Give us better sounds - PLEASE !!

[RC45]

This is rather interesting. I'm not going to get directly involved as I have far less patience than most, however, I specifically like the part where you're telling someone with a B.A. in Sound Design that they have no idea how sound is incorporated into any program.

I'm as critical of the samples used in GT as anyone else, if not more so, but that's incredibly naive.

It doesn't matter if the bloke is a bloody Doctor of Sound PhD and all the rest - it does NOT change the way sound is incorporated and played back by a game engine.

So agan - incorprating sound samples is a basic game engine function and has been done by countless programmers over the last 15 years.

The GT3/4/5 game engine does in fact correctly manage and incorporate the samples they use - you would not have rev matched sounds real time during game play or the correct presentation of doppler effect in replays if they did not have that part correct.

The reality is most of their SAMPLES are rubbish.

And again, by example I have shown that if the game engine is managing sound correctly, the rest is based on sample realism.

If however, on the off chance the real reason GT3/4/5 sounds rubbish is because Kaz has decided to NOT use real sound samples but is trying to 'generate' the sounds in game with a 'sound engine' then he is to blame.

But I do not believe Kaz would be trying to 'make sound' on the fly. Even the Dan Greenewald over at Turn 10 i not that conceited.

Which again leads us to the concept of POOR SOUND SAMPLES.

See how all roads lead back to Rome?

 

[Griffith500]

Ah - you are one of those types I see. When someone posts up the real facts and info you go all "sarcastic mode".

Please - by all means try show that what I have posted is not true. Please share with everyone YOUR experience in programming and modding to show that in-game sound effects are some sort of secret black art and voodoo.

Wait, let me save you the trouble. (see, I can also be sarcastic)

In-game sound effects are NOT black art and voodoo.

I have shared my experience at great length in the past. Unlike you, I have made my own mixing, sampling and reverb etc. schemes (i.e. all the stuff tied up in this magical sound engine you described) as well as the samples to put into them. You have just used someone else's hard work in that area, and somehow you think you know how it all works.

Working with sample-based synthesis is partly voodoo (not that you'd know that with the point of exposure you came in at with your mods, as those decisions were made for you).
I do all my work from first principles, i.e. physics-based, so no that's not voodoo (except for where you have to make it work in real-time).

EDIT: uh, we know about the samples, but you're wrong to say they're the whole story. So totally wrong. And you'd know that if your experience with sound didn't start and end with samples.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Those Rfactor mods has pretty decent base samples - still not realistic enough to make me believe how a real car should sound when I am listening from the cam POV, but it does convey what does car sound like - how a specific V8 Vette sound like, so the implementation still lacking IMO. Sounds pretty weird to me in replay view Nothing is yet to be able to accurately convey the sound dynamics of a car from various POV ... It's a combo of science and black magic it seems that might pull it off one day

 

[Terronium-12]

It doesn't matter if the bloke is a bloody Doctor of Sound PhD and all the rest - it does NOT change the way sound is incorporated and played back by a game engine.

You really do think it's as simple as the proverbial "plug and play" don't you?

I can tell you, from what little experience I have fiddling with GTR 2's engine that it really isn't that simpe; you have to synchronize everything with the audio engine's characteristics. It's a sequence of trial and error.

And you're also comparing an engine that does everything for you where you're only manipulating key principles, to an engine that's essentially a bit more dynamic in nature.

So agan - incorprating sound samples is a basic game engine function and has been done by countless programmers over the last 15 years.

And yet how many variables are at play there?

The reality is most of their SAMPLES are rubbish.

Only a few have ever argued otherwise. While I'm far from optimistic regarding any significant change in that regard, the topic as a whole was the audio engine.

If however, on the off chance the real reason GT3/4/5 sounds rubbish is because Kaz has decided to NOT use real sound samples but is trying to 'generate' the sounds in game with a 'sound engine' then he is to blame.

I'd say the blames lies on the lack of refinement.

Which again leads us to the concept of POOR SOUND SAMPLES.

