PDA

View Full Version : Toughts about the new DLC... (most of them in the wrong category)



NemethR
27-08-2015, 22:57
I purchased it. Not much really to interest me in, maybe the BMW Touring car.
Did not regret buying it tough at all.

Here is my opinion about the DLC: (Again this is my opinion, others might have other opinions)

About the cars:

BMW 320 TC - My favorite, mostly because this is the only racing car in the pack. But tbh. I was expecting a bit more fun car to drive. I did my usual car test, 7 laps at Zolder and Brands Hatch, and see what I can do with it :)
The car feels like driving on rails, but sometimes (for no reason) the back of the car starts sliding, that is when the Turbo gives maximum torque I think.
Also this is something that norbert Michelis complained about when he was driving that car. When the Turbo kicks in, the car gets suddenly so much more torque (and power), that it gets hard to control in some situations.
Overall, the car feels a bit steril, yet looks very good from the inside and the outside.
It is a bit slower then the GT4 cars, since it has nothing to compete with, its essentially a BMW 320 Cup car. :(
My rating 4 out 5

BMW 2002 Turbo - This is a quite fun little car, I really enjoyed driving it. It shows in the category "Historic touring car", but shows up when browsing under Road cars.
It is clearly not a racing car, and the times for the Escort and Mercedes (Hist. Touring) are 5 seconds/lap faster. Actualy this is the new slowest car in the game, but it is a really fun little car.
Categorisation of the car should be fixed, from the laptimes, and the fact, that it is not a race car, it should be in the Road D category.
My rating 4+ out of 5 ... I really liked it :)

Ford Mustang Fastback - Just like the BMW 2002 it shows up in the wrong category (imo). This is clearly a road car, and not a race car, much slower then the Hist. Touring cars. Comparable in times to the BMW 2002 and the Caterham 7 Classic.
Overall the car looks stunning. Its a bit like some typical american bad guys car. Driving it is a bit like driving the "red pig". Its nose heavy, but has a lot of torque, so you can powerslide the car nicely. And its easy to control. Categorisation of the car should be fixed, from the laptimes, and the fact, that it is not a race car, it should be in the Road D category.
My rating: 4 out of 5

Ford Mustang GT - I did not have any big hopes for this one, but I am very suprised. the Sound of the car is not a typical 5liter sound, it sound much more like a race car, it handles very well, its a pleasure to drive, has good brakes too, you can really dive deep into the braking zones, and the car stops. I love driving most of the road cars, and this Mustang is clearly one of my favorites now.
But this is also in the wrong category. No way is the Mustang a Road B, it can do lap times, that would make it fit into Road C1. It is much slower than any other Road B car. So this should also be fixed, judging from the laptimes, it should be in the Road C1 category.
My rating: 4+ out of 5

RUF RT-12 R It is basicly an upgraded version of the RGT-8. (or at least I feel like that) It handles similarly, but its a bit faster. Ohh, I clearly enjoyed driving it. Its a fun car, has a KERS icon, but no KERS - or it cannot be applied. It is 4WD, but the 4WD system feals rear-heavy, so the car behaves more like a RWD car.
As for laptimes, it is slower then most of the Road A cars, but it is about as fast as the McLaren 12c. (1.5 tenths faster)
My rating would be: 4 out of 5 - it is a good choice for the free car.

RUF CTR "Yellowbird" - My was actually green. This car is... well... a huge disappointment.
Sorry to say that, but the car is plain wrong. Its close to undriveable, and thus not fun at all. Sure, I know, I should learn to drive.
But seriously, the car is unpredictable, and "unstoppable". You need to take the longest braking distances with the car, like on impossible levels.
I am confident, that the cars physics are way off, if this car would behave like this in real life, all of those who purchased it should have died within the first 100km.
The brakes are so bad, even a Trabant would stop faster. This is imo the worst part of the car. The fact, that it tends do go sideways, would be acceptable, if you could manage to stop the car. As mentioned earlier, I do 7 laps of time Trial with each car, and try to do the fastest time possible with them...
I gave up after 15 laps with this one. I was still 3 secs slower then the potential laptime, spinning, or missing the braking point, or spinning on turn-in at least once every lap. If this car would be in the demo of Project Cars, and I would decide from the demo to buy the game, I would never, ever buy it.
My rating for the car would be: 2- out of 5. The only reason I did not give it a 1, is because it looks, and sounds nice.



Back to the categories: (in my opinion)
- BMW 2002, Ford Mustang Fastback are clearly not Hist. Touring cars, they are road cars, and can do comparable times to the Caterham 7 classic. (within 1 sec) They should be moved to Road D.
- Ford Mustang GT - no way the car is Road B, its much slower then that, yet would fit nicely into Road C1
- Audi A1 quattro - Its like 5-6 secs slower then any Road C1 car and should be moved to Road C2, as it is a bit slower then the Focus and the Megane, but still much more competitive against them, then against the BMW, EVO X, A45 or the Mustang GT.
- Audi 90 quattro IMSA GTO is way-way faster then the Trans-Am Mustang, either its restrictor should be adjusted, and made unchangeable, or the car should be in another category. They are not competitive against each other, as I can drive at least 6 seconds faster with the Audi, then with the Mustang.


Overall:
I was not really expecting much from the DLC, but it is clearly worth every "cent" I paid for it.
Overall the cars (expect the Yellowbird) are a lot more fun then I was expecting. A real nice job again SMS.

It's definately worth a buy ;)

Cheesenium
28-08-2015, 02:09
RUF CTR "Yellowbird" - My was actually green. This car is... well... a huge disappointment.
Sorry to say that, but the car is plain wrong. Its close to undriveable, and thus not fun at all. Sure, I know, I should learn to drive.
But seriously, the car is unpredictable, and "unstoppable". You need to take the longest braking distances with the car, like on impossible levels.
I am confident, that the cars physics are way off, if this car would behave like this in real life, all of those who purchased it should have died within the first 100km.

There is a reason why that generation of 911 Turbos are commonly known as widow makers. They are insane dangerous to drive at the limit and with poor safety features compared to modern cars, they are dangerous cars. If a CTR is predictable and easy to drive, that car isnt realistic at all.

A1 is generally fine, lack of top speed but it will overtake other cars in corners due to AWD. Might fit better in C2 with Focus and Megane but I think C1 is alright.

I dont think Mustang should moved down to C1, it competes decent with other cars other than the super lights, Caterham, BAC and Ariel Atom is a bit too fast for that class like the SLS and R8 at times. Maybe it might be better to move all the tin tops into a separate class called B2.

Road cars arent supposed to be perfectly balanced with each other as some cars are a little weaker or stronger from other cars in the class. Arguable, MP4-12C should not be in Road A because it is the slowest car in the pack but having it in Road B, it will outrun every Road B cars easily.

Audi 90 Quattro should go with Ford Mustang Trans Am, they competed in the same class in real life but not in the same year.

The only one that needs to be fixed is the Mustang 2+2 and BMW 2002 should be moved to Historic B in touring cars, not Road as suggested by the game's UI. Both cars fit the class very well and made the Historic B class more lively and the Mustang really needs racing liveries to suit that class's art style.. Touring cars do need more cars in their class so both should belong there as having only the pig and Escort in that class is quite boring. We do not need anymore road cars as the game has a lot more road cars than touring cars. Both BMW 2002 and Mustang(not the exact model) competed in touring cars in the past.

jason
28-08-2015, 02:14
So all round a pretty average and uninspiring DLC ...well done ..... keep it boring guys. People wait for patches and wait for fixes and this is what you come up with to keep players keen.

MillsLayne
28-08-2015, 02:19
So all round a pretty average and uninspiring DLC ...well done ..... keep it boring guys. People wait for patches and wait for fixes and this is what you come up with to keep players keen.

I honestly believe the really good stuff is coming, so I'll take the safe and boring for now with more to look forward to down the road.

Cheesenium
28-08-2015, 02:23
So all round a pretty average and uninspiring DLC ...well done ..... keep it boring guys. People wait for patches and wait for fixes and this is what you come up with to keep players keen.

It might be boring for you, but for me, this is possibly one of the best because almost every car is really fun to drive. While for next month's DLC, I personally think that the cars wont be as interesting as this month's one but if we are getting Redbull Ring, I am really happy too.

One man's meat is another man's poison.

t0daY
28-08-2015, 02:26
It might be boring for you, but for me, this is possibly one of the best because almost every car is really fun to drive. While for next month's DLC, I personally think that the cars wont be as interesting as this month's one but if we are getting Redbull Ring, I am really happy too.

One man's meat is another man's poison.

Agree with you... for me the best DLC so far :) :) :) The Mustang fastback 2+2... just... awesoooooome!! <3

The Yellowbird... More than amazing :)

Cheesenium
28-08-2015, 02:35
Agree with you... for me the best DLC so far :) :) :) The Mustang fastback 2+2... just... awesoooooome!! <3

The Yellowbird... More than amazing :)

Definitely, the only thing SMS needs to fix is move both Mustang 2+2 and 2002 into the touring cars tab in the game's car selection UI. Not sure why they only appear in road cars section. And the Mustang needs racing liveries as it is racing with the Historic B touring cars like Escort, 2002 and the piggy.

Knightfall
28-08-2015, 02:42
Agreed, this is one of the top DLCs available. Ignore the troll.

Agree also with NemethR on the Mustang GT. This car was the surprise of the pack for me. SUPER fun car to drive, and handles really well for a road car. My first 12 lap race out of the box was a blast.

All the cars are fun to drive. Another excellent job on DLC.

x ImJakeyy
28-08-2015, 02:42
My only issue is the Yellowbirds breaks, I tested on 2 tracks doing 5 lap races for YouTube videos, after 2 hard breaking zones the breaks were up to 1300F, personally I think that's too much?

Plus when starting from the grid they are already 650F, where in a practice they are 67F.

I had to do 1 slow lap just to drop the temps to 100F~ and then did one and only one flying lap. The breaks are good until you hit that 1300F mark.

jason
28-08-2015, 02:53
Agreed, this is one of the top DLCs available. Ignore the troll.

Agree also with NemethR on the Mustang GT. This car was the surprise of the pack for me. SUPER fun car to drive, and handles really well for a road car. My first 12 lap race out of the box was a blast.

All the cars are fun to drive. Another excellent job on DLC.

I'm a troll because I don't like the DLC ....... nice statement . I could call you plenty of names to but each and everyone of them would get me punted.

Sasquatch
28-08-2015, 02:54
Alright.


RUF RT-12 R Its a fun car, has a KERS icon, but no KERS - or it cannot be applied. It is 4WD, but the 4WD system feals rear-heavy, so the car behaves more like a RWD car.
I'm not sure if you know, but like the Audi 90-IMSA Quattro, it does not have KERS, but I guess you missed the post about it. Like the Audi - they applied the "KERS dynamics" to "replicate" the deployment of the AWD system. It's rear heavy, because you know... the weight of the engine is in the back.



