View Full Version : [DISCUSSION] Shift 2 handling realism, believability, sim-ness
I know this is a dangerous thread to start, however I would like to see a proper discussion of Shift 2's level of realism, what is does well and where it falls short.
The reason is that it's clear to me that Shift 2 is in no way an arcade racer as some people shout, but at the same time SMS have made some peculiar choices with the default game that hide the sim side of it very much out of sight which adds fuel to the nay-sayers fire :)
So, whether you think Shift 2 is crap or that it is the new sim benchmark, whatever your opinion you'll need to back it up with argumentation. Saying that the NFS series have always been arcade racers is not an argument.
Saying that the cars don't behave realistically is not an argument unless you show that you tuned the car out of the default sloppy set-up AND that you point exactly to what is unrealistic about its behaviour and if possible demonstrate how a real car would behave in the same situation.
Saying that you like the handling in GTR2, rFactor or iRacing better is not an argument, since what you like better is not the same as more realistic.
Of course if you're positive about Shift 2's handling authenticity, you should also indicate why you think it's more than an arcade game :)
So go ahead, keeping in mind the above, let us know what you think is good or bad about Shift 2's level of realism.
First of all, I never drove on the limit in my own car, let alone in a race car on a race track, so I wouldn't really know what 'realistic' behaviour is. I can only say whether something seems believable or not :)
Now that I tuned my cars in Shift 2 to more sensible set-ups I am truly impressed by the handling. The cars over- and understeer, suffer from inertia in fast corners, are very picky on the type of surface you put under any of the wheels, respond very well to set-up changes and in general can be tuned and upgraded to be very responsive and alive.
I've been having a ball doing Time Attacks in a B1182 class Porsche GT3 RS, upgraded somewhat and tuned to be more responsive and stable. I find that the car does everything that a similar car does in, for example, GTR2, only more forgiving. In the latter game, losing the backside of a Porsche however slightly is certain death, in Shift 2 the rear wheels regain grip more easily. I have no idea what is more real, but I always found it hard to believe the way cars lose control in GTR2. Perhaps someone could shed some light on this :)
What I find impressive in Shift 2's handling is the way the car interacts with kerbs. You feel a huge difference in traction between kerbs and asphalt, which means that flooring the throttle and steering when driving on kerbs will surely unsettle the car greatly. This seems quite believable as I've seen this happen a lot with real race cars.
MaddmattH
8 April 11, 10:52
Generally people seem to criticise the handling based on how they assume the real car should handle.
For example, the Jaguar XKR in its stock form is ridiculously easy to dive, despite being a powerful RWD car. So easy you would think it can't possibly be realistic, the handling just doesn't seem 'real'.
But then go watch the real thing on Top Gear:
pHaG6f8xwWk
"This is the easiest car in the world to drive if you're a lunatic" - Clarkson
Modern road cars just aren't going to be as challenging as proper race cars, they're made for normal people after all.
If you want a proper racing challenge, turn a RWD car in a race car with some upgrades and tuning, or drive the GT cars. They are widly different both in real life and in the game.
I'm not saying that the game is perfectly realistic, but I still think it's up there with the other sims and the flaws it has in the physics are no worse than them.
Visually Shift 2 is simply the most stunning imersive racer ever! The effects, helmet cam and darkness will be hard to match from the competition. Hats off to the devs in this department.
From a handling/believability point of view. I have driven my own cars (all be it slow ones :P), a couple of single seaters, an RX7 race car, and a rally car on the limit, so I like to think I have an understanding on what you feel. iRacing gives me that believable feel through the wheel. I think its the weight transfer that iRacing does well. Shift 2 just doesn't give me the same level of feel to make it believable. Now I don't know if its a controller thing a set-up thing or its working as intended but I would love just a little bit more positive feedback from the wheel at all times so I can put the car where I want it (Chicanes for example) and balance everything through the corners. But it doesn't and this for me lets it down.
Now I have just finished a race at Road America in the GT1 MC12, I have tuned the settings with suspension just above half, lower wings, lower tyre pressures and higher steering lock. Without getting to carried away with the set-up it is about as good as I can get how I want the car. The problem I have with the game is when I am trying to balance the car round turn 7 the big right hand sweeper, which is basically a big drift the ffb disappears. I get the nose pointing into the turn and balance the throttle and the steering goes light as the front wheels understeer. I can sort of see what the devs are thinking, the front wheels are loosing grip so the steering must be light, but at that speed and downforce the wheel would still be giving me feedback and be loaded. This also seems worse for mid engined cars, again its like the devs have thought the steering will be lighter because there isn't an engine sitting over the front wheels.
That's an example of where the great sim it could be is let down. Well for me anyway. Its not a big let down as I'm am spending a lot of time playing and loving this game Shift 2.
...Shift 2 just doesn't give me the same level of feel to make it believable. Now I don't know if its a controller thing a set-up thing or its working as intended but I would love just a little bit more positive feedback from the wheel at all times so I can put the car where I want it (Chicanes for example) and balance everything through the corners. But it doesn't and this for me lets it down.
I agree. Apart from the obvious bugs, this is something that keeps the game short from being truly great for me. It may well be that a real car doesn't communicate that much through the wheel, but since we miss the seat-of-the-pants feeling the wheel's FFB needs to compensate for that IMHO.
As you may remember from the "grip" thread, I did complain about the newly added cars having a distinctly different feel, meaning many feel exagerately stable and grippy even though they are RWD cars, meaning I can floor it without even a hint of losing the back, or just turn the wheel tighter to get through a corner without ever bothering about slip or loss of grip (both M3 and 190E Evo). Others like the M6 do feel generally ok, maybe a bit too easy and somewhat floaty, but suffer from other diseases, such as massive oversteer in the M6's case. The SLS on the other hand is utterly useless, it feel like a solid block of wood with no suspension or rubber tyres at all. The Bentley Continental SS feels very big and heavy, drives like it's on rails, yet seems to hover more then it seems to drive, a feeling which is also there in other cars.
Generally I feel a lack of feedback from the suspension and/or tyres in many of the new cars, probably a combination of both, cars feel solid, but not in the good sense, they feel like they are actually one solid piece of something instead of a collection of more or less moving parts. Also see comments regarding physics data further down.
This does not apply to all new cars though, the Caterham is very enjoyable to drive, (although I don't like the vehicle itself at all) - but I'd take it over most of the new cars at any time. Yesterday I was bored and stiffened up the Caterham just a little bit and went straight out onto the Nordschleife and it seems I nailed the perfect setup (for my taste). I absolutely enjoyed every single second of the drive, with the car feeling light and maneuvrable, but not loose, with just the right amount of slip at the back so I had to be careful when coming out of corners. The whole experience felt very "right".
A major letdown is the physics data which has hardly changed although explicitely said so by SMS (plain and simple lies), same (few and shared) suspensions, engines torque curves only loosely based on what the respective engine would output (some engines ridiculously overpowered such as the S2000 with 314Nm or so of torque in stock guise), totally bogus and fictional gear ratios for pretty much all cars, extremely basic and not accurate implementation of four wheel drive, inaccurate differential lock ratios, aerodymanics, with all these settings unfortunately affecting the behaviour of the cars in a way which can definitely be felt, so I'm not just nitpicking here because of a 0.001 difference in some values. Not all the physics data is identical to the predecessor though, chassis files have been revised in terms of spring/damper stiffness and brake stopping power and heating. Tyres have been completely overhauled being generally stiffer, having been also changed in term of heating and starting temperatures (now 40 degrees C instead of 20 at start of race). The rest is pretty much the same, but the cars feel different due to different default setups in the chassis files and the changed tyre files.
Generally it is a mixed bag in terms of cars with my like-o-meter going more towards "don't" than "do", unfortunately. I also miss the bumpy track section from Shift, those seem to have fallen victim to the virtual flat iron.
The AI is also on the like side, they drive cleanly and rarely bump you off the track, although it does happen occassionaly, and when it does, the player loses, period. They are not perfect in any way, but it's a massive improvement from the chaos that reigned in Shift when racing with the AI in its default state. Also, now they seem to get on the brakes too early, where in Shift they did exactly the opposite. The fact that the player car sticks to an AI car on contact and from that point on the AI car basically controls what happens to the player's car does cast a slight shadow on AI racing, but this has probably more to do with collision settings then AI, or maybe not, I don't know. And while I'm at collisions, another big issue with believability is damage, which is basically non-existent even when set to full - as long as you don't step with a wheel into the sand which will roll your car and rip it to pieces instantly, a reaction which is totally overdone imho. I do admit that I rarely crash or even bump the car, it's as much of a no-no for me as it would be in reality, so maybe more crash-happy drivers to get to feel the consequences of their actions; but even when I tried driving like an idiot going from left to right armco to armco, even at high speeds, doing anything but a head-on collision, the car was still in good working order and responding to input with hardly any technical problems noticeable even though the exterior was a wreck.
P.S. I use Elite mode with ABS ON and Hard AI
...A major letdown is the physics data which has hardly changed although explicitely said so by SMS (plain and simple lies), same (few and shared) suspensions, engines torque curves only loosely based on what the respective engine would output (some engines ridiculously overpowered such as the S2000 with 314Nm or so of torque in stock guise), totally bogus and fictional gear ratios for pretty much all cars, extremely basic and not accurate implementation of four wheel drive, inaccurate differential lock ratios, aerodymanics, with all these settings unfortunately affecting the behaviour of the cars in a way which can definitely be felt, so I'm not just nitpicking here because of a 0.001 difference in some values. Not all the physics data is identical to the predecessor though, chassis files have been revised in terms of spring/damper stiffness and brake stopping power and heating. Tyres have been completely overhauled being generally stiffer, having been also changed in term of heating and starting temperatures (now 40 degrees C instead of 20 at start of race). The rest is pretty much the same, but the cars feel different due to different default setups in the chassis files and the changed tyre files.
Of course this is a mile-wide invitation to a discussion whether correct numbers in .xml files will provide correct car behaviour in the game :) Which, of course, they won't since no usable model will use those numbers properly because of the model's limitations. Hence, the model's shortcomings will somewhere need to be compensated with 'wrong' numbers. The much more relevant question is therefore whether the cars in the game behave believably with such 'wrong' numbers.
I did correct about 60 or so cars from Shift with accurate engine torque curves, rev limit, gear ratios, mass, weight distribution, fuel capacity (is added to mass), brake disc thickness (affect brake (over)heating), wheelbase and front/rear track (wheel positions in effect), ride height, some aerodynamics (overall body drag), differential lock settings, and so on and they feel very good, albeight slower than the default cars with their artificially bloated torque curves and supershort gear ratios aimed at accelration, but much more balanced and believable with various ups and downs like a real car, since no car is perfect. There is a genuine feeling of the engine's torque distribution, you know when you're out of the optimum torque range, the real gear ratios also feel right in terms of acceleration and top speed, you don't shift up and down every second as you do with the game's gear ratios, FWD cars with thin brake rotors will overheat these and cause them to lose their efficiency if you break hard every time, real differential lock settings affect the maneuvrability and acceleration/braking stability of the car as well, and so on.
So yes, I'm sure that real data does provide a more authentic and believable feeling to the game.
P.S. All the data I took from official manufacturer brochures or technical papers, or reviews of known and trusted car magazines, so by accurate I don't mean accurate just because it feels right to me, but accurate as in it's what the manufacturer claims and/or reviewers have measured.
MaddmattH
8 April 11, 13:34
I do agree with krappy with regards to the data. The Overhaul mod v2 for Shift 1 is a shining example of how much real data improves the game.
The damage model as well, is a joke in terms of how it affects the car. When you break off your wheels, just hit the reset button and they're back.
