Need for Speed Racing Games

nfs.GCReDi wrote:Shift does not use pivot point physics, there's simply no discussion about that

I know - it is a (modified ?) ISI engine
and still the car does "turn on itself" when you give lock. It's plain to see fom the outside, but you can easily see it from any cam
I really enjoy this game, I reduced the steer lock which reduce the effect, I setted up the cars to understeer, I drive as well as I can, but at some point I have to admit no matter what I do it's still not a sim and the "problem" is with the game

that's what you can't do in Shift : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DiJL3rMxmk&feature=related
just try yourself and give me wrong

Nonsense. Of course you can spin the cars.

Sadly you're one of the typical PC simmers who has deluded himself into believing he is a "proper driver" and that somehow playing a bunch of buggy and shoddy PC racing games tells us something about driving. It doesn't.

My 10 year old plays GTR Evo all the time, it's easy. It's not driving, it's a computer game.

The real irony is, for all your moaning about 8 year olds, there are plenty right now that are proper drivers, racing at go-kart tracks around the country who will go on to be tomorrow's proper drivers. They aren't playing computer games. Think about that the next time you sneer.

I have spun just about every RWD car in Shift The only thing that is easier in Shift, compared to games like rFactor and GTR2, is to catch a spin early. Personally I have never believed that in real life it could be as hard to catch the back side of a race car as it is simulated in GTR2. Once it steps out in that game, you're dead.

xbox.Needaxeo wrote:They aren't playing computer games

oh MY... do you know among rFactor mods there are lots of REAL pilots involved in their development ? never heard of Doug Arnao ? it's the whole sim community you're insulting...
and I was not really implying 8yo had to be bad drivers, it was a figure of speach - I'm amazed about what some 8yo can do, but that's off topic
don't you see I'm defending Shift to the hilt - it's common knowledge than Shift is no sim whatsoever, and I'm saying it got real potential - but when you say a real car turn on itself like they do in Shift, I can't help you

Personally I have never believed that in real life it could be as hard to catch the back side of a race car as it is simulated in GTR2. Once it steps out in that game, you're dead

of course it is; race cars, slick tires, you CAN'T DRIFT THEM

cem_ea_id.nico1965_nico wrote:of course it is; race cars, slick tires, you CAN'T DRIFT THEM

I'm not talking about drifting, I'm talking about when you induce power oversteer by accident and the back side starts sliding, in games like GTR2 you can only let go of the throttle and wait until the back tyres regain grip which takes an awfully long time. In Shift, control is regained much faster and more gradually.

gradually... that's what I'm saying. There is nothing gradual with a race tire; if it was easy to catch a sudden oversteer they would never spin, would they...

xbox.Needaxeo wrote:

My 10 year old plays GTR Evo all the time, it's easy. It's not driving, it's a computer game.

Don't forget that a simulator has the target of simulation.

In this direction i find rfactor more realistic than Evo.
And i doubt on mods as Endurance to find this facility.

But this is another discuss, and it is out from any equation hard=real=simple=crazy

Imho a sim has the real model as target.

And nfss imho is not a "sim.." It is to tweaking. And this is not impossible..... i hope.

cem_ea_id.nico1965_nico wrote:gradually... that's what I'm saying. There is nothing gradual with a race tire; if it was easy to catch a sudden oversteer they would never spin, would they...

I guess that depends on a lot of variables, like driver capabilities, driver concentration, surface condition, tyre condition etc.
I have never driven any race-class car so I cannot tell what is realistic and what is not.

cem_ea_id.nico1965_nico wrote:
oh MY... do you know among rFactor mods there are lots of REAL pilots involved in their development ? never heard of Doug Arnao ? it's the whole sim community you're insulting...

It's very tempting to ask you to stop digging at some point, but really, what would be the fun in that?

http://img339.imageshack.us/i/ummmmmmmmmmm.jpg/

forgot something : lead tester of Grand Prix Legends for Papyrus, and... oh yes, three time SCCA champion
the fact he's involved in Shift's dev doesn't contradict my arguments at all; only an artist can build a piece of art, but anyone can ruin it

when I initially wrote this thread I had no idea some people found Shift realistic and I would have to argue on THAT point looks realistic to you ? ever seen a car turning on itself ? ever seen a car understeering ? ever seen a race car going sideways ? ever seen the look of a car drifting at all ?

But this is another discuss, and it is out from any equation hard=real=simple=crazy

Well, you're forgetting the blather written about "8 year olds" that already entered the discussion.

Kid yourself not, the cars in so-called "sims" don't feel realistic, no more or less than they do in shift.

