[OT] Anyone believe that pCars will become a real sim racing game when its released?

PRC Steve said:
First off thanks for taking the trouble to record and upload and secondly thanks for confirming a few more things for me :)
Seeing things like a 1000+ KG car fly for 100+ meters through the air just does not appeal to me, even the controlled jumps where you were able to carry on should have resulted in a snapped chassis lol. How can the Lotus with the majority of weight in the rear land on its nose.
I don't regret refunding my tool-pack and spending the spare cash on the 2 URD mods. I can always repurchase pCars on release if by some miracle it morphs into a simulator but I doubt it will.
The track in the video is a fantasy track ? If so why would the devs make such a jump/crest knowing full well the results of driving at speed over it if they were not targeting a certain group of users. Great fun but if that's what I wanted from a driving game I wouldn't have invested a fortune in equipment and just gone out and bought Track Mania and an xbox controller :eek:
Click to expand...

You're welcome, I had fun doing this ;)

I didn't control any jumps here, it was full throttle for each car. I agree the Lotus seems really weird and "fly" pretty weirdly, anyway I can also see progress when comparing to the flying Gumperd of 2012. Yes, this is a fantasy track, south of France. I wasn't able to retrieve those jumps from the old video in California track. I know they work on those tracks to make then more realistic and AFAIK this place I found for my video will be worked sooner or later. It's use for test purpose if I remember well (they also have a test track BTW with some extreme reliefs). Making this video was fun. Currently I spend 95% rF2 and 5% Project Cars. It's mainly due to all settings you need to reset and redo each time a new build is released (daily), and also because to get the most of the FFB you need to tweak a lot of settings including having tweaking files for each cars. Each time I take the time to do so I have great fun and very good feeling driving all those cars. That's why I know they will go far. One day all will be out-of-the-box ala rF2 where I only push a little more FFB for each car in menu, and that will be a big step to be user friendly. If you just fire pcars and keep all default settings you will have something really annoying on FFB side. When you fine tune, you feel everything, and as an old Shift 2 player (and rF1, GPL, GTR2, NKpro, Dirt, Grid, etc. all kind of car games in fact) I can see this has strictly nothing to do with a Shift 3! ;)

Edit: and I love Trackmania! ;)
 
PRC Steve said:
Seeing things like a 1000+ KG car fly for 100+ meters through the air just does not appeal to me, even the controlled jumps where you were able to carry on should have resulted in a snapped chassis lol. How can the Lotus with the majority of weight in the rear land on its nose.
Click to expand...

+1

If this is meant to be a "fun" aspect of pCARS then fine, I`ve no real problem with that.

It does look rather stupid though imo to have such cars doing those kind of jumps and not suffering any damage (I know some cars did suffer damage but some did not)

Plus I`ve got to agree about the Lotus 49... all that weight at the back of an old F1 car and it goes down nose first.

:confused:

:D Laughable really (imo)

I played many a build of pCARS and took loads of screens of it. It`s fantastic for screens as it`s an eye candy game but sim it will never be...

NWDogg, I never noticed any sunglasses either lol...
 
flying characteristics of a sim is not really relevant as its outside the normal driving zone and nothing to do with the tyre , handling physics. There are videos of iracing cars almost going into outer space after big accidents, because physics go crazy out of their normal zone. Its not an important issue. I prefer to focus on how the car feels on the ground than in the air.
 
I say yes. Pcars means Community Assist Racing Simulator. And that name is being represented in wmd forum where we can say about anything, getting a response about their evolution. The community is asked to CPRSI simulator. Do not see why it will not be so if it appears that it will be.
 
F60 said:
flying characteristics of a sim is not really relevant as its outside the normal driving zone and nothing to do with the tyre , handling physics. There are videos of iracing cars almost going into outer space after big accidents, because physics go crazy out of their normal zone. Its not an important issue. I prefer to focus on how the car feels on the ground than in the air.
Click to expand...

