Project CARS General Discussion Thread

[FLX1981]

I hate to ruin the hopes of you guys but on PS3/360, the multiplayer limit will be 16 players at best. These old consoles are just not strong enough to handle more players with the level of physics and graphics they are aiming for.

PC/next gen consoles is something entirely different, there you can definitely expect much larger fields.

 

[chromatic9]

Guys is their a method in place with someone who has accumulated the best "user created" car skins together as a simple download pack?

I would actually pay a small amount via paypal towards someone hosting or offering such a service as long as the designer/person of each skin maintains the credit for their work. Thoughts please...

I've download quite a lot over time, I checked the folder size and its 4GB. When skin organiser come out I transfered some of the better ones and in added a few newer liveries, it's 2.3GB with half the cars not having any. perhaps I could narrow it down to 1Gb but then there could be some you think are missing which defeats the whole point I guess. With many skins 30-40mb each they soon build up to multiple gigs which is hard to upload. Around 30 liveries would be 1Gb.

Skin organiser if you don't have it.
http://forum.wmdportal.com/showthread.php?5161-pCARS-Custom-Skin-Organiser&

If you want I could upload my folder of skins, not sure where to, maybe depositfiles, many others sites are limited to 20-400mb

 

[ch3ng]

Why not?

It's the same with first person shooter games, do you really think the PS3 limited it to 24 players (BF3) or 18 players (COD)? I just see the game MAG in front of me, with an astonishing limit of 256 players, and it ran perfectly smooth without any major problems.

It all depends on your demands.

Are you serious?

 

[bermudakid]

I hate to ruin the hopes of you guys but on PS3/360, the multiplayer limit will be 16 players at best. These old consoles are just not strong enough to handle more players with the level of physics and graphics they are aiming for.

PC/next gen consoles is something entirely different, there you can definitely expect much larger fields.

/Truth

 

[G.T.Ace]

Are you serious?

MAG has 256 players at once, but you can't compare a shooter with mediocre graphics to such a race-sim.

 

[ch3ng]

MAG has 256 players at once, but you can't compare a shooter with mediocre graphics to such a race-sim.

I know. A racing game like GT or pcars can't have 60 or 256 cars on track on PS3.

@ dr_slump
You mentioned Battlefield. BF has 64 players on PC, but Dice had to decrease the number of players for console.

 

[dice1998]

It was only for like 2 maps. Both of which are PC exclusive..

 

[SlowInFastOut]

Stunning close shot of the rain! For some reason the base of the wing doesn't look attached? Please don't think I'm slamming the game, ugh.

What you're seeing is part of the side panel that hangs down on either end, because of the angle it looks like it's going into the trunk but it's not actually the wing support.

 

[SlowInFastOut]

Anyone know exact funding figures put into this game? it looks lightyears ahead of what PD is doing with Sony's backing, granted there's less restrictions for PCs, but wow.

 

[TexasTyme214]

I hate to ruin the hopes of you guys but on PS3/360, the multiplayer limit will be 16 players at best. These old consoles are just not strong enough to handle more players with the level of physics and graphics they are aiming for.

PC/next gen consoles is something entirely different, there you can definitely expect much larger fields.

This is a given, but I'm really curious if the PS4/720 can do 64 players like the PC.

 

[chromatic9]

Anyone know exact funding figures put into this game? it looks lightyears ahead of what PD is doing with Sony's backing, granted there's less restrictions for PCs, but wow.

3.82 million euros

 

[JvM]

What you're seeing is part of the side panel that hangs down on either end, because of the angle it looks like it's going into the trunk but it's not actually the wing support.

It is the support, the wing endplate doesn't have a hole in it.

 

[priesty_lfc]

Anyone know exact funding figures put into this game? it looks lightyears ahead of what PD is doing with Sony's backing, granted there's less restrictions for PCs, but wow.

Sorry?

So what have you seen from PD?

Obv GT 5 has been out 3 years?? and the PS3 has been out for 7 years so I'm not quite sure what your comparing it with.

Yes PC does look better than GT5 but even then I wouldn't say it's light years better,

If you mean car models, I would say what we've seen from Drive Club looks better than PC.....

 

[dr_slump]

MAG has 256 players at once, but you can't compare a shooter with mediocre graphics to such a race-sim.

Due to what? Since when do race sims need good graphics to be accepted as race sim? Turn quality down and it's possible. Don't tell me it's not possible to worsen graphics…

MAG doesn't look great, but does COD? There was much more action on screen in MAG than COD will ever have. Both games look ****, but hey -> 18 - 256 players. Btw, I was more than happy with how MAG looked, I never complained about its graphics, just saying.
I do not need PCars to look great on consoles, I'm not a graphics whore.