Again, very few have argued otherwise.

See how all roads lead back to Rome?

Seeing as your argument is predicated on the very thing most of us are already aware of, no.

 

[RC45]

If you mean to come across 'toffy nosed' and all that, you effectively pull it off by the way. Your disdain for the those you consider to be unedumacated masses across the pond is palpable.

I have shared my experience at great length in the past. Unlike you, I have made my own mixing, sampling and reverb etc. schemes (i.e. all the stuff tied up in this magical sound engine you described) as well as the samples to put into them. You have just used someone else's hard work in that area, and somehow you think you know how it all works.

Actually, I do know how it works. The fact you wrote a sound engine (if that is what you are claiming) and I didn't does not mean I do not know how it works.

My very POINT of showing how a game sound engine can produce poor results with poor sample and better results with better samples still shows that the GAME ENGINE handles the SAMPLES.

You can sit and tweak the samples all you want - if they sound poor or are incorrect they will be presented in a poor sounding way by even the BEST game engine.

Working with sample-based synthesis is partly voodoo (not that you'd know that with the point of exposure you came in at with your mods, as those decisions were made for you).

The 'voodoo' is in the sample mixing, not the electronic playback once the routines are programmed. In-game playback is LOGICAL programming. No magic, no voodoo - it is as predictable and pre-determined as all other logical based programming. The results are predictable - that is the odd thing about programming. It is funny that way.

I do all my work from first principles, i.e. physics-based, so no that's not voodoo (except for where you have to make it work in real-time).

EDIT: uh, we know about the samples, but you're wrong to say they're the whole story. So totally wrong. And you'd know that if your experience with sound didn't start and end with samples.

uh - then if the problem is in fact Kaz's game engine trying to 'create sound on the fly in real time' rather than use real world recorded samples, then maybe it's time he packs it in and goes home.

Even the most pathetic arcade game on the market (for PC, xBox, xBox360, PS2/3) has better sounding sounds than GT3/4/5(and even the GTA demo).

When a low budget open source game engine such as rFactor and rFactor2 can handle sound samples in a better way than an $85 million production like GT5 can - the problem is squarely on the shoulders of the Project Manager.

But back to the your idea that synchronizing in game sound to events is voodoo or black art - you are so full of it its almost comical.

Mixing sounds in your sound studio may take a special touch and magic - but once the sample is produced it is all logic and predictable from there to get the playback in-game.

I get the feeling you keep taking this discussion in circles (I have looked over your previous posts in the this thread) is just so you can hear yourself speak.

All your credentials do not change a thing - GT3/4/5 needs better car sounds.

If it turns out Kaz is using a sample playback engine then his samples suck - if it turns out he is actually using an in-game sound synthesizer to 'create' engine sounds realtime based on a list of criteria (such as engine volume/cylinder count/layout/exhaust volume/rpm etc) then he needs to give up, because it is an insulting waste of my money to ask me to pay for his R&D over 15 years to perfect this 'sound generator'.

 

[Chippy569]

GT5's system is sample-based and GT6 will be as well. The future of car games will eventually move to fully-synthesized as it gives infinitely more control over the sound in a way that can perfectly replicate any type of engine, with every type of character and interest and uniqueness, but that time is not here yet as the tone generating tech is too complicated to get sounding good efficiently.

 

[DonZonda]

Well it's true, no matter how many excuses are made about a nice sound engine and how difficult it's claimed to be to create sounds. As mentioned before, the car sounds simply suck. And many low budget arcade titels sound far better than any GT game ever has. If they use a realistic sound engine to kind of simulate the sounds then it's a nice attempt, but so far they failed. Because I see no advantage using it anymore. When a simpler method provides to my ear sounds which sound way closer to the real deal.

 

[Griffith500]

If you mean to come across 'toffy nosed' and all that, you effectively pull it off by the way. Your disdain for the those you consider to be unedumacated masses across the pond is palpable.

...

