the tester wanted, they may have taken different path than when using correct data. Sometimes car physic model can be altered to suit too ( COG, bump stop, CoD, etc ), which complicate things.

I hate writing in comments of status updates, had to be concise, and shortening words makes my intention warped.

 

Then I'm unsure why you brought up physics being wrong in the first place, if you didnt mean to say that the physics were wrong. I'm just a bit confused as to what was shortened that could dramatically change what you mean by that much.

 

I may have difficulties conveying my intention on the comments. Being wrong supposed to mean that with inaccurate car data being manipulated, the car physics programmer will have to make changes to the car to give certain result ( that may not be needed with accurate data ), shaping it with more freedom but still within physics limits, instead of letting it evolve from accurate data ( that stays locked in ) using consultant feedback and make changes , but still within the accurate data as foundation. It's conformity of data and result if someone didn't know the car data is inaccurate and found the car drives unlike what he knows in real, he would have impression the physics is doing it wrong - giving unexpected result in handling or feedback.

 

That would be me, and with regards to the FQ400 final gear: Your info is correct and it will be changed.

Clio is still under investigation, but SMS already indicated that if data/settings are incorrect and there is documentation to prove otherwise they will change it. Not just limited to Clio BTW.

EDIT: Clio will be changed too.

 

Brilliant

 

Yup, another fine example of how the WMD models works. So keep those numbers coming: as long as they can be officially validated (=manufacturer or other official documentation), they will be corrected.

 

This thread has given me a migraine

 

Go to a very dark room, no noise at all, lie down and sleep. It'll pass

 

Is incorrect OEM setup a bug?

Group hug and let's go racing.