Project CARS 2 General Discussion Thread - Out Now on PS4/XB1/PC

[jake2013guy]

Beat me to it!

It linked to the previous writeup so I linked to the Facebook one.

 

[RoadRageDudez]

The Porsche 935/77, 935/80, and 936 Spyder along with many era-defining liveries will come with Project CARS 2 released in late 2017 for the PlayStation®4 system, Xbox One, and PC.

 

[bleeder]

can't wait!

 

[Joe Seijo]

We don't like the term 'locked'. It would put us in first party territory where chest beating is more important than a great experience. We'll be 60 most of the time in normal racing and we'll push the consoles to and beyond their limits for more interesting racing. Even if that means dropping a few frames.

Isn't running it at 4k also a form of chest beating? Why not run it at a lower resolution to maintain 60 fps at all times? Lower resolution isn't distracting during a race, but loss of smoothness due to framerate fluctuations definitely is.

 

[Pillo-san]

Isn't running it at 4k also a form of chest beating? Why not run it at a lower resolution to maintain 60 fps at all times? Lower resolution isn't distracting during a race, but loss of smoothness due to framerate fluctuations definitely is.

Because the cpu(basically an amd fx at 2.3ghz) in the consoles is probably too weak to manage 60fps regardless of resolution. If you want less physic based calculations then it probably will be possible to hit rock solid 60, but do you want something like that?

 

[HardRock]

locked framerates in a racer on a closed system, is first party territory?
news to me LOL

I think you misunderstood. Boasting locked 60 FPS is what's first party territory, but what that actually entails is scaling back the game in some way. It's usually a good trade-off though, don't get me wrong, as I like 60 FPS just as much as the next PC guy, but not providing certain options just to maintain it *at all cost* is not something I'm for. For example, everything else being equal, which sim would you choose: one that is always 60 FPS with maximum 16 cars in a race, or one that is 60 FPS with 16 cars, but allows you to race against 50+, albeit at lower framerates when they are all on the screen.

 

[jake2013guy]

We know it's going to be in the game. But look at that unusual looking logo on the back of the 98T in the first few seconds.

 

[Ian Bell]

Isn't running it at 4k also a form of chest beating? Why not run it at a lower resolution to maintain 60 fps at all times? Lower resolution isn't distracting during a race, but loss of smoothness due to framerate fluctuations definitely is.

Yes, hence why we're not (At least we're almost certain of that).

And I'm referring to non PC systems of course.

 

[Davlish Singh]

 

[breyzipp]

Holy **** that video is awesome! Well if anyone has any more doubts about the possibility to "catch a slide" in PCARS2... lol.

Someone should post it at the Turn 10 forums as well so the kids over there can see how a real handling model works.

 

[Davlish Singh]

@IanBell @The_American I love and respect the way you guys have taken it a step further with Project CARS 2 with all the features especially the seasonal changes and fluid dynamics. I would love to see dynamic water droplets on the windshield and the side windows, having implemented dynamic wind and fluid dynamics it should not be difficult I guess. I don't know if it has been previously requested or already planned. Thumbs up to you guys for all the features one can dream of in a sim racer.👍

 

[Masscot]

Yep - digital snap oversteer is a dim and distant memory now. That looks like fun.

 

[mrPetros]

I think you misunderstood. Boasting locked 60 FPS is what's first party territory, but what that actually entails is scaling back the game in some way. It's usually a good trade-off though, don't get me wrong, as I like 60 FPS just as much as the next PC guy, but not providing certain options just to maintain it *at all cost* is not something I'm for. For example, everything else being equal, which sim would you choose: one that is always 60 FPS with maximum 16 cars in a race, or one that is 60 FPS with 16 cars, but allows you to race against 50+, albeit at lower framerates when they are all on the screen.

no my friend, no missunderstanding on my part. we are talking about consoles. closed systems, cant upgrade gpu/ram/etc on your part, its what dev sells you only.
when you give me a game, that drops frames upon entering a turn -'cause it displays more graphics , or drops them when I approach a que of cars ahead, or drops them when the game's "dynamics" kick-in, well, THAT game is completely unenjoyable as racer for me.
nothing more to add to that.
and yes, imo there is no point in having a 50 car race when your machine slows down and game becomes unplayable the second a portion of them are displayed.
There are many techniques as we have seen in many developers (not 1st party) that respect themselves and their customers, that do all sorts of trickery and more importantly, long and painful optimizations to maintain that framerate, a.k.a "the gameplay".
Here are we trying to replace "closed box optimization" with "no holding back"? lol nope! these things are not the same, never were, never will be.