Shift 1 had a more punishing damage model where you could feel your suspension get seriously messed up and you had to hold the wheel off-centre to keep the car straight. Car deformation was better too.
The only real improvement to the damage model is the awesome rollovers, but after them you just hit reset to get your wheels back and the car is off again.
The addition of wear to tyres, breaks and gearbox (maybe?) are nice though, engine overheating would have been more welcome if the air intake settings were not removed (there were there in Shift 1 even though that didn't feature overheating, ironic).
Engine overheating is there, but it won't kick in during normal racing, at least not as long as the player has part of a brain and knows vaguely when to shift up. The engine will overheat if you do donuts for a minute or two and you'll get a "Disqualified: Engine blown" or so message. Strangely though there is no disqualification if you just slammed into something at 150+km/h, rolled over and ripped three wheels and all body panels off your car, basically what Maddmatt said as well. I think in Shift it may have been possible to overheat your engine too, I think I did it out of curiosity by wedging the car into a corner and holding the throttle for a couple of minutes, but again, this is nothing you would experience during normal racing. I don't do drifting, so maybe during drifting it is possible to overheat the engine in Shift 2, I don't know.
Speaking of engines, another thing which has changed in Shift 2 is the inertia for some of the engines, although I cannot tell whether it has been done for the sake of accuracy, balancing, or whatever, I'm just saying there were some changes and nothing more.
MaddmattH
8 April 11, 14:26
Shift 1 only had engine overheating when it was enabled in a mod, and there were no visual effects for it.
The McLaren MP4 12C seems a bit bugged in that the engine overheats way too easily, which could be helped by increasing the air intake had they not removed that setting.
Also being able to adjust air intakes to get better performance at the risk of engine overheating would have been nice, along with better warnings before engines overheat.
The game also lacks settings to adjust brake air intakes, which Shift 1 also had.
Hmmm... haven't got any racecars so far, so I didn't notice that. But I did notice brake pressure adjustment, which wasn't exposed in the GUI in Shift is now available in Shift 2. Also, does the retarded "let's show meaningless setting numbers in the advanced tuning section instead of real values" decision of the developers count as something which affects believability of the game? Cause I don't want to get entirely off topic here...:D
EagleJohn
8 April 11, 14:45
Shift 1 had a more punishing damage model where you could feel your suspension get seriously messed up and you had to hold the wheel off-centre to keep the car straight. Car deformation was better too.
I have often experienced this in SHIFT 2 after some heavy crashes, the wheel is going sideways to drive straight, so I don't know why you say it's not there anymore. :?:
I have often experienced this in SHIFT 2 after some heavy crashes, the wheel is going sideways to drive straight, so I don't know why you say it's not there anymore. :?:
Same here, but maybe the damage threshold is higher in Shfit 2? Or maybe the steering wheel going sideways only happens when wheels get off?
Chalkman
8 April 11, 14:49
Hmm, some really good points in this thread. I will say one area that follows way short in shift 2, is the damage as compared to, say RBR.
RBR has real consequences to messing about and genuinely has you in fright trying not to damage the car, as there is no way to fix it until you you reach overnight service and then maybe! Not saying they could implement that here exactly, but that feeling of problem begets more problems regarding damage is solidly missing in this game and series. I do understand that is to make the game more accessible to larger audience.
And i think that is also its Achilles heel. As a general statement, i will say the compromises made to appeal to a wide audience are the same that truer sims have had the stones to omit.
EagleJohn
8 April 11, 14:52
Same here, but maybe the damage threshold is higher in Shfit 2? Or maybe the steering wheel going sideways only happens when wheels get off?
Don't know about the damage threshold, but I have had this happen without missing wheels. :thumbup:
BTW I just noticed for the first time after reading this topic that you could get back missing wheels with the reset button. :ohmy:
I always just restarted the race after having such a crash.
Handling realism and believability are two different things that Shift 2 challenges. Does it use sterile numbers to recreate cars and tracks? No. Does it handle believably, Yes.
The cars don't handle realistically. They handle believably. They are generally quite predictable, if you stiffen them up, they tighten up, if you soften them up, they loosen up.
Shift 2 is amazing at creating believability. How many times do you drive sterile sims like rfactor, iracing, gtr2 and think "Only just a sim, kind of bored, falling into a rhythm of relaxation, zoning out" and play shift 2 and think "Push, push, push, push! Gotta win! Don't care if leading, push HARDER! master this corner! Get the laptime xp or the clean lap xp!"
Things it does very badly:
Real data. The cars handle believably, but they handle next to nothing like most of their counterparts. I can't say much for most of the cars in the game, but those I have driven, aren't recreated faithfully at all, at 540 or 900 degree steering. But if the game had such data, it might lose some of its charm, so its not really a problem.
Laps, there isn't enough of them, period.
Sessions, there isn't any of them, period.
Dynamic weather/day night transitions, not there.
Pit stops, Desperately needed in addition to longer races.
Things it does good:
Looks good.
Handles BELIEVABLY.
Presents a great atmosphere and immersion factor that really make you want to win and not just sit and relax like "just a sim"
sim racers of the hardcore persuasion cry about things like no realworld data, or the rather annoying fake numbers (Which I agree, what is -20 camber? its not degrees surely?!) but what about simulating the EXPERIENCE.
One of the dev diaries said something like "Racing isn't sterile, its gritty, dirty, and exhausting" and thats exactly what the game gives you.
MaddmattH
8 April 11, 15:51
I have often experienced this in SHIFT 2 after some heavy crashes, the wheel is going sideways to drive straight, so I don't know why you say it's not there anymore. :?:
Yes, heavy crashes. The kind that would render a real car barely able to move, if at all.
The cars just don't take damage as easily as Shift 1, which was already very forgiving in the damage area.
Also, in online races that falls away completely. No damage there. Maybe visual, but it wont affect anything.
In my opinion, Elite mode should have proper unforgiving damage. Makes the races more exciting.
sim racers of the hardcore persuasion cry about things like no realworld data, or the rather annoying fake numbers (Which I agree, what is -20 camber? its not degrees surely?!) but what about simulating the EXPERIENCE.
the number isn't fake, it's the 20th setting.
so if -4.0° is 0 then -3.9° is 1 and -2.0° would be 20. if (which can't be seen ingame) the lowest camber is -4.0° ...
I just prefer more standard numbers when setting up my cars. Fake is the wrong word I guess "nonstandard" would be better
NombreyApellido
8 April 11, 18:32
I did correct about 60 or so cars from Shift
That's a bold claim...
What do you know about the way the game handles the car definitions?
Let me give an example.
You take pride in your supposedly accurate torque curves... How do you know that the game is expecting the full throttle curves that anyone, and that includes a multi million budgeted developer, can copypaste? What if it's expecting transient curves that almost nobody does?
What if the data stored has been processed to feed the physics engine in order to obtain a targeted performance? (not saying real world, not saying realistic)
Let's see.
How does Shift achieve its distinctive drifting characteristics? By using hard data, true to life values or by say cheating a bit here and there?
If I may, I'd say you changed a few values yes, but you did so blindly. In the belief that a high profile developer isn't able to google as good as you.
That's not fixing anything to me.
That's changing something to better suit your expectations.
Just saying, so we can be clear on the subject.
tulib202
8 April 11, 18:54
Yup i agree with NombreyApellido i'd trather believe that a high budget developer who recieved feedback from real race drivers and used real world data did the physics correct, rather than some computer guy who probably didn't ever drove a real car and claims he knows how a car should feel and handle. How can you guys claim to know what a real car acts like when you floor it and push it to the limit at every turn?
NombreyApellido
8 April 11, 19:03
It's a fact, just take a few minutes to review that physics of any title out there.
False assumption. Even iRacing with its two in-house race dynamics engineers have to massage some values here and there due to limitations of their physics engine or simply because unobtainable data.
Go over the build notes if you don't trust me.
I do agree with krappy with regards to the data. The Overhaul mod v2 for Shift 1 is a shining example of how much real data improves the game.
I didn't really notice much difference TBH, aside from the brake balance workaround, replacement dinput.dll that gave markedly different ffb, and load times that were around 3x the default, it felt pretty much the same game.
I find it disingenuous for some to suggest the physics haven't been improved or changed because of whatever parameters they've seen in files. The parameters aren't the physics engine. If they are wrong, the result should be a different car not a real problem. Oh ok, there are some wildly extreme parameters that will no doubt produce something awful but you aren't really going to fix the handling in a game by changing the parameters, you'll just be creating different cars.
OTOH, the underlying engine that processes those parameters is what produces the feel and handling and where the magic happens. AFAIAA no one has done any serious work at analysing this in either game. Put the parameters in shift 2 into shift 1 and I'll bet several packets of hobnobs you won't turn a shift 1 car into a shift 2 car.
They are chalk and cheese as far as I'm concerned.
I personally think what happens when you crash doesn't really matter that much. (Unless you can get a faster lap time when you crash)
Martin Brundle has this video JcthJw_EHZQ
I think shift 2 does a good job of letting you do what Martin does in this video. (I think I said in another thread how I felt, based on the same video F1 2010 fails in its handling as you can't do it - and as there are glaring things like hitting the brake to straighten out a spin)
If shift 2 has one or more glaring things like that I've not noticed them yet.
You can see from their telemetry screens that the tyre temps, brake temps and so on appear to do what you'd expect.
I think the braking feels realistic if you overcook it and lock the wheels. It does seem very forgiving for a heavy right foot though. But I've mostly been driving FWD D and C cars so it may well be fine (most other games are the same in this respect)
I find it a lot of fun to drive.
Computer games are going to have reset buttons. Removing it would just tend to make the game frustrating rather than more realistic. Realistically speaking, people who crashed all the time wouldn't be given race cars (unless their dad is called Nelson)
NombreyApellido
8 April 11, 19:59
Wow...you are quite a fact checker. Anyways...now I can pick apart that statement (like you do to everyone else)....in that statement, they said that they fudge the data..so there you go.
I'll stop there and not engage in a mindless back and forth with you, as I'm sure that Redi doesn't want a flame fest.
Okis.
It seems you went past a few bad experiences chatting about our hobby. Count me in if you decide to give it another go at the subject :thumbup:
Martin Brundle has this video JcthJw_EHZQ
The key point for me from that vid is what Martin says when he has the car set up balanced... "I can now build on each lap, and place the car where I want it. I've got confidence I can get this together.."
That is exactly what I want but cant due to the compromises the devs have had to make.
I guess a question we should ask our selves to try and answer this realism/believability debate is do you think any real motorsports teams will use Shift 2 as a training tool? I will be surprised if anyone says yes :P
Now I know that they have said time and time again that the 'sims' are sterile and boring and that's not what they wanted to create but we obviously sill crave it. I guess what I am trying to say is although we are enjoying the "Racing isn't sterile, its gritty, dirty, and exhausting" theme it doesn't quite cut it without a bit of boring sterile physics thrown in.
The positive thing from all this is that the bar has been raised, and hopefully some of those 'boring and sterile' sims will take Shift 2 away and say we need some of this... or visa versa. Then we will hopefully all be happy..... yeah right!! LOL :mrgreen:
The key point for me from that vid is what Martin says when he has the car set up balanced... "I can now build on each lap, and place the car where I want it. I've got confidence I can get this together.."
That is exactly what I want but cant due to the compromises the devs have had to make.
I dunno, it obviously doesn't place as well as an open wheeler but I'm putting the car where I want.
In terms of a game where you're driving lap after lap after lap I think the driving model is superb. How realistic it is, is a different question but I don't think there is such a thing as "pc sims" that are ultra realistic or hardcore. That's just advertising. iracing has its own racing driver going "yeehaw, I love this game" in front of camera just like NFS and Shift 2 does.
