VirtualR – Sim Racing News
100% Sim Racing News

Excellent driving Luke! Goes to show how easy their ‘demonstration’ setup difficulty is when you give the controls to somebody remotely used to driving sims.

As for the physics model, we saw it was on experienced. Car looked too light and snippy imo, even for a race spec.

P.S. The WTF moment made me cringe too, the EA guy didn’t seem to accept that was a blatant collision bug.

What did he collide with a deer or something because I saw nothing.

“…that right there was…. so we talked to some racers in the ALMS series”

hahah

Am I right to assume that the 360 controller was being used (instead of FFB wheel)? Donington is a late addtion to the track list.

Here’s something interesting: Laguna Seca comparison between the laser scanned iRacing version and the non-laser (GPS?) version from SHIFT: http://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3532847&postcount=1412

the car looks… very floaty… it’s like piloting a boat…? i saw so many corrections even on a straight-line…?

well be intersting to see where this game ends up tho… when it ships that is…

i dont know yet hes on a controller for starters so you cant say if its real or not from that really, try gtr with controller same thing will happen if your use to wheel makes it way too touchy. Its looking kinda good i think.

mikem:
Am I right to assume that the 360 controller was being used (instead of FFB wheel)? Donington is a late addtion to the track list.
Here’s something interesting: Laguna Seca comparison between the laser scanned iRacing version and the non-laser (GPS?) version from SHIFT: http://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3532847&postcount=1412

Intrested vid, theres not alot of difference for sure, and the car speed around the track is good as well..

That looked awful…the Ai was laughable, the car looked like it was a hovercraft, and WTF was that invisible wall on the exit of t1? gotta love how the guy dodged it though

Oh Shift! Donington was* one of my favourit circuit. I can’t understand why didn’t Simbin bring it from GTR2 to Race 07/On (with Barcelona).

*Who the f*** gave a permission to Hermann Tilke to reconstruct this legendary circuit with a perfect and technical racing line. It’s a very big mistake as SPA’s bus stop reconstruction.

Floaty yeah but it reminds me of the FZ50 with TC off from LFS. Wish they hadnt gone overboard with the sense of speed, gonna be weird to go from a sim to that

moppenheimer:
That looked awful…the Ai was laughable, the car looked like it was a hovercraft, and WTF was that invisible wall on the exit of t1? gotta love how the guy dodged it though

They received a lot of feedback from ALMS drivers who experienced crashing into invisible walls and how it felt. EA seems to have done a brilliant job simulating it.

Nice footage.

He wasn’t using the realistic driving model. You can see at the start he had “Experienced” selected. AFAIK the game has Novice, Experienced, Professional. The last one is apparently the realistic one, and we have very little footage on it.

oh yeah true that matt forgot about about that .

Very nice video! Thanks for sharing!

Luke it would be nice to see your thoughts on this lucky tryout :)

@mikem

In that site they say “As you all know, iRacing uses scanned laser tracks. In an interview, Ian Bell said that SMS doesn’t model their tracks with this technique.”

SMS used laser scans, GPS scans, telemetry data, videos, driving etc..so i dont understand why he said that..

Nevertheless the track looks damn good ^^

This comment just made me lol facepalm

ForzaBarca88:
Floaty yeah but it reminds me of the FZ50 with TC off from LFS. Wish they hadnt gone overboard with the sense of speed, gonna be weird to go from a sim to that

Hey Foxx i can fill you in a bit on your second question the main reason iracing uses laser scanning is because they try to make it completely accurate because people actually use iracing to train for when they go out on the track for real they say it is mathmatically real to the smallest detail every crack bump, its also nice to know you’re driving on the realist thing possible. But its not completely necessary to have laser scanned tracks to make a realistic driving model. But for this they have used GPS data track measurements would of measured all the inclines driven on it stuff like that got it pretty damned close SMS have tonnes of experience with tracks so that helps also. sims like gtr evo rfactor use this method. and well known games like forza and gt5.

Pro Street also had floaty physics and what? Mega crap Shift’s physics look similar. Hope it’s not as bad

Maddmatt:
Nice footage.
He wasn’t using the realistic driving model. You can see at the start he had “Experienced” selected. AFAIK the game has Novice, Experienced, Professional. The last one is apparently the realistic one, and we have very little footage on it.

You also see the ABS-light (at least, I guess it’s the ABS one) lighting up under heavy braking…

If this is (as Montoya writes) without TC and stability help, thats disappointing. It doesnt seem to matter if you are on tarmac or not, and the car brakes like a Formula 1 car.

I hope that wasn’t Pro level physics, I couldn’t really tell from the options screen.

Would still be nice to see a clip of someone driving it in Pro physics mode with ABS off, who knows the track and can actually drive fairly quickly.