Different? No doubt. But any argument that decides one game is realistic and then compares other games to it is going to be wrong whatever conclusions it reaches, because the initial premise is flawed.

But, as a few have pointed out, Top Gear manages to elicit behaviour out of cars they test that doesn't happen if you believe the critics of Shift.

If cars spun really easily, the roads would be carnage...and aiui the majority of the tyres modelled in the game aren't slick race tyres? You don't really see that many people spinning wildly when they lose control, even when the weather is at extremes of snow and ice.

But, even if Shift is more forgiving at the extremes (as it obviously is with damage) that would be in contrast to the authors' stated flaws in GTR2, but does it really matter?

If you spin in rfactor, crash in GTR Evo or go off the track in NFS Shift, your lap time won't be as quick as if you didn't.

It's what happens when you drive at or near the limit that matters....that's the point you're aiming for. afaict that's still a target you can hit. If you can show a fast lap where you didn't need to steer or brake or could just drive pedal to the metal, and that's a really fast lap, go ahead, otherwise I can't see the point worrying.

Remember, all valid arguments in physics are done in maths, not English...and that's the flaw with these threads, they are just folks, myself included, blathering away and hand-waving.

But, NFS:Shift is just a computer game, AFAICT the authors are making no claims about it being realistic. I know the authors of many sims are, frankly, fraudulent in some of their advertising, but face to face in interviews they are usually less OTT and more honest about the realism of their products. So, as far as I can tell no one, except perhaps a hand full of wishful thinkers believe PC sims are realistic.

cem_ea_id.nico1965_nico wrote:

xbox.Needaxeo wrote:They aren't playing computer games

oh MY... do you know among rFactor mods there are lots of REAL pilots involved in their development ? never heard of Doug Arnao ? it's the whole sim community you're insulting...

The sim community insults itself - at least the delusional members of it.

And IMO, Simbin's biggest problem is that it's a company of racing drivers with no clue or ability left to write a computer game and they seem completely in denial that they even write computer games. To their detriment.

With the resulting products being exactly what you'd expect - something that a bunch of modders and a guy sat in his bedroom could do just as well. Race pro was even worse - race pro was supposed to be what NFS Shift was - a product that would sell Simbin's handling to myriad console racing fans. Why did it fail? Because it was complete tat written by a team that had no clue how to write a 360 and that thought they could port their existing tat to the 360 in a couple of months, call it something else, and make a lot of money.

Most other sims are basically of that quality. How good the handling is usually doesn't matter because they don't have a finished, quality product worth buying to use the handling with.

Although you'll note plenty of the deluded community will have blathered about how good LFS is, yet clearly the authors realised it wasn't and are having to rewrite the whole thing, just to add a second car to it. Now you see why it doesn't matter, because none of those folk blathering about how the game "is a sim" realised that it wasn't accurate - they have no clue what realistic is. The LFS guys would've been just as well finishing a complete game instead and having something worth selling.

The difficult part about writing a racing game, or any computer game, isn't the physics or the 3d game engine - it's the polish - it's finishing the game. It's what sets apart professional game authors from amateurs and, no amount of racing drivers on staff is going to help do it.

But Ian Bell seems a lot more savvy imo, and, although they have racing drivers, track experience etc, it seems clear to me that they are aware of the nature of the products they make, aren't ashamed of the fact they write computer games and, as a result, wrote a computer game that 2.5 million thought was worth buying.

The sim authors will talk until you are black and blue that it's because of the handling that no one buys their products, but that's just laughable. It's the (lack of) quality. The truth is, for everyone blathering about being a sim racer, look on any sim racing site and you'll see them talking about shift, buying shift and playing shift, if anything that's because it's not a sim, not in spite of it, whatever they tell you.

and I was not really implying 8yo had to be bad drivers, it was a figure of speach

Nonsense. Implicit? You stated quite explicitly that certain features of the game were there so 8 year olds wouldn't crash. How is that a figure of speech? If you're going to bother with the thread, at least be honest about what you said and didn't say from one post to the next.

cem_ea_id.nico1965_nico wrote:
when I initially wrote this thread I had no idea some people found Shift realistic and I would have to argue on THAT point

http://www.autosimsport.net/index2/index.php.


[...]


Simon: What were the scope statements given to the team? The marketing message from EA claimed that SHIFT was getting hardcore, but how was it 'translated' to the development team? You obviously don't need Slightly Mad Studios and their background if you want a blatant arcade game, so what was the overall remit at the beginning of the project?

Doug: Maybe Ian should answer this, but basically it was: 'We want what SMS does for our new NFS direction. Can you do it for us, and make a great experience on consoles and PC.' There was no talk about 'dumbing it down'. Just making it drivable, enjoyable and convincing.

