Jump to content

DiRTy Gossip about DIRT Rally Games

PJTierney

 

Message added by PJTierney

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, JorritVD said:

I have seen quite some real drivers (who also do a lot of sim) have been complaining about iRacing. For example Supercars (Australia), where if you hit a curb a bit hard, you can turn the car upside down. Also mister Thiimm (who competed at the WRX esports events) even stopped an iRacing stream due to tyre model. 

Seen that too, a lot of the IndyCar drivers had issues with it all too. 

Tyre physics are a notorious thing to get right considering the myriad of things going on in real life in that regard.

Also, I agree that difficult doesn't always mean realistic. Apparently GT3 cars are quite pleasant (in their own brutal way) to drive in real life for example.

It makes sense; if you're going to be in a car for around 2 hours per stint, it better be comfortable or else you can't push it.

 

4 minutes ago, JorritVD said:

Possible the best sim current on the market is Asetto Corsa Competizione, both physics (best GT3 physics, dynamic weather, tyre model, etc) wise aswell as replicating the official series/cars/races and the tons of options you can do (livery editor, photo mode, set-up races for sprint or endurance with or without mandatory pitstops, share cars with other sim-racers, and much more).

What does David Perel think of ACC? He drives some of those cars in real life and is big on sim racing.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe anyway and sorry if I insist that since dirt rally 3.0 is in progress I think we will see it if not next year maximum 2022:classic_mellow:

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, JZStudios said:

Physics, all physics, follow physical laws and rules, what are you talking about? Whether the game has suspension at 800 pounds or 3 million pounds doesn't mean it's not simulating physics.

Most games don't care about physics at all. That's the reason why DR2 or Forza is sim but NFS or Burnout is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, JZStudios said:

 

 

It's simulating physical objects with the same mathematical equations and expressions. The only difference is how many elements are being simulated and what the input variables are. All I'm saying is that there's plenty of examples of arcade titles having adjustable variable inputs that produce simulated outputs and change the handling of the vehicle. Therefore stating that a game is "serious" or a "sim" because it has tuning options is disingenuous.

But yeah, there's a lot of people out there who think that cars are nearly impossible to drive despite every source of information saying the opposite. Sims are also typically woefully inaccurate. A big example for me is the Toyota GT86 in AC, which in reality is a great first gear drift car, as shown by Top Gear, MCM, and plenty of other auto blogs, yet the car in game sucks the big one.

 

 

As long as we don't have a definition of 'arcade' and 'sim' everyone agrees on, it's difficult to discuss because people are not on the same page. What you're saying could broadly be described as 'simulating' something but in the end it's just an object that has been modeled to play a certain role in a virtual world. Calling it simulation is a bit far fetched and too generalising in my view. 

So what do you mean by 'arcade'? Is Forza arcade? I don't think so. There's a certain level of real world physics that are clearly coded into the game, like aerodynamics or changing grip levels based on tyre pressures etc. Other things are completely left out, like slipstream e.g. and other things make no sense like the negative impact of an intercooler on your car while the benefits outweigh the disadvantages by far IRL, so it's about depth of simulation, and it looks to me like Forza clearly is not arcade. Trackmania is an arcade title there's no real world physics going on like weight transfer or suspension tuning whatsoever. Maybe gravity is one but that's it. ^^

Btw, the GT86 is really well done in PC2. This guy does autocross in real life and owns a GT86. He says it's really accurate. 

PC2 vs. real life on the Nordschleife

 

Edited by richie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, richie said:

So what do you mean by 'arcade'? Is Forza arcade?

My definition:

Can you play it in an arcade?

For most racing games these days, that's a hard no.

 

Sim, "SimCade" (ugh, hate that word) and Arcade are fuzzy subjective definitions, and won't be resolved on this forum.

This argument over semantics has gone on long enough I feel.

  • Agree 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, PJTierney said:

 

Sim, "SimCade" (ugh, hate that word) and Arcade are fuzzy subjective definitions, and won't be resolved on this forum.

This argument over semantics has gone on long enough I feel.

Yeah I agree. I don't know why arcades have such a bad reputation. Arcades are great! ^^

 

 

iu.jpeg

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Johnnnn said:

Most games don't care about physics at all. That's the reason why DR2 or Forza is sim but NFS or Burnout is not.