Even on a pad it’s not that hard, I’ve played GTR2, Evo, Rfactor and even IRacing with no assists with a pad.

mattabater: Hey Foxx i can fill you in a bit on your second question the main reason iracing uses laser scanning is because they try to make it completely accurate because people actually use iracing to train for when they go out on the track for real they say it is mathmatically real to the smallest detail every crack bump, its also nice to know you’re driving on the realist thing possible. But its not completely necessary to have laser scanned tracks to make a realistic driving model. But for this they have used GPS data track measurements would of measured all the inclines driven on it stuff like that got it pretty damned close SMS have tonnes of experience with tracks so that helps also. sims like gtr evo rfactor use this method. and well known games like forza and gt5.

Here is what Ian Bell said a while ago in an Inteview:

“We see that iRacing and Codemasters are using laser scanning technology in order to reproduce tracks: did your team look into it?

Ian Bell:

Our track layouts are extremely realistic.
This is an area where we are confident we are surpassing the competition.
We use data from multiple areas to ensure this.
In addition to satellite imagery and GPS data, our track modellers have studied thousands of hours of video, ensuring that the experience of racing on a real life circuit in SHIFT matches every detail of the live onboard racing footage seen.
Additionally, we have been extremely fortunate to have been provided with detailed racing telemetry data from certain racing teams, which allows us to reverse engineer the nuances of a track’s character through studying suspension movement, braking points, and g-forces on the real racing cars.
It’s not enough to simply get measurements and photos. If you want to recreate the experience, you have to know the subtleties of the track’s surface contained in these data treasures that even laser scanning can’t deliver.
It does no good to know about a 5mm bump in the track if you have no data to show how it makes a car react.
And the reaction, the experience, is what truly matters.”

Thats what I was refering to, I dont see Ian Bell answering directly that they dont use Laser Scans aswell.

so, experienced mode is more made for gamepad users?

that’s why he didnt select pro mode?

Jos: so, experienced mode is more made for gamepad users?
that’s why he didnt select pro mode?

Pro mode is Experienced without the option to have aids on, you can disable the aids in experienced, wich then is same as Pro mode.(similar to GTR/L.)

Only different mode is the Novice mode (or what it is called, easiest of the 4), extra aids (steering help/braking help for example) and maybe extra grip not 100% sure about that one ;).

My concerns have to be why is the driver cockpit so much higher than the rest of the field. You can almost see the roofs of the other cars. Needs to be lower.
The FOV is completely wrong. Far too “fisheyed”
Why in every video does the player have lightning fast starts compared to the AI?

sorry foxxy messsed that one up, and i think marks right coz under the hud speedo you can see the assist indicators and there not kicking in. Anyway it looks quite real not floaty like people are saying, doesn’t worry me too much im quite happy playing gtr evo and rfactor. But i havent given up hope just yet, Peace.

Three things that caught my attention right away:

1. The car looked like a boat on choppy seas, the way it rocked back and forth, even on a straightaway. Crummy physics? Then again, it could be an inexperienced driver with a joypad.

2. The driver climbed from the back of the grid to third place before the first turn. Great AI? Then again, the game could be set to a easy skill level.

3. There seemed to be no speed or control penalty whatsoever for driving on the grass.

f0xx:

Here is what Ian Bell said a while ago in an Inteview:
“We see that iRacing and Codemasters are using laser scanning technology in order to reproduce tracks: did your team look into it?
Ian Bell:
Our track layouts are extremely realistic.
This is an area where we are confident we are surpassing the competition.
We use data from multiple areas to ensure this.
In addition to satellite imagery and GPS data, our track modellers have studied thousands of hours of video, ensuring that the experience of racing on a real life circuit in SHIFT matches every detail of the live onboard racing footage seen.
Additionally, we have been extremely fortunate to have been provided with detailed racing telemetry data from certain racing teams, which allows us to reverse engineer the nuances of a track’s character through studying suspension movement, braking points, and g-forces on the real racing cars.
It’s not enough to simply get measurements and photos. If you want to recreate the experience, you have to know the subtleties of the track’s surface contained in these data treasures that even laser scanning can’t deliver.
It does no good to know about a 5mm bump in the track if you have no data to show how it makes a car react.
And the reaction, the experience, is what truly matters.”
Thats what I was refering to, I dont see Ian Bell answering directly that they dont use Laser Scans aswell.

That’s a load of deflectionary sh*t from Ian Bell.

If you have laser-scanned tracks with every bump and crack modeled and a car with a proper physics and tire model based on real-life data, the car will react accurately when it crosses imperfections on the track. You don’t need to study “data treasures” — what a load of crap — to model this. Period.