I guess a question we should ask our selves to try and answer this realism/believability debate is do you think any real motorsports teams will use Shift 2 as a training tool? I will be surprised if anyone says yes :P
Well, F1 spend millions on systems to do training and I suppose it'll filter down to other Motorsport just as all tech does. Most of them have very realistic understanding of what the sim can and can't do. No one really says "we use it for training" otherwise but a lot of sports people do promo work for many products.
Now I know that they have said time and time again that the 'sims' are sterile and boring and that's not what they wanted to create but we obviously sill crave it. I guess what I am trying to say is although we are enjoying the "Racing isn't sterile, its gritty, dirty, and exhausting" theme it doesn't quite cut it without a bit of boring sterile physics thrown in.
Hmm, but my first impressions were that it was too easy. Although that has changed somewhat, I would still argue it errs on the side of drive-ability. That doesn't really seem to fit your experiences because you seem to be saying that it isn't easy to drive.
I know some of the mild out of shape moments the FWD cars go into if you lock the brakes or push too hard although they might seem tame compared with old sims, they would feel far more dramatic in a car. It's very easy to sit behind a screen and throw cars around without forces / fear. Maybe early sims over compensated here?
IRL, in my youth, I've scared a lot of people myself included a long time before we actually reached the limits of the car. If you don't have power steering enabled in a 2.0 Cavalier, for example, it's unbelievable how fast you can navigate a roundabout - a lot faster than most people go in a straight line over one. As I said the other day when someone is screaming "Jeez! We need to go right here!" and you say "Yeah we are going right" you know he doesn't think cars have as much grip as they do :) Not that I'd advise this kind of idiocy on the roads but I managed not to kill anyone and live long enough to drive more sensibly.
Earlier than that I had all manner of RWD, non ABS or TCS cars, 2.0 capris and so on - sure they weren't amazingly powerful, but they didn't spin as easily as some games might convince you they should. But, maybe some race tuned car would. Today, of course, nigh on everything is either FWD, or has a bunch of electronics and Power steering that means even Jeremy Clarkson can drive today.
in that statement, they said that they fudge the data..so there you go.
I guess the question is do you want real world 'data' or a real world 'experience'? :) I don't think we are at the level yet with game simulations where we, at the consumer level, can plug in real world values and get a real world experience. We still require some fudging to get the behavior desired.
Back on topic; my only gripe with S2U (in the handling realm) is the braking. It's very simplified which makes things like the brake balance not all that important. I remember doing a league race with GTR2 at Spa one time using the Porsche RS. I had to adjust the brake balance on each lap for the final chicane, and then set it back after Eau Rouge for the other parts of the track. Without doing that each lap, the car was nearly uncontrollable in the braking zones and it was a lot of work getting that car around the track for the 60 minute race. I don't think I'll ever forget that race (and I did win my class). :)
S2U it's not an all out simulation so I don't mind as it makes it easier to just jump in and race for those that don't want to spend time tweaking. One of the reasons my iRacing account has gone dormant is that I just lack the time these days to dedicate to setting up and practicing. S2U is challenging enough to enjoy, but simplified in other areas to not make it tough to just have fun when you don't have a ton of time.
This is totally O/T but:
IRL, in my youth, I've scared a lot of people myself included a long time before we actually reached the limits of the car. If you don't have power steering enabled in a 2.0 Cavalier, for example, it's unbelievable how fast you can navigate a roundabout - a lot faster than most people go in a straight line over one. As I said the other day when someone is screaming "Jeez! We need to go right here!" and you say "Yeah we are going right" you know he doesn't think cars have as much grip as they do :) Not that I'd advise this kind of idiocy on the roads but I managed not to kill anyone and live long enough to drive more sensibly.
Those were the days:thumbup:
I used to have a Belmont 1.8SRI(Astra GTE with a boot,for those that don't know) and that thing,GOD that thing could do some serious speed on roundabouts(No power steering ftw) I used to drift round roundabouts(not bad for a FWD),best thing was for a while I had an earth fault(bad earth strap) and after heavy throttle,whenever I came off I would get 3 foot flames from the back,that was amazing looking on the roundabout.
After thinking back on that,I wish I had never grown up.
joshrose
9 April 11, 01:18
I would love just a little bit more positive feedback from the wheel at all times so I can put the car where I want it (Chicanes for example) and balance everything through the corners. But it doesn't and this for me lets it down.
The problem I have with the game is when I am trying to balance the car round turn 7 the big right hand sweeper, which is basically a big drift the ffb disappears. I get the nose pointing into the turn and balance the throttle and the steering goes light as the front wheels understeer. I can sort of see what the devs are thinking, the front wheels are loosing grip so the steering must be light, but at that speed and downforce the wheel would still be giving me feedback and be loaded.
Yes. I totally agree. With Jules' patch on the PC, the handling of the cars feels extremely good to me. But the FFB is just.... off. I cant hit apexes properly because I feel like the ffb keeps pushing and pulling my wheel around. It makes the game more difficult than... iRacing, for example.
I've been driving the mazda mx5 in iracing a ton lately, and the shift 2 mx5 feels really similar... but I just can't hit my targets with it as well. It's not strictly oversteer or understeer. It's just that the wheel is really jittery.
If someone releases a great FFB patch for shift 2, I have no problem acknowledging it as a serious sim. It would feel better than forza 3, in my opinion.
In terms of a game where you're driving lap after lap after lap I think the driving model is superb. How realistic it is, is a different question but I don't think there is such a thing as "pc sims" that are ultra realistic or hardcore. That's just advertising. iracing has its own racing driver going "yeehaw, I love this game" in front of camera just like NFS and Shift 2 does.
Shift has Milner, F1 2010 had Ant Davidson, Iracing has...well, Iracing has pretty much everyone on board now. But they say its a realistic game, but its nothing like driving a race car. I remember a month or two ago SRT interviewed Dale Junior, and even he was like "Yeah its realistic...but its also kind of not, not really"
Well, F1 spend millions on systems to do training and I suppose it'll filter down to other Motorsport just as all tech does. Most of them have very realistic understanding of what the sim can and can't do. No one really says "we use it for training" otherwise but a lot of sports people do promo work for many products.
F1 does very specific things in their simulations, which are (usually) largely ISI based. Whether its checking new equipment values, tire values, but usually these million dollar rigs are playtoys to learn the racing line and track before going to them, and to keep the drivers fresh throughout the season. They are not ment to provide real-world data in the form that "real" testing and FP's do, They are ment to facilitate potential early development on car improvements and keep the drivers fresh and well-learned in the fastlines of a course.
Its not so much about the values of components and such anymore, since now most of the high tier have seven post rigs to test real components on. But even those rigs are not a substitute for reality and practical testing in real conditions, which F1 spends many more millions on doing, almost each and every weekend. Ferrari spent all of FP1 this weekend for example doing flex testing on the front wing, and only placed a single laptime on Massa's car, while Alonso did the regular practice number one driver stuff.
Hmm, but my first impressions were that it was too easy. Although that has changed somewhat, I would still argue it errs on the side of drive-ability. That doesn't really seem to fit your experiences because you seem to be saying that it isn't easy to drive.
Easy to drive isn't less realistic. This arguement is so stale in simracing. I've had cars so glued to the road they basically drove themselves. But I've driven dirt cars on ovals, and the car and track change so much throughout the day that its a painfull experience if you don't keep up with the conditions. Harder is not nessecarily more realistic. Does the game make the car more driveable? Probably. NFS does have other markets then us, and they probably went by a "Best case" handling model like F12010 did. "The driver says this is what the car feels like when its good. So we will make all cars feel good, which will promote the game better by bringing in more of a crowd."
I know some of the mild out of shape moments the FWD cars go into if you lock the brakes or push too hard although they might seem tame compared with old sims, they would feel far more dramatic in a car. It's very easy to sit behind a screen and throw cars around without forces / fear. Maybe early sims over compensated here?
I know in this game, FWD cars feel very much like FWD cars within the limits of the technology. For example, the cars themselves don't feel like their models (Scion, Civic), but they feel like FWD cars would properly feel.
Since I use some pretty unconventional bumpstop setups, I've had to adjust to more like I would do on a real car in shift 2, versus in rfactor where I would do totally alien things to get the geometry to do the same thing. That surprised me.
Earlier than that I had all manner of RWD, non ABS or TCS cars, 2.0 capris and so on - sure they weren't amazingly powerful, but they didn't spin as easily as some games might convince you they should. But, maybe some race tuned car would. Today, of course, nigh on everything is either FWD, or has a bunch of electronics and Power steering that means even Jeremy Clarkson can drive today.
Jeremy Clarkson aside (eugh, Top Gear) Cars today are nowhere near cars of yester-year. Your correct, its all power steering, moderated, chipped, governed, electric engines, brakes that produce electricity for batteries, engines that can fly-change how many cylinders they run at a time, and even engines that can change the TYPE of engines on the fly.
My first car driven was actually a Crapri. It was an incredibly stable car. I've seen some people make them in stock and in race trims for sims, and they are all loose, slidey, weightless, junk.
NombreyApellido
9 April 11, 01:40
What is real world data after all?
There are some things that are easy to cuantify:
4 wheels
50 gallons
900 degrees
Now what about different drag to lift ratios while travelling on the slipstream of another car?
Where does true-to-life hard data ends and where fudged-up begins? At rounding up?
Reality is not made of decimal places nor does run at any clock rate.
So I say let's stop acting like we're driving and let's go playing :-)
Reality is not made of decimal places nor does run at any clock rate.
So I say let's stop acting like we're driving and let's go playing :-)
Truer words never types, +1
NombreyApellido
9 April 11, 02:28
F1 does very specific things in their simulations, which are (usually) largely ISI based.
This would be funny if it were not because there is people believing it's actually true.
Let's stop perpetuating this nonsense.
Allow me to point you to a post by Mr. Nightingale, Chief Simulation Engineer of WilliamsF1, made a while ago:
"Based on an engine from the maker of netkar pro"? Absolutley not. What on earth makes you suggest that a high-fidelity motorsport simulator would be "Based On" a game? Why would you even think that? What do the makers of a game know about car simulations than an F1 team doesn't? The WF1 simulator is entirely developed in-house, and contains not a single line of game code. No game in existence could come anywhere near the level of fidelity produced in this type of simulation. Admittedly there are other "Simulators" that are used for guests at WF1, and these are indeed based on games, but the actual one depicted (and which is used by drivers and engineers) is not.
Emphasis added by me.
source: http://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=115411
BTW, Dave Kirkman also from WilliamsF1 agreed and confirmed the ID of the poster.
if they gonna sell it someday he should do the marketing:
No game in existence could come anywhere near the level of fidelity produced in this type of simulation.
:nurse:
a program is a program no matter if you sell it to 5 million people or only allow 5 people to drive it 8-)
a program is a program no matter if you sell it to 5 million people or only allow 5 people to drive it 8-)
But the hardware to be able to run said simulation is an entirely different story. The consumer level still doesn't have the hardware to be able to cost effectively run some of the more complex simulators used in the private sector.
This would be funny if it were not because there is people believing it's actually true.
Let's stop perpetuating this nonsense.
Allow me to point you to a post by Mr. Nightingale, Chief Simulation Engineer of WilliamsF1, made a while ago:
Emphasis added by me.
source: http://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=115411
BTW, Dave Kirkman also from WilliamsF1 agreed and confirmed the ID of the poster.
RBR (Manufacturer and World champions) Have an actual signed agreement with ISI for use of their software in their simulator. Note I said "Largely" based. Williams clearly has other thoughts, and I know Virgin and Ferrari uses some kind of propietary stuff. It is not "Perpetuating" nonsense. You can see videos of both Mark and Sebastian using clearly and unmistakeably ISI software in several videos and interviews that are well documented.