RUF CTR "Yellowbird" - Its close to undriveable, and thus not fun at all. Sure, I know, I should learn to drive.
But seriously, the car is unpredictable, and "unstoppable". You need to take the longest braking distances with the car, like on impossible levels.
I am confident, that the cars physics are way off, if this car would behave like this in real life, all of those who purchased it should have died within the first 100km.
Should've researched this one before you tried it to set your expectations! It was known for not being easy at all, but utterly mad. Learning to drive is probably a plus, because it requires you to walk a fine line with it. But seriously, that generation is nicknamed a widowmaker for a reason. It will kill you. Brakes are crap? It's from 1987, it weighs nothing, weight is in the rear, and it's a lot of power. But it's pretty on point in terms of physics and my experience with a 70's to mid-80's Porsche 911.

Try it in Forza & GT, although their physics engine is worse. It's the same there. That's because it was known for it.

Would you believe the Yellowbird held the nordschleife record at one point? 8.05. On the D40's I was floating a 8.08ish. Spend time with it, it'll change your driving style, maybe it'll help you be little more conservative with your race craft. :very_drunk:

t0daY
28-08-2015, 02:57
I'm a troll because I don't like the DLC ....... nice statement . I could call you plenty of names to but each and everyone of them would get me punted.

"So all round a pretty average and uninspiring DLC ...well done ..... keep it boring guys..." well you gave him the perfect pass to set a goal :D :D Was a joke btw^^

Anyway everyone got his personal preferences and that is totally okay! Hopefully the next DLC fits more to your preferences :)

aerchak
28-08-2015, 03:29
I will echo what I said in the physics thread for this DLC.

The 2015 Mustang is a goddamn blast. A BLAST.

From everything I've heard, this seems like an at least moderately accurate rendition of what that car is like to drive in reality. The general consensus is that it may be the best muscle car ever produced.

I spent a few hours cutting laps around Nurburgring in it in time trials, and upon looking at the leaderboard, I'm actually first! :)

Trouble is there's only one other player. :(

Plage
28-08-2015, 03:44
The thing with the Yellowbird is if you aren't able to do about the same as in the following video with it, it's not implemented very well.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSMCfPASImQ

The discussion should actually end here but I'm sure somebody with a 1.5k Euro wheel, that also sat on the lap of Ferdinand Porsche himself while getting his head petted by Alois Ruf will tell me that I'm wrong.

Besides that. Dear PC crew please take a closer look at the video and note how tyre smoke actually looks when it's generated. It's not looking like puffs of cotton candy like it's currently in the game.

resmania
28-08-2015, 03:46
Besides that. Dear PC crew please take a closer look at the video and note how tyre smoke actually looks when it's generated. It's not looking like puffs of cotton candy like it's currently in the game.

You're right. pCARS smoke is not much different from the SHIFT's smoke effect. xD

Plage
28-08-2015, 03:50
To be honest. It's actually not really acceptable how it looks especially if you compare and but it into relation to the looks and effort they've put into the rain animations.

Cheesenium
28-08-2015, 03:53
Besides that. Dear PC crew please take a closer look at the video and note how tyre smoke actually looks when it's generated. It's not looking like puffs of cotton candy like it's currently in the game.

There was a point in the game's development where they have smokes that almost looked like the real one. It was put on the backburner because that new smoke tech, it absolutely tanks the frame rates that even Sli rigs had issues.

Maybe they will patch it in, like the new rain effects but this one is a lot harder to implement due to high resource usage.

aerchak
28-08-2015, 04:24
From what I understand, good, fluid looking smoke effects are incredibly expensive from a performance standpoint.

I remember one of the older Nascar games had really good ones for the time period, but my god did they eat your vram.

Plage
28-08-2015, 05:16
My system can pull this and still stays at 60 FPS (Vsync) but some tyre smoke will bring it to it's knees?

http://i.imgur.com/3wi6fAy.jpg

I really doubt it! They either have no clue how to generate and implement it properly or are simply using a much to performance hungry technique. Like said the rain works splendid and even got improved but tyre smoke is a problem in 2015 while games like GTL or GTR2 had better looking one and these are games from 2005/6? Nope, I'm not going to accept this justification, sorry.

Chevi
28-08-2015, 05:37
Nice DLC, I love the new "old" cars. :)

But I would like to drive them in career mode. Are thery any new invitationals or new contracts in career mode that allow chosing the new DLC-cars?

jason
28-08-2015, 05:42
My system can pull this and still stays at 60 FPS (Vsync) but some tyre smoke will bring it to it's knees?

http://i.imgur.com/3wi6fAy.jpg

I really doubt it! They either have no clue how to generate and implement it properly or are simply using a much to performance hungry technique. Like said the rain works splendid and even got improved but tyre smoke is a problem in 2015 while games like GTL or GTR2 had better looking one and these are games from 2005/6? Nope, I'm not going to accept this justification, sorry.

Agree with you on this one

resmania
28-08-2015, 05:46
Yes.. there's a lot of good example out there. For example DiRT Rally :)
All we want is more natural looking smoke not Physx smoke.

TenthDan
28-08-2015, 06:01
My system can pull this and still stays at 60 FPS (Vsync) but some tyre smoke will bring it to it's knees?

http://i.imgur.com/3wi6fAy.jpg

I really doubt it! They either have no clue how to generate and implement it properly or are simply using a much to performance hungry technique. Like said the rain works splendid and even got improved but tyre smoke is a problem in 2015 while games like GTL or GTR2 had better looking one and these are games from 2005/6? Nope, I'm not going to accept this justification, sorry.

Well, off you go to code it up then!...

The reason it's more intensive than your examples is because the smoke SMS created allowed shadowing and light pass-through, along with the smoke having 'volume,' then needed to be tweaked for performance.

It's fine to comment on what does and doesn't work/look right with the smoke, but proposing how 'easy' it should be is never a wise thing...

Plage
28-08-2015, 06:17
I'm a certified game artist so I can help with the visuals but not with the coding. If they are willing to pay somebody to get it done I think I can organize that.

The smoke in this game also has "volume". It's not just some flat sprites like you seem to think. Besides that it also allows light, shadow and background to pass through as you can clearly see in the screenshot provided.

I don't expect FumeFX smoke with millions of particles nor do I need anything realistic in the direction of Physx (f.e. smoke influenced by wind) but something that actually represents something close to smoke. Not some cotton candy puffs.

Cheesenium
28-08-2015, 06:25
My system can pull this and still stays at 60 FPS (Vsync) but some tyre smoke will bring it to it's knees?

I really doubt it! They either have no clue how to generate and implement it properly or are simply using a much to performance hungry technique. Like said the rain works splendid and even got improved but tyre smoke is a problem in 2015 while games like GTL or GTR2 had better looking one and these are games from 2005/6? Nope, I'm not going to accept this justification, sorry.

You might have a great system but what about the consoles or lower end PCs? What about the additional cost to optimise 3 platforms? The smoke pCARS had in alpha casts shadows with light refraction effects that was horribly optimised.

I am not asking you to accept my justification but there is not need to behave like that. If it so simple, why not you code it since you think SMS has no clue to develop one? There are plenty of off-the-shelf engines like Unreal 4 and Unity 5 for you to prove your point.

At the same time, that is a different genre with different priorities. pCARS has to render the track with all the track side objects, calculate the physics for your car, simulate day-night cycle with weather effects that affects your grip level along with dozens of AI on the track.

I dont even remember seeing a racing game with impressive smoke effects. Assetto Corsa had a slightly better one while Dirt Rally is better but no where as good as some older games like NFS Prostreet's 3D smoke that was very impressive at it's time. Or another upcoming racing game called Grip did have decent smoke effects but I dont think that was 3D smoke from the videos.

It is like saying why ARMA 3 still look like BF2 when BF4 can have impressive visuals.

jason
28-08-2015, 06:31
Get him on board , we me be able to have steam and flames when we cook the motor :boxing:

Plage
28-08-2015, 06:37
You might have a great system but what about the consoles or lower end PCs? What about the additional cost to optimise 3 platforms? The smoke pCARS had in alpha casts shadows with light refraction effects.

I am not asking you to accept my justification but there is not need to behave like that. If it so simple, why not you code it? There are plenty of off-the-shelf engines like Unreal 4 and Unity 5 for you to prove your point.

At the same time, that is a different genre with different priorities. pCARS has to render the track with all the track side objects, calculate the physics engine for your car, day-night cycle with weather effects that affects your grip level along with dozens of AI on the track.

It is like saying why ARMA 3 still look like BF2 when BF4 can have impressive visuals.

That's actually a good question but my POV is developers shouldn't cater for the low-end scale of things just to sell some more copies. This is especially true for games like this where many people have rigs and equipment worth multiple thousands of Euros but even if they do there are ways to have low and high performance options like in many other games.

Like said I'm a game artist. It's not my business. Simple as that. I'm also not going to invest any time in playing around in the UDK or what ever just to make a point. Time is money and I'm more interested to use my free time to play the game.

Oh yes, that's totally new terrain and was never done (in a better way) before. Stop the lame excuses, please. Fact is the smoke is subpar and not up to date and the "performance" reason just a prentended argument in my opinion.

flymar
28-08-2015, 06:42
Nice DLC, I love the new "old" cars. :)

But I would like to drive them in career mode. Are thery any new invitationals or new contracts in career mode that allow chosing the new DLC-cars?
Not in the release notes so probably not. But it's possible so maybe with next patch...

Cheesenium
28-08-2015, 06:50
That's actually a good question but my POV is developers shouldn't cater for the low-end scale of things just to sell some more copies. This is especially true for games like this where many people have rigs and equipment worth multiple thousands of Euros but even if they do there are ways to have low and high performance options like in many other games..

Why shouldnt games cater for low end hardware? Not everyone can afford an expensive PC while it makes zero sense in limiting the market to a small segment of the market. The wider audience that the market could cater, the more revenue for the game which also means that the game would be more content rich.

The old smoke effects isnt dropping a few frames, it literally cut the frames by half or more with one car on my old PC which is difficult to optimise. At the same time, they were also optimising rain and day-night cycle that is also a fairly difficult task. I rather have my day-night cycle than fancy smoke effects. Thank you, because this is a racing game not drifting.


Like said I'm a game artist. It's not my business. Simple as that. I'm also not going to invest any time in playing around in the UDK or what ever just to make a point. Time is money and I'm more interested to use my free time to play the game..

I am not a game developer, I did not go around calling "SMS has no clue" on how to do things. Please have some respect.

If it is so simple to do, they would have do it long time ago.


Oh yes, that's totally new terrain and was never done (in a better way) before. Stop the lame excuses, please. Fact is the smoke is subpar and not up to date and the "performance" reason just a prentended argument in my opinion.

I am not saying the current smoke effects are acceptable. In fact, I missed the old smoke effects because it makes really good screenshots.

It is just you saying that the smoke should be this good because you see it in another game doing better smoke effects. It doesnt mean that pCARS has to have the same thing. There are quite a few things that pCARS is doing better than it's competition which at the end, not all games are built equal.

I love BeamNG's damage effects, should I demand SMS to have the same damage system too? Why should I settle with ISI gMotor's legacy crumpled box damage system when BeamNG can have soft body deformation. There is even more 'lame" justification for that.

m355y
28-08-2015, 06:51
I bought it, at less that 3 you can't grumble and I was looking forward to giving the 320tc a go. Buy a sandwich, or the new DLC? Went for the DLC.

It's easily the least exciting pack so far though. It's only the BMW touring car that I'm ever going to give more than the odd blast around the Nurburgring when I'm in the mood, and that's not matched up with any other cars in its class.