Again, NFS and Burnout have their own physics calculations that they follow, probably using a lot of the same math. It's just the amount that's being simulating and the input variables. For example, BeamNG realistically simulates pretty much everything. They have a slider built right into the environment settings so you can change the gravity, with presets for different planets and the moon. Setting it to Mars gravity doesn't make it not a sim, it's just not simulating Earth.

So bring this back into perspective, look at the Crew, in which when you take a car off road or off a jump it has this kind of unnatural tendency to just slam back into the ground. That doesn't mean it doesn't have physics, it just means that some input somewhere is a weird value. Either the car weighs way too much, the gravity is too high, or it has an amount of downforce which is way too high. Either way it's at least simulating gravity and vehicle weight, though those input values might be "incorrect." The base math and physics are still the same though.

The only real difference is what those internal variables are, being that a realistic simulation of Earth should have gravity set to 9.8m/s and realistic values as inputs for as much as possible, where arcade titles could set gravity to whatever they want and make suspension unrealistically strong or whatever.

6 hours ago, richie said:

As long as we don't have a definition of 'arcade' and 'sim' everyone agrees on, it's difficult to discuss because people are not on the same page. What you're saying could broadly be described as 'simulating' something but in the end it's just an object that has been modeled to play a certain role in a virtual world. Calling it simulation is a bit far fetched and too generalising in my view. 

So what do you mean by 'arcade'? Is Forza arcade? I don't think so. There's a certain level of real world physics that are clearly coded into the game, like aerodynamics or changing grip levels based on tyre pressures etc. Other things are completely left out, like slipstream e.g. and other things make no sense like the negative impact of an intercooler on your car while the benefits outweigh the disadvantages by far IRL, so it's about depth of simulation, and it looks to me like Forza clearly is not arcade. Trackmania is an arcade title there's no real world physics going on like weight transfer or suspension tuning whatsoever. Maybe gravity is one but that's it. ^^

Well "simcade" has become a term now, which kind of illustrates my point that arcade titles can have a lot, if not most or all, of the features and simulated components of hardcore sims. Forza Horizon and The Crew 2 demonstrate this. The only difference is where a hardcore sim might have a tire model where max grip/slip angle is (Not a real value) let's say, 60 based on some real life tire measurements, the arcade title might use that exact same equation and tire model, but make the peak grip/slip angle 100 so you have to really toss it into a corner to initiate a slide. The physics simulation is essentially identical, the only difference is the input variable.

And from what I've seen Trackmania has a lot of physics going on, gravity being the least of it.

 

*Edit, I'm just going to tack this on here in response to the posted video, these "IRL vs. xsim" videos are always a bit pointless. You can drive cars in the sim like you can in real life, mostly, but you can also drive cars in sims in a fashion that you couldn't in real life, which is part of why every sim can lap faster times than reality. People claim there's a fear factor too, which is true to an extent, but the high level guys going for world record runs are really giving it the best they can physically do.

I'd also like to see someone record their steering and pedal inputs in a car and then play that back through the game like a TAS and see what happens. I mean, there's ways to get a car to be RC, and you can wirelessly hack a jeep to control it's steering and throttle inputs. You could even monitor the shift points and toss that in too.

Edited by JZStudios
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue of simulation in car games is not a philosophical issue per se, but that doesn't stop us from philosophizing about it.
What is Simulation? What is Arcade?
The term Arcade is not in the RAE dictionary, the verb simulate is.
To simulate is to imitate...emulate...copy...to want to represent or to look like..
By definition then, every car game is basically a simulator, however, it will be its degree of "seriousness" and thoroughness that will determine whether it is called a simulator or an arcade.

What is debatable is that we always consider "rigorous simulation", perhaps it is that three or four spectators help us to return to the road as in RBR, or that we go on the public, and the screen acquires a reddish hue and we must restart ... or that we happen many setbacks, and that "the learning curve is slow" ...

Personally, I would prefer to abolish this bad habit of dividing games into simulators and arcades, simply because even the best of "Simulators" will always have a lot of arcade stuff, since "pure simulation" does not exist. -even the best Boing Simulator surely has an invisible line that separates the real from the purely simulated- although let's face it, in that particular case, that line must be so thin and transparent that it will surely be almost invisible.