NombreyApellido
9 April 11, 04:34
You can see videos of both Mark and Sebastian using clearly and unmistakeably ISI software in several videos and interviews that are well documented.
Ok. Keep on believing what you choose to believe in. I'm not going to try to force feed you any truth.
Cheers!
NombreyApellido
9 April 11, 04:41
But the hardware to be able to run said simulation is an entirely different story. The consumer level still doesn't have the hardware to be able to cost effectively run some of the more complex simulators used in the private sector.
Not just the hardware: The propietary measuments to replicate with both complexity and fidelity the real thing... And the ability to validate everything on the wind tunnel, the 7 Post Rigs and the track itself!
Going back to hardware: don't forget they plug the FIA SECU to those things.
Sigh. Didn't want to have go to google, but here you go:
Webber in Rfactor pro based motion rig C/O VirtualR:
http://www.virtualr.net/istanbul-in-red-bulls-rfactor-pro-simulator-video/
Gjon on Rfactor Pro, October 2010:
http://www.simhq.com/_motorsports5/motorsports_154a.html
Excerpt:
ISI / Gjon: Even before creating our first racing title SportsCar GT, we have worked on commercial and military simulation products. Then starting around 1994, we worked exclusively on video games. Once we specialized in racing simulations we again started to work on products in the commercial simulation space.
While developing Formula One products for EA we had the opportunity to meet and work with some members of these teams. After trying for years, we recently formalized a professional line of products in rFactor Pro.
We have done the same for event and marketing purposes through our rFactor Event line of products. More info can be found on the reworked rFactor.net web site.
Massa using A1GP Simulator (Rfactor Pro base) C/O VirtualR:
http://www.virtualr.net/felipe-massa-recovers-using-rfactor-pro/
ISR Thread:
http://www.insidesimracing.tv/forums/viewtopic.php?f=140&t=2706
Don't ever tell me what to believe again. Tyvmhand.
Edit just to put a period on these useless semantics:
Williams has worked with both ISI and Iracing providing data for car recreations. Their simulators might well be "completely in house" but they seem quite comfortable working with "Games".
Shift 2 just doesn't give me the same level of feel to make it believable. Now I don't know if its a controller thing a set-up thing or its working as intended .......
Well now I do know what the problem is. I have just reverted to my old wheel which is a very old wheel, its running on vista drivers as there are no win7 drivers and Shift 2 is a different game!
There are some downsides but the DFGT is for sale. TBH I wasn't impressed with the DFGT in iRacing when I got it.
oh and here is a review of the wheel back in 2000!!! :mrgreen:
http://www.simracingworld.com/content/32-guillemot-ferrari-wheel-review/
NombreyApellido
9 April 11, 06:06
Not sure what to make of all that, Shinza. You haven't provided with anything but some very loose (not specific) commentary and some footage of a few star drivers playing games for the TV cameras.
If that's what you're basing your argument on, then I'd say it's plain hearsay.
Please point me to a straight forward statement by someone at the simulations dept. of RBR stating they use rFactor for anything other than a paperweight and then I'll gladly eat my words, though.
In the meantime, I LOL hard if your source is Virtual-R. A site that reports on mods, for crying out loud!
Now that's selective skepticism if I ever seen some!
I don't need to back my statements up further to avoid going completely off topic. I don't NEED to tell YOU what to believe.
If its that you want to believe Redbull Racing Renault built a many thousand euro simulator, to put its WORLD CLASS DRIVERS in, when its the MANUFACTURERS and WORLD champions, just to smile for the TV camera's that they can do every Friday-Sunday on GP day. Fine. If its that you believe Gjon is a liar, and completely ignore the fact that ISI have a pedigree in simulation engineering dating back a decade and a half, and have provided the base engines for a good many simulators using their "Pro" Platform, thats fine. And if you believe that Williams is so uncomfortable with sim racing, that they allowed a several million dollar race car to be poured over by Iracing for a retail sim. If you chose to believe that your website (GTPlanet) Is any better then some other website on the internet. Fine.
NombreyApellido
9 April 11, 06:33
I don't need to back my statements up further to avoid going completely off topic. I don't NEED to tell YOU what to believe.
If its that you want to believe Redbull Racing Renault built a many thousand euro simulator, to put its WORLD CLASS DRIVERS in, when its the MANUFACTURERS and WORLD champions, just to smile for the TV camera's that they can do every Friday-Sunday on GP day. Fine.
They did exactly that with the several million euro KERS not too long ago. That Christian Horner is one tricky guy.
I wouldn't be surprised if they showed Vettel training with Out Run just to piss Di Montezemolo for spending tenths of millions in the Ferrari in-house sim :laugh:
If its that you believe Gjon is a liar, and completely ignore the fact that ISI have a pedigree in simulation engineering dating back a decade and a half, and have provided the base engines for a good many simulators using their "Pro" Platform, thats fine. And if you believe that Williams is so uncomfortable with sim racing, that they allowed a several million dollar race car to be poured over by Iracing for a retail sim. If you chose to believe that your website (GTPlanet) Is any better then some other website on the internet. Fine.
I don't think anyone's is a liar. I just don't buy blindly into PR crap. But that's just me I guess.
Don't get me started on iRacing's Willy. It doesn't even wear the plank...
Ok, let's get back to topic.
And yet Williams endorses it. The same Williams that you said, vehemently hates "Games." Which if were true, for PR reasons, they would sue the living hell out of Iracing for even using anything resembling an FW chassis.
NombreyApellido
9 April 11, 06:57
And yet Williams endorses it.
I wonder if money has anything to do with it...
The same Williams that you said, vehemently hates "Games." Which if were true, for PR reasons, they would sue the living hell out of Iracing for even using anything resembling an FW chassis.
Just so we are clear: I didn't say such a thing myself. I quoted the person who did and provided information to back it up. You should try that from time to time :mrgreen:
Didn't we agree on moving on?
I did provide the information, the interview with Gjon alone was enough information. If hes not infact a liar, then he or members of ISI have worked with formula1 teams in the past, Why? Not many people know do they? Could be something to do with strict NDA's.
Heres a fact. Rfactor Pro exists. It has a website. It states that it provides highly specialized, engineered simulation solutions. Now, drivers need somewhere to train outside of testing, and they need to learn tracks. Obviously, engineers at both Iracing and ISI work with teams, of various series, to provide these simulations. This is actually a loss of money, large ammounts of it, for whatever teams. And the very first teams approached, and would approach these solutions, would be Formula 1, because every team in Formula 1 would want whatever edge possible, PR, Performance, whatever. There is obviously a business in simulation engineering, by both Iracing and ISI who have multiple partners for their platforms, both teams and other engineering companies. Businesses don't survive without buyers.
Edit: putting the topic to bed. In the links, you will find at least one link to Rfactor pro. On its website mainpage are statements from both Force India and Red Bull Racing Renault. Satements that don't say "Hey, great game man!"
I can agree to move on. I'll go a step further and say the topic wasn't even necessary to bring up.
Since i wrestled down the hardware setup and car tuning, i am more than happy with the realism. It's all a setup thing... You can get each car to behave like you would expect it from a real one (even Lotus). Well, at least you can get close...
One little thing i would like to see though - i am driving (relative) fast cars since 28 years (won some BMW driver training pylon races with a Z4) and i believe we need a little bit more grip specially with the racing wheels.
However the immersion with Shift 2 is awesome - i am sweating like i would in a real car :mrgreen:
marianf1
9 April 11, 07:19
Wow...so many trolls are in the forums! Shift2 is perfect sim. Handing realism, physics, driving feelings are great and perfect! I enjoy this sim without any mods because moderring of default shift2 handling ruins perfect shift2 physics model. So if you don't like shift2 realism then go to play grid or forza or something like these arcadish games. It will be good for you because shift2 is for only true sim-racers.
NombreyApellido
9 April 11, 07:20
Heres a fact. Rfactor Pro exists. It has a website.
You have to admit this is hilarious... It must rank up there with "It's true, I read it on the internets" :laugh:
You're right. Totally unnecessary... But I'll take it if it keeps me awake till the Malaysian qualy.
@Marian I hope your not referring to me or Nombrey. We are two different people with two different views on the same subject, a TROLL has no vested interest in a debate whatsoever.
@Nombrey
Sure. But you want proof. I give you proof. And you say its internet proof, on an internet forum, in internet land. Would you like a conference call in skype? Together we can call ISI, and try to get an answer ourselves. A definative one. Of course, Skype would be over the internet and we would be "hearing it on the internets" ;)
I'm up for quali too. I wonder if RBR are sandbagging. Ferrari and Mclaren look strong, and it might shower around Q3. I can't wait!
NombreyApellido
9 April 11, 07:44
I guess we can't agree on what constitutes proof and what doesn't.
Camaj sells a customizable package to race teams. From that, people make up this myth that it is used by half the grid.
What is it used for? By who exactly?
For all we now, it could just be used as doorstop.
As was pointed before: what could ISI possibly contribute to a F1 team? Their marvelous implementation of canned force feedback?
I'm willing to compromise and accept that their visual and audio system could represent a cost cutting alternative to an in-house development.
Anything more and it'll be like selling ice to eskimos :-)
--
If it doesn't rain in Q, my money is on Red Bull getting the pole but McLaren putting up a fight in the race.
I also wish Mercedes could find the car soon... I was a huuuge fan of Schumacher and would love to see him win again.
Its not a fair compromise. Rfactor Pro is not the Retail version of rfactor we have. Its developed on completely different terms by people paid alot more money then you or I. The same goes for Iracing platforms. Read the website. Its a real business. I highly doubt its fake. If it was, ISI or these teams, would have had some serious legal precedings.
This debate, or rather, a very similar debate came up on several other gaming forums a while ago between ARMA2 (A retail game) and VBS (a system used by the military)
There were people, like you, saying "What could a software made by a game company POSSIBLY contribute to the military." and there were people like me, providing evidence to support it, and then supporting the typed evidence with websites, to which the same thing happens "But its the internet!", well how else can it be debated? Anything I do in a forum is clearly going to be internet related! I don't have the luxury of sitting across from the table with supporting documents on paper, which would probably go right to emails for starters and back to square one.
I think itll be a fight, rain or not. But I have to go with the easy money on RBR. They were fastest in two of three practices, and Mark is almost always a staple on the front row at Malaysia.
NombreyApellido
9 April 11, 08:04
Its not a fair compromise. Rfactor Pro is not the Retail version of rfactor we have. Its developed on completely different terms by people paid alot more money then you or I. The same goes for Iracing platforms. Read the website. Its a real business. I highly doubt its fake. If it was, ISI or these teams, would have had some serious legal precedings.
How do you know about the payroll! See? Another convenient constructed myth... A small game studio in Michigan pays more and achives more than an Engineering position in an F1 team.
That can't be right!
This debate, or rather, a very similar debate came up on several other gaming forums a while ago between ARMA2 (A retail game) and VBS (a system used by the military)
Well, F1 teams are reknowned for the clever minds that run them. The U.S. military on the other hand :laugh:
There were people, like you, saying "What could a software made by a game company POSSIBLY contribute to the military." and there were people like me, providing evidence to support it, and then supporting the typed evidence with websites, to which the same thing happens "But its the internet!", well how else can it be debated? Anything I do in a forum is clearly going to be internet related! I don't have the luxury of sitting across from the table with supporting documents on paper, which would probably go right to emails for starters and back to square one.
You're making too much of what was a joke on my part I believe.
Or you mean that I don't recognize Virtual-r as a valid source for infor on this subject?
Thanks for the chat. Off to watching Q and then to bed!