Oh My! A video that the naysayers can try and make hay out of. LOL
The driver was using a controller, because he asked if it would also work with wheels! Driving with a controller makes the car drive jerky and floaty. We’ve already seen (how many other videos?) that weren’t floaty?

iRacing= “Realism” in Art. Where the artist tries and paint a photo real picture of his subject.
Shift= “impressionism”. Where the artist first eats some of the bowl of fruit, or makes love to his model. Then tries to paint his experience into the canvas. So the viewer can experience it with him.
It’s just two different approaches to achieve the same outcome.

By the way the Laguna comparison can put to rest the scanning non-scanning debate. The tracks where so close to identical who could tell? Except the track surface and surroundings of the “Shift” track were much more realistic and immersive. Do you really think a race track has no skid marks like the one in iRacing?

Maybe the driver is 210 centimeters.. lol…
Indeed the position of the driving viewpoint it much to high.
Would be imposible to see the roof of any other car in real life.
The winodws and the roof are also looking quite stretched.
As the eyes of the driver are normally not much higher than the steeringwheel.
From that position you can impossible overlook the cars around you as it is now.

IGN UK Shift Review!

<a href=”http://au.xbox360.ign.com/articles/102/1023315p1.html”

Overall: 8.7

That’s got to be good, considering Forza 2 got an 8.9

It’s a good read too, makes me feel much more confident that I will like the physics. Graphics got a 9.5, Sound got a 9! nice…

However I’m a little worried about this quote…

“Drift competitions feel like they have strayed in from a separate game, and they’re a little broken, with the game’s otherwise excellent handling model unable to cope convincingly with the art of holding a car sideways”

I’m a little confused here, is he saying that the normal handling model is unable to hold a car sideways? You shouldn’t need a drift mode to take a car sideways if it has good physics. LFS, Forza, GT series, they all have excellent physics and you can drift just by going into a free run. Or was he talking about the actual drift mode doesn’t do it convincingly because of the “drift physics”

Please someone shed some light on this, If i take a rx7 for example out to a track and just applied a little too much gas exiting the corner, I would like it to slide out like it would on the previously mentioned games (and in real life ofcourse). PLEASE GOD let it be like that, otherwise it’s not very realistic.

Howie47:
By the way the Laguna comparison can put to rest the scanning non-scanning debate. The tracks where so close to identical who could tell? Except the track surface and surroundings of the “Shift” track were much more realistic and immersive. Do you really think a race track has no skid marks like the one in iRacing?

How do you know the bumps, cracks and other surface imperfections were accurately re-created in the Shift version of Laguna and transferred into the game’s force feedback and physics? Did you drive the Shift version of Laguna?

Just curious.

Paul Kelly:
That’s a load of deflectionary sh*t from Ian Bell.
If you have laser-scanned tracks with every bump and crack modeled and a car with a proper physics and tire model based on real-life data, the car will react accurately when it crosses imperfections on the track. You don’t need to study “data treasures” — what a load of crap — to model this. Period.

Judging by your previous posts, that answer is predictable…you only see/htink what you want to see/think…´

…sry, non-neutral answers mean nothing ^^

________

Nice found Bekim, I’ll give it a look.

Very good video! And, Donington is a nice surprise. It wasn’t announced in the initial track list.

AFAIK, all NFS Shift booths at PAX have been equipped with controllers, so this explains the twitchy driving, IMO.

Here are few quotes from user, which has a “press” version of NFS Shift (from NeoGAF forum):

“I got my copy yesterday. I’ll tell you, once you start upgrading the RWD cars, it’s very hard to keep them on the track with a controller without some assists. It’s easier with the wheel, though. The physics engine is definitely very solid.”

“… I can race without assists just fine when using the G25. But with the controller the cars get extremely squirly and difficult to control when their tails start coming loose.”

Paul Kelly: How do you know the bumps, cracks and other surface imperfections were accurately re-created in the Shift version of Laguna and transferred into the game’s force feedback and physics? Did you drive the Shift version of Laguna?

LOL, how do you know that the scanned bumps and cracks are recreated accurately in iRacing’s rather poor FF? Have you every driven the real track enough to make a comparison?

I live down the road from Donington Park, and i’ve never seen it looking anything like that. What a bunch of crap, realistic circuits my back-side. This is the second ‘bastardised’ version of a track i’ve seen so far in Shift, and it’s disappointing.

He only cares for skid marks, so shift is good for him. Let the real simulators for the real sim racers.
And by the way, laguna seca in shift looks bad in some corners, not realistic at all. Once again, the perfect tracks in shift is only marketing, nothing more.

