Project cars DLC

[mister dog]

^ So it's a conspiracy. They are all in it to make circuits dull and lifeless, and Tilke is their architectural gimp

 

[Mike_grpA]

^ So it's a conspiracy. They are all in it to make circuits dull and lifeless, and Tilke is their architectural gimp

Haha I see him more as a scapegoat. Who wouldn't love the money that would come with those contracts, even if everyone would think you have little imagination lol.

 

[DrJustice]

I count 3 Tilke 'loops' (like turn one at Shangai).
Does he always have to come up with the same bloody sections? Unbelievable this man...

T14 (top of the picture) is a Rudskogen classic - no Tilke there. The redesign did get them FIA approval which is something... Anyway, Tilke aside, that track does very much lie in the terrain and it's highly rated among drivers

Edit: the old circuit for comparison:

 

[mister dog]

T14 (top of the picture) is a Rudskogen classic - no Tilke there. The redesign did get them FIA approval which is something... Anyway, Tilke aside, that track does very much lie in the terrain and it's highly rated among drivers

Edit: the old circuit for comparison:

Those long sweeping corners look so much better to me. I see the loop before the straight was there already, shame Tilke had to add 2 more.

 

[TheElbows]

Unfortunately this whole argument is moot. Some people like Tilke designs, and we all understand why they are the way they are (safety, FIA, must conform to the way F1 cars drive now etc.). That doesn't make them fun to drive. Particularly with cars that aren't F1 fast/handling.

I love that PCars has a lot of tracks, but I don't use many of them (nor do my buddies want to). It just seems that all racing game designers look for big names, and think "well if F1 races it...it must be awesome and famous" when the reality is not so.

There are heaps of much more exciting/fun/varied tracks which will never get proper consideration (shame too, since I'd imagine licensing them would be much easier/cheaper).

 

[RacerPaul]

Yas Marina is the only circuit I know designed entirely with a set square...

I agree, its horrible

No character, no history, no flow. It's without doubt a great technological achievement, so credit for that

Strange that Bahrain GP, another Tilkedrome in the middle east is so, so much better. An epic drive imo

 

[Darragh]

I agree about the FIA being the ones at fault and not so much Tilke. When Bernie was interviewed after the construction of Sochi, he said he was very happy as it followed all the FIA rules. I think Tilke is at times restricted from making great corners. Another example would be the re-construction of the Mexico GP circuit. The FIA wanted to get rid of the long-sweeping final turn due to safety reasons, so it wasn't Tilke's fault that Mexico lost it's challenging corner. And what about Parabolica? A prime example of the FIA's incompetence - although I know it had to be implemented for motorbike racing.

However, I'm still not happy with Tilke designing so much F1 tracks. All his tracks of late have little camber or elevation changes, all of which help to create character. They're all just very... robotic.

 

[paulpg87]

Invitational events do not unlock on ps4 into career mode.. even the DLC are bugged. Incredible.
I reported that on the official forum, like many others having the same issue.

For your info if you have already more than 22/24/26 podium the DLC invitational events won't unlock, you have to restart the career...

i'm really astonished. They really do not test a damn thing.

 

[Mike_grpA]

However, I'm still not happy with Tilke designing so much F1 tracks. All his tracks of late have little camber or elevation changes, all of which help to create character. They're all just very... robotic.

The majority of tracks he's designed have a lot of character. As far as elevation and camber goes, The FIA regulations put a limit on camber and elevation, so again, not Tilke's fault.

That's the problem, everyone blames the designer, who is only working within the confines of the rule book he's given. You should all blame the rule makers. I'll say it again, Tilke's team have produced some surprisingly very good tracks considering the restrictions that are placed on them.

I don't see anyone blaming F1 teams for designing cars that don't have over 1000bhp, even though old cars had that, or full length venturi tunnels, even though cars in the 70s had that. Maybe we should carry on about Ferrari using a V6, instead of their historically significant, and traditional, V12. No, that would be ridiculous...

Some people like Tilke designs, and we all understand why they are the way they are (safety, FIA, must conform to the way F1 cars drive now etc.). That doesn't make them fun to drive. Particularly with cars that aren't F1 fast/handling.