Cheesenium
28-08-2015, 07:10
I bought it, at less that 3 you can't grumble and I was looking forward to giving the 320tc a go. Buy a sandwich, or the new DLC? Went for the DLC.

It's easily the least exciting pack so far though. It's only the BMW touring car that I'm ever going to give more than the odd blast around the Nurburgring when I'm in the mood, and that's not matched up with any other cars in its class.

Well, I thought this would be a boring pack too but this pack managed to surprised me. Initially, I only wanted both BMW touring cars but after giving each car a go, I am quite impressed with the pack in general.

The BMW 2002, it felt like a faster Escort with slightly worse handling in my first impression. Like the cars from the era it is also another hooligan on track.

The 2015 Mustang, I did not expect it to be this fun, especially at the corners. It feels like a proper American muscle to me which the game didnt really have one so far. The Mustang supposed to be a sophisticated car, however, it is designed to drive like a mad horse. Lots of fun with that car too, despite its a bit slow for me.

The 1966 Mustang is fun, lots of body roll and plenty of power but turns a little bit like a pig which added much needed variety to Historic B. The collision box is a little buggy so be careful of car contact.

The Ruf RT12 R is a souped up 911 GT3 RS with AWD, I find it to be quite a contrast to the Road A hypercars due to it's drive train. It is really fast and stable too.

The Yellowbird, there is already a thread with people praising how much fun this car is. I can understand why that particular generation of 911 is so deadly to the point some people called it widow maker. It is also fast to a point it was the world's fastest car but i find it to be quite twitchy and struggles to keep it going straight. It is good fun, IMO. My first lap with that car on Nords ended with a head on collision with a wall.

In contrast, the car that I was looking forward to the most, the BMW 320i WTCC was the most disappointing car in the pack. It feels a bit too tame while I kinda miss the turn in understeer that some WTCC touring cars and pCARS Clio car has as it is a RWD touring car.

I would recommend that you should give the other 5 a go. They are really fun cars, to be honest.

Plage
28-08-2015, 07:19
Why shouldnt games cater for low end hardware? Not everyone can afford an expensive PC while it makes zero sense in limiting the market to a small segment of the market. The wider audience that the market could cater, the more revenue for the game which also means that the game would be more content rich.

The old smoke effects isnt dropping a few frames, it literally cut the frames by half or more with one car on my old PC which is difficult to optimise. At the same time, they were also optimising rain and day-night cycle that is also a fairly difficult task. I rather have my day-night cycle than fancy smoke effects. Thank you, because this is a racing game not drifting.

I am not a game developer, I did not go around calling "SMS has no clue" on how to do things. Please have some respect.

If it is so simple to do, they would have do it long time ago.

I am not saying the current smoke effects are acceptable. In fact, I missed the old smoke effects because it makes really good screenshots.

It is just you saying that the smoke should be this good because you see it in another game doing better smoke effects. It doesnt mean that pCARS has to have the same thing. There are quite a few things that pCARS is doing better than it's competition which at the end, not all games are built equal.

I love BeamNG's damage effects, should I demand SMS to have the same damage system too? Why should I settle with ISI gMotor's legacy crumpled box damage system when BeamNG can have soft body deformation. There is even more 'lame" justification for that.

Because they always have to make exceptions to cater for the low-end part and with that you'll get things like the candy cotton smoke. Like I said if they thought it's necessary to bring this to the Xbone and PS there are other options like low and high end options that could have been implemented (like cotton candy for low-end and the described performance hungry version for the high-end). Don't be so limited in your view, please.

If it is/was then they unfortunately have no clue how to implement it correctly. This isn't even ment bad or disrespectful. It's simply a fact.
I'm not a fan of drifting either but if a car overbrakes or gets into a drift it's going to produce smoke. Another fact if you like it or not. It's all good that your focus is on rain and day-night cycles but you also have to understand the other side. I for example hate racing in the rain. It's a nice addition and greatly adds to the atmosphere and immersion but it's not something overly important for me while proper smoke actually is.

You seem to have the impression that I'm a hater but that's not the case. Be assured of this! What I'm also not is a mindless fanboy that says yes and amen to everything presented to me.

Ever came up with they idea that they maybe have nobody with the needed knowledge and experience in these things? Wouldn't be the first developer that's running into problems because of a small(er) budget and staff.

Then what are we talking about here and why do you lament against what I say if we finally have the same opinion? I really don't get it, sorry.

Sankyo
28-08-2015, 07:21
RUF CTR "Yellowbird" - My was actually green. This car is... well... a huge disappointment.
Sorry to say that, but the car is plain wrong. Its close to undriveable, and thus not fun at all. Sure, I know, I should learn to drive.
But seriously, the car is unpredictable, and "unstoppable". You need to take the longest braking distances with the car, like on impossible levels.
I am confident, that the cars physics are way off, if this car would behave like this in real life, all of those who purchased it should have died within the first 100km.
The brakes are so bad, even a Trabant would stop faster. This is imo the worst part of the car. The fact, that it tends do go sideways, would be acceptable, if you could manage to stop the car. As mentioned earlier, I do 7 laps of time Trial with each car, and try to do the fastest time possible with them...
I gave up after 15 laps with this one. I was still 3 secs slower then the potential laptime, spinning, or missing the braking point, or spinning on turn-in at least once every lap. If this car would be in the demo of Project Cars, and I would decide from the demo to buy the game, I would never, ever buy it.
My rating for the car would be: 2- out of 5. The only reason I did not give it a 1, is because it looks, and sounds nice.

As the others already said, this car is a beast so you should adapt your driving to it. I drove it yesterday on the Nords and I was surprised how drivable it is when you use the throttle with a bit of care. Even the braking performance was better than I expected, nothing that would make it anywhere near undrivable.

In short, I cannot relate at all to your observation/opinion, so I'm inclined to say "it's you, not the car" at this moment. A video with telemetry HUD enabled could help to identify your (possible) issue, though.



So all round a pretty average and uninspiring DLC ...well done ..... keep it boring guys. People wait for patches and wait for fixes and this is what you come up with to keep players keen.
Be a good sport and at least include "in my opinion" and "others may think differently" when writing things like this, and leave out the judgment. Opinion != truth.

resmania
28-08-2015, 07:25
I drove it yesterday on the Nords and I was surprised how drivable it is when you use the throttle with a bit of care.


Yes. I was stuck at 2nd-3rd gear most of the time and drove like I'm on a rally car. Micro throttle management. It really helps.

Sankyo
28-08-2015, 07:32
Because they always have to make exceptions to cater for the low-end part and with that you'll get things like the candy cotton smoke. Like I said if they thought it's necessary to bring this to the Xbone and PS there are other options like low and high end options that could have been implemented (like cotton candy for low-end and the described performance hungry version for the high-end). Don't be so limited in your view, please.

If it is/was then they unfortunately have no clue how to implement it correctly. This isn't even ment bad or disrespectful. It's simply a fact.
I'm not a fan of drifting either but if a car overbrakes or gets into a drift it's going to produce smoke. Another fact if you like it or not. It's all good that your focus is on rain and day-night cycles but you also have to understand the other side. I for example hate racing in the rain. It's a nice addition and greatly adds to the atmosphere and immersion but it's not something overly important for me while proper smoke actually is.

You seem to have the impression that I'm a hater but that's not the case. Be assured of this! What I'm also not is a mindless fanboy that says yes and amen to everything presented to me.

Ever came up with they idea that they maybe have nobody with the needed knowledge and experience in these things? Wouldn't be the first developer that's running into problems because of a small(er) budget and staff.

Then what are we talking about here and why do you lament against what I say if we finally have the same opinion? I really don't get it, sorry.
People like Cheesenium have been part of the development process for years, so he has seen what the devs can and cannot do, and the decisions made for certain reasons. We have seen the discussions and considerations, constraints and decisions on the smoke tech, quite some time was spent on it. Stating that SMS have no clue how to implement proper smoke is a rash statement only based on your dislike of the current smoke tech and not based on any facts. The only thing possibly true is that SMS didn't have enough time/resources to optimize the smoke tech as well as possible, as it didn't have high enough priority.

As for the smoke tech and cotton candy puffs: computer games are discrete in time, hence anything that happens on-screen has discrete steps, including smoke generation. There are ways to disguise this, but it will always consist of discrete puffs that are blended together. The more puffs and the more blending to disguise the discrete behaviour, the bigger the performance impact.

antraxx25
28-08-2015, 07:39
Ford Mustang GT - I did not have any big hopes for this one, but I am very suprised. the Sound of the car is not a typical 5liter sound, it sound much more like a race car, it handles very well, its a pleasure to drive, has good brakes too, you can really dive deep into the braking zones, and the car stops. I love driving most of the road cars, and this Mustang is clearly one of my favorites now.
But this is also in the wrong category. No way is the Mustang a Road B, it can do lap times, that would make it fit into Road C1. It is much slower than any other Road B car. So this should also be fixed, judging from the laptimes, it should be in the Road C1 category.
My rating: 4+ out of 5




I also love this car, the driving pleasure is absolutely good but the sounds are very similar to BMW Z4 GT3 if you use the helmet or cockpit cam. In 3rd person view a bit better but it's far from the original sounds.
if in the next patch will improve the sound I give a 4 ++ out of 5 ;)

maurice-pascale
28-08-2015, 07:42
@ nemethR

I agree with you.....i drived yesterday a 10 lap race on laguna seca with the Mustang GT (17 AI driver) and i must say the GT is in a totally wrong class, i drived very clear and so fast i could go with the GT and was still 16/18 place....all others infront of me where 10 seconds away....and the last 4 drivers in the race where all Mustang GT's....so this car is clearly to slow for ROAD B

also with the Yellowbird....absolutelly undriveable....sljdes everytime and everywhere....if i am slow in corners or fast...it is horrible!

Cheesenium
28-08-2015, 08:08
Because they always have to make exceptions to cater for the low-end part and with that you'll get things like the candy cotton smoke. Like I said if they thought it's necessary to bring this to the Xbone and PS there are other options like low and high end options that could have been implemented (like cotton candy for low-end and the described performance hungry version for the high-end). Don't be so limited in your view, please.

So, it is wrong to cater for a wider audience? Why must it be designed to cater only a small portion of players?

This isnt even about having low/high options, the problem with the 3D smoke was, it was woefully unoptimised because it halves your frames easily. It is pre-alpha quality feature that is not remotely ready for public consumption. Even with 3 way SLi 980 GTX and that feature enabled, I doubt you can run that with 50 cars in a storm on Nords in 1080p 60fps.

When you are working in a project, there are always compromises to be made. Unfortunately, enhanced smoke was one of them along with dozens of features tested in pre-alpha. There are still some features that I really wanted that was canned early on.

You said you are a game artist, you should be the one telling me why it was possibly canned. Not me, a civil engineer telling you who barely knows anything about programming and software development in general, unless you call Visual Basic as programming.


If it is/was then they unfortunately have no clue how to implement it correctly.

Again, if you think you have more clue than a 100 employees studio, then, I would like to see you prove that it is possible. Please no more "I am a game artist and a busy man so I got no time" excuse.