They are trying to 'simulate' the Lotus 49, from the era of Forumla 1 when the cars actually took off quite often (Flugplatz at Nordschleife *cough*) and you tell me that how the cars act in the air is not important? I would not wish to land on my nose at the Flugplatz every lap. And watching the video posted at page 4 it looks like they have actually included a big hill (read: jump) in one of their tracks? :confused:

I do not own PCARS and probably I will never do. IMO: SMS=need for speed, shift 2 and test drive, so arcade gamers are probably their biggest customers and it's them they want to please. That's all I need to know ;)
 
F60 said:
flying characteristics of a sim is not really relevant as its outside the normal driving zone and nothing to do with the tyre , handling physics. There are videos of iracing cars almost going into outer space after big accidents, because physics go crazy out of their normal zone. Its not an important issue. I prefer to focus on how the car feels on the ground than in the air.
Click to expand...

Your "defence" of this title is admirable although imo, misguided...

The Lotus 49 and other cars (certainly from that era of F1) did leave the track(s) as Hedlund has already said and the 49 in pCARS comes down nose first.

A car that had so much weight at the rear of the car would never come down nose first.

This IS an important issue whether you choose to see that or not.
 
I have seen a fair few rFactor2 car crazy jumps too, if you made a track with the same angle of that pCars one, they would jump too
 
This isn't a physics issue we are talking about, yes rF2 cars and iRacing cars can act odd with collisions bugged etc, the flying cars in pCars are actually modelled to do that in the video, which IMO is completely wrong and completely arcade, but I still believe SMS are aiming the game at your casual arcade racer, It won't be a full sim and it won't be suitable for league racing.
It will be a great pick up casual racer but it has a lot of competition on the consoles.

I shot a video of Ales URD Venom going over a jump ( from about 30 seconds ) on Nords I know which I prefer to see and feel.

 
again a very old build, its on 609 now and its changing all the time

I have them both, and BOTH need more work yet to be a true simulation imho

and your statement is of "the flying cars in pCars are actually modelled to do that in the video" is PURE fanboy talk, they simply are NOT
 
SimonV6 said:
again a very old build, its on 609 now and its changing all the time

I have them both, and BOTH need more work yet to be a true simulation imho

and your statement is of "the flying cars in pCars are actually modelled to do that in the video" is PURE fanboy talk, they simply are NOT
Click to expand...

So tell me why they do it then and tell me why a lotus 49 can fly for 100 meters and land on its nose.
 
work in progress for christ, get a life mate
better still do as me, go on a real track
 
tjc said:
Your "defence" of this title is admirable although imo, misguided...

The Lotus 49 and other cars (certainly from that era of F1) did leave the track(s) as Hedlund has already said and the 49 in pCARS comes down nose first.

A car that had so much weight at the rear of the car would never come down nose first.

This IS an important issue whether you choose to see that or not.
Click to expand...

Never?

http://www.ausmotive.com/images/Lotus-F1-1969.jpg

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/8654/lotus49or8.gif

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/1756/p115ring.jpg

I appreciate the last 2 shots aren't a Lotus 49 but are rear engined F1/F2 cars of that period.

I'm afraid you don't understand physics.
 
Last edited:
I actually had two of those pics in my mind as I posted the last time...

Anyway, if I don`t understand physics (and I never claimed to) then maybe you should take your expertise up with ISI as they seem to think a historic F1 car with the engine at the rear should come down rear first too...



 
I'd like to see SMS succeed in turning out a full-fledged sim. No sim-racer benefits if they don't.
Given the time frame they quoted in pre-alpha I'm hoping, but they need to address physics...and soon.
I can't say they haven't made progress in certain areas, they have... unfortunately most of it has been in the areas that matter least.
The cars have plenty of graphics features. What needs to happen is an immediate 'assault' on handling.
Most sim-racer will tolerate an 'ugly' car..IF... the handling is good and there is a promise to fix the graphics. We're seeing that in rFactor2. Let's be honest, the car were not the best looking initially.
The same cannot be said for the reverse.
You may gawk at a pretty car, but that will only last for so long before you get bored and move on.
It's not helping their case either that any suggestion are followed by censuring so as not to "give the wrong impression".
What they need to do is lighten up and listen.
 