Most of them are fun to drive though.

 

[Darragh]

Re: above.

I do realise that the FIA have a part to play in the recent poor designing of Formula One tracks, I've already mentioned it above and briefly earlier on as well. I just don't realise how much of an influence they have on track design. If they have a random limit on camber and elevation, well of course that's their fault, and not Tilke's. I really don't see why on earth they would have a limit, though. Ridiculous. When I see a poor sequence of corners such as the start of Russia, I'm inclined to assume it's the track designers fault though, unless someone says he was restricted to creating that poor sequence (well, nevermind seqeunce, terrible race track, zero corners of interest).

 

[Mike_grpA]

Re: above.

I do realise that the FIA have a part to play in the recent poor designing of Formula One tracks, I've already mentioned it above and briefly earlier on as well. I just don't realise how much of an influence they have on track design. If they have a random limit on camber and elevation, well of course that's their fault, and not Tilke's. I really don't see why on earth they would have a limit, though. Ridiculous. When I see a poor sequence of corners such as the start of Russia, I'm inclined to assume it's the track designers fault though, unless someone says he was restricted to creating that poor sequence (well, nevermind seqeunce, terrible race track, zero corners of interest).

It really doesn't take long to read up on these things, but I'll explain what I know.

The limit on elevation changes are supposedly for safety reasons. Tracks like Bathurst have very sharp elevation changes, that could actually lead to airborne cars in a variatey of situations. More obvious examples would be a number of sections of the Nordschleife, which effectively act as jumps for fast cars. F1 has such high downforce that they wouldn't likely jump on even quite extreme elevation changes, but contact could be catastrophic on some tracks that do have big elevation changes. Good examples would be skyline at Bathurst, or the corkscrew at Laguna Seca. Currently you can have changes in elevation, but there are limits. I believe the main thing in the way of Tilke designing tracks with a lot of elevation change is the fact that they don't get to pick and choose where to put a track. They are given a piece of land, which in some cases is just dead flat, and they have to do what they can. Here's an interview with the Tilke designer who did a lot of COTA, and he speaks about how they were able to actually choose that piece of land, which they normally can't do, and how it enabled them to use a piece of land with some nice elevation changes to build the tack on, and that resulted in a great track IMO. http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2013/10/22/christian-epp-tilke-interview/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+f1fanatic+(F1+Fanatic+-+The+Formula+1+Blog)#readabilityFootnoteLink-1

Camber limits are also for safety. Camber angles of up to 10degrees are allowed, but the surface can't be concave like for example the Monza banking. The main reason is the tyres in F1 aren't designed for high cambered tracks. If a modern F1 car drove the Monza banking, with it's 30-38 degree banking (it's concave, so the camber is much higher at the top), the tyres would fail at racing speeds, which would surely result in deaths from cars flying off the banking. Of course they could just force Pirelli, or any other tyre supplier for that matter, to make tyres that would cope with the extra forces, but I guess the idea is banked circuits are more dangerous, and they don't currently race on any, so the tyres aren't designed with that in mind. Also, with the levels of downforce F1 cars have, the tyres are already under huge loads, and bankings only add to that. A tyre failure, or even a wing failure, on a banked corner, could, and likely would, result in fatalities.

I hope that explains it, sorry about the big post, but FIA regs are a pain in the ass to explain at the best of times lol.

As far as sochi goes, that track was severely limited by what was already in place for the winter olympics, and the designers didn't really have a lot of wriggle room as to where they could make the track go. Think of it this way: They had to make a track in which the majority of each lap could be viewed from almost any grandstand. The area had been made completely flat for the buildings and infrastructure for the winter olympics, so no natural contours for the track to follow, much like what they were given to work with in Abu Dhabi (and we all know how well that track turned out). They have a limit on track length for all FIA grade 1 circuits, which restricts where the circuit can go. Lastly, they would have been told which part of the area they were allowed to put a track, and the area in question has buildings and roads in place for the winter olympics. There won't have been much variation in where they would have been able to make the track. It would have been essentially like building a street circuit, where you already have roads and building and stuff, so you just have to pick a route.