I'm not a fan of drifting either but if a car overbrakes or gets into a drift it's going to produce smoke. Another fact if you like it or not. It's all good that your focus is on rain and day-night cycles but you also have to understand the other side. I for example hate racing in the rain. It's a nice addition and greatly adds to the atmosphere and immersion but it's not something overly important for me while proper smoke actually is.

Because rain with day-night cycle is a much crucial feature in motorsports than fancy smoke effects. I am sorry that you do not think this way but the whole rain with day-night cycle adds a lot more depth to the game than a fancy visual effects.

Also, I am not a fan of rain driving as it makes the driving difficult for me. I am not denying that it is a crucial part of motorsport that should have higher priority than resource intensive visual effects.


You seem to have the impression that I'm a hater but that's not the case. Be assured of this! What I'm also not is a mindless fanboy that says yes and amen to everything presented to me.

Right, name calling again. How do I be a "mindless fanboy" when I am actually enjoy another racing game more than pCARS because that game does something much better than pCARS? On the other hand, I had never said that you are a hater.

Also, you have not seen my arguments with SMS way back in the Shift 2 and WMD days, I never agree with SMS on every single thing to a point that Ian Bell wanted to boot me out. I have my own list of criticisms with the game, however, I do not go around calling people "clueless" and "mindless fanboy" when they disagree with me or did not do what I wanted.


Then what are we talking about here and why do you lament against what I say if we finally have the same opinion? I really don't get it, sorry.

I dont expect you to agree with me entirely, I hope you could understand why from my perspective of following this project for the last 4 years.

Please, I would appreciate if you could show some respect.

thegt500
28-08-2015, 08:23
The BMW 2002, it felt like a faster Escort with slightly worse handling in my first impression. Like the cars from the era it is also another hooligan on track.

The 1966 Mustang is fun, lots of body roll and plenty of power but turns a little bit like a pig which added much needed variety to Historic B. The collision box is a little buggy so be careful of car contact.

Your observation on the BMW 2002 is exactly the same as mine. Brilliant low speed tin top excitement, especially around Zolder.
The '66 Mustang definitely needs it's collision detection fixed, along with the Escort RS1600. The 'climb and roll' effect of the Escort was supposed to have been addressed in patch 2.0, but it never was. It seems the Mustang suffers the same fate.
Try a historic TC race online and watch what happens to the Escorts and Mustangs when they rub together, or against the Mercedes or BMW 2002. It's a total mess with either Ford flipping, rolling and generally breaking apart at even relatively low speeds.
This definitely needs addressing SMSooner rather than later !

Cheesenium
28-08-2015, 08:24
@ nemethR

I agree with you.....i drived yesterday a 10 lap race on laguna seca with the Mustang GT (17 AI driver) and i must say the GT is in a totally wrong class, i drived very clear and so fast i could go with the GT and was still 16/18 place....all others infront of me where 10 seconds away....and the last 4 drivers in the race where all Mustang GT's....so this car is clearly to slow for ROAD B

also with the Yellowbird....absolutelly undriveable....sljdes everytime and everywhere....if i am slow in corners or fast...it is horrible!

It is more of a matter of the 3 super light track day cars, BAC Mono, Caterham R500 and Ariel Atom are faster than most cars in Road B. The Mustang GT competes quite well with SLS, Yellowbird and R8 for me which I had decent battles with them last night. A little slower than RGT8 and F1 but its manageable. Maybe it is better to move these 3 super lights to a separate class from the tin tops so there will be a more equal performance among those tin tops. I had 2 races with Mustang GT with 30 cars, I could get up to top 8 for both races.

The road cars in pCARS are not perfectly balanced like touring cars or GTs because road cars are not designed to a set of rules and regulations. It is difficult to balance them while it make no sense to restrict their force induction with valves or put weight ballast like how you balance a race cars.

Most of them are either a little faster or slower than other cars in the same class. There are extreme circumstances where cars like Mclaren F1 outpace every Road B car and competitive with Road A cars on some tracks. I remember I was driving a Lykan with a Mclaren F1 was tailing me for more than half the race on Dubai GP while in a more curvy road like Caldwell, F1 is incredibly slow. That car has a great engine, it also has rubbish tires and poor suspension which is done to mimic the real car.


Your observation on the BMW 2002 is exactly the same as mine. Brilliant low speed tin top excitement, especially around Zolder.
The '66 Mustang definitely needs it's collision detection fixed, along with the Escort RS1600. The 'climb and roll' effect of the Escort was supposed to have been addressed in patch 2.0, but it never was. It seems the Mustang suffers the same fate.
Try a historic TC race online and watch what happens to the Escorts and Mustangs when they rub together, or against the Mercedes or BMW 2002. It's a total mess with either Ford flipping, rolling and generally breaking apart at even relatively low speeds.
This definitely needs addressing SMSooner rather than later !

Agreed, it has to be fixed.

Historic B is great fun now with 4 different cars that drives differently. Please keep both Mustang and 2002 there.

I enjoy Historic B more than Group A now, because each car is insane in their own ways.

Paulo Ribeiro
28-08-2015, 08:29
Tested all cars yesterday for a few minutes each one.
IMO, they all are fantastic to drive, period.
Each one has it own driving stile and we have to adapt to it. Simple.
I guess some people don't understand that different cars of different eras, with different engine positions, different traction axel, different weight, different height, different width, different gravity center, different tires, different chassis, different... Sorry for so many 'differents', should and might have different :rolleyes: maneuverability. Simple.

Thank you so much SMS, for my preferred DLC cars, so far. ;)

Paulpg87
28-08-2015, 08:38
Nice DLC, I love the new "old" cars. :)

But I would like to drive them in career mode. Are thery any new invitationals or new contracts in career mode that allow chosing the new DLC-cars?

Yes there are, i don't get why people say no.. probably because they are moaning about a DLC they did not even buy..

You can use both the BMW Turbo and the old mustang in the Old touring invitational events but Escort and Mercedes are way faster, so pretty useless if you're playing at 80-100% AI level

Plus, there is a dedicated invitational event, made of different rounds ( silver accolade). A short championship with the BMW 320 touring.

Overall, as i play only career mode, it's a pretty average DLC for me. I would like to have more invitational events related to those cars and forcing you to use them. I don't think i will ever drive any the of the DLC cars of this pack expect for the BMW 320 (due to the invitational).... ah probably the yellowbird in the community event.

Tomcul
28-08-2015, 08:43
5 cars for €3.49....there's nothing to complain about here. Love it. Totally disagree with the first poster about the yellowbird I found it very nice to drive, old school turbo power.. You can't expect it to handle like a new car..

LukeC
28-08-2015, 09:18
For me this dlc is only of value as a nostalgic curiosity. I'm really finding the cars quite tedious to drive (I've been driving the sauber c9 and lotus 98t exclusively for three weeks before this dlc, so that didn't help) perhaps with exception of the ruf yellowbird. I'm not an oval racing fan or anything but I think the time has come for some oval content, Indy 500 would be great, just to make PC a more complete experience. I'm sure the "old bangers" in this dlc will grow on me, but generally speaking I get an infinitely bigger buzz out of driving high performance race cars.

NemethR
28-08-2015, 09:18
...

Caterham, BAC and Ariel Atom is a bit too fast for that class like the SLS and R8 at times. Maybe it might be better to move all the tin tops into a separate class called B2.


Yes, I think a "Trackday category, or oad TD for those would be nice, as they are really comparable on times.


It is more of a matter of the 3 super light track day cars, BAC Mono, Caterham R500 and Ariel Atom are faster than most cars in Road B. The Mustang GT competes quite well with SLS, Yellowbird and R8 for me which I had decent battles with them last night. A little slower than RGT8 and F1 but its manageable. Maybe it is better to move these 3 super lights to a separate class from the tin tops so there will be a more equal performance among those tin tops. I had 2 races with Mustang GT with 30 cars, I could get up to top 8 for both races.



I start to have a feeling we are plaing different games.
The Mono, Caterham, and Atom are on some tracks faster, on other tracks slower then the "normal" Road B cars.
I agree they should be in a seperate category tough, it would me much more fun.

BUT the Mustang is no way competitive with the SLS, Audi or RUF.
The BEST time I managed with the car, the one, I enjoyed most to drive is 4 seconds slower on Zolder, and 3 seconds slower at Brands Hatch, then what the SLS/R8/RUF can do.

From those times, the car would fit, and compete well with the Road C1 cars, as I could achieve very similar times with them.



Audi 90 Quattro should go with Ford Mustang Trans Am, they competed in the same class in real life but not in the same year.


This is not true. the Trans-Am series, and the IMSA GTO series were two completly seperate racing series in the US.
Different tules, different cars.
Audi competed in the Trans-AM series in 1988, and in the GTO series in 1989. Dominated both.
But the car that raced against the mustang it the Audi 200 Trans-Am quattro.




The only one that needs to be fixed is the Mustang 2+2 and BMW 2002 should be moved to Historic B in touring cars, not Road as suggested by the game's UI. Both cars fit the class very well and made the Historic B class more lively and the Mustang really needs racing liveries to suit that class's art style.. Touring cars do need more cars in their class so both should belong there as having only the pig and Escort in that class is quite boring. We do not need anymore road cars as the game has a lot more road cars than touring cars. Both BMW 2002 and Mustang(not the exact model) competed in touring cars in the past.

But these are ROAD cars in the game, take a look at the interior of them, ok, the BMW COULD be maybe a bit racing like, but the Mustang is clearly a Road car.
Also both are 5-6 secs slower then the Escort, and the Merc.



...

I'm not sure if you know, but like the Audi 90-IMSA Quattro, it does not have KERS, but I guess you missed the post about it. Like the Audi - they applied the "KERS dynamics" to "replicate" the deployment of the AWD system. It's rear heavy, because you know... the weight of the engine is in the back.

...

The fact that they used the KERS system (imo, just a wrong aproach), and tha fact, that the car indicates to the player, that it has KERS are two seperate things.

A Player mostly does not care what system they used to simulate the AWD system, but if I have an indicator, that the car has KERS, then it:
a.) Should have it, and working
b.) the indicator should be removed.

I knew about the fact how SMS simulates AWD, but still that icon needs to go, its confusing players.



You might have a great system but what about the consoles or lower end PCs? What about the additional cost to optimise 3 platforms?

Just make it optional.
Smoke effects: Low - HIGH

Plage
28-08-2015, 09:32
So, it is wrong to cater for a wider audience? Why must it be designed to cater only a small portion of players?

This isnt even about having low/high options, the problem with the 3D smoke was, it was woefully unoptimised because it halves your frames easily. It is pre-alpha quality feature that is not remotely ready for public consumption. Even with 3 way SLi 980 GTX and that feature enabled, I doubt you can run that with 50 cars in a storm on Nords in 1080p 60fps.

When you are working in a project, there are always compromises to be made. Unfortunately, enhanced smoke was one of them along with dozens of features tested in pre-alpha. There are still some features that I really wanted that was canned early on.

You said you are a game artist, you should be the one telling me why it was possibly canned. Not me, a civil engineer telling you who barely knows anything about programming and software development in general, unless you call Visual Basic as programming.

Again, if you think you have more clue than a 100 employees studio, then, I would like to see you prove that it is possible. Please no more "I am a game artist and a busy man so I got no time" excuse.

