Project CARS 2 - general discussion thread

[Keena]

Thank you for the reply , I didn’t get chance last night as we went to the pub and I never drink and drive :D !
Hopefully this afternoon I will give it a go and see how it turns out .

On a completely different note I watched a race from GT Sport yesterday and was really impressed with the flag system , Flashing yellow panels at the side of the track and marshals waving yellow flags to warn of incidents ahead looks very impressive. I do hope this area gets much love from SMS if we get a PC3 as it adds to the immersion ten fold.

Its a functioning system in F1 2017- little screens flashing beside the track. I like to drive with HUD off so its certainly very useful! As you say, hopefully it will appear at some point as its such a fundamental component of racing.

[DerpyDays]

Since PCARS 2's season pass schedule is over, I was wondering if SMS would push out free mini updates similar to the small content drops of GT Sport. I think it would be a nice addition to have these content drops in-game as it will breathe more life into it especially that this game's season pass dlc has been all revealed.

[Chikane]

Not sure if this thread is the right place for this post?

Will this ever be possible in pcars?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05Pm2j0jOtw

[Raikku]

Don't know where to put this so put it here.

Why there's never car pass discont/sale on XBox's side? Other platforms(pc, ps4) had got that many time already, but on Xbox, nothing. I have this for pc of course too but my console version is for Xbox One so it wouldn't make sense to buy this third time for ps4(which I have) too.

[Cholton82]

I’ve had an absolute blast in the PWC Series , very tight competitive racing throughout which ultimately had me finish 2nd overall. My only gripe has to be the race at Spa , the fog is beyond ridiculous and clearly would be a race stopper irl , I do wish these extremes would be left to quick race modes and not forced upon us in career .

[Maddmatt3]

Does the E92 M3 GT4 sound... weird? The M3 in real life is wonderful to listen to, in game I can't bear the sound. I have an E92 (not M3) in real life so I'm always drawn to this car in games but both here and AC it just sounds and feels so off.
It is also strangely hard to catch when it slides. Granted I'm not brave enough to turn off the DSC in my personal car and compare this in real life but I struggle to control it in game even though I have no trouble with the much more powerful Porsche GT3 RS (street RWD)l
The Porsche on the other hand, feels super natural and is a joy to drive, also the in game sound on it is quite nice.
I'll try the stable setup next time maybe.

Haven't tried much else so far.

[poirqc]

Does the E92 M3 GT4 sound... weird? The M3 in real life is wonderful to listen to, in game I can't bear the sound. I have an E92 (not M3) in real life so I'm always drawn to this car in games but both here and AC it just sounds and feels so off.
It is also strangely hard to catch when it slides. Granted I'm not brave enough to turn off the DSC in my personal car and compare this in real life but I struggle to control it in game even though I have no trouble with the much more powerful Porsche GT3 RS (street RWD)l
The Porsche on the other hand, feels super natural and is a joy to drive, also the in game sound on it is quite nice.
I'll try the stable setup next time maybe.

Haven't tried much else so far.

Check the tire pressure link in my signature. Optimal temp and pressure do make a big difference in the game.

[Maddmatt3]

Check the tire pressure link in my signature. Optimal temp and pressure do make a big difference in the game.

Thanks, yeah maybe the pressures were silly, or car needs the sway-bar balance tweaked a little. I'll play with setup if I try it again. The sound still hurts though... I'd hope devs could be convinced to give that car's sounds a second look :/
If I can get it handling right maybe I'll try driving it with the H shifter. Been years since I owned a manual car now, I could use the practice haha.

[Cote Dazur]

If one buys the season pass, is he getting all the DLC’s except the Japanese dlc? Sounds like a good deal $ wise.

[Azure Flare]

Yes.

[Bjorn Kruuse-Meyer]

Have a question about tire compounds. I am currently doing career races with the Oreca 03.
I was not able to use the Hard compound in normal weather conditions (track temp above 30C).
I was under the impression that hard should be the default, but for this car I had to use soft.
Have not tried other LMP2 cars, so don't know if it is like this for the whole range.
Anybody know if this is bug or feature? :)
And if bug is this known, tried to search but could not find anything.

[hkraft300]

All P2 cars are like that. Only for high stress+ high temp tracks you would use the hard tires on LMP2. Stick with the soft it's fine. I guess it's by design.