I think you might be projecting a little bit. That casts a shadow on the rest of your post.

There are several fundamental misunderstandings underpinning your arguments that would need addressing in turn. The question is whether or not you're going to allow a proper discourse, which may be useful for everyone. There are, of course, things you've said that I agree with.

 

[RC45]

I think you might be projecting a little bit. That casts a shadow on the rest of your post.

There are several fundamental misunderstandings underpinning your arguments that would need addressing in turn. The question is whether or not you're going to allow a proper discourse, which may be useful for everyone. There are, of course, things you've said that I agree with.

Discourse? Who needs or wants a discourse? If you feel the need to lecture then that is what tenured professorship is for. Either have the gonnads to 'address' what you think are my misunderstandings or don't.

I paraphrased and abbreviated much of the reponse to simply get across that PD should be able to produce a better sounding product - and I understand far more that you are willing to give me credit for. Just because someone does not deliver a thesis essay in each post does NOT mean they have no understanding - it just means they could'nt be bothered.

The bottomline is that after 15 years and hundreds of millions of dollars GT5 and now Gt6 should sound better than they do.

Period.

 

[Griffith500]

Discourse? Who needs or wants a discourse? If you feel the need to lecture then that is what tenured professorship is for. Either have the gonnads to 'address' what you think are my misunderstandings or don't.

I paraphrased and abbreviated much of the reponse to simply get across that PD should be able to produce a better sounding product - and I understand far more that you are willing to give me credit for. Just because someone does not deliver a thesis essay in each post does NOT mean they have no understanding - it just means they could'nt be bothered.

The bottomline is that after 15 years and hundreds of millions of dollars GT5 and now Gt6 should sound better than they do.

Period.

• Discourse is not lecturing.
• GT5 should have sounded better than it did, I agree - no one disagrees.
• You have not accurately described how a sound engine works, you think it is just logic, it is not.
• Poor sounding samples will sound poor in any engine, more or less, a point we all agree on - I don't know why you seem to think we don't.
• You have many fantastical ideas of who and what I am, and why I do what I do, that seem to be colouring your responses somewhat.
• GT5 does not use generative sounds for the car engines. It's pretty obviously sample-based - I don't know why that's not clear to you given your experience.
• You are not paying for future development, only for a final product. PD could have rode off into the sunset with your money from GT5 and never returned. They have chosen to use that profit to fund further development.

Personally, I think you should start by describing how the samples are played back, and how that is only a logical process (which it is, once you get down to the semiconductors - but those semiconductors are programmable, which makes a lot of difference; those programs are made by people).

 

[RC45]

*Discourse is not lecturing.

You might want to remember that.

*GT5 should have sounded better than it did, I agree - no one disagrees.

Your point?

*You have not accurately described how a sound engine works, you think it is just logic, it is not.

If something is programmed it is logical. Input/process/output. It is not a sentient mythical creature. It is a program.

*Poor sounding samples will sound poor in any engine, more or less, a point we all agree on - I don't know why you seem to think we don't.

'We?' Do you suppose to speak for many people or just yourself? Or is this your Royal 'We'?

*You have many fantastical ideas of who and what I am, and why I do what I do, that seem to be colouring your responses somewhat.

I am not the one that flaunted credentials.

*GT5 does not use generative sounds for the car engines. It's pretty obviously sample-based - I don't know why that's not clear to you given your experience.

It is very clear - I was giving YOU the chance to jump in and surprise everyone with your magical voodoo inside sound engine guru knowledge and prove otherwise - perhaps even letting slip YOU are Kaz's goto sound expert.

*You are not paying for future development, only for a final product. PD could have rode off into the sunset with your money from GT5 and never returned. They have chosen to use that profit to fund further development.

Say what? If the company keeps the money and stays in business then I am paying for FUTURE development. Where do you think exisitng companies get R&D funds? The cash fairy?

Personally, I think you should start by describing how the samples are played back, and how that is only a logical process (which it is, once you get down to the semiconductors - but those semiconductors are programmable, which makes a lot of difference; those programs are made by people).