Because rain with day-night cycle is a much crucial feature in motorsports than fancy smoke effects. I am sorry that you do not think this way but the whole rain with day-night cycle adds a lot more depth to the game than a fancy visual effects.

Also, I am not a fan of rain driving as it makes the driving difficult for me. I am not denying that it is a crucial part of motorsport that should have higher priority than resource intensive visual effects.

Right, name calling again. How do I be a "mindless fanboy" when I am actually enjoy another racing game more than pCARS because that game does something much better than pCARS? On the other hand, I had never said that you are a hater.

Also, you have not seen my arguments with SMS way back in the Shift 2 and WMD days, I never agree with SMS on every single thing to a point that Ian Bell wanted to boot me out. I have my own list of criticisms with the game, however, I do not go around calling people "clueless" and "mindless fanboy" when they disagree with me or did not do what I wanted.

I dont expect you to agree with me entirely, I hope you could understand why from my perspective of following this project for the last 4 years.

Please, I would appreciate if you could show some respect.

Generally yes because it means you'll always have to make compromises. Lets take the game the screenshot I posted is from (namely War Thunder) as example. There you've something that's called ultra low quality (ULQ) for graphics (basically everything related to graphics set to the lowest possible option) which will give you unfair advantages in ground forces because you simply won't have the grass and bushes displayed like you would on a higher setting and this allows to shoot people you normally wouldn't even be able to see. After more than a year of community rage they now finally are going to implement something to get rid of this unfair advantage. Of course that's not directly relating to the problem here but it shows one of negative aspects when you try to cater for everybody. But like I said I can understand that they wanted to make the most cash possible but then they've to adapt and deliver more than one solution in my opinion.

Then they maybe were using the wrong approach? Tell me how is it possible that a game like GTA V with all the stuff going on in the background is able to have proper smoke even on the console versions but this game here isn't? You can't and you say yourself that it's "unoptimised".

Oh, really? Tell me something new. Proper smoke is one of the most essential features or better effects in such a game. Especially if the rest looks as good as it does. I'm sorry that you can't see this.

I already told you why. Because they've nobody who knows how to do it properly. In fact your skills in VB have more to do with software development than my skills in creating 3d models, textures and so on. That just as a side note.

I don't need to prove it's possible simply because there are enough examples out there that have it right. Besides that it's not the job of a game artist to create this kind of smoke. At least not for the type I am.

No, it's not. Proper smoke is more essential than the things you mention. Simply because it's a basic feature (a "must") while rain and day-night cycles are "nice to haves".

You obviously have comprehension problems. Where did I adress you in this part, eh? I was talking about me and nobody else here.

No, I really don't know what was going on during the development but considering it started more than four years ago and there had to be tons of input from the community in some cases even work done by it the result isn't really "mind blowing" if you can get what I mean.

I can understand that other people have other preferences. It's you that tries to force your opinion on me. So, please start to dig on your own property before bringing your shovel over to mine.

stangnutlx
28-08-2015, 09:40
the one thing that annoys me about the Mustang GT is the transmission whine. It doesn't have transmission whine in real life. The drive line is completely silent!

Cheesenium
28-08-2015, 10:33
But these are ROAD cars in the game, take a look at the interior of them, ok, the BMW COULD be maybe a bit racing like, but the Mustang is clearly a Road car.
Also both are 5-6 secs slower then the Escort, and the Merc.

Touring cars back in the 60s do not have extensive modification like what modern race cars have now. They look almost similar to a road car. 300SL even had wood trim in the car that isnt removed and yet it is in Historic B.

It is probably a bug that both cars are put in the wrong class.



Then they maybe were using the wrong approach? Tell me how is it possible that a game like GTA V with all the stuff going on in the background is able to have proper smoke even on the console versions but this game here isn't? You can't and you say yourself that it's "unoptimised".

Now you are comparing a game with 200 million dollars budget to a game that is made with a tiny fraction of what GTA had. It is an unfair comparison to begin with.


Oh, really? Tell me something new. Proper smoke is one of the most essential features or better effects in such a game. Especially if the rest looks as good as it does. I'm sorry that you can't see this.

I am sorry, I still put day-night cycle with rain over proper smoke.

I am racing in a game, not looking at smoke effects.


I already told you why. Because they've nobody who knows how to do it properly. In fact your skills in VB have more to do with software development than my skills in creating 3d models, textures and so on. That just as a side note.

Assumptions again. Are you done with that?

VB is not programming, it has more in common with scripting than actual programming. If you call writing a macro in Excel as programming in similar scope as writing a game, then, I have nothing to say other than you really do not know much about software development.


I don't need to prove it's possible simply because there are enough examples out there that have it right. Besides that it's not the job of a game artist to create this kind of smoke. At least not for the type I am.

Isnt it the same "I am a game artist and a busy man so I got no time" excuse?


You obviously have comprehension problems. Where did I adress you in this part, eh? I was talking about me and nobody else here.

Oh right, more insults towards my direction. Do you have anything to add other than more insults?


No, I really don't know what was going on during the development but considering it started more than four years ago and there had to be tons of input from the community in some cases even work done by it the result isn't really "mind blowing" if you can get what I mean.

There are tonnes of input but out of 10,000+ backers, no one thinks that fancy smoke is essential. Or at least they were understanding enough to know that it wasnt the top priority. It is only you who kept harping that smoke is utterly essential in a racing game because War Thunder and GTAV have fancy smoke.

That is subjective, the work SMS done for the game is pretty good for a studio with a fairly small budget. Definitely not mind blowingly perfect because there is always room to improve, i say it is a well done job while fulfill most of the goals they set.


I can understand that other people have other preferences. It's you that tries to force your opinion on me. So, please start to dig on your own property before bringing your shovel over to mine.

Arent you doing the same? Forcing me to believe that rain is totally optional while smoke is completely essential features. No thanks, there are tonnes of games out there without rain or day-night cycle, I dont want to see pCARS to have the same limitation.

In the mean time, being rude to other members of the forum.

Jussi Viljami Karjalainen
28-08-2015, 10:48
The Ruf RT12 R is a souped up 911 GT3 RS with AWD, I find it to be quite a contrast to the Road A hypercars due to it's drive train. It is really fast and stable too.Considering the turbo and the power level, I always thought of it as essentially an enhanced AWD 911 GT2 RS. =)

John Hargreaves
28-08-2015, 11:04
I think the Historic Touring category has had a real shot in the arm with this DLC. Just shows that you need a minimum of about four different cars in any given category to make it look right. Sure the 2002 is a bit on the slow side, but you can tweak the AI or just battle for 13th, either way it's a blast and the replays look amazing now with all the different cars. I still wouldn't say no to a few more historic TCs though, the more the merrier.

Plage
28-08-2015, 11:26
Now you are comparing a game with 200 million dollars budget to a game that is made with a tiny fraction of what GTA had. It is an unfair comparison to begin with.

I am sorry, I still put day-night cycle with rain over proper smoke.

I am racing in a game, not looking at smoke effects.

Assumptions again. Are you done with that?

VB is not programming, it has more in common with scripting than actual programming. If you call writing a macro in Excel as programming in similar scope as writing a game, then, I have nothing to say other than you really do not know much about software development.

Isnt it the same "I am a game artist and a busy man so I got no time" excuse?

Oh right, more insults towards my direction. Do you have anything to add other than more insults?

There are tonnes of input but out of 10,000+ backers, no one thinks that fancy smoke is essential. Or at least they were understanding enough to know that it wasnt the top priority. It is only you who kept harping that smoke is utterly essential in a racing game because War Thunder and GTAV have fancy smoke.

That is subjective, the work SMS done for the game is pretty good for a studio with a fairly small budget. Definitely not mind blowingly perfect because there is always room to improve, i say it is a well done job while fulfill most of the goals they set.

Arent you doing the same? Forcing me to believe that rain is totally optional while smoke is completely essential features. No thanks, there are tonnes of games out there without rain or day-night cycle, I dont want to see pCARS to have the same limitation.

In the mean time, being rude to other members of the forum.

How much bigger in content is GTA compared to PC? How much of the mentioned amount of money was actually reserved for marketing?

Your opinion.

I'm also racing in game and have to look at cotton candy.

Your argumentation is flawed. You asked me why it was possibly canned and I gave you a reason. How should I know what the real reason actually is? I told you that I doubt it has to do with performance in general. If that's the reason we're back to poor implementation or "no clue".

I'm sorry that you aren't able to understand the differences and the reason I gave for not wasting time on this.

Some people really get insulted very easily. Some get insulted by the truth. Fact is you've comprehension problems. Face it!

Alone this thread here with at least few people agreeing with me shows that you're wrong. Of course it wasn't top priority. First the cars have to drive straight before things like this get touched but seeing how much effort they've put into updating the rain I can't understand why they didn't do the same for the smoke. Do the words "industry standard" ring any bell with you? I guess not.

Yes, I know about this "small team", "family business" and all the other excuses but if you're going to develop such a game you can't release half-baked stuff. Especially if you've such a big community which is actively working with and for you. That's at least how it should be. That this isn't the case in reality is written on an other piece of paper.

No, and there we're back at your comprehension problems. I'm not forcing anybody. I already said that I can understand that other people have other priorities and preferences. It's you that's unable to get this obviously.

Rude? Sorry, that I'm not talking flowers only. Has to be a hard and cruel world for you if you already get so effected by a discussion in an online forum like this.

Dasidnii
28-08-2015, 12:11
Yeah, I was quite disappointed by this DLC. I want more GT cars and such, not cars that I will drive once and never drive again. I really hope that they are pushing out some of the boring stuff to start and are saving the good shit for last, because other than the Indy Car DLC, the future doesn't look very good. But these guys are very good when it comes to surprises, so you never know.

Plage
28-08-2015, 12:25
Back on topic. Just took the 2002 for a spin on the NOS and this car alone is already worth the money for the DLC as it's so much fun to drive it. Now it just needs some proper competition in its class.

Off to test the Widowmaker now.

Knightfall
28-08-2015, 12:39
I'm a troll because I don't like the DLC ....... nice statement . I could call you plenty of names to but each and everyone of them would get me punted.

No, you are showing how much of a troll you are by offering inaccurate statements of no substance. Then, you whine about you not liking the DLC and having to wait for a patch, while toss a cheap jab at the devs.

Call me whatever you want, you are a joke.

Scott Coffey
28-08-2015, 13:01
Loving the new (old) Mustang fastback. I had a non-fastback version (that was actually a bit quicker than the in-game version due to many mods. :)) of the same car and it's pretty damn convincing. I feel sorry for anyone not using an H-shifter though, 'cause there's really no other way to drive this thing. Great job Casey and Doug. :yes:

MrTulip
28-08-2015, 13:55
Being a fan of all cars historic I'm completely sold to this DLC. Real classics with character. Sounds and visuals are superb. Will properly know about any weirdos in the handling only after hundreds of laps, but after an hour or two of testing I'm a veddy veddy happy puppy.