Paul Kelly:

How do you know the bumps, cracks and other surface imperfections were accurately re-created in the Shift version of Laguna and transferred into the game’s force feedback and physics? Did you drive the Shift version of Laguna?
Just curious.

f0xx:

Judging by your previous posts, that answer is predictable…you only see/htink what you want to see/think…´
…sry, non-neutral answers mean nothing ^^
________
Nice found Bekim, I’ll give it a look.

Uh, exactly: It’s called an opinion, which nearly every post in this thread contains. Sorry that’s such a news flash.

Howie47:

LOL, how do you know that the scanned bumps and cracks are recreated accurately in iRacing’s rather poor FF? Have you every driven the real track enough to make a comparison?

Rather poor? Compared to what, rFactor? That’s comical.

Anyways, laser scanning captures every flaw and imperfection in a surface. If you think “data treasures” are more accurate at capturing the topography of actual surfaces — and I’m NOT talking about skid marks — than ground-based laser scanning, then I have oceanfront property in Saskatchewan to sell you, if interested.

Drift competitions feel like they have strayed in from a separate game, and they’re a little broken, with the game’s otherwise excellent handling model unable to cope convincingly with the art of holding a car sideways”

Maybe it has to do with analog sensitivity on the controllers. SMS made it a big deal to make NFS Shift very easy to drive with a gamepad, and maybe it just didin’t translate to drifting. I feel like IGN would be one to review the game based on the gamepad instead of a wheel given their target audience is generally casual.

Hopefully it’s a non issue with a wheel, but i’m not a fan of drifting I will probably leave that alone anyway

Paul you dont like Shift I can tell that.. Perhaps just becaue others like and you hate that or perhaps because EA dissaponted you before; well things have changed.

Shifts tracks were made with laser scans aswell, if you dont like that fact, well su.

f0xx:
Shifts tracks were made with laser scans aswell, if you dont like that fact, well su.

Really? What’s your source. After all, Ian Bell never acknowledged the use of laser scanning in this Q&A:

Q. We see that iRacing and Codemasters are using laser scanning technology in order to reproduce tracks: did your team look into it?

IB: Our track layouts are extremely realistic. This is an area where we are confident we are surpassing the competition. We use data from multiple areas to ensure this. In addition to satellite imagery and GPS data, our track modellers have studied thousands of hours of video, ensuring that the experience of racing on a real life circuit in SHIFT matches every detail of the live onboard racing footage seen. Additionally, we have been extremely fortunate to have been provided with detailed racing telemetry data from certain racing teams, which allows us to reverse engineer the nuances of a track’s character through studying suspension movement, braking points, and g-forces on the real racing cars. It’s not enough to simply get measurements and photos. If you want to recreate the experience, you have to know the subtleties of the track’s surface contained in these data treasures that even laser scanning can’t deliver. It does no good to know about a 5mm bump in the track if you have no data to show how it makes a car react. And the reaction, the experience, is what truly matters.

Source: http://forums.forzamotorsport.net/forums/thread/2685623.aspx

I read confirmation of “data treasures” but no confirmation of laser scanning. The direct question was whether the SMS development team used laser scanning. If it did, don’t you think the first words out of Bell’s mouth after a direct question would be, “Yes, we used laser scanning,” instead of a minute of gibberish about “data treasures” and “experiences?”

*zip*

drdryvillage: Let the real simulators for the real sim racers

Oxymoron! Real and Simulators

Seems like turning assists off also places mines on the grass. Talk about unforgiving

Love the way he dodges the issue

“what was that?”

“That right there was….so we talked to some racers from the ALMS series.”

Track looks smooth as silk as well – one thing iracing has showed is how much a varied surface adds to the game.

Can’t really comment on the handling until actually playing the thing with a wheel though.

Paul Kelly: topography of actual surfaces

Is not the only issue when it comes to recreating track surfaces accurately. Variation in grip levels. Loose material on track, like dirt, oil, stones and car parts. Contribute to a real driving experience. Variations in textures like skid marks helps with the sense of speed, braking points and racing line. Something iRacing admits in its intro to new subscribers it lacks!

Oh, Yes I think many “real feel” enabled mods FF is better then iRacings. Which seems to be weak when it comes to effects.

Please, He was hit by another car in the hind quarter. You expect perfect narration while he’s driving? I could make a whole lot better criticisms for this game then you guys can come up with.

Howie47:

Oxymoron! Real and Simulators

Good point! :)

Howie47:

Is not the only issue when it comes to recreating track surfaces accurately. Variation in grip levels. Loose material on track, like dirt, oil, stones and car parts. Contribute to a real driving experience. Variations in textures like skid marks helps with the sense of speed, braking points and racing line. Something iRacing admits in its intro to new subscribers it lacks!
Oh, Yes I think many “real feel” enabled mods FF is better then iRacings. Which seems to be weak when it comes to effects.