You can have 1000 layers of programing. Each layer will be LOGICAL and predictable.
There is no voodoo sentience in programs.
None.
Zero.
Zip.
Nada.
If it is not already in the code it can't happen.
Period.

Any way, you are doing what you seem to always do - make this a personal issue rather than stick to the topic at hand.

Poor GT franchise sound is the topic. Not me or you or your credenials or my supposed lack of understanding of sound engines or even how 'hard' sound engins are to program.

The real point is that far lesser games have managed to make V8's sound like throaty rumbling V8's - v10's sound like ground pounding V10's and make screaming wankels sound like the banshees they are.

THAT is the point of the topic.

I am done 'discoursing' with you as it it now becoming an off topic distraction and as such might even be violating GTPlanet ToS.

 

[Griffith500]

Actually, you're the one making it personal. I don't understand it at all.
I've never said GT's samples are good, only ever the opposite.

 

[WhiteShadw]

What the hell is wrong with you two? Stop disrespecting each other and just let it go, one of you.. Please.

Back to topic/

Am I the only one here that thinks that PD is using a sound generator engine and is only recording car sounds for comparison? And not implementation? They are after all, creating a new sound engine?

 

[Chippy569]

What the hell is wrong with you two? Stop disrespecting each other and just let it go, one of you.. Please.

Back to topic/

Am I the only one here that thinks that PD is using a sound generator engine and is only recording car sounds for comparison? And not implementation? They are after all, creating a new sound engine?

where the heck did everyone get the idea that pd is using generative sound? It's still loop-based samples, and it probably will be until GT12.

 

[Griffith500]

where the heck did everyone get the idea that pd is using generative sound? It's still loop-based samples, and it probably will be until GT12.

I think some of the automotive industry's stuff is generative. Obviously, GT5 is using loops, and that could continue, but there are different ways to use loops (some of them more abstract than others.)

It may not be so far away that recorded samples are done away with for raw playback.
Indeed, the first step would probably be processed recordings used as source loops passed through a resonant filter network to add back some of the dynamic colouration in real time. Sort-of semi-generative.

I have no concrete idea how PD plan to "generate" sounds in this "completely different way", though. It could be anything at this point, but anything that doesn't rely on raw recordings should be a lot more flexible (think tuning).

 

[RACECAR]

As someone who actually has tried altering sounds in rFactor, I can confirm that its nowhere as simple has "Record, past sounds here" as I also once thought. At the time, I was under the impression that all I had to do was just copy some sounds files, paste and done but I was terribly wrong. You don't just do things with the sample, You have to (at least with rFactor as far as I know) match it with the numbers of things like volume mix, Coast, Throttle position and so on. And that's just some of the variables you play with in the SFX file. Its why its taking so long for me to make a well sorted engine folder using only that Jaguar Engine sample from that concept car, because I'm still trying to sort out the numbers and attenuation to make it sound like that at speed.

Not saying anything regarding How PD does it, just speaking from the little experience I had (as well as been taking to someone else who has done a abunch of these).

 

[MaDHaX]

Well it's true, no matter how many excuses are made about a nice sound engine and how difficult it's claimed to be to create sounds. As mentioned before, the car sounds simply suck. And many low budget arcade titels sound far better than any GT game ever has. If they use a realistic sound engine to kind of simulate the sounds then it's a nice attempt, but so far they failed. Because I see no advantage using it anymore. When a simpler method provides to my ear sounds which sound way closer to the real deal.

I totally agree with this guy, why is PD then trying to complicate sound if the more simple method sounds better?

Griffith and RC45 both agree that the sound in GT5 is crap, so there really is no need to argue here. What PD need to figure out is how they can improve the sound.
RC45 has a good valid point about the rFactor community coming together and making rFactor to what it is today, and let me tell you rF is truelly amazing even today with the older generation graphics.