Toddy65
28-08-2015, 14:20
This is my first post here and I have to say to this member that whether or not you like racing in the rain it is a part of racing as is smoke being produced from a slide going round corners etc. I mean, put yourself as a driver in the real world where the race starts off in the dry but part way through it starts to rain you have to deal with it. It is to easy to set the weather to dry and sunny and race with slicks to achieve high lap times but setting the weather to random is a test of your driver skills which is what you build up by playing the game. Your smoke issue is one that at least can be addressed by SMS but you learning to race in the rain will just enhance the pleasure you get from playing the game eventually if you will just try. Please know that I am not criticising you or the way you play, I am just just thinking out loud about the way the game makers want us to play the game and that they know that they don't get it right every time or all of the time. :welcoming:

Plage
28-08-2015, 15:21
You're right with what you say. Like I said I don't like racing in the rain (as much as I do in the dry) but that doesn't means I don't do it. I'd actually say the major thing that makes me dislike racing in rain in this game isn't the more difficult handling, lowered visibility or things like that but simply the unfair advantages the AI gets under such conditions.

/edit: Btw, the CTR is really great to drive and it should be possible (for a more skilled driver than me) to drive it about like shown in the video I posted. Just not with the Denlocs. ;)

Linus27
28-08-2015, 20:10
I wasn't going to get this DLC as the cars didn't really interest me but I am weak and took the plunge and boy am I pleased I did. I've not tried all the cars but I have spent all afternoon racing the BMW 2002 with the other historics and what incredible fun it is. This class is just amazing now and I love the David and Goliath type battles where the Merc and Mustang clear off on the straights only to be caught up in the twisties by the BMW and Escort.

I also agree, it would be nice to have some racing skins for the Mustang.

Please please SMS, give us a Mini Cooper to add to this class. It would be such an fun car and really enhance this group of car. This is now one of the most fun classes of cars in the game.

MuddyPaws73
29-08-2015, 00:58
I would like to read other's opinions about the Mustang Fastback handling characteristics. I use to own a '67 Fastback and although I never drove one on a track, I did exercise it pretty well on numerous back roads. Although its been decades ago, I don't remember it handling anything like it does in this game. I've tried numerous setups, but nothing really seems to "feel" like the car I remember.

The best way I can describe the feeling I get is... I use to own a boat and the Mustang Fastback handling in this game reminds me more of the boat than the car.;)

aerchak
29-08-2015, 01:48
I love the comparisons of pCars to other games in terms of hardware performance.

My engine guy (building the 347ci for my Mustang) built a Camaro that can do the 1/4 mile in 7 seconds, and he did it for less than a hundred grand!

Can someone please tell me why the Ferrari SF15-T can't match that time even though they spent tens of millions of dollars developing it?

Oh, I suppose you're going to tell me that just because they're both cars doesn't mean they're for the same thing, or that it's not always fair to compare. Bah. Nonsense. This is the internet, where there's no such thing as a false equivalence.

Sasquatch
29-08-2015, 02:37
I love the comparisons of pCars to other games in terms of hardware performance.

My engine guy (building the 347ci for my Mustang) built a Camaro that can do the 1/4 mile in 7 seconds, and he did it for less than a hundred grand!

Can someone please tell me why the Ferrari SF15-T can't match that time even though they spent tens of millions of dollars developing it?

Oh, I suppose you're going to tell me that just because they're both cars doesn't mean they're for the same thing, or that it's not always fair to compare. Bah. Nonsense. This is the internet, where there's no such thing as a false equivalence.
I'll bite.

There's a modern F1, let alone a SF15T quarter time? Had no idea. Their 0-60 is somewhere in the low 2 to sub-2 second range.

Can that MustangCamaro do 4+g's in a corner? Probably not even close. Can that MustangCamaro last consistently over the span of 3 or 4 race-mile distances? Probably not.

This is the internet, logic applies negatively unless proven that your engines guys barn build will probably fall apart.

aerchak
29-08-2015, 04:27
I'll bite.

There's a modern F1, let alone a SF15T quarter time? Had no idea. Their 0-60 is somewhere in the low 2 to sub-2 second range.

Can that MustangCamaro do 4+g's in a corner? Probably not even close. Can that MustangCamaro last consistently over the span of 3 or 4 race-mile distances? Probably not.

This is the internet, logic applies negatively unless proven that your engines guys barn build will probably fall apart.

Sigh... God. Dammit.

The point is that both are fast cars, but they are very different kinds of fast cars. Strictly speaking, the 1800hp Camaro with wrinkle walls is "more powerful," and would likely obliterate the F1 car in a 1/4 mile race, but the F1 car is clearly the "faster" car, as it can do an assload more in overall terms of automotive performance. The Camaro is faster in one type of race. The F1 car is faster in literally every other type of race.

Since it's clear that I'm going to have to do this anyway, I'll just completely explain:

Yes, there are many games that are not quite as demanding in terms of hardware requirements in comparison to Project Cars, and yes, some of those games look better. Exactly zero of those games have physics at work that is comparable to pCars. People think that performance in an application is limited strictly to graphical fidelity, and that's what begets dumbass arguments like this.

One type of game is "more simple," but in depth, and the other is apparently more elaborate on the surface, but much less involved underneath. So when actual professional software developers explain to you the reasons for the required hardware, it's best to not just mumble something about them being incompetent and wave your hands around as a response.

Final note: My engine guy's Camaro has earned him over 30 bronze statues of Wally Parks. It's not falling apart any time soon.

Awong124
29-08-2015, 05:05
I actually found the CTR to be drivable, but the RT12R not so much. I agree with your points about the categories though. The thing with the snap oversteer on the 320 is that I found it very easy to tune it out with suspension and diff settings, then it becomes a very enjoyable car to drive. My favorite car in the DLC is definitely the 320. I like driving the race cars more than the road cars.

Gejabo
29-08-2015, 06:59
When I looked at it I thought it would be a boring dlc apart from the BMW 2002.
But for that price I bought it anyway, and to my surprise I really like driving the RUFs.
A bit of a handful but a lot of fun.

The new one (keep forgetting the type) hits the wall when leaving the pits befor you have control at the Nordshleife.
But that can be fixed.

The BMW wtcc is also a lot of fun. To bad it does not have any opponents in its category.

maurice-pascale
29-08-2015, 13:40
The McLaren F1 is in the totally wrong category!....absolutelly......the F1 reaches 389 Km/h and isin ROAD B ??...he is almost so fast like the P1......its not fair when you do a race with the F1 against all the other slower cars in Road B......


i hope it gets fixed with all the cars in w4ong category, because after patch 3.0, driving with road cars makes so much fun! Its very nice.....to drive race's with road supercars is brilliant now, they handle great and very smooth....of course harder then GT cars, but very very nice after the patch 3.0....i drive with road cars now very very often.....and i really hope for much mkre ROAD SUPERCARS in the future, road supercars are great and after patch 3.0 no one can say they are useless and undriveable, they are great now...good work...but with the wrong category it is really a big problem to have a fair and nice race

aerchak
29-08-2015, 13:54
The McLaren F1 is in the totally wrong category!....absolutelly......the F1 reaches 389 Km/h and isin ROAD B ??...he is almost so fast like the P1......its not fair when you do a race with the F1 against all the other slower cars in Road B......


i hope it gets fixed with all the cars in w4ong category, because after patch 3.0, driving with road cars makes so much fun! Its very nice.....to drive race's with road supercars is brilliant now, they handle great and very smooth....of course harder then GT cars, but very very nice after the patch 3.0....i drive with road cars now very very often.....and i really hope for much mkre ROAD SUPERCARS in the future, road supercars are great and after patch 3.0 no one can say they are useless and undriveable, they are great now...good work...but with the wrong category it is really a big problem to have a fair and nice race

If you cannot compete with the F1 with the other cars in Road B, you are doing it wrong. The BAC Mono, in particular, is more than equipped to thrash it through the turns.

lifeofbrian
29-08-2015, 14:20
I think these DLC cars are great, but it would be nice if they made cars that fit better in to current categories. This is probably a licensing issue, but an option with a list of all cars so you can tick which one to add to any race would solve a lot of this.

maurice-pascale
29-08-2015, 14:28
If you cannot compete with the F1 with the other cars in Road B, you are doing it wrong. The BAC Mono, in particular, is more than equipped to thrash it through the turns.

I think you dont understood it.....no one of the AI can co pete with me (F1) in road b......dont know what you want to say but the FORD MUSTANG GT aigainst the F1 is a bit unfair!........also when i drive the ustang GT against the lther road B cars.....so what on earth whould i do wrong there?? Useless post, because we all know the F1 must be in Road A...also with other cars

and in ROAD A is the McLaren 12 c slower then the others and should be in Road B

CopperySinger5
29-08-2015, 14:30
I'll pass on this dlc "In my opinion" these cars don't appeal to me enough to even purchase for the small price "in my opinion"
4 out of 6 of those cars will just take up space in my garage "in my opinion". The new mustang and new bmw looks tempting to me but not enough "in my opinion".
This dlc is Just a small tease "fact".

But I may just get to pack to support SMS "imo", but I will not continue to purchase if I keep seeing these mediocre dlc packs "imo".

NemethR
29-08-2015, 14:56
The McLaren F1 is in the totally wrong category!....absolutelly......the F1 reaches 389 Km/h and isin ROAD B ??...he is almost so fast like the P1......its not fair when you do a race with the F1 against all the other slower cars in Road B......


i hope it gets fixed with all the cars in w4ong category, because after patch 3.0, driving with road cars makes so much fun! Its very nice.....to drive race's with road supercars is brilliant now, they handle great and very smooth....of course harder then GT cars, but very very nice after the patch 3.0....i drive with road cars now very very often.....and i really hope for much mkre ROAD SUPERCARS in the future, road supercars are great and after patch 3.0 no one can say they are useless and undriveable, they are great now...good work...but with the wrong category it is really a big problem to have a fair and nice race

Agree with you there too.

Cheesenium
29-08-2015, 16:34
The McLaren F1 is in the totally wrong category!....absolutelly......the F1 reaches 389 Km/h and isin ROAD B ??...he is almost so fast like the P1......its not fair when you do a race with the F1 against all the other slower cars in Road B......


i hope it gets fixed with all the cars in w4ong category, because after patch 3.0, driving with road cars makes so much fun! Its very nice.....to drive race's with road supercars is brilliant now, they handle great and very smooth....of course harder then GT cars, but very very nice after the patch 3.0....i drive with road cars now very very often.....and i really hope for much mkre ROAD SUPERCARS in the future, road supercars are great and after patch 3.0 no one can say they are useless and undriveable, they are great now...good work...but with the wrong category it is really a big problem to have a fair and nice race

The Mclaren F1 has tonnes of power with high top speed but the problem with that car is, it has awful tires and rubbish suspension that made it handle like a pig in corners.

Put it on tracks with a lot of straights, this car is competitive with even some Road A but if you put it on a more curvy track, it might be the slowest car in Road B. Unfortunately, it is how the real car is.

The balancing of the road cars are literally impossible to be perfect because all road cars are not build equal, unlike race cars. That is the reason why the road cars balancing seemed awful. The cars are designed based on the data given by manufacturers and what they gave to SMS is what you see in the game. It make no sense to balance it like a race car because they arent race car to begin with.

The only 2 cars that needs to be fixed is the Mustang 2+2 and BMW 2002, they should be moved to Historic B because both cars fit that class decently with 300SEL and Escort. 2002 is a little slow compared to the other 3 but I think thats alright as it has no where else to go.