Simon: A look through the game files shows a lot of the code structure is from ISI's proprietary engine - which obviously has been Ian Bell's sandbox for almost a decade now-with some new code in place for the tyre and suspension modeling. Would this be a fair assessment of SHIFT's underlying physics code, or is this missing the mark of what SMS have undertaken?

Doug: The only big change was the new tyre model, but there were loads of little additions to make it fit the target of working on consoles with pads, as well as the PC.

[...]

Simon: There has been a lot of debate among the community about exactly where SHIFT fits into the 'arcade-sim' spectrum. There are some obvious compromises/omissions, such as severe damage and brake/tyre wear, but how would you appraise SHIFT as a sim in terms of the core physics engine itself, and also the product as a whole?

Doug: The core is a pure sim-engine. The product brings that to a wider audience than ever before allowing more players to enjoy that type of experience.

[...]

Simon: From a physics point of view, what elements are you most proud of in SHIFT? Are there any areas where you think SHIFT stands above the competition?

Doug: The answer to both is how approachable it is for a wide range of player. If I had to pick one thing though, I'd say were pretty proud of the tyre model. That one is Eero's baby.

--

What is the first rule of getting out of a hole?

cem_ea_id.teeheeaid wrote:What is the first rule of getting out of a hole?

what HOLE ? I'm not for 1s ashamed of my topic and what I claim. I pointed out what I think is the problem and argued on it, instead of only implying things like you both do
I carefully read what you quote. He's saying he wrote a great sim and "brought it to to a wider audience", made it "enjoyable", added "loads of little additions to make it fit the target of working on consoles with pads". Yep. I wasn't expecting it to say "yes we dumbed it down" - why would he do that, with its JOB at stake ?!? - but it can still -easily- be interepreted that way

xbox.Needaxeo wrote:[You stated quite explicitly that certain features of the game were there so 8 year olds wouldn't crash. How is that a figure of speech?

oh MY... if I said "Sega Rally fans" you would point Sega Rally beeing just as realistic as rFactor, don't you...
please STOP about THAT. I have immense respect for 8yo go-kart pilots, get on with it ("GT pilot" was Gran Turismo in case you didn't get that)

If cars spun really easily, the roads would be carnage...and aiui the majority of the tyres modelled in the game aren't slick race tyres? You don't really see that many people spinning wildly when they lose control, even when the weather is at extremes of snow and ice

to quote yourself : absolute nonsense !
you never drive a car to the limit of the street; I HOPE you don't. When you do, say in track days, plenty of spins
you're even beeing ridiculous about "snow and ice"; it's basic laws of physics that you rarely spin on snow
look at a spin in a HONDA INSIGHT, look at the violence of the thing and how he fail to catch it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvOg2ydEY7Q . You can easily reproduce that situation in rFactor, but not in Shift; why?

But, even if Shift is more forgiving at the extremes (as it obviously is with damage) that would be in contrast to the authors' stated flaws in GTR2, but does it really matter?

it's not the forgiveness that worries me, it's where it comes from; the magic tendancy to go sideway without spinning

cem_ea_id.nico1965_nico wrote:
what HOLE ? I'm not for 1s ashamed of my topic and what I claim. I pointed out what I think is the problem and argued on it, instead of only implying things like you both do
I carefully read what you quote. He's saying he wrote a great sim and "brought it to to a wider audience", made it "enjoyable", added "loads of little additions to make it fit the target of working on consoles with pads". Yep. I wasn't expecting it to say "yes we dumbed it down" - why would he do that, with its JOB at stake ?!? - but it can still -easily- be interepreted that way

I love it. From the opening argument from authority, the appeals to Secret Knowledge, and the insistence that despite saying the exact opposite only you can interpret the entrails of a totally straightforward, plain english interview, you are a Very Special Boy.

"Don't you know who's involved with sims? Doug Arnao!"

"You mean the Doug Arnao who worked on Shift?"

"Yes! But someone ruined his work"

"You mean the work he says here that nobody altered and that he's really proud of?"

"Yes! That damned tyre model where you can step out at the edge and the car doesn't spin!"

"You mean the spinning that Ian Bell and Eero and Doug said was totally unrealistic in GTR/GTR2? And that tyre model you're talking about, is that the one they said is the best part of the new game?"

"Yes, not only do I know more about driving physics than Eero and Doug Arnao, but i also know what they really secretly mean when they say things".

Isn't there some kind of diploma from Pompous Sim Racer Academy you should scan and stick in your sig?