Now as we cannot disagree that it was the community coming together to revolutionize rF, then how about the GT5 community do the same? I mean there has been hackers to change BHP and grip levels for cheating but could the sound samples not be changed? I wonder if it is the programming or the sound samples that is ruining an otherwise great game.

As I have a PS3 I will be buying GT6 but if the sound is no different or not as emmersive as Need for Speed (giving PD a chance here) then I will not be investing in a PS4, I'll just stick to PC sim's.

I can understand and respect that implementing sound is not that easy but my point is that if selfish companies like EA can produce better sound then something isn't right in PD's office.

One other thing I would like to point out that would be impressive is if PD can implement a sound sample like R3E but with different noise level's depending on what exhaust you have fitted i.e. standard vs racing, the race exhaust would be so loud in real life that you would hardly here the car with a standard exhaust.

Just my 2 cent's but it would be cool if modders could do something with a hacked PS3

*EDIT*

BTW I am aware that PD ban's IP addresses for tampering with the game, I only suggested this because if it is possible to change the sound samples then maybe the community could show PD how the sound should really sound like.

 

[LeMansAid]

Had a tinker with some basic eq-ing and came up with a definitive truth: 8kHz does not exist in Japan. They cannot hear it, so we get bucket loads of it.

Seriously though, I cannot believe how pivotal it is to the sound. Knocking a heap of it out sacrifices a certain amount of "snarl" at idle and very low revs, but the upsides far outweigh. I did a whole lot of balancing in the bottom end and low mids for some nice results, but it was between 4 and 12k where my preferences became extreme - 4k up significantly, 8k down a lot, 12k up a lot (from flat). Would be interested if others mess around, what results they feel they get.

Also got me wondering if PD should consider re-sampling their samples. ie. tune the playback, mic it, record it. I have seen it work wonders with instruments recorded too "transparently". It is so easy to fall in to the trap of recording as clean as possible, to give all the options for after, then realise that colouring before and colouring after are two completely different things. That is one of the "dark arts" of sound production: what comes where in the chain. The extreme version of this is Portishead recording their drum tracks, pressing it on vinyl (no less), kicking the copies around a bit to scratch them just right, then re-recording from the vinyl playback.

Anyway, I'll stop now, but try some eq people.

 

[Dodzzz]

To be honest, I prefer GT sound than this.

GT sound even though rubbish, but it's perfectly "connected" it feels like I'm hearing the sound COMING from that car I see on the TV.

While watching the above video, although the sound is better, but I cannot feel that it's coming from the car on the video.. it feels like I'm hearing the sound from another TV my dad is watching, and I'm watching a muted video of a gameplay. it feels totally disconnected.

that's my opinion.

 

[Griffith500]

Had a tinker with some basic eq-ing and came up with a definitive truth: 8kHz does not exist in Japan. They cannot hear it, so we get bucket loads of it.

Seriously though, I cannot believe how pivotal it is to the sound. Knocking a heap of it out sacrifices a certain amount of "snarl" at idle and very low revs, but the upsides far outweigh. I did a whole lot of balancing in the bottom end and low mids for some nice results, but it was between 4 and 12k where my preferences became extreme - 4k up significantly, 8k down a lot, 12k up a lot (from flat). Would be interested if others mess around, what results they feel they get.

Also got me wondering if PD should consider re-sampling their samples. ie. tune the playback, mic it, record it. I have seen it work wonders with instruments recorded too "transparently". It is so easy to fall in to the trap of recording as clean as possible, to give all the options for after, then realise that colouring before and colouring after are two completely different things. That is one of the "dark arts" of sound production: what comes where in the chain. The extreme version of this is Portishead recording their drum tracks, pressing it on vinyl (no less), kicking the copies around a bit to scratch them just right, then re-recording from the vinyl playback.

Anyway, I'll stop now, but try some eq people.

Interesting, I'll have to have a play with that. The "mids" usually have the most say in the overall character of a sound, as we hear it, but you're tinkering way up the top there. Makes me wonder if there is more to this sample quality issue, i.e. they're over-compressed and so the highs are all messed up.