Since EVERYONE who has pcars should know about STM and the state its in and what's going on, I really don't get what you're trying to do with that post.
 
Yarach said:
My honest opinion after having both rFactor and pCars. rFactor is the die hard racing simulator. pCars is more like a Gran Turismo / NFS Shift mix.
Click to expand...

you forgotten something. Most of the real race drivers (like Rene Rast, ADAC GT Masters) say, that its not hard to drive a DTM/GT3 car. But it's hard to drive fast with it. But the fact that you screw up and have one spin after the other is just bull****.


Johannes Rojola said:
pCARS is horrible, when I tried newest build few weeks ago I had to completely disable FFB as it felt so bad.
Click to expand...

I played rfactor 1 for a long time. After driving pcars i felt uncomfortable with the FFB. But now its the other way around. Now its the same with rfactor. It's the thing how much you are acclimatising with it.

Anymore.. there are some nice facts that pcars will have. The physics are developing great with the help of hamilton e.g.
The development in rfactor 2 is just terrible. The changelog for one month in rfactor is two or three days in pcars.
 
About these jumping F1 cars.

Attach a weight at one end of very light stick and throw it in various ways ( straight, rotating up, rotating down). You will note it will tend to turn so that lighter end is following the heavy end. Simply because of air resistance. That's why this stick needs to be light for the experiment - you won't be able to throw it 150 km/h so you need significant air resistance at slow speeds. Plastic ruler should do.

You can also watch olympics instead and see that when a hammer is thrown, it's getting a lot of rotation but always lands with heavy end forward :)

Heavier end merely moves center of mass for an object. It does not cause rotation. What causes rotation is air pressing onto an object.
If car is travelling upwards, air will tend to push nose down slightly. When it's travelling downwards, air will tend to push the nose up slightly.
But what happens at all times is that the car is travelling forward very fast, so air will try to push the nose back quite strongly.

So much depends on the way car was thrown in the air. Once car starts rotating, heavier end has the capability to push through the air and cause a 180 degree rotation.

Cars with weight in front should be pretty much stable during flight.
Cars with weight at the rear will be unstable. Which way they're going to turn depends on suspension, driver's input while jumping and some other factors. Therefore you can't really judge physics by the way such Lotus jumps :)

For the same reason, arrows either need heavy tip or feathers at rear to be stable. I've shot arrows with no feathers and they were stable, but required heavy tip (80/20 weight ratio or so).
 
Last edited:
I took a photo of a car lifting off at Flugplatz at the 24H earlier this year. The rear sagging happened more on Porsches and other rear-engined cars.

BlackFalcon-Porsche-Nurburgring24-2.jpg
 
The development in rfactor 2 is just terrible. The changelog for one month in rfactor is two or three days in pcars.
Click to expand...

One rfactor2 tire have the physics of whole pcars..
 
I don't think so, even i don't mind anymore and i'm not really intrested in pcars, i know that there is a massive development in all areas and as far as I can rate it, the physics specialist A.W is not stupid. I could understand the logic behind his doing and he also knows what he's doing because i know the reality. However don't know how the balance will be but i think they have enough real driver for that. Don't be shocked when he eliminates some others, possible it is.
 
Twista said:
I took a photo of a car lifting off at Flugplatz at the 24H earlier this year. The rear sagging happened more on Porsches and other rear-engined cars.

BlackFalcon-Porsche-Nurburgring24-2.jpg
Click to expand...
might have something to do with that great big wing on the rear, if the car was going backwards at 100 mph the rear would lift
 
dragon3007 said:
you forgotten something. Most of the real race drivers (like Rene Rast, ADAC GT Masters) say, that its not hard to drive a DTM/GT3 car. But it's hard to drive fast with it. But the fact that you screw up and have one spin after the other is just bull****.
Click to expand...

Same goes for F1. Lauda once said that a monkey could drive these F1, and when he tried it, he spun every other corner. A F1 World Champion could barely drive the car.
 