Have an accident in any simulator and you only have to restart it in order to continue playing, in reality people are hospitalized..
From which we can isolate at least one big rule of thumb: in any simulator, the player's imagination is a large percentage of the equation.
It's a lie, then, to talk about "pure and hard simulation" because none is, except for the simulators of Boing, the armies of the 1st World, fighters... tanks... submarines, etc.

For pc, there is only something very inferior and simple, with which some usually take sides -in some cases even fanaticism- "that if rF2...that if rbr...that if iR that if P.Cars...that if Assetto...that if such other is Arcade".
Twenty years from now who knows what Dirt Rally will look like, today I see it as a combination of Simulation and Arcade, like RBR and all the others. If you step off the track in Assetto your car will be slowed down, that is copied from Grid Autosport and it is a VERY bad taste detail in my opinion, let's see if in a real race your car will be slowed down because you went off the track. And like that, absolutely all the Simulators have their Arcade details (let's clarify: one thing is to slow down because of lack of traction -that's realistic- and another thing is to lose power as "punishment" of the AI)

What do we leave to the Arcades (which are not usually 100%), perhaps only the "contempt" for being "inferior"?
It's bad a Dirt2/3 ...it's bad a WRC 3/4 ?? of course not..they are so Arcade actually, I don't think so.
They try to "simulate" everything in their own way, nobody wants to make a car game to be branded as arcade, but the terror of every game programmer is that two days before its release it becomes viral the "I had it in two hours"..
That's why every self-respecting programmer will try to create enough "difficulties" in the first place so that this doesn't happen. We see this very clearly both in RBR and in Dirt Rally, that's where I would emphasize in terms of simulator yes or no and the key would be represented by a simple question: "Perhaps, this game forces me to solve the setbacks in the same way I would do if it were a real car ?? there is "the kid" of the matter.

So for Dirt Rally's RAlly Cross, my answer is clearly a YES. In real life, I would do exactly what I do in the game, and the car in the game responds predictably to what I would do in reality.
That's what I call realistic simulation = Simulator.

But if the case is a Mini... a Fulvia etc in Wales, Greece etc... well there the answer is NO. In a real car you could go faster and safer, the car at 60k/m would still be totally predictable in its behavior, something that in Dirt Rally obviously doesn't happen. Aq We already have the combination of Simulation and Arcade in the same game, as well as in RBR in rF2...in Assetto and all those who have...
There's a contradiction between believing that a game is a simulator the slower its "learning curve", since what programmers generally use to slow down the learning curve are arcade traps, and not realistic difficulties.
Ex. real: if we invite a 3 pilot (or even a taxi driver) who has never played with anything, to play with any car simulator he will not be able to advance 50mts without some mishap and another and another, why?

  • Thanks 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Keko55 said:

Have an accident in any simulator and you only have to restart it in order to continue playing, in reality people are hospitalized..
From which we can isolate at least one big rule of thumb: in any simulator, the player's imagination is a large percentage of the equation.
It's a lie, then, to talk about "pure and hard simulation" because none is, except for the simulators of Boing, the armies of the 1st World, fighters... tanks... submarines, etc.

This argument was always dumb to me. Simulating things has been around for a very long time. Simulations are designed to replicate the real world in a test environment. To leave the realm of video games and go into engineering, there's a LOT of simulating that gets done, from tire models, to architecture, to lighting, to aerodynamics, to electronics with 100% accuracy, or thereabouts. It's always been designed to be a test environment for rapid prototyping or testing if a building can withstand an earthquake.

My buddy is remodeling his bathroom, and I've gone through and measured his entire room, including light fixtures and furniture, going as far as getting a working real time dynamic day/night cycle that follows the geographically correct path of the sun at any given point in time. Was it necessary? Absolutely not. Is there a point to this? I don't know. But he can send me pictures of tiles, bathtubs, sinks, cabinets, etc. and I can place those in that environment and give him a fairly accurate representation of the final product. Simulations have always been a test environment.

"It's not real life."

Of course it's not real life! This isn't MGS2! Turn the game console off right now!

  • Like 2
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, PJTierney said:

........