I know. A racing game like GT or pcars can't have 60 or 256 cars on track on PS3.

@ dr_slump
You mentioned Battlefield. BF has 64 players on PC, but Dice had to decrease the number of players for console.

Of course can it, turn graphics and some other things down and it will work.

---

Geez, you people really don't get that I'm talking about possibilities? It is possible, for sure, but I never said it's going to happen for Project Cars. I don't even want to talk about the PS4.

I'm also shocked that certain people can read parts of posts but never the whole thing:

How can you make a 40 cars race on ps3 ???

Why not?

It's the same with first person shooter games, do you really think the PS3 limited it to 24 players (BF3) or 18 players (COD)? I just see the game MAG in front of me, with an astonishing limit of 256 players, and it ran perfectly smooth without any major problems.

It all depends on your demands.

I don't know, is it clear enough now? Maybe I should increase size even more? So that you can no longer ignore it? Yeah?


Many people here were talking in a general sense, why can't I?


EDIT: Oh, I'm talking in a negative manner in a sacred Pcars thread. I'm surely going to land in hell for this. Completely ignoring that I'd instantly invest in a PS4 version if it just were possible.

 

[sesselpupser]

You'd have to turn down a lot more than the graphical quality to get 32+ player racing on the PS3. MAG could handle 256 players because the physics calculations are minimal (and most likely server-side) and clients don't necessarily have to be constantly in sync with everyone else (have you ever shot at someone, have all your bullets miss and then they one-shot you in an online shooter?), but racing games are completely different. You remember how GT5 had the sliding scale of online simulation quality? That was a bandwidth consideration so that players with poor connections could host games.

There's also the fact that MAG had players connecting to a central server, but GT5 was peer-to-peer; this means that the MAG server had ridiculous amounts of RAM and what have you to support the number of players but GT5 online was limited to what one PS3 could handle. As you'd need a near-infinite number of servers to allow players to use any combination of car classes and circuits, user-controlled servers make much more sense than central server clusters; just look at Simraceway as an example. If the server running the event you want to play is full, tough luck, you have to do something else. Therefore, racing sims tend to work better when a player can rent a server and set the rules themselves, but BF3 is still the only console game to allow players to do that and SMS being independent (I think?) would have to fund the servers themselves - even if the plan is to rent them out they'd still need to front the cost - so I'm pretty sure they'll stick with a peer-to-peer format. If I'm right that means the comparison with MAG is moot because MAG's server wasn't a PS3, but pCARS' servers will be.

Honestly, I don't think pCARS on the PS3 will break much ground, if any, over what's already available. PD honestly were pushing the boundaries of what the PS3 can do.

 

[DrJustice]

...Honestly, I don't think pCARS on the PS3 will break much ground, if any, over what's already available. PD honestly were pushing the boundaries of what the PS3 can do.

While PD did push the boundaries for poly counts and such technical stuff, I belive that pCARS will break new ground by offering something new in the form of the actual racing (physics, tracks selection, rules etc.) and gameplay (looks, mechanics, immersion etc.). It's not just about polys per second and number of network connections, but how you use these things to create a compelling racing experience

(I know you didn't say otherwise, just taking the opportunity of mentioning this aspect of it in light of the current direction of the thread)

 

[dr_slump]

You'd have to turn down a lot more than the graphical quality to get 32+ player racing on the PS3. MAG could handle 256 players because the physics calculations are minimal (and most likely server-side) and clients don't necessarily have to be constantly in sync with everyone else (have you ever shot at someone, have all your bullets miss and then they one-shot you in an online shooter?)

Sure, not in MAG though.
By using dedicated servers car physics can be calculated on the client side in an extremely reduced way for the opponents cars. You only transmit move to/do this data. This way it will look a little weird and cars might look a little floaty, with an update rate of about 100ms every time.

, but racing games are completely different. You remember how GT5 had the sliding scale of online simulation quality? That was a bandwidth consideration so that players with poor connections could host games.

Yes, but did it really hurt your experience that much? It doesn't for me in low ping rooms, I hardly notice it.

Not in MAG, it ran way better than every single COD I've seen so far. Of course were certain people lagging, but they'd be lagging anyway because of their crappy internet connection.