 

[35mm]

AIA (Portimão) will definitely be on top of my most played tracks.

 

[Ian Bell]

This is clearly overdone for effect but yes, you can catch slides now and it feels pretty epic if I may say so.

 

[Ian Bell]

@IanBell @The_American I love and respect the way you guys have taken it a step further with Project CARS 2 with all the features especially the seasonal changes and fluid dynamics. I would love to see dynamic water droplets on the windshield and the side windows, having implemented dynamic wind and fluid dynamics it should not be difficult I guess. I don't know if it has been previously requested or already planned. Thumbs up to you guys for all the features one can dream of in a sim racer.👍

It would be one coder for about 2 days. It would though take away power we've applied to other areas and we think they deserve them more. Don't get me wrong, I want us to have more 'whizz' than the competition but it will require even more optimisation of what we have to free up space in terms of processing headroom. We'll get there. Maybe pCARS3

 

[HardRock]

imo there is no point in having a 50 car race when your machine slows down and game becomes unplayable the second a portion of them are displayed.

Good, then you will have the choice of not doing that in pCARS 2. That is the whole point you seemed to have missed here. Just reaching 60 FPS is for sure the result of many optimization passes on consoles (you can see in Ian's post above that this is no different for pCARS 2), I know that, since I was a QA tester for years in the X360/PS3 era. However it almost always also means taking away certain options from players (things you won't know about), scaling back the game in some way, to maintain that framerate, so it's not just about optimized code, but reigned in game design. This is where pCARS 1 and it seems pCARS 2 as well is slightly different compared to the competition. SMS doesn't seems to have any insecurities about dropping a few frames when the player want to experience something they can't in competing products and if with similar settings that the competition offers (or even more) they can maintain 60 FPS like they could in pCARS 1, then what is the problem of dipping below that with options that you don't have to take advantage of?

There are many techniques as we have seen in many developers (not 1st party) that respect themselves and their customers, that do all sorts of trickery and more importantly, long and painful optimizations to maintain that framerate, a.k.a "the gameplay".

That is an interesting, albeit completely unrealistic point of view you have there. Respect may be a part of that, but achieving stable frame rates on consoles is much more about how much resources and experience a development team have. If they are third-party devs or new to the consoles, they can also often forget about direct assistance from MS or Sony. Some regulations from platform holders also come in effect here.

Here are we trying to replace "closed box optimization" with "no holding back"? lol nope! these things are not the same, never were, never will be.

That is a nice straw man, but I never said that, or even meant to imply it.

 

[phil-t]

It makes me sad when people think a locked 60fps is 'boasting' , but each to their own.

It just reinforces my view that a hardcore sim approach puts FPS first and ramp up the graphics to what they can, and a 'relatively hardcore race experience simulator' will compromise fps for the 'experience'..

The conflict for me is when physics are so talked about, but in reality nuances of physics are all undone if you get a sudden drop in framerate at the wrong time, the visual feedback is all part of the physics system and forms part of what you use to determine what the car is doing (alongside FFB and audio of course), it's all important, so compromising framerate cadence compromises the physics IMO.

Anyway, I play all these games, GT also puts experience above framerate, and I still play that, but we could all wish for the perfect world where we get options..

 

[Bealdor]

Anyway, I play all these games, GT also puts experience above framerate, and I still play that, but we could all wish for the perfect world where we get options..

Blame MS and Sony for not getting the option to decrease image quality for better performance.
The game developers would be more than happy to give you the same options the PC versions have.

 

[HardRock]

It makes me sad when people think a locked 60fps is 'boasting' , but each to their own.

To see that point, consider locked 60 FPS this way: when the game or sim in question would be below it, then optimization is required one way or another, but it almost always comes with reducing player options as well (number of cars, field of view, depending on the game camera freedom, etc.). When the console could do more (which is definitely the case sometimes), well, then its resources are wasted, since you are locked to a lower framerate. Locked framerate, no matter to what value, is always a compromise, so it shouldn't be boasted about really. It does require large amounts of work to reach 60 FPS on the consoles, no disputing that, but that doesn't change the fact that when considering what was taken away (which again, sadly, is only known by the people who actually worked on the games, almost never by the public) it's not always as positive as people make it out to be, although I agree, high framerate is damn important for sims, or generally any game with fast position or camera orientation changes.