No, I was making a point, that your just being difficult :D
How do I know this? I'm not talking about F1 engineers. I'm talking about SOFTWARE engineers.. Software engineers are usually contracted out to work for MANY people and develop on a single platform, in teams. They make quite alot of money.
Heres the key. If a platform exists. Whether its a racing simulation. Or a military simulation. Or a simulation in eating muffins. There needs to be a software engineer behind it, or a team of them, and these systems are pre-developed. This came up in that argument as well.
Not speaking for F1 teams, I don't know what their reasons are. However, what I do know is, A predefined, working, platform, is a whole hell of alot easier to install, and a whole hell of alot cheaper, then hiring an R&D team for a basic level training tool. Which is what I maintained these sims were from the beginning.
I never said anything about F1 engineers payroll. I said YOU or I, and unless you are an F1 engineer, I doubt you're qualified to know how much they make, exactly, anyway.
Almost Q2, I'm outty too. Nice chat indeed :D
After I moan a lot about it's handling. I read a lot of comments about how to get it right and sorted I found that the realism in Shift 2 is actually good. I pick various front wheel drive cars since it's the only type of car I've ever drive in real life and found that the car behavior is sort of similar to the real one.
Problem is it can't keep up with my controls along with my driving style and that's a big problem to me. Also force feedback doesn't make it believable despite what happen on the screen.
I guess we can't agree on what constitutes proof and what doesn't.
Camaj sells a customizable package to race teams. From that, people make up this myth that it is used by half the grid.
Well, they say it's used by half the grid. Of course as you say "in what capacity?" - but they have claimed it's used by 5 F1 teams as their " primary simulator for engineering development, setup evaluation and driver training "
I don't see the point in arguing. That quote is as good a source as 1 F1 team saying they don't use it isn't it? Without further evidence there's no point worrying about whether you believe their statement or not.
if the limiting factors for creating an accurate simulation are
- cost
- time
- data
- performance
It's clear that a firm writing a game is going to struggle in every area, but that same team of software engineers could well build a simulator of the quality required once those constraints are removed (and since the whole point of rf pro is that the teams write their own software to plug into it, the premise that they don't know more than F1 teams isn't broken - they clearly don't need to, as that part is designed to be modular)
Then again, that is the part that you'd think mattered most if you're talking about realism. So it seems unlikely rfactor pro is realistic at all in the sense that we might ask the question about shift 2 or netkar pro, that bit isn't even included :)
Even so, I still think "so what?" - if rfactor pro is a high-fidelity, measurably accurate vehicle simulator with game-quality graphics and sound engines, for human, hardware and software-in-the-loop simulation. A plugin architecture allows users to replace any or all aspects of the simulation with models developed in C++, Simulink/SimMechanics, Dymola, SIMPACK running either inline (PC) or on dSPACE or vTAG. as their website suggests and if it is genuinely used by 5 F1 teams as their primary simulator one thing we can be certain that rfactor pro isn't, is that it isn't rfactor.
It's just clever marketing for them to sell rfactor or rfactor 2 on the basis they have the first 7 letters of rfactor pro. No different from flogging a few copies of a game because Ferrari get Alonso and Massa turn out to do a bit of PR for a game that includes their track and car.
What the hell has rFactor PRO got to do with SHIFT2 and the purpose of this thread? Why do all SHIFT2 threads end in a debate comparing them to iRacing and others? Getting annoying now, it's SHIFT, it's completely different to anything else out there. Don't get me wrong i love iRacing but right now i need a break from it and SHIFT is providing me with alot of "fun" something that has been missing from my racing since i got into sims.
Regarding SHIFT2. I keep reading it's easy but has anybody actually thought to themselves who think that, that the reason it's so drivable on the limit is beacause the physics are actually very good and informative?
I mean seriously how many real life races do you see with FIA GT guys making mistakes at high speed? For me SHIFT2 has it right, think, a car generates more grip the faster it's goes due to the aero, this is one area SHIFT2 excels IMO is the that feeling of grip and aero at work as the slower corners, where aero is not forcing the car into the ground, the cars are more unstable, just like real life.
People need to get over this thinking of crashing every 5 minutes - sim, shinzah is right.
I spose i'm one of the lucky ones and have no issues, so maybe i am experiencing a different game but for me it all seems legit.
Yes, they have held back in areas but c'mon, it's a mass market "sim"
Rfactor Pro is not the Retail version of rfactor we have. Its developed on completely different terms by people paid alot more money then you or I.
Keep in mind that some of the F1 teams have multiple simulators for different uses. I don't know about Red Bull, but I do know that Ferrari stated they have private simulations which is not what people have viewed or seen (outside of the team). Red Bull may only be using their rFactor Pro simulator as a way to allow the drivers to get familiar with the tracks, as compared to trying to find setup changes and/or settings for a true "race simulation". If that's the case, they aren't going to care about "true to life" behavior, but just something 'similar'.
I don't know why, but some cars in Shift1 either don't handle properly, or they've exaggerated the realism, either way, some cars in Shift1 drive beautifully, but a handful are real dogs....primarily, they tank slap.....so does this driving issue still exist in SU2?
Btw, IMO, Shift1 has a drift driving model, ie, you're often fastest when throwing the car thru corners rally/drift style, however you can still drive cleanly respecting the racing line and braking points, so I can live with it.
NombreyApellido
9 April 11, 16:05
Well, they say it's used by half the grid. Of course as you say "in what capacity?" - but they have claimed it's used by 5 F1 teams as their " primary simulator for engineering development, setup evaluation and driver training "
I don't see the point in arguing. That quote is as good a source as 1 F1 team saying they don't use it isn't it? Without further evidence there's no point worrying about whether you believe their statement or not.
if the limiting factors for creating an accurate simulation are
- cost
- time
- data
- performance
It's clear that a firm writing a game is going to struggle in every area, but that same team of software engineers could well build a simulator of the quality required once those constraints are removed (and since the whole point of rf pro is that the teams write their own software to plug into it, the premise that they don't know more than F1 teams isn't broken - they clearly don't need to, as that part is designed to be modular)
Then again, that is the part that you'd think mattered most if you're talking about realism. So it seems unlikely rfactor pro is realistic at all in the sense that we might ask the question about shift 2 or netkar pro, that bit isn't even included :)
Even so, I still think "so what?" - if rfactor pro is a high-fidelity, measurably accurate vehicle simulator with game-quality graphics and sound engines, for human, hardware and software-in-the-loop simulation. A plugin architecture allows users to replace any or all aspects of the simulation with models developed in C++, Simulink/SimMechanics, Dymola, SIMPACK running either inline (PC) or on dSPACE or vTAG. as their website suggests and if it is genuinely used by 5 F1 teams as their primary simulator one thing we can be certain that rfactor pro isn't, is that it isn't rfactor.
It's just clever marketing for them to sell rfactor or rfactor 2 on the basis they have the first 7 letters of rfactor pro. No different from flogging a few copies of a game because Ferrari get Alonso and Massa turn out to do a bit of PR for a game that includes their track and car.
If you are still reading, that was a good post. And yes, you're right about me having trouble digesting the simboi pride in some questionable youtube footage and PR claims.
But I am not denying that there are some connections here and there between games and high fidelity simulators: if I'm not mistaken, Van Gaal worked with Cruden for Virgin (if a non FOTA team can be considered F1 at all); Casillo for Ferrari and so on.
I just feel that to conclude from those sole facts that in some way computer games are realistic, whatever the term may define to you, is a bit of a stretch to say the least.
See you around!
NombreyApellido
9 April 11, 16:08
What the hell has rFactor PRO got to do with SHIFT2 and the purpose of this thread? Why do all SHIFT2 threads end in a debate comparing them to iRacing and others? Getting annoying now, it's SHIFT, it's completely different to anything else out there. Don't get me wrong i love iRacing but right now i need a break from it and SHIFT is providing me with alot of "fun" something that has been missing from my racing since i got into sims.
C'mon now, let us have some fun... It's not like we're raping babies here. Just talking about our favorite past time :thumbup:
But you're right, we got a bit far from the original topic.
NombreyApellido
9 April 11, 16:15
How do I know this? I'm not talking about F1 engineers. I'm talking about SOFTWARE engineers.. Software engineers are usually contracted out to work for MANY people and develop on a single platform, in teams. They make quite alot of money.
That is a good point you make there. Just wanted to be fair to you and say it.
We're on again for tonight? :laugh:
another thing which isn't absolute necessary in a good simulation. (only accurate, if you're looking for that of course one can argue about "necessary" ;) )
say they know exactly how fast a car accelerates or how long the braking distance is on a track under certain condition. how much does the brakes and tires heat and wear. downforce, weight transfer and so on. they can recreate that on one track with all their data from motec.
if you look at a "normal" sim you download a f1 mod, they might handle similar "good" in terms of general physics, but you can try the weirdest set-ups and get away with it, while F1 teams would never use these knowing they won't work out on a real f1 weekend. so even with the same base physics model the f1 teams would have a better f1 simulator for their purpose.
of course (to nismogtr123 ;) ) the same would apply if you replace f1 with say, a '67 corvette or a bmw m3 gt2 :-)
NombreyApellido
9 April 11, 16:27
while F1 teams would never use these knowing they won't work out on a real f1 weekend
There was this article where Dom Duhan of Team Redline, if I remember right, spoke about his visit to Virgin (I have to guess since it's never disclosed) and he said they don't even use our throttle under braking technique in their simulator because "it's too dangerous" in real life.
Not the actual quote, BTW.
Keep in mind that some of the F1 teams have multiple simulators for different uses. I don't know about Red Bull, but I do know that Ferrari stated they have private simulations which is not what people have viewed or seen (outside of the team).
Most F1 simulations are not interactive at all. The closest thing most teams have besides an ISI based simulation to interactivity is the seven post, which, is run by a guy on a console or laptop normally.
Red Bull may only be using their rFactor Pro simulator as a way to allow the drivers to get familiar with the tracks, as compared to trying to find setup changes and/or settings for a true "race simulation". If that's the case, they aren't going to care about "true to life" behavior, but just something 'similar'.
Quite true, and if you read some of my earlier posts, I've been saying this all along. I'm not arguing that sims are in any way real life. The arguement started whether F1 teams use an ISI based sim, on ANY level.
I just feel that to conclude from those sole facts that in some way computer games are realistic, whatever the term may define to you, is a bit of a stretch to say the least.
But nobody is saying this :D
That is a good point you make there. Just wanted to be fair to you and say it.
We're on again for tonight? :laugh:
Well I hope to have something somewhat intelligent to do before the race tonight. :laugh:
Quite true, and if you read some of my earlier posts, I've been saying this all along. I'm not arguing that sims are in any way real life. The arguement started whether F1 teams use an ISI based sim, on ANY level.
I believe this all started from "real data vs. fudged data" for the car values. In that sense, I don't believe there is a consumer level application which can directly plug in real data points and provide a real true life simulation. So, they fudge data to try to create something similar. As you mentioned, that doesn't mean F1 teams do not use ISI made apps, but their use is not for plugging in real data to see what happens (which I don't think you were doubting at all). ;)
You can't plug real data into a computer, unless your using CAD software, or laser scanning something, which is of course, non interactive.
You can only input variables into an interactive simulation. We don't have the processing ability or technology, to say for example, dissect an engine to every valve spring, virtually dyno it, and know who machined every component of it and their quality of work to put against the chance of failure on raceday. Thats not possible. It would take hundreds of computers on just one valve spring, and that valve springs journey through creation.
What CAN be done with variables, is roughing out the edges. "This worked for our drivers in the interactive simulation. Lets take it to Fluid Dynamics, Wind Tunnel, or Seven Post to see if we can make it work for next weekend."
This does not make a sim comparable to real life. Though the path of any R&D might put it at after the conception phase and before the creation phase, to see what MIGHT happen within a sterile, variable driven environment.