Edit: Some of the regs for FIA grade 1 circuits are ridiculously strict. Even the type of paint used on the surface, and the minimum width of lines, are both regulated lol.

 

[Darragh]

It really doesn't take long to read up on these things, but I'll explain what I know.

The limit on elevation changes are supposedly for safety reasons. Tracks like Bathurst have very sharp elevation changes, that could actually lead to airborne cars in a variatey of situations. More obvious examples would be a number of sections of the Nordschleife, which effectively act as jumps for fast cars. F1 has such high downforce that they wouldn't likely jump on even quite extreme elevation changes, but contact could be catastrophic on some tracks that do have big elevation changes. Good examples would be skyline at Bathurst, or the corkscrew at Laguna Seca. Currently you can have changes in elevation, but there are limits. I believe the main thing in the way of Tilke designing tracks with a lot of elevation change is the fact that they don't get to pick and choose where to put a track. They are given a piece of land, which in some cases is just dead flat, and they have to do what they can. Here's an interview with the Tilke designer who did a lot of COTA, and he speaks about how they were able to actually choose that piece of land, which they normally can't do, and how it enabled them to use a piece of land with some nice elevation changes to build the tack on, and that resulted in a great track IMO. http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2013/10/22/christian-epp-tilke-interview/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+f1fanatic+(F1+Fanatic+-+The+Formula+1+Blog)#readabilityFootnoteLink-1

Camber limits are also for safety. Camber angles of up to 10degrees are allowed, but the surface can't be concave like for example the Monza banking. The main reason is the tyres in F1 aren't designed for high cambered tracks. If a modern F1 car drove the Monza banking, with it's 30-38 degree banking (it's concave, so the camber is much higher at the top), the tyres would fail at racing speeds, which would surely result in deaths from cars flying off the banking. Of course they could just force Pirelli, or any other tyre supplier for that matter, to make tyres that would cope with the extra forces, but I guess the idea is banked circuits are more dangerous, and they don't currently race on any, so the tyres aren't designed with that in mind. Also, with the levels of downforce F1 cars have, the tyres are already under huge loads, and bankings only add to that. A tyre failure, or even a wing failure, on a banked corner, could, and likely would, result in fatalities.

I hope that explains it, sorry about the big post, but FIA regs are a pain in the ass to explain at the best of times lol.

As far as sochi goes, that track was severely limited by what was already in place for the winter olympics, and the designers didn't really have a lot of wriggle room as to where they could make the track go. Think of it this way: They had to make a track in which the majority of each lap could be viewed from almost any grandstand. The area had been made completely flat for the buildings and infrastructure for the winter olympics, so no natural contours for the track to follow, much like what they were given to work with in Abu Dhabi (and we all know how well that track turned out). They have a limit on track length for all FIA grade 1 circuits, which restricts where the circuit can go. Lastly, they would have been told which part of the area they were allowed to put a track, and the area in question has buildings and roads in place for the winter olympics. There won't have been much variation in where they would have been able to make the track. It would have been essentially like building a street circuit, where you already have roads and building and stuff, so you just have to pick a route.

Edit: Some of the regs for FIA grade 1 circuits are ridiculously strict. Even the type of paint used on the surface, and the minimum width of lines, are both regulated lol.

Thanks for the detailed response. I do feel that those regulations are way too strict.

Firstly, the FIA appear inconsistent with their rules with elevation changes. If it truly is unsafe for drastic elevation changes, then they should get rid of Eau Rouge. I find it terrible inconsistent that they wouldn't allow newer tracks to have elevation changes because of a driver injury when there are already such designs already in F1.

I do also believe that the FIA are being way too strict in certain areas of safety. The tragic death of Jules Bianchi reminds us of the dangers, but that was only caused by the caterpillar on the road (which should actually be illegal IMO). Like it or not, the danger is at times the attraction to Formula One. Raikkonen recently said that the cars are too safe. There is a line that I feel has been crossed in some areas that the FIA make things like camber, run off roads, and elevation changes too safe. It gets rid of the thrill of drivers and of fans that attracts us to this sport.