There's also the fact that MAG had players connecting to a central server, but GT5 was peer-to-peer; this means that the MAG server had ridiculous amounts of RAM and what have you to support the number of players but GT5 online was limited to what one PS3 could handle. As you'd need a near-infinite number of servers to allow players to use any combination of car classes and circuits, user-controlled servers make much more sense than central server clusters; just look at Simraceway as an example. If the server running the event you want to play is full, tough luck, you have to do something else. Therefore, racing sims tend to work better when a player can rent a server and set the rules themselves, but BF3 is still the only console game to allow players to do that and SMS being independent (I think?) would have to fund the servers themselves - even if the plan is to rent them out they'd still need to front the cost - so I'm pretty sure they'll stick with a peer-to-peer format. If I'm right that means the comparison with MAG is moot because MAG's server wasn't a PS3, but pCARS' servers will be.

Take GT1 graphics and you'll save tons of RAM, but really, that's not what I want to talk about.

I bet that PCars will use the p2p system and not dedicated servers. There won't be the option to rent server either, I agree. Also, I'm very sure that it won't be able to handle that many players. You miss my point.

Honestly, I don't think pCARS on the PS3 will break much ground, if any, over what's already available. PD honestly were pushing the boundaries of what the PS3 can do.

PCars surely won't, it never will in this regard. But that's not what a PS3 PCars is about, its main concern is giving us a more realistic racing game. Although the WMD site seems to be dominated by graphics fetishists, who more care about good looks than the pure racing experience. Something I absolutely hate.





Was I talking about PCars or generally about racing games and their possibilities? I give you a hint, it was the latter.

Do you think it's impossible to develop a racing game which supports 40 players races on a PS3? Because that was what I was discussing, nothing else. We might want to have a look at the starting point of this discussion:

How can you make a 40 cars race on ps3 ???

EDIT (number, which I can't tell):
I'm certainly posting this into a PCars thread, but in my eyes this shouldn't be a prohibition of general racing game discussion. Perhaps I'm wrong with this opinion, I don't know.


EDIT (above + 1):

While PD did push the boundaries for poly counts and such technical stuff, I belive that pCARS will break new ground by offering something new in the form of the actual racing (physics, tracks selection, rules etc.) and gameplay (looks, mechanics, immersion etc.). It's not just about polys per second and number of network connections, but how you use these things to create a compelling racing experience

(I know you didn't say otherwise, just taking the opportunity of mentioning this aspect of it in light of the current direction of the thread)

I pray for it.

It might even be the game I buy a PS4 for. And Killzone maybe, and …. some others (hopefully).

 

[JvM]

Although the WMD site seems to be dominated by graphics fetishists, who more care about good looks than the pure racing experience. Something I absolutely hate.

Oh?

Yeah, for sure graphics is and has always been a big point and strength in pcars from start. For one, simply because it's just is a big selling point.

But do you go elsewhere than the screenshot or video thread? Don't know where you got that domination thing from, but for example the graphics -forum has ~29,5k posts, and physics -forum has ~34k posts.

 

[chromatic9]

 

[dr_slump]

Oh?

Yeah, for sure graphics is and has always been a big point and strength in pcars from start. For one, simply because it's just is a big selling point.

But do you go elsewhere than the screenshot or video thread? Don't know where you got that domination thing from, but for example the graphics -forum has ~29,5k posts, and physics -forum has ~34k posts.

Well then, doesn't look too bad.

Oh PS4 membership, when are you coming... I'm getting nervous.

 

[HKS racer]

Sorry?

So what have you seen from PD?

Obv GT 5 has been out 3 years?? and the PS3 has been out for 7 years so I'm not quite sure what your comparing it with.

Yes PC does look better than GT5 but even then I wouldn't say it's light years better,

If you mean car models, I would say what we've seen from Drive Club looks better than PC.....

I tell you what it's light years better, the approach, what SMS are traying to do. No matter how good GT5 graphic looks PD are stuck in the "you must play our game how we want, you can't paint our cars, you can't create your races" mentality.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

Sorry?

So what have you seen from PD?

Obv GT 5 has been out 3 years?? and the PS3 has been out for 7 years so I'm not quite sure what your comparing it with.

Yes PC does look better than GT5 but even then I wouldn't say it's light years better,

If you mean car models, I would say what we've seen from Drive Club looks better than PC.....

You know pCARS is coming out on the PS3, right? That makes comparing it to GT5 completely reasonable. It won't look as good as the screenshots posted by the regulars, but the Devs at WMD posted some PS3 screens, and they still looked great.

 

[Luminis]

Do you think it's impossible to develop a racing game which supports 40 players races on a PS3?

Simply put, yes. Not because it's impossible from a technical point of view, but because eye candy and graphics sell games - which is especially true for racing games. Sure, you have the odd game that goes against this trend, but, really, have you seen any of the current big-budget games? Graphics are prioritised over many, many things - including player count in racing games. That's pretty much evident when looking at the big racing games of the last few years.