Obviously some teams might not. Some teams would leave all their R&D including simulations, up to the R&D group, and never bring their drivers into it at all.
But most, if not all teams, would agree to use simulations for line learning, getting comfortable running a track, finding its landmarks, and running laps in SOMETHING that hasn't got a limit of eight engines, and a testing ban.
Edit: I also believe this is on topic, in a way. Though not specifically about Shift 2, it is about "handling realism"..."simness" and is discussing first, what is a sim, who in real racing actually uses one, and what they are used for. Which is pertinent to discussing "Is shift a realistic simulation, compared to the most realistic simulations?"
In my book it is a simulation, but compared to all other sims I've driven like Iracing, netkar, GTL, GTR's, GPL, Rfactor and even GT5 there seems to be more grip up to and beyond the limit of the tyre, which makes driving close to the limit more forgiving.
Is this more realistic, well I cannot properly answer that, as I've only driven a handful of cars on a track with road and track tyres and never pushed them to and over the limit intentionally.
If I had to say what sim SHIFT2's handling reminds me off the most I'd say Race Pro on xbox 360.
I'm not having an issue with the realism, physics or the mechanics of how the cars behave. I believe that they've actually done a great job with the physics part of the game, or at least for a mass market game. I think the issue that I really have with it (when comparing it to other racing games/sims I own) is that the force feedback does a terrible job of letting you know what the chassis is doing. When I drive in modded GTR2 I can tell exactly what the car likes and doesn't like after a couple of turns. I can tell how much grip I have, and when that grip breaks. I can tell where the weight of the car has shifted. I can feel the difference in engine RPM through the wheel as well. You get a real sense of confidence of what the chassis is capable of through feel, and you can tell when you are pushing too hard and need to back off. In Shift 2 I get none of that. I feel disconnected from the car for the most part. Most of the forces in this game seem like generic turning forces (and crashing forces), or that's how I'm perceiving it anyways. I end up driving purely off of choosing the right line and learning correct cornering speeds without feeling connected to the road in any real tangible way, almost like playing without force feedback, really. I think that having force feedback similar to what's in other sims would improve this game drastically.
In GTR2 I can run the Evolution IX (mod) and it's amazing how much the car feels like my real Evo IX. It has the same characteristics in turns with the AWD correction, and you can feel it through the wheel. And when you switch cars in GTR2 you can feel the differences in the weights, even wheelbase length of the car through the feedback. For some reason, most of the cars in Shift 2 feel very similar to me, unless I'm making a pretty drastic change (switching from Alfa Romeo to the Huayra, for instance). Even the Porsches don't feel like Porsches to me. But in GTR2, they have a drastically different feel from, say, the C6R Vette.
This game would absolutely rock if the FFB gets sorted out. But right now, it's just a really pretty game with less immersion than games/sims that have come before it. Having said that, I have been grossly addicted to it since I got it last week (it's the graphics whore in me). :laugh:
......
Yep, we are saying the same things.. ;)
We seem to have a number of people who like different things from racing games, mainly though, we have hardcore sim nutters{who I generally can't stand}, and those like me who like racing games in general, ie, racing cars on racing tracks doing racing.
Shift1 certainly qualifies as a racing game and definitely has an excellent driving model, ie, in gross terms it's a sim, unlike GRID and BLUR etc, and in most cases, the car behaviour is excellent in that most cars drive like you'd expect.....but some don't, some have the behaviour of a car twice as heavy and powerful, luckily though, these are the exception.
Most of these threads are pointless nonsense conducted by people intent on debasing all racing games into Iracing drones....speaking of which, regardless of how realistic the driving model of iracing, it's gotta be the single most boring game I've ever encountered, not just racing game, but game period....I really don't know how people tolerate it.
As I mentioned earlier, the biggest problem with Shift1 is that a handful of cars are simply cactus, ie, they drive like over powered boats for no good reason, but if most of the cars in SU2 are like the Porsche GT, Zonda F/R, Lambo Rev etc, then I'm certain it would be an awesome game, just as Shift1 is....at least from a SP pov.
Hagane007
9 April 11, 21:53
Only the 4WD cars play well, imo.
Gyro Revolt
10 April 11, 01:13
Sorry but Shift has some points which make it half arcade half sim. Not a good compromise in my eyes.
For example I can drive a fast corner like I would in a normal car with smooth, fluid movements but in Shift one can also take the corner like this: Drive to the apex in a totally straight line then turn the steering wheel to full lock for just a blink and then release the steering wheel and leave the corner in a straight line.
This is especially true for fast corners. In a normal car if you drive lets say 100mph and you take a slight bend and then yank the steering wheel to full lock and then straight again you will most likely spin. In Shift you just plow on with a hint of understeer far from even bringing the tail out.
Another thing thats horrifically wrong is braking with one side of the car on gras. I tried it several times with the same late braking point I would use with all four wheels on tarmac and oh wonder whilst having two wheels on gras the braking distance was the same, I made the corner no problem. The car doesn't even pull sideways or anything. Stays totally stable and on track. Obviously wrong.
I'm not generally saying physics are wrong, in some sections it fulfills my expectations on how a car should behave quite well, but always when I expierence things like the above mentioned I know we are talking a good slice of arcade too.
Hi,
Like most here, I can't really speak authoritatively. My track experience was limited to a course for a CAMS competition licence (using my road car), some time in a Formula Ford (1600 Kent engine, 500 RPM reduction of redline) and track days in a Ford Focus Turbo (which is very similar to the Focus ST I think).
I have run GP Legends, GT Legends, iRacing and Netkar Pro apart from both Shifts of course.
My personal feeling is that none of these games / sims (whatever you feel comfortable calling them) portray what I felt in the real cars. Of the sims I have listed above, I would, however, rank GP Legends, GT Legends and iRacing as the least realistic. I would rank NetKar Pro as the most realistic. That said, the Formula Ford in NetKar Pro is harder to drive (from a purely technical viewpoint) than the real thing. I am not sure whether it really is harder, or whether it is just that the G-Force feedback is missing. But you get a lot more feedback in the real thing and feel more comfortably in control than you do in the sim.
iRacing really doesn't feel like any track experience I have had at all. There seems to be this wholesale "disconnection" between the car and the road that is on the other hand much more in abundance with Shift 2 (I have noted this characteristic in all Kaemer sims I have used). Shift 2, on the other hand, goes too far the other way - the connection and adhesion quotients between car and track are overdone and too progressive - and consequently one can drive like a hero. To put it another way, if someone applied the exact same technique they used in Shift 2 to a real car on a track, they would be into the barrier at the first corner - 100% guaranteed. I think the only way I could get a real Focus Turbo to behave the way it does in Shift 2 would be to fit it with racing wheels and slicks and fit competition shocks, springs and roll bar.
But all that said, if I say iRacing goes too far one way and Shift 2 too far the other, Shift 2 is closer to the real experience than iRacing is. But neither are particularly close either.
Nevertheless, the big problem with these games for all of us is that the only feedback we get is visual, auditory and via the steering wheel. We don't get the precise G-Force feedback and this is impossible to recreate even in motion platforms. And because of this, I think some compromises are necessary if the game is to come close to real life in terms of the pure level of difficulty (by that I mean the pure degree of technical ability required as opposed to mental toughness, physical fitness and the ability to perform at the top level despite the effects of the G-Forces). Because of that, I think Shift 2 perhaps is the happiest medium of all games I have played in the last 12 years. I say this because subjectively the degree of difficulty on Elite level with a fully tricked up car might be easier than reality, but with something like iRacing, it's much harder than reality. The reason why some people are so fast in games like iRacing is not because they have skills which apply to driving the real thing, but because they can use techniques in the game which would lead to poor lap times if they were applied in the real world.
So they all miss, just that Shift 2 misses less than any of the others.
In closing I find it quite interesting that when GT Legends came out in 2005, no one disputed it was a "sim" and infact many regarded it as a "gold" standard. Yet if one takes a similar type of car (there are several of them in Shift 2) and punts it round one of the tracks in both games (such as Dijon), the difference in terms of the perception of reality is huge. There is no comparison at all imo - Shift 2 is far more authentic in every conceivable way and it is GT Legends that feels extremely arcady these days.
Also, no-one does sense of speed or in car immersion like Shift.
Gyro Revolt
10 April 11, 07:52
There is no comparison at all imo - Shift 2 is far more authentic in every conceivable way and it is GT Legends that feels extremely arcady these days.
Not quite true.
The advantage GT Legends has is that you can control the car much more precise and you can put the car exactly where you want it to, while in Shift 2 people have, like they did mention in this thread, problems to hit the apex or generally drive a clean controlled racing line. I have quite some racetrack expierience and in GTL I can drive a nice clean racing line most like in a real car. In Shift I often find myself far away from the racing line because of the unprecise feel of Shift's tires.
In GT Legends the tire feels more in connection with the road and the suspension movement is much more 'feelable' and seeable, the motions of the driverhead in cockpit give you a good feedback of carmovement. Too low grip threshold and generally too hard to drive because of a very icy feel when coming to the limit or going over it.
In Shift 2 I feel the tire gives me little to no feel of actually driving on a hard, rough surface, no bumps, it feels more like driving on a cushion of air.
I like that you can actually feel the softness of the tire, but to the cost of accuracy. What also is very good is the feel when you push the tire over the limit, you slide but the tire still gives you nice feedback.
The driverhead reacts much too slow to carmovements so you get a sort of a head-delay which is bad for judging the cars reactions, feels like inside the cockpit everything runs in a slower time than outside the car, irritating when you play a fast-paced game like Shift.
Driving a car exactly on the line you want is very hard to achieve, it always feels a little wayward when you start to turn into a corner. A real car with a good setup gives you confidence on the turnin, while the mushy feel of the tires or the translation that the physics engine sends you to your steering wheel in Shift 2 hinders that. It feels like driving a car where the steering is totally artificial because of drive-by-wire or other reasons.
If just the tires would give you a bit more the feel of a real tire, you turn in and just ride along that feelable, defined edge of grip. In Shift I turn in and ride along a too mushy(hence the name 'sharper' tires mod), grey area of grip.
MaddmattH
10 April 11, 08:14
In Shift I often find myself far away from the racing line because of the unprecise feel of Shift's tires.
I only had that problem when I had steering lag or certain cars made the FFB go a bit crazy. Besides that, the cars feel precise to me...
I think after the patch sorts that our properly the game will feel as precise as it should.
Captain Slow
10 April 11, 08:19
If I had to make an educated guess, Shift2 is about 65% sim / 35% arcade.
Out here, I have access to some very twisty roads and the closest represenation to these roads would be nordschleife, and the car I used to compare the two is a Mustang GT.
After driving both cars on the limit, I can say that Shift2 is much more forgiving with mistakes, and the front end in game is a lot grippier than in real life. I can feel the car in real life start to slip due to understeer, but none of that occurs in game. The feedback from the game's FFB is almost dead in comparisom so I can't tell exactly where I am on the course other than visual feedback. Minute corrections can be made much better in the real thing, whereas in the game you simply cannot do these needed corrections.
another thing is the feeling of weight. On the road, the mustang actually feels somewhat light but planted. In game it feels like you're either driving a pillow or a brick.
Gyro Revolt
10 April 11, 08:50
I only had that problem when I had steering lag or certain cars made the FFB go a bit crazy. Besides that, the cars feel precise to me...
I think after the patch sorts that our properly the game will feel as precise as it should.
I believe part of the 'input lag problem' is due to choppy framerates.
In cockpit view I have no input lag. I run the game smoothly without AA at about 60-90FPS. What I do experience is:
If I use cockpit view or bonnet view the steering acts immediatly when I give an input, no lag at all. Its like it should be, but still as said a mushy feel on turn in and when riding on the edge of optimum grip.