About camber, I'm not looking at high-angles turns, much and all they would be cool. I'd like that the new tracks had a little bit of it, like the double right turns in Monza or the middle section of Interlagos.

 

[Mike_grpA]

Thanks for the detailed response. I do feel that those regulations are way too strict.

Firstly, the FIA appear inconsistent with their rules with elevation changes. If it truly is unsafe for drastic elevation changes, then they should get rid of Eau Rouge. I find it terrible inconsistent that they wouldn't allow newer tracks to have elevation changes because of a driver injury when there are already such designs already in F1.

I do also believe that the FIA are being way too strict in certain areas of safety. The tragic death of Jules Bianchi reminds us of the dangers, but that was only caused by the caterpillar on the road (which should actually be illegal IMO). Like it or not, the danger is at times the attraction to Formula One. Raikkonen recently said that the cars are too safe. There is a line that I feel has been crossed in some areas that the FIA make things like camber, run off roads, and elevation changes too safe. It gets rid of the thrill of drivers and of fans that attracts us to this sport.

About camber, I'm not looking at high-angles turns, much and all they would be cool. I'd like that the new tracks had a little bit of it, like the double right turns in Monza or the middle section of Interlagos.

I too think the rules are too strict in most cases, but it's evolved that way mostly due to the massive number of deaths and serious injuries the sport used to suffer.

About Eau Rouge, they allow certain historic tracks a little lee-way that new tracks don't get. Monaco, for example, falls foul of a bunch of regs, but they let it off due to it being such a historically important track to F1. The same applies to Spa and Monza. Although Spa needed to have updates back in 2006 to get the pit facility up to grade 1 standards, just like what happened with Silverstone.

As far as camber goes, they are allowed a maximum of ten degrees afaik, and some of the Tilke tracks to indeed have cambered corners. The high-speed sweepers at Buddh come to mind as cambered corners, more so than the two Lesmos at Monza, in a new circuit. There are corners with a smaller amount of camber in other Tilke circuits too, so it's not like it's completely missing from all new tracks.

I totally agree with the decision to bring the recovery vehicle out without a safety car last year in Suzuka. That was dumb as **** and caused the death of a future world champ. That wasn't an FIA regulation thing though, that was poor race control at Suzuka, and I doubt we'll see it again.

The problem with dangerous cars, is people will suffer injuries or deaths, unless the tracks are made even safer. That means much wider tracks, and asphalt runoff everywhere, and miles of it too. I'm not a fan of that idea. I'm more of the mindset that the cars should be more powerful, faster, and more exciting, but also much safer. Using things like venturi tunnels and active suspension, so that the tracks don't need such tight regs on safety. I'd be in favour of even better crash structures and even closed cockpits, if it meant we'd see more gravel traps on the outside of tricky corners to punish poor driving, instead of big car parks to drive onto if you leave the track.

 

[Johnnypenso]

All the info about FIA regs is entertaining, but it still doesn't change the fact for me, that I'd rather race on tracks that aren't sanitized and watered down for safety. I'd rather race on the dangerous F1 circuits of the 50's to 80's or circuits of that era in general, than most current "safe" tracks.

 

[Mike_grpA]

All the info about FIA regs is entertaining, but it still doesn't change the fact for me, that I'd rather race on tracks that aren't sanitized and watered down for safety. I'd rather race on the dangerous F1 circuits of the 50's to 80's or circuits of that era in general, than most current "safe" tracks.

That's why I'm anxiously awaiting the historic content for Pcars.

My entire point was that not all, and in fact not even most, modern tracks are bad. No more a percentage than you'd find in old tracks. I've seen lots of boring old tracks. I think we've got room for the best of new and old, and then we can happily race away to forget memories of the Yas Marina's of this world

 

[Punknoodle]

All the info about FIA regs is entertaining, but it still doesn't change the fact for me, that I'd rather race on tracks that aren't sanitized and watered down for safety. I'd rather race on the dangerous F1 circuits of the 50's to 80's or circuits of that era in general, than most current "safe" tracks.

In the virtual world at least lol. In real life if I'm on a track where I'm in serious trouble when I run out of talent I don't think I'd feel too good about going flat out in something really fast.