You can have all the grip changes and debris on course that you want, but if the bumps and other imperfections aren’t in place first, it’s not going to be an accurate re-creation of the track.

Take the big bump in the final corner of Lime Rock, for example. That has a big effect on lap time, as you need to wait to hammer the throttle to exit that corner until you’ve crossed that bump, which is past the apex, in many cars.

If that bump isn’t there or isn’t re-created accurately, you can hit the throttle much earlier in that corner than in reality, creating unrealistic lap speeds and times.

But hey, if there are tire marks and rubber grommets instead in that corner, I guess all is well.

RealFeel works properly with less than 10 mods in rFactor, according to proper MoTeC telemetry testing or suspension evaluation with Kangaloosh’s carFactory. Trust me: I’ve spent probably 20 to 30 hours testing rFactor mods with MoTeC for RealFeel compatibility. When it works well, such as in HistoriX or Caterhams, it approaches iRacing FFB. But it certainly doesn’t surpass it, mainly because only a couple of tracks in rFactor are laser scanned, and I don’t believe Eastern Creek or Oran Park used as many data points in their scanning as iRacing tracks.

FFB power does not equate to FFB quality. Just because the FFB of some rFactor mods with RealFeel offers large spikes and jolts — usually the mods NOT truly compatible with RealFeel — doesn’t mean it’s accurate FFB. Fidelity and subtlety matter.

Quick comments before I head to work…

What you see in this video is my first experience with SHIFT, but afterwards I tried Pro Mode with an E36 and it was almost impossible due to the lack of ABS. The right-rear kept locking under heavy braking. From what I can tell, Pro Mode is definitely for steering wheel use only. And people who buy this game are definitely going to want to play around with the input sensitivity because highspeed corners were brutal at the default settings with the controller. I know Donington really well and I’m slightly embarrassed by my driving performance in this video. :(

And that EA rep clearly didn’t know what he was talking about. He mentioned three drivers that allegedly compete in the ALMS series, but two of the ones he name-dropped (Chris Rado and Vaughn Gittin Jr.) are actually involved in drag racing and professional drifting, respectively. :)

mbeast:
Track looks smooth as silk as well – one thing iracing has showed is how much a varied surface adds to the game.
Can’t really comment on the handling until actually playing the thing with a wheel though.

There are clearly bumps in the track – just watch the first few seconds on the run down to the first turn.

I find it strange that most of the “lets attack Shift brigade” seem to be iRacing fans. Now clearly Shift isn’t trying to be iRacing, so perhaps that’s why they attack it but I don’t really understand why they even bother to comment if it really is as “arcade” as they claim. Instead I get the strong impression they protest too much. I guess when you spend as much as you do on iRacing you have to convince yourself that there is nothing that even comes close available for a fraction of the price. I think Shift has got them worried :)

DW:

I think Shift has got them worried :)

You’ve thought wrong. My point of contention is that I’m a serious doubting Thomas about EA’s intent to build a proper sim — especially when it’s a cross-platform title — regardless of the developer.

Sims don’t sell in the console world, and EA is all about making money first.

IGN UK review (360 version):

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/102/1023315p1.html

8.7

Not avarage…

Paul Kelly: Sims don’t sell in the console world, and EA is all about making money first.

What an ironic statement from a i$acing fan.

Paul Kelly, EA never talked about doing a SERIOUS sim, they always talked about drivings experience.

They already told us a long ago that the game wont have the typical things of a Sim like tyre wear pit stops, etc.

This is Need for Speed, got that?
This is N E E D F O R S P E E D and a damn good one, probably the best of them all so why da !#!# you keep coming here just to argue?

Paul Kelly:

You’ve thought wrong. My point of contention is that I’m a serious doubting Thomas about EA’s intent to build a proper sim — especially when it’s a cross-platform title — regardless of the developer.
Sims don’t sell in the console world, and EA is all about making money first.

I’m pretty sure even from its earliest announcement that SMS or EA for that matter never, ever intended SHIFT to be an all out attempt at a sim. First and foremost it’s a racing game with a realistic physics. The selling point of this game is the “driver’s experience”: basically a first person racing POV which means head shakes, blurred + tunnel vision etc packaged nicely in a well depicted cockpit. The decent physics is just the cherry on top. It’s still very much a NFS games with all the accoutrement that you would normally expect from the franchise.

Gran Turismo has sold what, 40m-50m copies?

Now granted GT1-GT4 were compromised and made concessions for a mainstream audience, but GT5P is a fine sim, despite being a glorified demo.

With GT5 they are really pushing the realism stakes, the latest being full, deformable, 3D cockpits with head tracking.