Though if I use rear outside view I recognise a noticeable input lag. I have to turn into the corner much earlier compared to driving in cockpit view.
Could be just me but I feel there is a definite difference regarding steering-reaction-time between cockpit view and rear outside view.
Captain Slow
10 April 11, 08:59
for those who think the input lag is related to FPS, I refer you to this thread: http://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=198699
Gyro Revolt
10 April 11, 09:24
Ian Bell said:
"Quick post to say that we've removed the lag internally (well, down to hardware limits)."
The 'well down to hardware limits' just confirms my suspicion that part of the problem is due to the game demanding quite a lot of processing power, especially when AA is on. This brings the systems of enough users to their limits.
Not quite true.
The advantage GT Legends has is that you can control the car much more precise and you can put the car exactly where you want it to, while in Shift 2 people have, like they did mention in this thread, problems to hit the apex or generally drive a clean controlled racing line.
Firstly, what you meant to say, rather than not quite true is that your opinion is different to mine. none of us are remotely qualified to delve into the real truth of the matter and your "truth" is no more valid than mine.
As for the rest of your post, I cold not disagree with you more - your experiences with GT Legends and Shift 2 are complete and utter polar opposites to mine.
I have absolutely no problem whatsoever holding a desired line and in my experience Shift 2 enables me to do this far better than any other game / sim out there. It's actually GT Legends that I would rate the worst in that respect.
The main gripe I have with S2U's is the collision physics. Cars still seem very light so they get bumped around very easily, but that may actually how real (race) cars behave at high speed. However, something that seems really weird is that the cars stick when colliding. As if they're magnetic or have flypaper on them.
Gyro Revolt
11 April 11, 10:00
Seems they wanted to put some sort of punishment for purposely hitting other cars, which should be good for online races, but its not thought to the end. Because then they should have put in a much lower damage threshold. You can hit opponents with loads of force and most of the times you will get away with it, which is the wrong way to do it for a realism orientated racing game. Not much different from dodgem cars in that aspect.
We all have seen Saloon racers or GT racers hitting each other on track without those artificial reactions on where your car is going and how much the driver can do against it. The game almost cheats you into a spin or towards the fence, because where without another car you could correct the slide, the same slide while hitting another car is impossible to correct.
And where are the pitstops(no changing tires), where are the yellow flags, where is the checkered flag, where is the podium ceremony for winning races, where is the standard race weekend with training, quailfying and race, where are the correct figures when setting up the car(-2.0 camber, degrees, pressure, aso)? Where is the graphical display for checking the gear ratios? Why no topspeed specification?
Elements which are essential in a motorsport game.
GT5 gives you months of racing events. Shift 2 gave me 10 days of racing events.
I'm rather astonished by the acceptance of the sim racers here, when you look at the list of features missing which were already established as standard in older sim orientated games.
Are you all going soft or just getting drowned in the dumbing down of the simulation genre?
The biggest flaw in singleplayer is the difficulty.
99% of the too short 2 to 5 lap races where you leave the first corner without a crash went like this:
I drive alone far in front of all the AI cars which I overtook either on the start or in the first lap and winning the race wasn't the least bit challenging, which is totally ridiculous considering I'm using the games hardest possible setting to get a challenge out of it.
I mean come on :burst:. Where is the challenge, where is the exitement in that, when giving 70% is easily enough to win the race outright even on Elite setting?
Maybe this will help me a bit:
http://www.nogripracing.com/details.php?filenr=31821
Don't get me wrong I like the game as a funracer, thats what in my mind Shift really is: A funracer with simulation elements.
But as a simulation? No, not grown up enough, not by a long way.
Shinzah
11 April 11, 14:31
And where are the pitstops(no changing tires), where are the yellow flags, where is the checkered flag, where is the podium ceremony for winning races, where is the standard race weekend with training, quailfying and race, where are the correct figures when setting up the car(-2.0 camber, degrees, pressure, aso)? Where is the graphical display for checking the gear ratios? Why no topspeed specification?
Elements which are essential in a motorsport game.
Errr.
GT5 gives you months of racing events. Shift 2 gave me 10 days of racing events.
Yeah. GT5 also had none of that. Outside of endurance races, it even handles endurance races in the same manner by implementing tirewear ONLY in those.
Sure it has pitstops, but in six of nine endurance races you WOULD use them in, you don't actually need to.
I'm rather astonished by the acceptance of the sim racers here, when you look at the list of features missing which were already established as standard in older sim orientated games.
Are you all going soft or just getting drowned in the dumbing down of the simulation genre?
Maybe grandpa games got to old.
The biggest flaw in singleplayer is the difficulty.
99% of the too short 2 to 5 lap races where you leave the first corner without a crash went like this:
I drive alone far in front of all the AI cars which I overtook either on the start or in the first lap and winning the race wasn't the least bit challenging, which is totally ridiculous considering I'm using the games hardest possible setting to get a challenge out of it.
I mean come on :burst:. Where is the challenge, where is the exitement in that, when giving 70% is easily enough to win the race outright even on Elite setting?
Maybe this will help me a bit:
http://www.nogripracing.com/details.php?filenr=31821
I Guess, and has already be posted several times, some of us just aren't as "good" as you at this game.
The biggest flaw in singleplayer is the difficulty.
99% of the too short 2 to 5 lap races where you leave the first corner without a crash went like this:
I drive alone far in front of all the AI cars which I overtook either on the start or in the first lap and winning the race wasn't the least bit challenging, which is totally ridiculous considering I'm using the games hardest possible setting to get a challenge out of it.
I mean come on :burst:. Where is the challenge, where is the exitement in that, when giving 70% is easily enough to win the race outright even on Elite setting?
Maybe this will help me a bit:
http://www.nogripracing.com/details.php?filenr=31821
Don't get me wrong I like the game as a funracer, thats what in my mind Shift really is: A funracer with simulation elements.
But as a simulation? No, not grown up enough, not by a long way.
well, if you look only at AI behaviour and performance there simply is no simulation anywhere.
dunno why it's too easy for you maybe the choice of car? in some porsches with my set-up the AI seems slower then in other cars... also upgrades can mess up the performance scale a bit.
with the new tracks and some invitational events and/or limited tuning it gave me some challenge for the first days.
Yeah. GT5 also had none of that. Outside of endurance races, it even handles endurance races in the same manner by implementing tirewear ONLY in those.
Sure it has pitstops, but in six of nine endurance races you WOULD use them in, you don't actually need to.
true. as much as i like it for driving around and good visuals for a PS3.
after 15 years of GT you can't race a full season?
for SMS at least i know blimey people worked on GTR2 which only had 1 - 2 seasons of FIA GT and they tried something different with Shift intentionally.
that's why i can live with it, although i hoped for more diverse racing experience in S2. but instead they focussed on a better out of the box experience and reading many comments they seem to have succeeded in that.
but yeah... championship (with qualifying and save after each race) and endurance racing of course would be nice 8-) . i hope if there's an S3 and they keep the FIA cars in it they focus on that more.
Shinzah
11 April 11, 15:20
I would love some proper endurance racing. Right now its a bit of a joke. The AI drive waay too slow. Fall off in tires waaay too early. And when Radicals show up, they are outclassed by supercars, which looks totally wonk when my Radical is lapping other Radicals before GT1 cars and Pagani's.
I thought Proto's were supposed to outclass GT cars.
All the endurance, bar Bathurst because its a bit treacherous at times, are just sunday drives in Shift 2. (Of course, even worse in GT5, where you can go 60+ Laps without a change of tires in a car half as light as the field and twice as powerfull, and win basically on that alone.)
I like Shift2 as it is. I still fight the AI. I can "race mod" all my cars. It has ALMS cars in it. It has GT3 and GT1 cars in it. It might not be the most accurate, but it feels and looks great.
Gyro Revolt
11 April 11, 15:26
I now used the stronger AI mod in a race on Nordschleife and the AI was very strong. Took me a pretty hard battle of 1.5 laps and clean driving to reel them all in and thats what I think setting Hard/Elite in a game should be. And not the forget it was very exhilarating.
Thats one of the strong points, the nice graphics and the sensation of speed is fantastic.
I Guess, and has already be posted several times, some of us just aren't as "good" as you at this game.
That wasn't my point, but rather what you read into it. I'm not a good sim driver, maybe above average but nothing more.
Shinzah
11 April 11, 15:28
If you use Minimod, I can understand that, if you don't, then your not re-running any races or keeping to a single car, or your just better then some people here.
Which is always possible too, don't discount yourself. Some of us are just slow :D
NitrousOxideUK
11 April 11, 15:31
Having only been a passenger while Niel Cox (if I recall rightly) drove me round Castle Coombe for four laps in a Suburu WRX in 2006 (great experience and pressie from better half, shame I was bunged up with a heavy cold to fully appreciate the day), I can only comment of the bilievabilty of racing games.
Like many, I was shocked at how "spongy" the cars felt by default, they were even worse than my own old Toyota when both rear shocks went last year before its MOT! Using FRAPS, I was also aware that the framerate was horribly low (something that has been know to have an effect on older racers like <50fps in rfactor would result in slower lap times), showing the age of my 2008 system (Intel Q9300 and Nvidia 8800 GTS 512).
After dumbing down the graphics to minimum for more playable framerates (not a good feeling for someone who is used to crisp detail at 1920x1200) and changing some downright awful default tuning, the handling seems very believable. And thats only having done some very course changes, such as ~55% front balance braking; mid-high spring/damper rates.
At ~15% career completion in "elite" mode (although I confess I do cheat and use the best line system, mainly to refresh my memory on track layouts after ~15 months of not simracing, until [touch wood] I fixed my Fanatec GT3 RS v1 wheel a fortnight ago), I'm finding the GT1 Matech Ford GT a blast to drive, especially having raced my first endurance event at Road America last night! :D
Nightauditor
11 April 11, 16:25
Wow, some of you guys like to overanalyze :-D
Look, in my opinion it is very simple. If I can reproduce a cars behaviour in the Game / Sim then itīs realistic. If I canīt then it isnīt.
For example: Take any rwd car with a lsd and some power (300 - 350 horses, E36/46 M3, 350/370z, etc...), take a turn that you would drive at about 70 km/h (nice tight radius) and then floor it in second gear.
What should happen? The car should oversteer. What does happen in shift 2? Nothing. It just grips and accelerates.
I mean I understand the point in talking about correct input values and setups and all. But I thought we would have to discuss some major issues with this game first?
The immersion, sense of speed and sense of accelaration are all best in business. I do not know any other game that makes you feel the speed as good as Shift 2 does.
But the game does not get basic rwd physics right. It simply doesnīt. And yes, I have driven these said cars irl (the E46 M3 at least), and plenty of other cars (fwd, rwd, awd from 80 to about 500 horses) off track and on track (Nordschleife, Oschersleben, Sachsenring, Zaandvoort...), so I do have a vague idea what a car should behave like.
I donīt think itīs the physics engine though, it almost feels as if the TC is allways slightly on, and you only get full throttle when you a driving in a straight line.
I think Shift 2 could be truly great if somebody would allow it to show its full potential. I am really hoping on the modders for this one!:thumbup:
Oh and btw, I am totally on board with adding real world values into the system and I believe that F1 teams used isi based sims. I basically am with Shinzah on this and I think that NombreyApellido sounds and acts like a know-it-all :thumbdown: (Donīt take it too hard, its just a voice from the "internets")
ForthRight
11 April 11, 16:44
I mean come on :burst:. Where is the challenge, where is the exitement in that, when giving 70% is easily enough to win the race outright even on Elite setting?