Hum... SteamOS = Linux ... rFactor2 is the last piece of software that makes me keep a Windows machine, I would be very tempted to test pCars on my a SteamBOX!
 
RGrueira said:
One rfactor2 tire have the physics of whole pcars..
Click to expand...


+1



It is not only physics and tyres they can't get right.

What is pCARS going to do about those awful sparkly jaggies, it makes what could be great screenshots visually ordinary.
 
Another question not regarding pcars, but using a video of it:


Why this kind of realism is not achievable yet in any of all sims on market? This view seems less detailed than all racing games graphics but everything looks so real. The sky isn´t blue the colors look washed but i find much more impressive than any game.
 
Erm.. because you're used to watching crappy gopro camera with tons of you tube compression with rubbish colours and odd fov's. Why should a sim producer try to mimic a terrible camera instead of the view a true driver would get in a car?
 
Duvel said:
Erm.. because you're used to watching crappy gopro camera with tons of you tube compression with rubbish colours and odd fov's. Why should a sim producer try to mimic a terrible camera instead of the view a true driver would get in a car?
Click to expand...

lol, i think you never used helmets of rented go karts
edit:you see less than that

You ever used helmet view on rf2?
 
Last edited:
Is that video edited with post processing filters and such or is that the pure raw gameplay? Because if it's edited then you can do the same with RFactor and pretty much any sim.

The physics in that video look pretty good in with regards to controlling a powerslide but overall they dont seem that great to me. It sort of looks like Race07 mixed with some odd Need for Speed shift physics. The amount of steering lock used in the middle of the tunnel and the way the car reacts to that doesnt looi good at all in my opinion, extremely videogame like. I havent played it in about a month but it always feels like a fun video game with some sim aspects here and there in the physics rather than an actual serious sim.
 
Last edited:
I`d say pp and filters were used in that video... I may be wrong though as I`ve not played pCARS since I jumped in the Eve F1 in rf2...

:cool:
 
Jerry Luis said:
This view seems less detailed than all racing games graphics but everything looks so real. The sky isn´t blue the colors look washed but i find much more impressive than any game.
Click to expand...
That's the point - if you don't see something clearly, your brain makes up for it. With such intense filters, you probably wouldn't be able to see the difference between pCARS and rF2. It just hides the graphics from you and your imagination is working instead.

But once you get used to that picture, you will start to notice again, that this is just computer graphics. It's like your brain will learn to look past that filter and impression will no longer be that big.
Personally, I lose that impression after few seconds.

It's sort of a "please don't look too closely at graphics" kind of filter ;) Much like heavy bloom and blur used in many games. I often had to disable both, because being so overdone, they were bad for eyes.
 
Last edited:
Oh yes, it will be a great sim, but not a car sim... it's mostly a boat simulator.

All cars drive like crap, undriveable. I don't believe the weird and canned physics are an option took by developers... I guess it's a physics engine limitation, there's nothing to do about... so, they focused on visual adornments as marketing.

In addition, the great graphics level is not allowed for 99% of personal computers. It's tremendously hardware demanding.

Last but not least, rF2 is in another planet in comparison... even Assetto Corsa is times and times more believable (in physics area) than pCars.
 
JorgeANeto said:
Oh yes, it will be a great sim, but not a car sim... it's mostly a boat simulator.

All cars drive like crap, undriveable. I don't believe the weird and canned physics are an option took by developers... I guess it's a physics engine limitation, there's nothing to do about... so, they focused on visual adornments as marketing.

In addition, the great graphics level is not allowed for 99% of personal computers. It's tremendously hardware demanding.

Last but not least, rF2 is in another planet in comparison... even Assetto Corsa is times and times more believable (in physics area) than pCars.
Click to expand...

I lol`d... :D :D :)
 
JorgeANeto said:
Oh yes, it will be a great sim, but not a car sim... it's mostly a boat simulator.

All cars drive like crap, undriveable. I don't believe the weird and canned physics are an option took by developers... I guess it's a physics engine limitation, there's nothing to do about... so, they focused on visual adornments as marketing.