This argument over semantics has gone on long enough I feel.

This is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2020 at 12:03 PM, Johnnnn said:

No, simulation is always in a context and means simulation of the real world. I don't know anybody who would use word simulation only for simulating something unreal in games. It's possible but not common.

50 % agree ok the real landscapes  is good   for simulation racing game and  simulation game but with unreal landscapes   is possible to add real physics ,water is water , tarmac is tarmac , dirt is dirt , jump is jump ... Honnestly i want 2  mode for dirt 5 same than Dirt 4 simulation and arcade too  and for me  arcade mode is simulation mode with less inertia and physics 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it has nothing to do with DIrty Gossip, but those new engine graphic looks almost real, and physics (when i remember, I started with Sega Game Gear 8-bit Machine 🙂 ).. I hope EGO will see much needed revision,  Can You imagine DR 3.0 with this kind of Graphic, and much Longer Stages, with yet best physics..

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gk9147 said:

50 % agree ok the real landscapes  is good   for simulation racing game and  simulation game but with unreal landscapes   is possible to add real physics ,water is water , tarmac is tarmac , dirt is dirt , jump is jump ... Honnestly i want 2  mode for dirt 5 same than Dirt 4 simulation and arcade too  and for me  arcade mode is simulation mode with less inertia and physics 

It depends, Dirt 4 has two modes but not any sim one 😄 It's too unreal to play for me. I can learn their physics but I don't care if I have DR2 or Forza. Sims have one big advantage for me, I can play them all without training.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Johnnnn said:

It depends, Dirt 4 has two modes but not any sim one 😄 It's too unreal to play for me. I can learn their physics but I don't care if I have DR2 or Forza. Sims have one big advantage for me, I can play them all without training.

 

Nailed it

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/13/2020 at 10:32 AM, PJTierney said:

What does David Perel think of ACC? He drives some of those cars in real life and is big on sim racing.

He sayd ACC is the game with the best GT3 physics. Some things he not really likes, of which the biggest one is the braking. In real life you really need to slam them (probably due to ABS), while in game it is more relaxed. Maybe it is difficult to replicate that, as it also has to do with the pedal equipment you got. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JorritVD said:

He sayd ACC is the game with the best GT3 physics. Some things he not really likes, of which the biggest one is the braking. In real life you really need to slam them (probably due to ABS), while in game it is more relaxed. Maybe it is difficult to replicate that, as it also has to do with the pedal equipment you got. 

Could be an aero thing. In F1 you need to hammer the brakes initially due to the high downforce, then bleed off as the grip reaches its limit at lower speeds.

I have ACC but I never really got round to playing it, as DR2 and now F1 2020 have been my "main" titles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, F2CMaDMaXX said:

October, didn't they say?

I will 100% **** my pants if Dirt 5 has dust plumes like that.

Of course Gleylancer disliked it for literally no reason. Stay classy Gley.

8 hours ago, dani211212 said:

I know it has nothing to do with DIrty Gossip, but those new engine graphic looks almost real, and physics (when i remember, I started with Sega Game Gear 8-bit Machine 🙂 ).. I hope EGO will see much needed revision,  Can You imagine DR 3.0 with this kind of Graphic, and much Longer Stages, with yet best physics..

It's a cool demo, but it was barely running on next gen hardware. Actual games won't look quite like that, though Nanite is definitely cool. Has the potential to reduce rendering load and texture calls while still providing higher fidelity.

 

4 hours ago, PJTierney said:

My Sims Racing

When something horrifying is posted on LNI - GIF on Imgur

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, dani211212 said:

I know it has nothing to do with DIrty Gossip, but those new engine graphic looks almost real, and physics (when i remember, I started with Sega Game Gear 8-bit Machine 🙂 ).. I hope EGO will see much needed revision,  Can You imagine DR 3.0 with this kind of Graphic, and much Longer Stages, with yet best physics..

If they don't get rid of EGO Engine I don't think we'll see a Dirt Rally game with realistic graphics. Since they started using that engine 12 years ago, all their games have that "EGO-ish" cartoony graphics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, RGgiac said:

Since they started using that engine 12 years ago, all their games have that "EGO-ish" cartoony graphics.

I say the exact same thing about Unreal Engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×