Maybe this will help me a bit:
http://www.nogripracing.com/details.php?filenr=31821
Are there any mods to improve the AI for people who don't use the minimod? (The AI in quick race specifically).
... I think that NombreyApellido sounds and acts like a know-it-all :thumbdown: (Donīt take it too hard, its just a voice from the "internets")
You know that a remark like that has a big chance of ending in another mud-throwing contest. So don't say such things please. Written communication in the internets is very poor at showing the person behind the words, so it's very easy to misinterpret one's attitude. I agree that his writing style seems very authoritative or intimidating but don't base your judgement solely on that and try to look through that a little bit. I'm pretty sure the NombreyApellido will admit it if he's wrong. And if his style bothers you, just say so in a friendly way. You'll be amazed at how willing people can turn out to be if you approach them in a friendly way ;)
The immersion, sense of speed and sense of accelaration are all best in business. I do not know any other game that makes you feel the speed as good as Shift 2 does.
I agree that no game does do this better, however whilst I believe that to be true, I think the sense of speed is very far indeed from reality. I have been around one of the tracks in real life that is depicted in the game in a relatively low powered production car and even then the sense of speed really was white knuckle stuff.
I've gone round the exact same circuit in Shift 2 doing the exact same times as were achieved in the road car and to be honest it looked so sedate and boring on the screen that it looked like a Sunday drive in a Morris Mini driven by a sedate octogenerian who was trying to conserve every last drop of fuel.
For what it does (and I think it does most things best), the sense of speed in the real thing is incredibly far removed from the game. Perhaps things might be different if I had a 360 degree monitor (were such a thing possible) with surround sound at realistic volume and full motion simulation. And the prospect that my PC would shut down for a week if I scraped the wall...
conticreative
4 July 11, 00:38
Periodically, I check this forum to see if anyone has figured out a way to make Shift 2 sufferable. I own every PC based major Sim and Sim like game and I used them frequently.
I have tried everything I could with Shift 2 and to me it's almost undrivable. But it's not just that: I feel totally disconnected from the driving feeling.
I don't want to add to the discussion of what makes a real sim. The technical and personal variable in something like that are just too many. For me, it's really simple and comes down to just a few points:
1) If I point the car in a given direction, does it go there?
2) Do I "believe" I am driving a car after a few laps? (that means that the level of immersion is such that whether I am driving a sim or not is inconsequential: I am racing my opponents)
3) Does it give me a subjective impression of "realism" through visual and/or tactile feeback.
Most sims I own accomplish that to different degrees. iracing, GTR2, Race, NKpro achieve that more or less depending on the car/mod. But among all my sims are the ones most likely to deliver. F1 2010 has its moment, but it seems to always try to remind me I am playing a game.
Shift 1 was OK, but the interface "wall of sound" and visual candy was too much for me. Shift 2 has been the most disappointing fame I have played in a long time. The sad part is that I love the graphic quality (if not the way it is utilized) and the cars are spot on visually. Then I get behind the wheel and I can't tell one car from the other. I aim for an apex and end up in the grass...
Granted, I am, a mid pack simracer at best. I don;t have boatloadds of driving talent, but i do OK in iracing, Race 07 and the like. I even win some races nopw and then and I have raced plenty of folks much slower than I am.
I would love for S2 to drive like GTL. Boy, I'd be playing that sucker night and day. Alas, it is always very frustrating for me and when I read glowing reviews of the driving model in S2 I have to wonder if maybe I got a defective version or something.
The thing is that I have no pre-conception on whether a game is marketed as a sim or a fame. If it is fun, it''s fun. Shift 2 for me is not.
Well I can tell you that there is far more going on behind the scenes that realised. For instance throttle actually represents an actual throttle with the acceleration algorithms processing info about valves, air intake, etc...
This means that throttle doesn't correspond to revs directly (as with most other games) and as a consequence you need to alter driving style to get the best out of it.
The same goes of the tires and suspension. I find it a little frustrating that full aero wasn't included but that probably a limitation of a 2yr dev cycle imposed by EA.
Personally I find it's the first game I can associate with since FlatOut 2 physics wise (though I played that on keyboard). Using pads in other games (GT5, Forza 3...) I didn't get the feel I was racing, it was too clinical, not enough differentiation between cars. You can feel the difference between the cars in Shift 2, they respond very differently when you get into compromising situations and when you are at the limit of the cars ability.
You assert you like GTL, which while nicely modelled to me feels dull and unresponsive. Too much understeer and not enough reaction to feel real. But then I compare what I race in games to what I have raced in reality...
^ Yes, the different cars feel very unique for me. I remember when I ran shift 2 the first time with the Seat, I thought "Whoa, I put power on too early in the corner and the car actually exhibits realistic understeer."
The same for RWD, the FFB tells you clearly what the rear is doing, allowing to burn out through first and more without spinning, most "sims" punish you for such a slow start technique by spinning you out.
I'm starting to suspect that various wheels are not generating the same feedback. As someone posted earlier, he switched to an old wheel and the game felt totally different.
I too have a fairly old wheel. The force feedback I get from it is by far the most informative I've experienced. The best example I can give is that during hard cornering, I can feel the point of higher resistance grow wider as I push the car harder, just as I've noticed when driving a real car near it's limits, you are CLEARLY informed of any weight shift (It makes the whole table shake and knocks glasses off if I turn up the logitech profile settings). GTL is not even close on my system/wheel. I think most people that hate this game and feel disconnected are suffering from weird in-game controller profiles. Though, if any of you haven't tried adjusting the Logitech Profile (or equivalent) you probably should. Unchecking the 'allow program to adjust settings' box is also helpful if the ffb isn't strong enough stock.
I'm using a pad and I find the feedback informative :D
I'd love to get my hands on a G25 and test, as well as a G27 and possibly a Fanatec. That way I could do a more informed analysis of the hardware involved. Otherwise I am stuck with my X360 pad and that's it.
I have plans though, plans to use a real wheel and real racing pedal box with hydraulics and feedback through them created in a far more realistic way. If I get the prototype working, well we shall see about marketing :D
That's one of the weird things. Many g25/g27 users seem to have problems with the ffb. Fanatec also. My old school momo is worth about $60, in truth it should be complete rubbish compared to the g2x/fanatech wheels, and it is, except for shift 2....
Don't know about realism, but after the patch, i found that the RWD cars is much controllable to drive.. :) means i can control throttle to avoid too much oversteer, etc.
Periodically, I check this forum to see if anyone has figured out a way to make Shift 2 sufferable. I own every PC based major Sim and Sim like game and I used them frequently.
I have tried everything I could with Shift 2 and to me it's almost undrivable. But it's not just that: I feel totally disconnected from the driving feeling.
I don't want to add to the discussion of what makes a real sim. The technical and personal variable in something like that are just too many. For me, it's really simple and comes down to just a few points:
1) If I point the car in a given direction, does it go there?
2) Do I "believe" I am driving a car after a few laps? (that means that the level of immersion is such that whether I am driving a sim or not is inconsequential: I am racing my opponents)
3) Does it give me a subjective impression of "realism" through visual and/or tactile feeback.
Most sims I own accomplish that to different degrees. iracing, GTR2, Race, NKpro achieve that more or less depending on the car/mod. But among all my sims are the ones most likely to deliver. F1 2010 has its moment, but it seems to always try to remind me I am playing a game.
Shift 1 was OK, but the interface "wall of sound" and visual candy was too much for me. Shift 2 has been the most disappointing fame I have played in a long time. The sad part is that I love the graphic quality (if not the way it is utilized) and the cars are spot on visually. Then I get behind the wheel and I can't tell one car from the other. I aim for an apex and end up in the grass...
Granted, I am, a mid pack simracer at best. I don;t have boatloadds of driving talent, but i do OK in iracing, Race 07 and the like. I even win some races nopw and then and I have raced plenty of folks much slower than I am.
I would love for S2 to drive like GTL. Boy, I'd be playing that sucker night and day. Alas, it is always very frustrating for me and when I read glowing reviews of the driving model in S2 I have to wonder if maybe I got a defective version or something.
The thing is that I have no pre-conception on whether a game is marketed as a sim or a fame. If it is fun, it''s fun. Shift 2 for me is not.
Reading this I'm wondering what is going wrong for you with Shift 2. Basically I can think of 2 major causes:
1) Your PC + hardware config is not able to run S2U properly
2) Your expectations and resulting driving style are too much biased by our current race sim heritage
Of course it could also be a combination of the two :)
ad 1) On this forum there is a lot of evidence that the game works well for some and not quite for others. It seems possibly related to PC (CPU + GPU) power, specific hardware, controller type/brand, hardware drivers and sometimes the local earth's gravitational field. For me, the game is perfectly driveable, while for others (e.g. Thrustmaster F430 owners) it isn't.
ad 2) S2U really feels different than the ISI-based sims GTR2, rFactor or GTL. For me, the most striking difference is how the car reacts to steering input w.r.t. inertia and tyre grip. The immediate, direct-response feel of, for example, GTL is not there, instead in S2U you have to work the car with care and respect. In GTL the car usually does what you want it to even in hairy situations, in S2U the car does what physics dicate and you have to adapt your actions to fit the rules of physics. This makes driving S2U more of a challenge IMO and indeed it requires a different driving style than in any ISI-based sim.
Many people have claimed that S2U is arcade, while it is my opinion that in full sim mode S2U is more of a challenge to drive than any ISI-based sim.
I agree, at first the game felt wrong to me but as soon as I got the patch 1.0.1 and the input lag was solved, it definetely delivered good sensations. The FFB is really well done (G25 here).
Of course not all defaults setups are good, some cars have more bodyroll than what they are supposed to have, and you can hardly lock the brakes/lift-off oversteer.
But it really has a great potential as a sim because the FFB is good, the graphics are good, and the physic just need a little bit of tune (remove the changes added for gamepads ease of play).
You feel that in this game you have good things from RBR and good things from gmotor. It just need to be cleaned of the dumbed down pad control changes.
I replayed GTRē GTL and Race07 again recently they feel really dull in terms of FFB. The cars seem to be on rails.
But it's possible we don't have all the same version of the game. Some EADM/Origin version had troubles others did not have. Steam users had a different patch 2 than others...
There might be something here.
Reading this I'm wondering what is going wrong for you with Shift 2. Basically I can think of 2 major causes:
1) Your PC + hardware config is not able to run S2U properly
2) Your expectations and resulting driving style are too much biased by our current race sim heritage
Of course it could also be a combination of the two :)
ad 1) On this forum there is a lot of evidence that the game works well for some and not quite for others. It seems possibly related to PC (CPU + GPU) power, specific hardware, controller type/brand, hardware drivers and sometimes the local earth's gravitational field. For me, the game is perfectly driveable, while for others (e.g. Thrustmaster F430 owners) it isn't.
ad 2) S2U really feels different than the ISI-based sims GTR2, rFactor or GTL. For me, the most striking difference is how the car reacts to steering input w.r.t. inertia and tyre grip. The immediate, direct-response feel of, for example, GTL is not there, instead in S2U you have to work the car with care and respect. In GTL the car usually does what you want it to even in hairy situations, in S2U the car does what physics dicate and you have to adapt your actions to fit the rules of physics. This makes driving S2U more of a challenge IMO and indeed it requires a different driving style than in any ISI-based sim.
Many people have claimed that S2U is arcade, while it is my opinion that in full sim mode S2U is more of a challenge to drive than any ISI-based sim.
I think a lot of what your describing in 2.) is because of the soft tyre walls more than anything, with stiffer tyres and slightly less grip Shift 2 would be fully unleashed.
I think a lot of what your describing in 2.) is because of the soft tyre walls more than anything, with stiffer tyres and slightly less grip Shift 2 would be fully unleashed.
Possibly. We need to find out ;)
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.