Yeah, one could get 40 cars to work on the PS3, that's for sure. But you'd be looking at a game that's graphically on par with a PS3 launch title, maybe even worse than that. And while PCs have adjustable visual options to account for such things, console games don't. Sure, there's always the option of using a variable LoD, but that hasn't been used by developers a lot so far - and when one did, it did create some backlash (see Forza Motorsport 3/4 for reference).

 

[dr_slump]

Simply put, yes. Not because it's impossible from a technical point of view, but because eye candy and graphics sell games - which is especially true for racing games. Sure, you have the odd game that goes against this trend, but, really, have you seen any of the current big-budget games? Graphics are prioritised over many, many things - including player count in racing games. That's pretty much evident when looking at the big racing games of the last few years.

Yeah, one could get 40 cars to work on the PS3, that's for sure. But you'd be looking at a game that's graphically on par with a PS3 launch title, maybe even worse than that. And while PCs have adjustable visual options to account for such things, console games don't. Sure, there's always the option of using a variable LoD, but that hasn't been used by developers a lot so far - and when one did, it did create some backlash (see Forza Motorsport 3/4 for reference).

First you say no, then you say yes...

Just because it's stupid, doesn't mean it's impossible. Don't confuse these two things.


Additionally:
It wouldn't need adjustable visuals anyway, where did you get that from? Simply deliver an already reduced setting, predefined basically.

And again, I care zero about graphics. You better don't even try to use it as substantiation when talking to me.

 

[ch3ng]

First you say no, then you say yes...

Just because it's stupid, doesn't mean it's impossible. Don't confuse these two things.


Additionally:
It wouldn't need adjustable visuals anyway, where did you get that from? Simply deliver an already reduced setting, predefined basically.

And again, I care zero about graphics. You better don't even try to use it as substantiation when talking to me.

Do you care about physics? The thing is it will never happen, because the physics, graphics and so on would suffer a lot.

I played MAG years ago and maybe can't remember. Was it even possible to see all those 200+ players? I think the map was divided.

 

[DrJustice]

...And again, I care zero about graphics. You better don't even try to use it as substantiation when talking to me.

Are you sure about that? ;-)

A simulation produces three tings:

1 - visual feedback, the principal physics cues comes from this
2 - auditory feedback, secondary cues
3 - haptic feedback, secondary cues (FFB wheels, tactile transducers, motion platforms)

The "hardcore" stance of graphics doesn't matter" is a fallacy. It's what a sim produces. The physics side of it could be said to "only" be there to produce the graphics (and the secondary cues). The higher the quality of the physics is, the higher quality of graphics can be presented. Which leads on to: the higher the quality of the graphics, the higher the quality of the sim. Note that graphics here doesn't mean static pictures, but the dynamic visual presentation of the underlying physics where resolution, framerate, colours, shadows, reflections, lighting, animations, environment etc. are all devices used to fooling your brain into thinking there's actual physics going on. I.e. the higher the quality of the output, the better you cognitive systems can experience the simulated physics.

In this day and age, with the powerful computers we have, there's no reson to accept shoddy graphics any more than there's reason to accept shoddy physics.

(This is not directed specifilcally at dr_slump, but is a general observation)

 

[dr_slump]

Do you care about physics? The thing is it will never happen, because the physics, graphics and so on would suffer a lot.

Already talked about that.

I played MAG years ago and maybe can't remember. Was it even possible to see all those 200+ players? I think the map was divided.

Theoretically yes, practically no. But would you see 256 cars all the time? What an overkill! 256 is an unrealistic and especially impractical number anyway, I've never seen that many cars irl on one track. The 24 hours races are an exception though.
I surely don't have to explain why the number 256 isn't directly related to anything I said (indirectly it is). I was always talking about 40 cars, but you know that of course. I mean the quote is literally impossible to overlook.

Are you sure about that? ;-)

A simulation produces three tings:

1 - visual feedback, the principal physics cues comes from this
2 - auditory feedback, secondary cues
3 - haptic feedback, secondary cues (FFB wheels, tactile transducers, motion platforms)

Where's the "need 200'000 (don't know the exact number, it's hypothetical) polygons cars with super high res textures and extremely performance hungry post processing effects"?

The "hardcore" stance of graphics doesn't matter" is a fallacy. It's what a sim produces. The physics side of it could be said to "only" be there to produce the graphics (and the secondary cues). The higher the quality of the physics is, the higher quality of graphics can be presented.

I don't really feel in the mood to list great looking games with incredibly crappy physics models. Do I have to?

Which leads on to: the higher the quality of the graphics, the higher the quality of the sim.