It just reinforces my view that a hardcore sim approach puts FPS first and ramp up the graphics to what they can, and a 'relatively hardcore race experience simulator' will compromise fps for the 'experience'..

The alternative would be compromising the experience more, even on the best PCs of today. The processing power required for a 100% accurate simulator at playable framerates is just not in our homes yet. We've been inching ever closer to that, but still with clever tricks and simplifications here and there, and very often not in the graphics department.

The conflict for me is when physics are so talked about, but in reality nuances of physics are all undone if you get a sudden drop in framerate at the wrong time, the visual feedback is all part of the physics system and forms part of what you use to determine what the car is doing (alongside FFB and audio of course), it's all important, so compromising framerate cadence compromises the physics IMO.

That's actually backwards. More often than not you have to compromise the physics or graphics in some small way, to get better framerates, so a less smooth experience is often the result of less compromises. Well that, or less optimizations, although again, optimization often means changes in game design or art, not in code, but people still always seem to imagine it as a brilliant coder fixing all the problems. Ask any map designer or artist working on models and you will get a different picture.

I get what you mean though, but I would instead say that frame drops compromise the driving experience to varying degrees, as it breaks the immersion and your connection to the car you are driving. I would like to mention though, that following best coding practices, the input delay of a lower frame rate can be minimized to a certain point.

Anyway, I play all these games, GT also puts experience above framerate, and I still play that, but we could all wish for the perfect world where we get options..

Me too, on the platforms I have at least. With pCARS 2 though, it seems you will have the option on the consoles to stay in the confines of a very close to locked 60 FPS experience or if you care less about that do things other sims don't allow you to on the consoles, since they made compromises in other areas, not in framerates.

 

[Masscot]

Blame MS and Sony for not getting the option to decrease image quality for better performance.
The game developers would be more than happy to give you the same options the PC versions have.

I'm a little confused. Some console games already run at lower resolutions (eg 900p vs 1080p) to stabilise frame rates, and console games like Bioshock had locked or unlocked frame rate options. Plus, Project CARS already lets console users adjust many graphical effects. Are we talking at crossed purposes here?

PS4 menu:

 

[mrPetros]

Good, then you will have the choice of not doing that in pCARS 2. That is the whole point you seemed to have missed here. Just reaching 60 FPS is for sure the result of many optimization passes on consoles (you can see in Ian's post above that this is no different for pCARS 2), I know that, since I was a QA tester for years in the X360/PS3 era. However it almost always also means taking away certain options from players (things you won't know about), scaling back the game in some way, to maintain that framerate, so it's not just about optimized code, but reigned in game design. This is where pCARS 1 and it seems pCARS 2 as well is slightly different compared to the competition. SMS doesn't seems to have any insecurities about dropping a few frames when the player want to experience something they can't in competing products and if with similar settings that the competition offers (or even more) they can maintain 60 FPS like they could in pCARS 1, then what is the problem of dipping below that with options that you don't have to take advantage of?



That is an interesting, albeit completely unrealistic point of view you have there. Respect may be a part of that, but achieving stable frame rates on consoles is much more about how much resources and experience a development team have. If they are third-party devs or new to the consoles, they can also often forget about direct assistance from MS or Sony. Some regulations from platform holders also come in effect here.



That is a nice straw man, but I never said that, or even meant to imply it.

so you say I have the choice to play a game (a) unplayable with features, or (b) playable without them? LOL, and to think that you are the one talking about strawman arguments

I am happy for your game tester background, but I am a CUSTOMER.
Bottom line, I dont really care about what has to be done to make a game playable from not playable. its not my job.

But selling me something for its EXTRA FEATURES, that once they kick-in, they render my game unplayable, well, good luck.


p.s. I left out the "respect" part on purpose, its something that I dont want to further elaborate, because I will not be so much polite if I refer to this specific thing.