I've seen this issue with colouration and recorded instruments, especially (obviously) acoustic instruments, and it's potentially controversial. The issue is that for music recording, you're interested in a particular sound for a particular part of the track, and it's the same every time you play it. Now imagine you have to be able to reproduce the sound of, say, an acoustic guitar from any / all listening positions at any time in the playback, according to the whims of the listener. This is more like the situation in a game, which is interactive, and you can't set in stone how a sound is to be heard.

In that instance, you can either pick a subtle colouration (in the recording) that makes it sound like it's located in a space, and not worry about the lack of spatial variation (because it's deliberately subtle). Or you can use several sets of samples from different positions, and hope that you can cover the required range that way (interpolation of position is a huge issue, though, in terms of how to preserve the actual sounds and not accidentally make new ones the instrument never made). Or you can eliminate all colouring from the recording, and add it back in according to what's going on in the dynamic, synthetic scene.


Obviously, it's impossible to get a recording without a colouration to it, because it's a snapshot of the radiation pattern from a given position in the acoustic field that the guitar is producing. This is also a large challenge for fully synthetic instruments, where it is relatively straightforward to make good approximations of the vibrations within the instrument, but not so much how that then translates to the acoustic field it should be producing, at least in terms of real time technologies. Regardless of the approach you use, you still need recordings for some stage of the process, even if it's "only" for validation of your offline (non-real-time), fully physically-modeled, synthetic instrument, so we still need recordists and the associated support and hardware etc.

There's also a separate layer of complication, in exactly the same vein, regarding the actual "playing" of the instrument - in a car game, that's all the physics inputs like throttle, rpm etc.


As for vinyl, that's definitely an intriguing artistic approach. Stripping back the synthesis beyond the recorded sample level opens up some interesting possibilities on that front for engine sounds, but that's perhaps best left to something that isn't trying to sound realistic.

 

[Zer0]

To be honest, I prefer GT sound than this.

GT sound even though rubbish, but it's perfectly "connected" it feels like I'm hearing the sound COMING from that car I see on the TV.

While watching the above video, although the sound is better, but I cannot feel that it's coming from the car on the video.. it feels like I'm hearing the sound from another TV my dad is watching, and I'm watching a muted video of a gameplay. it feels totally disconnected.

that's my opinion.

I agree, also I had to lower the volume at minimum and after that I had to stop the vid after 1 minute.. then instantly the relief came to my ears. That sound is unpleasant rather than exciting as would be hearing those cars growing and doing flybys in real life.

The day that GT sounds like that I would switch on again the music during gameplay and low the engines to a barely minimum to hear the revs for gears change.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I agree, also I had to lower the volume at minimum and after that I had to stop the vid after 1 minute.. then instantly the relief came to my ears. That sound is unpleasant rather than exciting as would be hearing those cars growing and doing flybys in real life.

The day that GT sounds like that I would switch on again the music during gameplay and low the engines to a barely minimum to hear the revs for gears change.

Why would you think a so-called perfectionist like Kaz would release a game with sounds like that?

 

[LeMansAid]

Interesting......

I was very surprised at how reactive the highs were. I was going in with a view to putting a bit of ugly in to the sound when suddenly.... "hey, what are you getting up to over there?". I was not working with anything overly precisioned, but that was kind of the point in a way.

I just wonder if the PD team spent a whole lot of money on recordings that ended up being just too bare bones, and lifeless. I then go on to wonder if the issues with treble arose from trying to manufacture a sound stage that was not there in the recording. Treble can become very tempting when trying to add space. With the "twice cooked" samples, I was wondering about how they could make the most of a possibly "soulless" recording, while awaiting the complete re-do.

To be honest, I am not up on all the ins and outs of how these recordings are put together, but certain concepts make sense to me. I do wonder about sampling at lowest and highest revs, and interpolating the difference. Rather than merely pitch shifting a base sound, the audio would be morphing from one known quantity to another. That may be primitive thinking though, I don't know. I was also wondering about how linear an accelerating car's sounds are, and if there are subtle interplays that are not being captured. I suppose that could be where fusing in granular components could come in.

