More Project CARS 2 Developer & Driver Interviews

After we already got to hear from Creative Director Andy Tudor, more interviews with key personal behind Slightly Mad Studios’ Project CARS 2 title have surfaced.

In the new interviews, we get to hear from two of the several real race drivers involved in Project CARS 2 development as GameReactor has talked to Nic Hamilton and former Stig Ben Collins.

Meanwhile, Checkpoint TV has sat down with Game Director Stephen Viljoen who explains the key features of the upcoming title in lots of detail.

Project CARS 2 will bring 170 cars and 60 tracks to the PC, Playstation 4 & Xbox One.

Powered by the studios’ Live Track 3.0 technology that allows dynamic surface conditions and the title’s comprehensive dynamic weather engine, Project CARS i2 able to simulate racing in any weather & season, including heavy winter weather & snow.

Aside from graphics & sound improvements, Project CARS 2 comes with refined physics featuring the title’s cutting-edge tire model and improved AI as well as brand-new gamepad controls & FFB improvements. The new version comes with robust eSports & online capabilities including Online Championship mode, driver rating as well as race directing & broadcast controls.

Project CARS 2 is due to be released in late 2017, more info on what’s new in the second version of the WMD-backed title can be found here.

GTOmegaRacing.com

  • Sam

    Hilarious, boy Ben is really on it isn’t he, “Simulation” “Accurate Tire Model” and “as real as possible” at least it was a funny PR show, thanks for the chuckle guys!

    • Leper Messiah

      now whom do I believe, the chump armchair racer or the chap who’s actually driven a smeg load of VERY fast vehicles…hmmm, now whom?….hmmmmmmmmm…hard decision….

      • HardRock

        Not only that, but what they didn’t really mention here, is that they were always quite critical (but always very constructive) of the sim, and especially when they joined pCARS 1 they had quite a few things to say on what to improve. Ben drove sims before also and didn’t really like any of them as far as I remember and had quite a few reservations about the handling of pCARS 1 as well. Seeing how his opinion of the sim shifted as the project went along and the physics improved was really encouraging for this reason, because as you said he has experience with a s***ton of cars in varying conditions. If you can turn around someone like that from not liking sims to enjoying them, then that sounds like a job well done to me. 🙂

        What’s even better is that all of his and Nick’s feedback for pCARS 1 is publicly available to everyone to read, although it will take quite a bit of time as it spans 2+ years of development and these guys had quite a lot to say. 🙂
        http://www.wmdportal.com/projectnews/project-cars-driver-feedback-compilation-available/

      • Leper Messiah

        What do you mean by “critical”? surely EVERYONE who criticised PCARS got banned by the evil Wookie and his minions of darkness? 😉

      • HardRock

        Everything is so clear now. WMD was just an elaborate attempt at developing new and creative ways to ban people I guess. 🙂

      • Patrik Marek

        well played sir!

  • ditec890

    The truth is, I’m amazed at the publicity they’re making about the new ride on snow. Frankly, I’m not very interested. I do not think they can get good races on snow. Dedicating many resources to that area seems to me a planning failure. There are much more important things to work on, to improve the physics of tires, the heating is not related to the angle of the tire on the ground, nor is the pressure correctly correlated with the temperature. The behavior of AI is very much improved even. Telemetry data would have to be greatly improved, so that external programs could be truly practical, not like the ones that are now showing no real interesting data. It is necessary to know the weight that the car unloads on each wheel in each moment, the speed with which the shock absorbers move, the distance to the ground of the chassis, the speed of rotation of the wheels that is not the same as the speed of displacement On the ground (can be moved locked), and other data, all in real time and of course visible also in repetitions. A driving simulator that does not provide this data can not be called a “simulator”. Hiding key telemetry data is a way of drawing attention to the gaps in the physics of the game.

    By the way PCars is a game that I have enjoyed a lot and I think it is very good and I am sure PCars 2 will be even better. But, the most consistent game in physics I’ve ever played was the old RACE07. You could take the cars to the limit because you knew what you could expect from each car. In PCars there are still things that are badly finished that prevent driving to the maximum.

    Those who criticize the game is not to harm it, it is to help improve it. I wish lots of luck and a lot of success to PCars2.

    • Leper Messiah

      Good points, but wrong on the definition of “simulator”, NO simulator simulates reality 100%. EVERY simulator makes sacrifices in one area to flesh out another. People choose their “fave” simulator by picking the one that doesn’t sacrifice in areas important to them.