 

[ozwheels]

so you say I have the choice to play a game (a) unplayable with features, or (b) playable without them? LOL, and to think that you are the one talking about strawman arguments

I am happy for your game tester background, but I am a CUSTOMER.
Bottom line, I dont really care about what has to be done to make a game playable from not playable. its not my job.

But selling me something for its EXTRA FEATURES, that once they kick-in, they render my game unplayable, well, good luck.

I think your exaggerating a bit with the frame rate stuff. Maybe my eyes aren't calibrated for 9000 FPS, but I can't remember a time in pCars 1 where FPS dropped and caused me to lose control or made the game unplayable. Having to choose between solid 9000 FPS versus very realistic physics is an easy decision for "hardcore sim approach." What is the point in having solid 9000 FPS if you're not playing anything more advanced than MARIO Kart?

 

[Bealdor]

I'm a little confused. Some console games already run at lower resolutions (eg 900p vs 1080p) to stabilise frame rates, and console games like Bioshock had locked or unlocked frame rate options. Plus, Project CARS already lets console users adjust many graphical effects. Are we talking at crossed purposes here?

PS4 menu:

Those options don't influence the performance of the game (or just minimal).
The console manufacturers won't allow performance altering options like shadow quality or track detail for example.

 

[mrPetros]

I think your exaggerating a bit with the frame rate stuff. Maybe my eyes aren't calibrated for 9000 FPS, but I can't remember a time in pCars 1 where FPS dropped and caused me to lose control or made the game unplayable. Having to choose between solid 9000 FPS versus very realistic physics is an easy decision for "hardcore sim approach." What is the point in having solid 9000 FPS if you're not playing anything more advanced than MARIO Kart?

really? then I want your opinion on video below, please!
and take note: this is AFTER game was patched and patched!
I have my own videos of my experience DAY1, but they are too brutal too show.

so, watch this and report back please:



EDIT: hardrock, you also take a good look at this vid before writing more stuffs

 

[HardRock]

so you say I have the choice to play a game (a) unplayable with features, or (b) playable without them? LOL, and to think that you are the one talking about strawman arguments

Not once did I or any one said anything about the sim becoming unplayable with those extra features, just dipping below 60 FPS, as Ian mentioned as well. That is what's actually a straw man argument you know, putting words into others mouth to try to prove your point. I didn't do that in my posts I think (if I did I apologize), I was merely trying to point out to you how pCARS 2, just like pCARS 1, could very well run at 60 FPS, but provide additional options to you, the customer, that if you care about can enhance the racing experience, albeit at lower frame rates. The choice is yours to make, unlike in other console racers.

 

[ozwheels]

really? then I want your opinion on video below, please!
and take note: this is AFTER game was patched and patched!
I have my own videos of my experience DAY1, but they are too brutal too show.

so, watch this and report back please:

What am I supposed to see? There's spray and you can't see much?

 

[mrPetros]

What am I supposed to see? There's spray and you can't see much?

well if you cant see nothing, then I guess there 's nothing wrong.

if we cant have common understanding of basic things, whats the use of talking?

 

[ozwheels]

well if you cant see nothing, then I guess there 's nothing wrong.

if we cant have common understanding of basic things, whats the use of talking?

We shouldn't talk.

 

[HardRock]

EDIT: hardrock, you also take a good look at this vid before writing more stuffs

I did now, and I did when I read the article back when it was new.

Full article for that video you linked, just so others can see the conclusion reached in it: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...cars-patch-104-boosts-visuals-and-runs-faster

Reading that, that video I think proves my point more than you realize, in that pCARS provides options other sims don't. At this point you will of course most likely still point out, that FPS is below 60 even with temporal AA disabled in *specific* cases. Well, yes, but show me another sim on the consoles that manages 60 FPS with 20 cars on a rainy racetrack with fully dynamic lighting and weather conditions. Again, SMS may have made compromises in the FPS department, but it's all for a more accurate sim, with more cars than you are allowed to race against on the consoles otherwise. If you don't like the dips in frame rate, take the number of cars down to what the competition offers, in static weather (the lighting will be dynamic anyway, which is a "shame" since static lighting would be the largest boost to performance) and you'll get closer to that 60 FPS you are looking for.

I would like to add that from everything I hear and see pCARS 2 is much closer to hitting the 60 FPS mark on the consoles in more situations, due to heavy optimizations, with no negative effects I noticed.