Paul Kelly:

You’ve thought wrong. My point of contention is that I’m a serious doubting Thomas about EA’s intent to build a proper sim — especially when it’s a cross-platform title — regardless of the developer.
Sims don’t sell in the console world, and EA is all about making money first.

f0xx: This is N E E D F O R S P E E D and a damn good one, probably the best of them all so why da !#!# you keep coming here just to argue?

I think most the comments and arguing is all in good humor. No one going postal on us, is there? OK, on to the next “Shift” video. Darn, what’s going to happen here when the actual game is released?

Another portion of sim/not sim internet wars, that’s what’s going to happen. *yawn*

Sensekhmet: Another portion of sim/not sim internet wars, that’s what’s going to happen. *yawn*

Some one needs to invent a new word for Sim, if that is true. “The act or process of simulating.
An imitation; a sham.
Assumption of a false appearance.

Imitation or representation, as of a potential situation or in experimental testing.
Representation of the operation or features of one process or system through the use of another: computer simulation of an in-flight emergency.” Probably originating from the word “similar”. Virtually every game that has driving is in some ways similar to the real. So it is a matter of degree, that can be argued. For those who can stomach it, the after game debate maybe more entertaining then the game itself?

If you want to view things correctly then all NFS games are sims.
In fact Burnout and Fuel are sims just as rFactor or iRacing. The only difference is that rFactor is more detailed in the physics dept (and other things but focussing on physics here..).

See, the all ‘simulate’ race driving. But they all do it to various extents.
This idea of ‘arcade’ should stem from something you would find in an amusement arcade, put money in and play.
I doubt Shift or GT5 come under that category.

The way the community translates it, is that if it is not hardcore sim, then it is ‘arcade’. Almost like its either black or white. In fact there are numerous grey areas and Shift is one of them.
If white is arcade, what games are white ? If Black is pure sim, what games are black ?

It’s exactly what Howie47 said, all driving games in some way simulate driving and thus are simulators and indeed it is a matter of degree.
Technically, FlatOut is a sim. But it just isn’t a sim in the way we have become accustomed to recognising them.
So when goes our version of an arcade game become a sim ? Is it all down to physics and car handling ?
If so then a game is judged to be arcade or sim solely on its physics. The graphics and sounds are secondary and don’t come into the equation.

JAGUAR1977 GT has always been quite a realistic good game but not a sim on GT5p the physics kinda suck badly though they need to fix that for GT5 i preferred all the other GT’s, id just buy forza to be honest haha watch the sony fan tards go off , as for shift its not a sim either but it could be realistic could be as realistic to drive as gtr evo dont mean its a sim .

WOW! A preview video! I can’t WAIT to see this!!!

At least it was done by a human and not an ADD addled chimp.

The first Swedish review is out: http://gamereactor.se/recensioner/19337/Need+for+Speed%3A+Shift/

The reviewer started out playing with a controller but quite soon realised the game was pretty much unplayable like that, so he had to switch to a steering wheel.

On the plus side the physics reminds him mostly of GT Legends, but the cars feel heavier and the tire physics are better. The game is a lot more demanding than other console racers such as Forza and GT.

The game gets a minus for boring AI though. He also complains about there being a slight lag in the steering for the console versions of the game.

PC Review Yeah 9.0

http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/102/1023587p1.html

Sommergemüse its nice it got a nine but funny that guy from ign says its less realistic than Gran Turismo but the reviewer from the Swedish site MR.A put up he said its improved over gt legends.

I’m guessing here, but possibly each reviewer used different difficulty levels.
From the videos at IGN it seems that all driving helps are active. From that, one can be led to think that the review was made also with all helps on as the video review also shows that driving aid was on.

id say your bang on there luis!.

Agreed 100%

F1Racer:
If you want to view things correctly then all NFS games are sims.
In fact Burnout and Fuel are sims just as rFactor or iRacing. The only difference is that rFactor is more detailed in the physics dept (and other things but focussing on physics here..).
See, the all ’simulate’ race driving. But they all do it to various extents.
This idea of ‘arcade’ should stem from something you would find in an amusement arcade, put money in and play.
I doubt Shift or GT5 come under that category.
The way the community translates it, is that if it is not hardcore sim, then it is ‘arcade’. Almost like its either black or white. In fact there are numerous grey areas and Shift is one of them.
If white is arcade, what games are white ? If Black is pure sim, what games are black ?
It’s exactly what Howie47 said, all driving games in some way simulate driving and thus are simulators and indeed it is a matter of degree.
Technically, FlatOut is a sim. But it just isn’t a sim in the way we have become accustomed to recognising them.
So when goes our version of an arcade game become a sim ? Is it all down to physics and car handling ?
If so then a game is judged to be arcade or sim solely on its physics. The graphics and sounds are secondary and don’t come into the equation.