Safety isn't really a factor on a simulator.

 

[Furinkazen]

Still wanting the damn Laguna ST ... any clue on next months DLC ?(IIRC we knew of the Audi pretty early on).

 

[Scuderia Paul]

Still wanting the damn Laguna ST ... any clue on next months DLC ?(IIRC we knew of the Audi pretty early on).

Apparently it was only started relatively recently so I would think it's several months off yet.

 

[LeGeNd-1]

@McLaren Apparently the Modified Pack is already released on 21 July on Steam, but it doesn't get added to the main PCARS page for some reason. I had to search it separately: http://store.steampowered.com/app/334771/?snr=1_7_7_151_150_1

 

[McLaren]

@McLaren Apparently the Modified Pack is already released on 21 July on Steam, but it doesn't get added to the main PCARS page for some reason. I had to search it separately: http://store.steampowered.com/app/334771/?snr=1_7_7_151_150_1

Nice. I'll download that when I get a chance.

 

[Tired iron]

About the DLC new paint schemes is there a way to change them, I'm a tad confused I don't see any options to do that.
I'm on the PS4 Ver.2

 

[Tired iron]

Sorry about the double post internet gremlins.

 

[FLX1981]

You mean the livery pack #2? You need to download it, then they should be available. To change liveries go to "My Garage" (press triangle in vehicle selection), select your car and then change the livery by clicking L/R (yeah, its tedious).

 

[Tired iron]

You mean the livery pack #2? You need to download it, then they should be available. To change liveries go to "My Garage" (press triangle in vehicle selection), select your car and then change the livery by clicking L/R (yeah, its tedious).

Yes pack 1&2 and thank you very much. 👍
All I need is for SMS to give us sunglasses for the driver.

 

[DeanVic]

Just wondering if anybody knows how often they release car packs and new track expansions ?

Is it sort of monthly or whenever they feel like

I only know about the monthly free car witch seems to be a road car like the a1

Thanks

 

[galaxyjack]

Just wondering if anybody knows how often they release car packs and new track expansions ?

Is it sort of monthly or whenever they feel like

I only know about the monthly free car witch seems to be a road car like the a1

Thanks

3rd free car is probably Ruf Rt-12r
and they release dlc packs monthly. One month car pack, other month track pack with cars. But It will change in future, we can not be sure.

 

[DeanVic]

Thanks mate I hope they keep em pumping out haha

 

[m3lover1]

The new Audi Ruapuna DLC is fun..

Speaking of courses that would be fun to add to any sim racing game.. sure it is not famous but still a blast.

Chuckwalla Raceway - the maps looks a bit boring but it does not show the elevation changes and the nice banked corner. http://goracecvr.com/track/


Also Thunderhill - this now has an extended track that was finished last year so it has many configurations with a full 5+ mile long configuration. This track also has some good elevation changes and runs a 25 hour race each year.
http://www.thunderhill.com/track-map/
http://nasa25hour.com/

I think I can kiss...okay maybe hug you for mentioning Thunderhill. I've rode my bike there plenty of times (most times on the East configuration, one time on the full 5mile), and I would absolutely love if Thunderhill made it into Pcars!!!

 

[Spitfire77]

I think I can kiss...okay maybe hug you for mentioning Thunderhill. I've rode my bike there plenty of times (most times on the East configuration, one time on the full 5mile), and I would absolutely love if Thunderhill made it into Pcars!!!

I bet it is a blast on a bike... I raced it in this thing on the full 5 mile.

 

[m3lover1]

I bet it is a blast on a bike... I raced it in this thing on the full 5 mile.

Damn that thing is awesome lol.

I love the east section. Fastest time on that section is 2:03, trying to get to 2:00 but damn shaving off the 3 seconds is hard lol.

Not too fond of the 5 mile, but maybe because I've only done it once. It's just that the east is so fast and flowing, and naturally I'm fast on that part because I've tracked over 15 times there, when I get to the west section, it's the complete opposite of the east that my mind is having a hard time switching mindset from a fast and smooth section to tight and technical. I think I need a couple times on just the west to practice and it will be better