Jussi Viljami Karjalainen
29-08-2015, 17:33
The Mclaren F1 has tonnes of power with high top speed but the problem with that car is, it has awful tires and rubbish suspension that made it handle like a pig in corners. Well not exactly, the tyres named "McLaren F1" in the setup are actually fully modern day in terms of grip levels, and the default suspension is tightened up as well. I think it actually drives really well, though I do prefer it with the more period accurate Denloc tyres and a softer suspension closer to the original car, but that's just me.

F1Aussie
30-08-2015, 01:19
Loving the new DLC so far, only tried both mustangs so far though, so cool! Until p cars i was purely an open wheeler driver but in p cars i have not touched the open wheelers for a month now!!

Cheesenium
30-08-2015, 01:40
Well not exactly, the tyres named "McLaren F1" in the setup are actually fully modern day in terms of grip levels, and the default suspension is tightened up as well. I think it actually drives really well, though I do prefer it with the more period accurate Denloc tyres and a softer suspension closer to the original car, but that's just me.

Well, Mclaren F1's handling still isn't as good compared to other cars In Road B. The handling is still it's biggest weakness. It is a huge improvement over the old soft suspension with street tires version which is a really fun car to drive.

I kinda miss the period accurate car. Would be nice if we can retune it to the period accurate setting on our own.

GroupB
30-08-2015, 03:59
Audi competed in the Trans-AM series in 1988, and in the GTO series in 1989. Dominated both.

Not exactly. While the 200 won the Trans Am title easily, the IMSA 90 quattro did not run enough events to prevent Mercury Cougars from finishing 1-2 in the championship. After that, Audi took its ball and went home to compete in the DTM.

Jussi Viljami Karjalainen
30-08-2015, 11:23
I kinda miss the period accurate car. Would be nice if we can retune it to the period accurate setting on our own.We can, I have a setup up on the setup sharing website just for that.

Mattze
01-09-2015, 20:53
The only 2 cars that needs to be fixed is the Mustang 2+2 and BMW 2002, they should be moved to Historic B because both cars fit that class decently with 300SEL and Escort. 2002 is a little slow compared to the other 3 but I think thats alright as it has no where else to go.

Don't agree! The Ford Mustang 2+2 Fastback is a road car. What's it doing in a race class? It should be set to one of the road classes. I don't remember that it was even driven in touring cars. The BMW could stay, due to the lack of suitable race classes.

Jussi Viljami Karjalainen
01-09-2015, 21:27
They are in Historic B though, even if they're listed under road cars, and they're running on racing tyres currently. Basically the situation is that they're road cars, but we're making use of them by putting them on racing tyres and allowing the setups to be modified, allowing them to race. Back then the difference between race and road wasn't quite as massive, so it can work out decently, depending on the track at least. It's not like the cars were all that balanced even in real life back then. =)

Really really want to see period accurate road tyres for the Mustang and 2002 Turbo, and while at it for the Escort and Pig as well. They'd be slow as all get out though, the tyres back then were absolutely horrible by today's standards, in really good conditions you can get higher cornering Gs on modern winter tyres driving on snow today than they got on dry tarmac back then...

Cheesenium
02-09-2015, 00:04
Don't agree! The Ford Mustang 2+2 Fastback is a road car. What's it doing in a race class? It should be set to one of the road classes. I don't remember that it was even driven in touring cars. The BMW could stay, due to the lack of suitable race classes.

The game put that Mustang with Historic B touring cars when you run it as a same class race. If it isnt, it wont be racing with the Escort.

http://i.imgur.com/zYbf9Et.jpg

The Mustang, not the same one as the one in the game was used as a racing car back in the 60s. It just need racing liveries.

http://www.1966shelbynotchbackmustang.com/Bridgehampton/Bridgehampton%20Big%20Bore%20Race%20Lowenbrau%20Bridge.jpg

http://www.1966shelbynotchbackmustang.com/Bridgehampton/2MustangsBigBoreRaceGrid.jpg

No reason why pCARS cant. And that Mustang has nowhere to go in Road because that is possibly the slowest cars in the game as it is slower than the Caterham even when it is on racing setup.

Evidently, the whole Historic cars in Roads are confusing a lot of people. Would appreciate if SMS moved them because some people thinks if it is in Road, it has to be a road car. And Mustang needs racing liveries.

T0MMY
02-09-2015, 01:01
Can SMS duplicate the cars? I dont mind having a full plain colours 2+2 Mustang in road and a liveried one in Historic Touring, I think same can be done for the BMW 2002 and Ford Escort. I really like those cars in historic touring and they seem to fit in nicely in that class.

I did notice that if you play multi class for Road, both 2+2 Mustang and BMW 2002 can be seen used by the AI.

theZOGster
02-09-2015, 03:20
The thing with the Yellowbird is if you aren't able to do about the same as in the following video with it, it's not implemented very well.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSMCfPASImQ

The discussion should actually end here but I'm sure somebody with a 1.5k Euro wheel, that also sat on the lap of Ferdinand Porsche himself while getting his head petted by Alois Ruf will tell me that I'm wrong.

Besides that. Dear PC crew please take a closer look at the video and note how tyre smoke actually looks when it's generated. It's not looking like puffs of cotton candy like it's currently in the game.



Good lord. I'm not sure who's more petrified; the guy sawing at the wheel to keep that thing pointed in the right direction or the poor saps he's overtaking, who probably looked in their rear view mirrors and saw that insane thing closing in on them sideways and belching tire smoke.

That would be enough for me to pull over and walk the remaining distance.

Daveesaunders
02-09-2015, 06:51
I've only managed to have a go with the BMW 320 TC and so far it seems to be quite an animal I think I'm going to have some fun with it :) I was only able to try it with the Xbox One controller as I didn't have time to get the whole rig out, fingers crossed Ill have more time this evening.

NemethR
02-09-2015, 08:56
Evidently, the whole Historic cars in Roads are confusing a lot of people. Would appreciate if SMS moved them because some people thinks if it is in Road, it has to be a road car. And Mustang needs racing liveries.

And why would it race with the Escort, when it is 6-8 sec slower?!
I mean, do you call racing, when you lap the other car every 5 laps?

Didi you also consider, that maybe Mustang dosn't have racing liveries, BECAUSE it is a Road Car?

DJBLITZKRIEG
02-09-2015, 11:42
yep thats right, that kid has been playing GT5 too much

Cheesenium
02-09-2015, 11:56
And why would it race with the Escort, when it is 6-8 sec slower?!
I mean, do you call racing, when you lap the other car every 5 laps?

Didi you also consider, that maybe Mustang dosn't have racing liveries, BECAUSE it is a Road Car?

I don't know how many times you want to argue about the samething through different threads. If SMS isn't moving these cars, then, deal with it.

So why mustang can't have racing liveries? Because you said it is a road car, then it has to be a road car? Even when it has race tuned suspension and race tires?

NemethR
02-09-2015, 12:52
I don't know how many times you want to argue about the samething through different threads. If SMS isn't moving these cars, then, deal with it.

So why mustang can't have racing liveries? Because you said it is a road car, then it has to be a road car? Even when it has race tuned suspension and race tires?

And why must it be a Race Car?

Erm... Race tuned suspension?! Come on, that car is so far above gound,t hat even a gokart would fit under it.
It is clearly not a race car. (And just bcause you argue / think it is, it isn't.) --> Maybe that is the reason why it does not have racing liveries.

I don't really care about liveries, I care about balanced classes.
The car would have a balanced counterpart in Road D, but clearly it is too slow for Hist. B

Cheesenium
02-09-2015, 13:50
And why must it be a Race Car?

Erm... Race tuned suspension?! Come on, that car is so far above gound,t hat even a gokart would fit under it.
It is clearly not a race car. (And just bcause you argue / think it is, it isn't.) --> Maybe that is the reason why it does not have racing liveries.

I don't really care about liveries, I care about balanced classes.
The car would have a balanced counterpart in Road D, but clearly it is too slow for Hist. B

If you want balanced classes, then road cars is the wrong class to be concerned with. It will never be balanced because road cars are not built equal. Part of the fun of road cars is they are 100% balanced where you can get some interesting races and I really do not care about balance in road cars.

A lot of these cars are track dependent, like it might be OP on these tracks then UP on other tracks. Which you never understand why where you keep insisting that cars like A1, F1 and so on are underpowered for you.

The reason Mustang didn't have racing liveries is because initially, it was thought to be a road car because Pcars didn't licensed the Shelby version that was used in historic races but when Doug was doing the physics, they found out that this car is competitive Historic B which it is fine for me because it adds a much needed character for that class. It is only you complaining that how slow is it.

Like it or not, Mustang uses slightly race tuned suspension because if they don't, the ai won't be able to handle the car and it would be way too stiff to drive on a race track. And it uses shares some of the physics from Escort which is a touring car.

Like how you complained how unrealistic is Yellowbird, unfortunately, that what it is like in real life. Even the AC one behaves similarly with the Pcars one despite it is a slightly different model with a turbo boost pump, it is a suicidal car that is tough to handle and barely can go straight. At the end, you refuse to understand why because it doesn't drive like what you expected. Then, stubbornly complained how awful is Yellowbird when there is a thread of people praising how fun is it.

For you, it is like if something doesn't behave in the way you like, then, it is wrong or it is buggy. Despite explanations are made, you still keep thinking that you are right.

NemethR
02-09-2015, 14:47
If you want balanced classes, then road cars is the wrong class to be concerned with. It will never be balanced because road cars are not built equal. Part of the fun of road cars is they are 100% balanced where you can get some interesting races and I really do not care about balance in road cars.

A lot of these cars are track dependent, like it might be OP on these tracks then UP on other tracks. Which you never understand why where you keep insisting that cars like A1, F1 and so on are underpowered for you.

The reason Mustang didn't have racing liveries is because initially, it was thought to be a road car because Pcars didn't licensed the Shelby version that was used in historic races but when Doug was doing the physics, they found out that this car is competitive Historic B which it is fine for me because it adds a much needed character for that class. It is only you complaining that how slow is it.

Like it or not, Mustang uses slightly race tuned suspension because if they don't, the ai won't be able to handle the car and it would be way too stiff to drive on a race track. And it uses shares some of the physics from Escort which is a touring car.

Like how you complained how unrealistic is Yellowbird, unfortunately, that what it is like in real life. Even the AC one behaves similarly with the Pcars one despite it is a slightly different model with a turbo boost pump, it is a suicidal car that is tough to handle and barely can go straight. At the end, you refuse to understand why because it doesn't drive like what you expected. Then, stubbornly complained how awful is Yellowbird when there is a thread of people praising how fun is it.

For you, it is like if something doesn't behave in the way you like, then, it is wrong or it is buggy. Despite explanations are made, you still keep thinking that you are right.

And how does all this relate to the fact, that the Mustang is a Road Car?!
You said up there (bold), thus it si a Road car, because it is NOT the race version, this same thing I keep saying, the whole time.
It is NOT a race car, it should be thus in Road D.
And you still argue about it.

I don't see why you insist that it is a race car, when it isn't, it isnt based on the race car, it is based on the road car.
And also the car is way too slow for Hist B. That is also a fact, so it has no place there.