The Portishead example was just a fun way of talking about processes of adding character. I find processing chains fascinating. The ways in which doing a, b, and c in different orders can produce such dramatically different results. The sounds being not merely just the sum of their parts.

 

[JDMTuning_DR30]

Oh my goodness..
Listen to project cars sounds! They're freaking incredible

 

[Johnnypenso]

Oh my goodness..
Listen to project cars sounds! They're freaking incredible

I'm sure some of the "experts" will find something wrong with the sounds in that video...but to my amateur ears, by comparison it makes GT5 sound like it's engineered by a deaf and blind guy..working on a Commodore 64 Let's pray Kaz watches Project Cars vids and takes notice!!

 

[Chippy569]

I'm sure some of the "experts" will find something wrong with the sounds in that video...but to my amateur ears, by comparison it makes GT5 sound like it's engineered by a deaf and blind guy..working on a Commodore 64 Let's pray Kaz watches Project Cars vids and takes notice!!

let me preface a couple of my thoughts....
1. GT5's sounds are indeed depressing compared to this
2. I really, really, really want to see p-cars succeed.

That out of the way, first thing's first, why doesn't the sound change when it flips between follow-the-nose to behind the car out of the pits? Second, at 1:16, what happened? Sounds like the filter for the cockpit died. Third, there is quite a lot of 6-8k+ noise in their engine samples. It's annoying to listen to loudly, and would only get exacerbated on subpar speakers. You can sort of hear the compromise they had to make to record on-board in the way the mics were positioned and the type of mics they had to use. It sounds like watching a youtube clip, if that makes sense. Last thought, while the sounds of the transmission are good sounds, the way it behaves is really wonky. It doesn't really react to gear shifts in a way I'd expect, and you can sort of tell they have an "acceleration" trans sound and a "deceleration" trans sound, and occasionally when it's flipping between the two the harmonics don't line up. When he gets on the gas at :53 is a good example of this.

That all said, I really enjoy the character shift between on and off throttle, and the way it handles drivetrain wobble is neat. The difference between in-cockpit and outside is nice, too. They've come a long way from their first public build!

When discussing P-cars in general, it's important to keep in mind that they're going to have to make compromises in all departments (visuals, sound, physics, etc) when it ports to consoles. I'm concerned about what that end product will really be.

 

[LeMansAid]

The change in sound is when it switches from helmet cam to standard cockpit cam. It is difficult to see the change, as it is quite dark at that time. I think the clip sounds fantastic.

Edit: listening back on some headphones with proper fidelity, it does indeed get a little nasty up top. Would be quite fatiguing on the sense, realistic or not.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The change in sound is when it switches from helmet cam to standard cockpit cam. It is difficult to see the change, as it is quite dark at that time. I think the clip sounds fantastic.

Edit: listening back on some headphones with proper fidelity, it does indeed get a little nasty up top. Would be quite fatiguing on the sense, realistic or not.

Up until that camera change, you'd have to agree it sounds a lot like this:

​

 

[PepeMickey]

I'm sure some of the "experts" will find something wrong with the sounds in that video...but to my amateur ears, by comparison it makes GT5 sound like it's engineered by a deaf and blind guy..working on a Commodore 64 Let's pray Kaz watches Project Cars vids and takes notice!!

Sounding better than Gran Turismo isn't exactly a hard thing to do. I'm not an expert but even I can tell where that sound sample comes from and what they've done to it.

 

[LeMansAid]

Up until that camera change, you'd have to agree it sounds a lot like this:

Yes and no, but if I had to choose a sound out of the three to drive with - 1) Pcars helmet, 2) Pcars cockpit, and 3) Real on board, I would go with Pcars helmet.

Pepe Mickey: go to your room and play, the grown ups are talking.