Sorry, F1Racer, this is just play with words, and you know it. A simulation game is something that tries to simulate its real life counterpart AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE. With your warped logic we might as well call Counter Strike a military training tool, as it clearly simulates gunfights.

Howie47:

What an ironic statement from a i$acing fan.

Why? iRacing was promised as a sim and is a sim. You get what you pay for.

EA has an arcade track record with the Need For Speed series. Maybe Shift breaks the mold. EA is capable of publishing a sim, as its F1 series for the PC was very good.

But since then, it has released nothing but arcade racing games. I’ll remain skeptical until proven otherwise.

JAGUAR1977:
Gran Turismo has sold what, 40m-50m copies?
Now granted GT1-GT4 were compromised and made concessions for a mainstream audience, but GT5P is a fine sim, despite being a glorified demo.
With GT5 they are really pushing the realism stakes, the latest being full, deformable, 3D cockpits with head tracking.

But will GT5 have an AI worth a damn for offline racing? That’s always been the the curse of the Gran Turismo series — brain-dead AI.

GT has been a good driving game since its inception. But it’s been a crummy racing game. There is a difference. Good AI or robust online racing changes that.

stabiz:

Sorry, F1Racer, this is just play with words, and you know it. A simulation game is something that tries to simulate its real life counterpart AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE. With your warped logic we might as well call Counter Strike a military training tool, as it clearly simulates gunfights.

Why couldn’t you just say ‘With your logic’ instead of ‘with you’re warped logic’ ?
What’s with all the provocation around here ??

Your definition of simulation is the one we all play by here.
Our version of what is a simulation is a lot more tighter than its actual meaning.
If you use it in its loosest sense, you could easilty argue that NFS Carbon simulates race driving or street driving.
It just doesn’t do it in the way we are used to thinking of a sim.
The dictionary definition of the word simulation does not go into how heavy or close the simulation needs to be but instead defines it as “imitation or representation”.
NFS Carbon and FlatOut DOES imitate and represent racing.
The dictionary makes no mention of simulating something ‘as close as possible’
Again thats how you, I and the rest of us determine a sim in our racing world.
I’m saying its not accurate but it’s what we are used to.

Oh and if you want warped logic try looking at Counter Strike as a military training tool, haha… oh.. you did.

For those who think satellite data, GPS and “data treasures” model a track as good as laser scanning, here’s a good, short read:

http://www.amerisurv.com/PDF/TheAmericanSurveyor_Greaves-iRacing_December2008.pdf

Just an FYI.

F1Racer:

Why couldn’t you just say ‘With your logic’ instead of ‘with you’re warped logic’ ?
What’s with all the provocation around here ??
Your definition of simulation is the one we all play by here.
Our version of what is a simulation is a lot more tighter than its actual meaning.
If you use it in its loosest sense, you could easilty argue that NFS Carbon simulates race driving or street driving.
It just doesn’t do it in the way we are used to thinking of a sim.
The dictionary definition of the word simulation does not go into how heavy or close the simulation needs to be but instead defines it as “imitation or representation”.
NFS Carbon and FlatOut DOES imitate and represent racing.
The dictionary makes no mention of simulating something ‘as close as possible’
Again thats how you, I and the rest of us determine a sim in our racing world.
I’m saying its not accurate but it’s what we are used to.
Oh and if you want warped logic try looking at Counter Strike as a military training tool, haha… oh.. you did.

You win at writing lots of words who are more or less the same as the previous post, an still make no sense beyond splitting hairs.

Well if you can’t make sense of it, that’s not my problem.

I remember back in the 80′s I had a Sinclair ZX81 and there were no graphics to speak of so games were just make of big blocks and ASCII characters. There was no sound either.
Yet I had Microsoft Flight Simulator on it. Incomparable to todays standards such as FSX or X-Plane and utter trash compared to what came 5 years later.
Yet it was still classed as a simulator. It simulated air flight.

http://daverobertson63.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/dsc00754.JPG

Geoff Crammonds Grand Prix (the first in the series) was considered a simulator, but I seriously doubt its physics match that of DIRT which to us is ‘arcade’.

The point is simply that the proper definition of simulator is not the same as what we go by in our little cocooned community.

Paul Kelly:

You can have all the grip changes and debris on course that you want, but if the bumps and other imperfections aren’t in place first, it’s not going to be an accurate re-creation of the track.

Indeed, and Ian Bell’s response pointed out that, you can have the most accurately modelled track in the world and if the cars physics aren’t right over that track, then what happens won’t be any more accurate when driving over those bumps than if they weren’t there…and he just said he got bump data from telemetry etc etc.