      I could say that a sim that doesn’t simulate weather is not a sim, that a sim that doesn’t have a day/night cycle is not a sim, these are things that happen in reality so to not have them means the “game” is not simulating “reality”.

      Thing is I don’t say that, I play all the sims and enjoy them, some do things better than others, no sim is perfect and no sim is a FULL sim. 🙂

    • HardRock

      If I may address a few of your points.

      “Dedicating many resources to that area seems to me a planning failure. There are much more important things to work on, to improve the physics of tires”

      Here’s the thing, by adding loose surfaces and an even more dynamic tracks they have to do just that, improve the tire model. You can get away with a less accurate, or rather a less complete tire simulation when the conditions are more static, since the missing features won’t be exposed as much or at all. By expanding the range of surfaces the same has to be done to the physics as well and that will also have a positive effect on what everyone seems to be focused the most: racing on tarmac in the dry.

      “In PCars there are still things that are badly finished that prevent driving to the maximum.”

      Yep, but since driving at the edge of grip or past it will be so much more important on dirt, snow and ice, they provide a good incentive to improve this part and according to Ben Collins they already made great strides in this area for exactly this reason.

      “the heating is not related to the angle of the tire on the ground, nor is the pressure correctly correlated with the temperature.”

      I don’t know how correct they are, but heating is absolutely related to camber and toe even in pCARS 1. Similarly, pressure does change with temperature.

      “Telemetry data would have to be greatly improved, so that external programs could be truly practical, not like the ones that are now showing no real interesting data.”

      Of the things you mentioned, wheel rotation per second should be available in the telemetry as Tire Rev. At least IIRC, I haven’t used the telemetry tools for pCARS 1 in a while.

      “Hiding key telemetry data is a way of drawing attention to the gaps in the physics of the game.”

      It can be, but it can also be the result of an API that isn’t fleshed out yet and one that simply doesn’t expose the values, even if they would be correct. I’m not saying it’s definitely the latter in this case, but I do know that unfortunately the telemetry API in pCARS 1 was one of the things that wasn’t up to snuff due to time constraints. For example, how the shock absorbers move is shown on the ingame telemetry, but not in the API for external tools, even though the latter are general much more robust. Again, IIRC. I’m sure someone more familiar with the API, a developer from the community, could say more about this.

      I agree though, this aspect of the sim should be worked upon for pCARS 2, because even as it the telemetry API shows tons of good info, which was very useful during development of the cars, but if the parameters you mentioned would be available as well they could do much more to help us optimize our setups.

      “Those who criticize the game is not to harm it, it is to help improve it. I wish lots of luck and a lot of success to PCars2.”

      No worries, criticising the game is never a problem (in fact it’s the only way to help improving it), how people do it however can be. I think your points are very valid. Having more good sims is in the best interest of the whole community I think, as competition pushes developers to keep improving. I find it funny how a few people in our community of racers can so easily ignore this fact sometimes. 🙂

  • JR Armstrong

    This game is junk.

    • ModernTimes2

      So you have Project CARS 2 then? Please tell us specifically what’s junk about it.

      • JR Armstrong

        I project cars 1 and no IMS

  • BusterAuldt

    Hmmm, not at all interested in Project CARS 2! I was alarmed when PC2 was announced shortly after the unfinished PC1 was released. So many thought it was a great announcement and criticized me heavily for warning that PC1 development would quickly cease… which it did, leaving me / us with an expensive beta level mess with no road feel what so ever and no triple monitor support. Now they want my money again? …pass!
    P.S. If not for the pleasant eye candy of changing time and weather I would delete it altogether… But that’s just my opinion.

    • HardRock

      What’s actually alarming is when people like you are spreading nonsense that can be verified as such in seconds.

      First, pCARS 1 does support triple monitors. Not having separately projected viewports for each monitor (which is not ideal for sure) is not the same as not having support for multiple monitors at all. Why? Because in the first case at least you can greatly expand your field of view, which is always a huge advantage in sims no matter how you cut it, while in the second you can’t, which would be infinitely worse if it would be the case. It’s not though.

      Second, the last patch for pCARS 1 came out roughly 4 month ago, more than one and a half years after the title’s release date and AFAIK it hasn’t been announced that it would be the last update. So no, development hasn’t ceased quickly. Or you know, at all.