[Azure Flare]

All P2 cars are like that. Only for high stress+ high temp tracks you would use the hard tires on LMP2. Stick with the soft it's fine. I guess it's by design.

That's how it is with every car if you have a choice with tire conpunds.

[hkraft300]

That's how it is with every car if you have a choice with tire conpunds.

True. GT cars cook the soft tires slightly easier than LMP2+3 though. I struggle with soft tires at imola on a 40c track in GT3/E, but in LMP cars it's easy.

[VanGisburger]

Two things :

1) How comes the AI can go flat through puddles and don't even squirm, yet when I go extra slowly and lift , I still aquaplane. It means I cant even follow a car infront, I have to snake down a straight while the rest can use the normal line.

2) Online points system - I know many factors decide how many points you receieve but is there a multiplier or bonus in place for finishing position, based on where you started? For instance winning a race from last place should be rewarded more than winning from third.

[Mahjik]

1) How comes the AI can go flat through puddles and don't even squirm, yet when I go extra slowly and lift , I still aquaplane. It means I cant even follow a car infront, I have to snake down a straight while the rest can use the normal line.

AI does not use the exact same physics as the player.

[Haiden]

AI does not use the exact same physics as the player.

Understood, but I think what he's asking is why aren't they hindered by hazards, like the player is? They don't have to be running the same physics, but whatever physics model they are using, hazards should still be disruptive/destabilizing for them.

[Mahjik]

Understood, but I think what he's asking is why aren't they hindered by hazards, like the player is? They don't have to be running the same physics, but whatever physics model they are using, hazards should still be disruptive/destabilizing for them.

Technically, he asked why they aren't affected and the answer is the same. The question of whether the AI 'can' be hindered with the current physics is not something anyone here can answer.

I do know that the way the player experiences water is based on the tire model. The fact that the AI do not have the same tire model is the reason they don't see water the same way (i.e. PC1 had rain but no real hydroplaning... the tire model updates for PC2 added that in for the player tire model). No one here has any information if it's a technical (performance) limitation or just a time/resource limitation.

[VanGisburger]

Technically, he asked why they aren't affected and the answer is the same. The question of whether the AI 'can' be hindered with the current physics is not something anyone here can answer.

I do know that the way the player experiences water is based on the tire model. The fact that the AI do not have the same tire model is the reason they don't see water the same way (i.e. PC1 had rain but no real hydroplaning... the tire model updates for PC2 added that in for the player tire model). No one here has any information if it's a technical (performance) limitation or just a time/resource limitation.

For me it ruins my whole wet racing experience. If there is an event in the rain, I avoid doing it since its too frustrating. You take the time to learn the wet line, analyse where the puddles are , keep an eye on the evolution lap after lap and then one slight unavoidable wobble and the AI steam through. There's an Aston Martin invitational race at RBRing in a storm that I cant complete unless I dumb the AI way down. And then there's no challenge.

I understand there are always restraints and in reality it is just a game but for a racing sim to have such a disparity between AI and User is shocking.

[Haiden]

Technically, he asked why they aren't affected and the answer is the same. The question of whether the AI 'can' be hindered with the current physics is not something anyone here can answer.

I do know that the way the player experiences water is based on the tire model. The fact that the AI do not have the same tire model is the reason they don't see water the same way (i.e. PC1 had rain but no real hydroplaning... the tire model updates for PC2 added that in for the player tire model). No one here has any information if it's a technical (performance) limitation or just a time/resource limitation.

Sure. Technically. But is it really so hard to see the real point behind the question?


For me it ruins my whole wet racing experience. If there is an event in the rain, I avoid doing it since its too frustrating. You take the time to learn the wet line, analyse where the puddles are , keep an eye on the evolution lap after lap and then one slight unavoidable wobble and the AI steam through. There's an Aston Martin invitational race at RBRing in a storm that I cant complete unless I dumb the AI way down. And then there's no challenge.

I understand there are always restraints and in reality it is just a game but for a racing sim to have such a disparity between AI and User is shocking.

Same. It even hurts SP racing. Regardless of how you set the AI difficulty, the pace changes too dramatically when the rain starts. So you're either ahead in the dry, waiting for the rain to equalize things. Or you're falling behind in the wet, hoping you can close the gap when the track starts drying. It basically regulates transitional wet racing to mulitplayer, otherwise, it's more a visual novelty, which is really unfortunate. :(

[Mahjik]

Sure. Technically. But is it really so hard to see the real point behind the question?