None of them are accurate. Besides, even if they were, the track is dynamic, not fixed. It makes little if any difference to some chubby, middle aged fart playing with his toy wheel in a computer game that the track in that game was perhaps accurate for a short time when iracing drove a van around it a few months or years previously. Nor will it matter that much that it isn’t accurate any more because of any of a large number of factors that will change it over time. Except perhaps, for some asinine fantasy he might have that his experience is like being on the real track. It isn’t.

And neither iracing or any other game is even remotely close to being realistic for the accuracy of track down to the claimed level to make much difference.

The laser scanning of the track is merely easier to do. It’s like a digital piano, they can’t make it sound like a piano – that’s really hard. But they can easily grade the keys so one end is heavier than the other. So that’s the “feature” they do one year. The cheap, easy one, pretending that it makes it feel real and is a huge leap. But it doesn’t really matter. All pianos are different anyway. Next year they have to find something else to BS about so customers can read their marketing and fart on about how great it is in some asinine “My digital piano is better than yours” peeing contest.

In a similar way, track real or not, it doesn’t matter because the difficult bit they can’t do yet. And most of the really important bit, they can’t do at all for the budget you have to give them. So instead they do what is, by comparison, cheap and easy, and then convince you that it’s a really important feature that matters. Well, it doesn’t.

You won’t learn anything significant playing the game, except perhaps the shape of the track. Which is what most honest drivers say in interviews about consumer sims “I might use blah blah sim to learn the track”

But when David Beckham says “I wear Calvin Kline panties, they are comfortable and Victoria likes them too” – he doesn’t really – he gets a deal for promoting products. Plenty of racing drivers talking about games are part of the promotion too. If you want to believe Tony the tiger really thinks Kellogs frosties are great, fair enough.

These are all just computer games. If you want something decent, you need to spend a lot of money. In most cases you’d be better just buying a car and taking it to drive on a track. It’d be a lot cheaper, and it’d be realistic.

Indeed, if you want to know what driving feels like, fetch the kids from school, obey the stop signs and heed the speed limits. That experience is still far closer to racing than any computer game you can play today.

This game has that feature, the other one has a different one. Get over it.

They all have different handling and physics. All different. None are accurate. Mostly they are all buggy too. The idea that any of them is like driving is laughable. Completely delusional.

The idea that any of them are realistic is mostly moot, because the important things aren’t even simulated, and what’s left is usually extremely simplified simply to fit on the hardware.

Yes, shift have some fancy fairground rides and other kruft adorning the track. But so what? There is no racing game that can draw a view of any circuit or part of a circuit that looks remotely like the real circuit does. If anyone thinks it does, or claims it does, they need their eyes laser scanning or glasses – they certainly shouldn’t be driving :)

Indeed, most sims have worse art than the stuff my son did at primary school. Programmer art. “Whaa Graphics don’t matter” – Right, but they’d have to not, because if there’s an artist working for a sim author, then I’m Leonardo Da Vinci.

Most so-called sims draw a picture of a wheel [and sometimes arms] on the screen, which is abject nonsense. Nonsense that shift have copied, but nevertheless it’s patently ridiculous to treat a computer game as though it’s somehow implemented real tracks or realistic racing driving, when they can’t even draw the view out of the window or cockpit properly. So if shift have that wrong, they are in good company…I think I’ve only seen one sim that does it, and that isn’t one we’re likely to afford.

In quick response to your post, which shows a fine grasp of the obvious, I’ll state this: I don’t think anyone here claims iRacing or any other sim is real. It’s a video game.

But among those games, I believe iRacing is closest to the real thing based on laser scanning and the amount of access to real-world data iRacing has been provided. I’ll add into that stew my experience in driving a late model stock car, what racers not affiliated with the game in any way have told me and my experience at working at events at a variety of circuits around America — such as Indianapolis, Long Beach, Watkins Glen, Dover, Chicagoland, Atlanta, Charlotte, New Hampshire and more.

I’ve also had the pleasure of driving or riding around Indianapolis, Dover and New Hampshire in a passenger car, multiple different sessions at Indianapolis, in fact. While that doesn’t provide the same sensation as a racing cars, it still gives somewhat of a sense for bumps, braking points, structures, surface changes, etc.

Again, just my opinion. And again, I — and I believe no one else who posts at VirtualR– thinks ANY sim is a complete re-creation of the real thing. There’s a little thing called g-force that no sim has replicated, among other deficiencies.

We’re not that stupid. But thanks for your verbose enlightenment, nonetheless.

As an amateur racer I stand by my opinion: racing sims are no more realistic than FPS shooters. Both have a few things in common with the real thing but overall they don’t even come close to it. One symptom of this is how my sim driving differs from real driving: like two different drivers.