In addition, the great graphics level is not allowed for 99% of personal computers. It's tremendously hardware demanding.

Last but not least, rF2 is in another planet in comparison... even Assetto Corsa is times and times more believable (in physics area) than pCars.
Click to expand...
So, you're not a sailor, right? I guess all boats float like crap, undriveable? Have you ever tried pCars or you just know? Don't know about your PC, mine is nowhere near high end (2 years old) but for my eyes, graphics are just great. And it's not graphics we're looking in our games. Oh, by the way, so AC is better than pCars, but nowhere near rF2. Perhaps you know that both pCars and AC are in their alpha and beta stages, while rF2 is not, but like all of you are saying, it won't change much. Well, i'm not saying that it will, but lets just wait and see.
Once again, i'm not saying pCars is better than rF2, i'm not even saying some of the comments here are wrong, but we can debate about anything even if we don't know EVERYTHING about it. But you could also change the name of thread to something that would suit level of commenting better like "That crap pCars".
Sorry, had to do it, over&out. Have a great time puking on pCars.

Guys, you won't find such fanboyism in pCars or any other racing sim forum.
 
AndS said:
Guys, you won't find such fanboyism in pCars or any other racing sim forum.
Click to expand...

Apart from the Title developing in completely the wrong direction I had hoped, the other main reason I refunded my toolpack was the Total Bias, ignorance, Fanboyism, Rudeness and up your own "arseness" of some of the WMD forum members...especially from the people with more than just the average Joe invested. Seeing people struggling to run it on systems that met the original minimum specs ( only for SMS to change that later ) and then be told by senior manager x10 to go out and either buy a new pc or maybe get an xbox was enough for me to throw the towel in along with many others.
I found anyone daring question the lack of physics or FFB was warned or censored and generally had the blame put on his set up or inferior PC. Never did the problem actually lie with the title itself.
 
Last edited:
K Szczech said:
It's sort of a "please don't look too closely at graphics" kind of filter ;) Much like heavy bloom and blur used in many games. I often had to disable both, because being so overdone, they were bad for eyes.
Click to expand...
No, it is more than that K Szczech. Its hard to me to explain with my poor english, but in simracing there are two things people overate the importance (like people talk about canned effects on ffb to lack of g-forces on sim racing).
1 - Graphics. Using helmets you don´t have a completely clean vision like naked eye. (ok, some helmets are cleaner than others but you always get your fov reduced and image blurred). When im focused in best racing line, cows could be put in place of stewards and i will only notice the color of the flag (and not everytime)
2- Ffb. Mostly when you doing close racing (like all time on go karts) the only ffb you will notice is how much pain you are after racing. Its not like 0% relevant, but for my little experience with 125cc go karts, you only start to notice when doing time attack. With streets cars, the grip feeling like go karts come from all your senses (including whats happening with steering wheel but this represent a small part of getting control of the car, i think)

I think the visor mod on some cars in rf2 works like a overlay above original image. Do you know if visor mod is "moddable" like you did with hdr profiles? Modders can work with this part of rf2 software?

edit: what i´m trying to say is to me real racing is much more related to you knowing your car dimensions and weight being transfered feeling with your brain
 
Last edited:
I was merely referring to the illusion that graphics seem more real, despite being being hidden by filters and having so much contrast, that many surfaces turn white.

I'm not referring to illusion of driving a car or having a helmet on your head. Or in other words - I'm not referring to "helmet" filter, but to overblown contrast in image.
 
Well, I'm in pCars since more than 1 year for now and at the beggining i was very confident about it, I thought it will be a good Sim (a very good arcade game with aids on and very good simulation game with aids off was my wish).

But since 6 months, i'm disappointed. I try builds every week-end and I'm playing for only 1h because in every build the handling is so bad with every car.Setups are just kind of nonsense. I just feel it like Forza or Gran Tourismo, even if at the moment it is unplayable. So, rF² will be the only "next-gen" simulation i'll play !

rFactor 2 rocks so !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top