Almost got a heart attack by reading this! Daaaaamn, you're nasty!

Note that graphics here doesn't mean static pictures, but the dynamic visual presentation of the underlying physics where resolution, framerate, colours,

really?...

shadows, reflections, lighting, animations, environment etc.

Shadows? To see... opponent cars? Yeah? I see them anyway, no matter if they're blocky or supersmooth.
Reflections? In wet track conditions perhaps? I must say that's not a bad point, but surely solvable with LQ solutions.
Lighting? As long as the head and rearlights work I'm fine. Don't need superfancy lighting effects in the environment.
Animations? The virtual drivers? Don't care how ugly they are. The cars? Suspension movents for sure, but that's not really a predefined animation, is it? Moving spectators? Yawn!
Environment? Weather changes etc are clear points. Don't need fancy waving trees, moving spectators, fireworks, etc though.

are all devices used to fooling your brain into thinking there's actual physics going on. I.e. the higher the quality of the output, the better you cognitive systems can experience the simulated physics.

...I'm speachless. You think me, as a guy who really don't give a f about fancy good looking all good tralalala forget everything else stuff, cares about this eyewash? I can differ between physics and visual effects. I'm not naiv enough to think it's the very same thing, sadly for most publishers.

In this day and age, with the powerful computers we have, there's no reson to accept shoddy graphics any more than there's reason to accept shoddy physics.

(This is not directed specifilcally at dr_slump, but is a general observation)

A need to accept shoddy graphics? No, but I don't really care IF... *obvious*


Yeah I know, I'm completely against mainstream. Victim of the society or whatever, somehow... Dear, I'm talking crap again.

 

[ch3ng]

Theoretically yes, practically no. But would you see 256 cars all the time?

Yes because a race has something called race start.
It is not possible for developer to divide the players. The only reason so many players in MAG worked are the huge maps and different starting points for the players.

You can't do that in racing games.

What an overkill! 256 is an unrealistic and especially impractical number anyway, I've never seen that many cars irl on one track. The 24 hours races are an exception though.
I surely don't have to explain why the number 256 isn't directly related to anything I said (indirectly it is). I was always talking about 40 cars, but you know that of course. I mean the quote is literally impossible to overlook.

I doubt that 40 cars are possible on PS3 in Project Cars or GT for example.

 

[DrJustice]

AAlmost got a heart attack by reading this! Daaaaamn, you're nasty!
really?...

Really!

Shadows? To see... opponent cars? Yeah? I see them anyway, no matter if they're blocky or supersmooth.
Reflections? In wet track conditions perhaps?... Lighting?...
Animations?...Suspension movents for sure.., but that's not really a predefined animation, is it? Environment? Weather changes etc are clear points.

Yes, all these things give you cues about the movement of the cars, the track and the environment. Every little shadow and reflection is information that your brain will assimilate to better and more precisely judge movements and positions. The immersion will transport you into the virtual world and you will experience the physics better. I don't see why any anyone would want to downplay that and argue for a diminished experience, except maybe for gaining "hardcore cred", but that's getting old.

Don't need fancy waving trees, moving spectators, fireworks, etc though.

Not necessarily, but if there's CPU and memory to spare, even that aids the suspension of disbelief, which is one of the things most people want from a sim. You know, racing simulation games are supposed to be fun and pleasant experiences. Nobody wants to be driving a spreadsheet.

When physics, graphics, sound and FFB comes together to form something greater than the sum of the parts, then we're talking. If not for those who care about the quality of the output from sims, we might be stuck with what you see below, and I assure you that no matter how advanced the underlying physics were, it'd be a crap experience and impossible to drive properly:

Edit: Conveniently, this just came in from a real life race car driver on the WMD forums:

"Most of the handling between the cars in pcars and other sims is created graphically. A visual representation of what the car is doing, not a feel of what the car is doing. They can add in a signal to the wheel to kick back or go light or some other effect and this along with the graphical picture give you the illusion of handling. ... Visually, pcars is leaps and bounds ahead of any other sim I have played and that for me makes it feel better also as I am relying so heavily on the visual stimulation to know what the cars are doing."

Dear, I'm talking crap again.

Aye! At least we can agree on that

 

[DaveTheStalker]

Yes because a race has something called race start.
It is not possible for developer to divide the players. The only reason so many players in MAG worked are the huge maps and different starting points for the players.

You can't do that in racing games.

I doubt that 40 cars are possible on PS3 in Project Cars or GT for example.

MAG couldn't even do a simple all out Deathmatch with 256 players. I'm guess it was a hardware limitation?

If Real Racing 3 on mobile devices can have 22 cars in a race, the new consoles should be able to do at least 20?