      • BusterAuldt

        First, I agree with JR’s “OPINION” below… I’ll add… the “game” junk but not total junk!
        Second pCARS “works” on triple monitors if you don’t mind crazy distortion, if fanboys want to call that triple monitor support, enjoy your bubble!
        Third, “my opinion” is just that… MY opinion.
        Fourth, I agree with you… Time and Weather are actually more than eye candy and as I attempted to indicate, they are the only worthwhile parts of the “game” (not Sim). Wait, wait, wait, I’ll admit, I like the Caddy ATS-VR and Willow Springs… neither of which are available in my real “Sims” AC, iRacing and RaceRoom… (and no R3E does not officially support triple monitors either… but it WORKS BETTER, sounds better and has great FB).
        And Fifth, Thank you for not even attempting to address the lack of road feel (proper force feedback) in PC1
        PC1 is a “game” that was sold as a Sim… thus my agreement with the “junk” statement.

        Finally, like I said before… PC2… I’ll PASS! And that Sir is not an “opinion” that is a FACT and not an “alternative fact”. 😉

      • HardRock

        “First, I agree with JR’s “OPINION” below… I’ll add… the “game” junk but not total junk!”

        I have no problem with your opinions.

        However, compare “no triple monitor support” to “pCARS “works” on triple monitors if you don’t mind crazy distortion”. Surely you can see as well how those two statements differ in their factual correctness and accuracy. I can agree with the second, even said so that the lack of separate projection for each monitor is not ideal, but that does not equal to no support.

        “I agree with you… Time and Weather are actually more than eye candy”

        Great, glad we agree on that. I hope you also agree with what I wrote about the development cycle for pCARS1. That would mean we agree on the 3 factual errors I took issue with:

        – pCARS 1 supports triple monitors, however not as well as it could.
        – Its development hasn’t quite stopped.
        – Time and weather are more than eye candy in it.

        “I attempted to indicate, they are the only worthwhile parts of the “game” (not Sim)”

        Got it, it was just that the “eye candy” comment made it seem to me you actually didn’t care about their other implications.

        “I’ll admit, I like the Caddy ATS-VR and Willow Springs… neither of which are available in my real “Sims” AC, iRacing and RaceRoom.”

        I hope that you can also admit, that while those titles are definitely sims as well, since pCARS has additional features, like the dynamic time of day and weather system (which you like) it does a better job at being a sim in at least a few ways.

        “and no R3E does not officially support triple monitors either… but it WORKS BETTER”

        I could be wrong about this, but based on what I know R3E has the exact same problem as pCARS 1, where the image is stretched with multiple monitors (technically the issue is more complicated than that, but that’s beside the point). How does it work better in R3E?

        “sounds better and has great FB”

        These are subjective in many way. I would both agree and disagree with you, depending on the specifics.

        “Thank you for not even attempting to address the lack of road feel (proper force feedback) in PC1”

        I would have, but you haven’t defined road feel clearly. In the past I’ve seen wildly varying descriptions from people on what they consider road feel.

        In general, I think you are wrong about this, the FFB can be excellent in pCARS 1, although I will say that the default FFB profiles poorly convey certain forces with certain wheels.

        “PC1 is a “game” that was sold as a Sim… thus my agreement with the “junk” statement.”

        In this context, I don’t like that distinction too much to be honest and it leads to many tiring and quite frankly needless arguments on the internet. Even real races are games technically, just like the Olympic events are games. They are events where competitors are racing each other to see who can do better within the artificial rules and challenges we set for them. That is a game. Enjoyment comes from improving yourself in some way and mastering the rules.

        Racing sims try to emulate real races (or real games), sometimes with a focus on the physics, the spectacle of crashes, the dynamic environment, accuracy of sounds, etc., sometimes all of those at the same time. To me anything that tries to mimic real life is a sim, with varying completeness. I think it’s perfectly natural, that sims who go the last route, trying to encompass the whole experience, will usually do worse in certain areas compared to sims who focused on less at once, or ignored some completely. Therefore I think that it’s fine that people don’t care about certain aspects of pCARS, but they should absolutely recognize that just because that SMS didn’t have the same preferences they did, the shortcomings in other areas are because the sim tried to do more, not less than others. If the sims that did less overall, but more accurately are called sims, I think pCARS is deserving of that title as well.

        “alternative fact”

        Fact is, there is no such thing as an alternative fact. What you are talking about is an opinion. 🙂

      • BusterAuldt

        Ditto on No Alternative Facts! 🙂

      • HardRock

        Sorry, I know I talk too much. 🙂

Back to top