T0MMY
02-09-2015, 14:59
The same can be said to the Escort actually, it may have use the same engine as the one racing back then but is definitely lacking all the "racing" bits. The Escort should move it out as a road car then, it is a road car like both the Mustang and the 2002 Turbo.

aerchak
02-09-2015, 15:13
If you want balanced classes, then road cars is the wrong class to be concerned with. It will never be balanced because road cars are not built equal. Part of the fun of road cars is they are 100% balanced where you can get some interesting races and I really do not care about balance in road cars.

A lot of these cars are track dependent, like it might be OP on these tracks then UP on other tracks. Which you never understand why where you keep insisting that cars like A1, F1 and so on are underpowered for you.

The reason Mustang didn't have racing liveries is because initially, it was thought to be a road car because Pcars didn't licensed the Shelby version that was used in historic races but when Doug was doing the physics, they found out that this car is competitive Historic B which it is fine for me because it adds a much needed character for that class. It is only you complaining that how slow is it.

Like it or not, Mustang uses slightly race tuned suspension because if they don't, the ai won't be able to handle the car and it would be way too stiff to drive on a race track. And it uses shares some of the physics from Escort which is a touring car.

Like how you complained how unrealistic is Yellowbird, unfortunately, that what it is like in real life. Even the AC one behaves similarly with the Pcars one despite it is a slightly different model with a turbo boost pump, it is a suicidal car that is tough to handle and barely can go straight. At the end, you refuse to understand why because it doesn't drive like what you expected. Then, stubbornly complained how awful is Yellowbird when there is a thread of people praising how fun is it.

For you, it is like if something doesn't behave in the way you like, then, it is wrong or it is buggy. Despite explanations are made, you still keep thinking that you are right.

I think a lot of the points you make here are crucial and generally not appreciated by enough people.

Road car classes are not going to be perfectly balanced, because road cars are not equal to each other. It's incredibly annoying to load up a game like Forza 5 and see that so many of the cars are practically identical in terms of performance, just so the game will be balanced. Sure, it helps avoid scenarios where people are upset that their favorite car isn't as fast as a car they irrationally see as inferior due to some misguided sense of brand loyalty, but it's one of the things that pushes games away from being considered an actual simulation. Some cars are fundamentally superior to others in very real ways. It's just the way it is.

I mean, you don't see me complaining about buying the latest version of Madden and discovering that the Browns aren't competitive against the Patriots, do you? Sure, I wish they were, but that's just not how things are.

Cheesenium
02-09-2015, 17:06
And how does all this relate to the fact, that the Mustang is a Road Car?!
You said up there (bold), thus it si a Road car, because it is NOT the race version, this same thing I keep saying, the whole time.
It is NOT a race car, it should be thus in Road D.
And you still argue about it.

I don't see why you insist that it is a race car, when it isn't, it isnt based on the race car, it is based on the road car.
And also the car is way too slow for Hist B. That is also a fact, so it has no place there.

Selective reading again.

The reason is, the Mustang was initially thought to be a road car but after the physics is done, SMS found that it was competitive with other Historic B cars. Therefore, it goes to Historic B now despite the livery was done even before the physics work had started. I hope this is clear enough for you.

FYI, the same Mustang in pCARS had been used in 60s trans am racing till today. And touring cars back in 60s, they do not have extensive modifications like modern race cars. They look exactly like the road cars with number boxes like the Mustang photograph below.

http://www.historictransam.com/images/LimeRock13/_MTR5191.jpg

It is only you complaining that it is too slow. I had never seen anyone said that so far and my personal tests with a few tracks, there are some cases that it is faster than Escort and 2002. There is no perfect balance for every class.

This isnt Forza or GT where every car is perfectly balanced with each other.

Cheesenium
02-09-2015, 17:23
I think a lot of the points you make here are crucial and generally not appreciated by enough people.

Road car classes are not going to be perfectly balanced, because road cars are not equal to each other. It's incredibly annoying to load up a game like Forza 5 and see that so many of the cars are practically identical in terms of performance, just so the game will be balanced. Sure, it helps avoid scenarios where people are upset that their favorite car isn't as fast as a car they irrationally see as inferior due to some misguided sense of brand loyalty, but it's one of the things that pushes games away from being considered an actual simulation. Some cars are fundamentally superior to others in very real ways. It's just the way it is.

I mean, you don't see me complaining about buying the latest version of Madden and discovering that the Browns aren't competitive against the Patriots, do you? Sure, I wish they were, but that's just not how things are.

I am sorry to say, it is he being stubborn and refuse to accept anyone's explanation. Not only my explanations but also other forumer's explanations who knows more than me. He thinks that car is too slow, therefore it should not be in the same class. Then, spam it around the forum on how slow is that car. The most absurd one is still Audi 90 GTO and Mustang Trans Am where he claimed that Audi should be a separate class without realising that the Audi is extremely powerful in real life to the point that the Mustang SMS took was only racing 1-2 years after the Audi had retired. This is done to ensure that the BoP can be done more fairly without penalising the Audi too much.

If he thinks that this car doesnt suit this class, he will be demanding that it must be changed because he found it to be too slow. Despite not understanding why is the car too slow that can due to many reasons. Is the car track dependent like Mcalren F1 which I think thats one of the most extreme examples? Are you good with that type of car? What kind of setup are you using as default setup are made to be easier to drive but not optimal?

There are cars in the game that I am absolutely horrible with, like M3 GT2. I always forget that it doesnt have ABS where I tend to brake till the tires lock up and lost plenty of time with a brick car. It is my fault because the car under performs, not the car is too slow.

Same goes for that 66 Mustang, I remember I had a race that I used that Mustang on Silverstone. I was almost last driver in the field because I cant handle the poor turning capabilities of that car. The AI on the other hand, they are beating the Escorts and 2002s in the same Mustang. it is a formidable car that adds more contrast to the existing car in the class where the Mustang does serve as the high top speed with strong acceleration in Historic B.

Now, I would like a Mini Cooper and Lotus Cortina in that class.

http://classiccarmag.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Minis-and-Cortinas-chase-the-Ford-Mustangs-around-Redgate-in-the-Masters-Pre-66-Touring-Car-race-300x200.jpg

Flaw3dGenius
02-09-2015, 17:28
And why would it race with the Escort, when it is 6-8 sec slower?!
I mean, do you call racing, when you lap the other car every 5 laps?

Didi you also consider, that maybe Mustang dosn't have racing liveries, BECAUSE it is a Road Car?

This is the problem when you put road cars in a racing game, People start confusing the direction of the game and think it's going to be GT or Forza!

FS7
02-09-2015, 18:06
Best way to get a balanced race with road cars is to setup one-make races. Even if SMS were to move some cars around between classes and/or add more classes (A1, A2, B1, B2, etc) it still won't be perfectly balanced. Even in a game like GT6 where we can mess around with weight/power restrictions it's hard to get a balanced race with different road cars.

Jussi Viljami Karjalainen
02-09-2015, 19:04
FWIW touring cars back then were absolutely godawfully balanced anyway...

The Mustang's main problem currently from my testing seems to be the brakes, specifically the fact that they overheat so quickly. Allow some higher brake duct settings and it could come up the ranking quite a bit, it's actually not bad in corners and can pull decently down the straights as well. The rest of the road cars in-game have brakes with the intention of simulating a "track day prepared" car where the brakes don't die instantly, those could/should be added to the Mustang, 2002 Turbo and the CTR as well (leave the 0 setting as the current brake cooling setting). The 2002 Turbo is really nifty in corners but the top end speed does hurt it on tracks with long straights...

Jussi Viljami Karjalainen
02-09-2015, 19:07
Best way to get a balanced race with road cars is to setup one-make races. Even if SMS were to move some cars around between classes and/or add more classes (A1, A2, B1, B2, etc) it still won't be perfectly balanced. Even in a game like GT6 where we can mess around with weight/power restrictions it's hard to get a balanced race with different road cars.That, and in a controlled setting (driving with people you know) you can also balance cars by agreeing that certain cars are only allowed the All Weathers while others can use the Road Mediums, etc. Also I really do like the fact that they aren't exactly balanced because that allows me to race at full pace against some of my friends who aren't as quick as me, they just pick a faster car than mine.

Knightfall
02-09-2015, 19:31
That, and in a controlled setting (driving with people you know) you can also balance cars by agreeing that certain cars are only allowed the All Weathers while others can use the Road Mediums, etc. Also I really do like the fact that they aren't exactly balanced because that allows me to race at full pace against some of my friends who aren't as quick as me, they just pick a faster car than mine.

Really looking forward to your setups on the new DLC cars. +1 for your current ones!

Jussi Viljami Karjalainen
02-09-2015, 20:25
You're gonna hate my Mustang setup. Well, one aspect of it anyway, namely the steering ratio. It's silly really, the original car came with a 27:1 steering ratio, but you could buy the Hi-Po package which gave you a much more direct, blisteringly quick steering rack that had a 22:1 ratio. I will have to try and match it, but the closest I can get to is 21.4:1. :D

But yeah, still in data collecting mode.

Knightfall
02-09-2015, 20:31
You're gonna hate my Mustang setup. Well, one aspect of it anyway, namely the steering ratio. It's silly really, the original car came with a 27:1 steering ratio, but you could buy the Hi-Po package which gave you a much more direct, blisteringly quick steering rack that had a 22:1 ratio. I will have to try and match it, but the closest I can get to is 21.4:1. :D

But yeah, still in data collecting mode.

I don't use a wheel (yet...) and I prefer a fast steering ratio on all my setups whilst using the controller. I have a setup for the Mustang GT that I enjoy already, but nothing for the 2+2 fastback.

Your setup on the Zonda Cinque = :love_heart::love_heart::love_heart::love_heart::love_heart::love_heart::love_heart::love_heart::love_heart:

julesdennis
03-09-2015, 08:39
This is the problem when you put road cars in a racing game, People start confusing the direction of the game and think it's going to be GT or Forza!

It is true in a way.
But some people believe that road cars should be part of any racing simulator (because you can "race" with road cars both in the game and real life).
Even though I dont want to start the same argument I've been having the last few days in another topic here,it is logical to say this game is not GT or Forza like just because it has road cars.It is a proper car sim.And following this logic,you can put liveries in any road car,since you can use them for racing in the game(from their point of view) .
In other words,if this or any other racing sim (AC for example) have road cars that we can use for racing,who says that "these cars cannot have liveries"?

NemethR
03-09-2015, 08:56
Best way to get a balanced race with road cars is to setup one-make races. Even if SMS were to move some cars around between classes and/or add more classes (A1, A2, B1, B2, etc) it still won't be perfectly balanced. Even in a game like GT6 where we can mess around with weight/power restrictions it's hard to get a balanced race with different road cars.

Actually they are quite balanced.
Maybe needs some tweaking as what car shoud be in what category, but for example, Road B is better balanced then GT4
Road C1 is also quite nicely balanced. In C2 the Megane is slower then the Ford, and Road A would be very good, if they would split it into A1 and A2, that being said, the Gumpert Apollo is the fastets, clearly.

But not even race classes are balanced...

For example: GT4, GT1, Trans-AM, Hist. B are all unbalanced, what I don't even understand, because in GT4, and GT1 you gould use BoP to balance them.
Trans-Am, well issue is, those two cars are different, and the Audi never raced in Trans_Am it was an IMSA GTO car, thus much faster then the Ford.
Hist B... Escort is actually pretty good against the Merc, yet the BMW and Mustang are much slower.