You are making assumptions. The member is fairly new to the forum so there is no assumption he/she understands the differences between the player and AI models.

[VanGisburger]

Apologies if its been covered to death before but to expand on the tyre model wrt standing water, does the game detect when the tyre is travelling through water or does it know the exact location of the standing water and change the behaviour of the car in that specific location?

I dont know if that was explained well enough but my follow up is that if the AI tyre model was too complex/ime consuming to match the users, could there not be some coding written for the AI to lift once an area of water is detected?

[Schnizz58]

Apologies if its been covered to death before but to expand on the tyre model wrt standing water, does the game detect when the tyre is travelling through water or does it know the exact location of the standing water and change the behaviour of the car in that specific location?
My understanding is that the game knows where the tires are and the game knows where the water is (thanks to LiveTrack) so the tire model knows that x amount of standing water is on the track where the tire is.


I dont know if that was explained well enough but my follow up is that if the AI tyre model was too complex/ime consuming to match the users, could there not be some coding written for the AI to lift once an area of water is detected?
I think they did that or tried to at one time but perhaps weren't completely successful. It would be better to have them avoid the puddles altogether but that would probably be prohibitively difficult.

[VanGisburger]

My understanding is that the game knows where the tires are and the game knows where the water is (thanks to LiveTrack) so the tire model knows that x amount of standing water is on the track where the tire is.


I think they did that or tried to at one time but perhaps weren't completely successful. It would be better to have them avoid the puddles altogether but that would probably be prohibitively difficult.

I see. Well thanks for the explaination, it's a big shame but hopefully something that can be worked on in the future.

[Mahjik]

The system, for the player, works just like a real tire. When the tread hits the water, the behavior of the tire is determined by the speed and weight of the car, as well as the tread pattern of the tire (how effective the tread pattern is at channeling water). For the street cars, this means that the different treaded tires will offer different experiences in the wet.

[Haiden]

But the racing dynamic is the most important aspect. And it's not there unless you're in MP racing other people. Single player wet races only work if you the entire race is wet, and you lower the difficulty to compensate. But lowering the difficultly just makes the AI behave awkwardly in other places on the track, where they are then just too slow.

It's a shame, because the weather transitions are pretty stellar otherwise. Unfortunately, that glitch ruins transitional weather in single player and career modes.

[Maddmatt3]

Understandable if they don't have the resources to code the AI to have realistic reaction to puddles, but the AI could still have their overall grip and pace slowed down to compensate and create a more fair race for the player.

[bio971]

I'm playing is a continuous bug, I participate in a race of 10 laps, where they put time from sunny to cloudy and mandatory pit stop, and when I do the pit changes my tires and puts me rain tires, just because it's cloudy? You can not miss a race because the AI ​​does not work. I was 5 and I arrived 14th position. And do not tell me it's the wrong user.

[Haiden]

I'm playing is a continuous bug, I participate in a race of 10 laps, where they put time from sunny to cloudy and mandatory pit stop, and when I do the pit changes my tires and puts me rain tires, just because it's cloudy? You can not miss a race because the AI ​​does not work. I was 5 and I arrived 14th position. And do not tell me it's the wrong user.

It's goofy. Map the Pit controls to buttons, so you can check the strategy as you're pulling into the pit. That's what I do, because sometimes, it just off, or not what I selected.

[Cholton82]

Just watching Guy Martin on Channel 4 tackling the Nurburgring in his Transit and it looks like he has been using PC2 to help learn the track

[hkraft300]

.... I was 5 and I arrived 14th position. And do not tell me it's the wrong user.

It's the wrong user.
Don't use default strategy.
Set and save different pit strategy for different situation and use the correct strategy. Not default.

[Cholton82]

Sometimes I’m blown away , I’m back in the Ferrari GT3 which I adore , I have countless hours in the game across all cars and disciplines but when I jump back in this one something just clicks.

The first race in the British GT3 Championship is Oulton Park which for me is one of the best tracks in the game , it’s a wet qually that dries up making the switch from wets to dry tyres a slight gamble that needs to be timed correctly , Patches of water are dotted around so you need to keep it on the racing line.
The game nails the transition in weather perfectly and it looks stunning.
Can’t wait for the race now .

[yannara]

I see my head movement (no VR) based on track surface, whenever going up or down. I would like to disable that, that the "eyes view" would be static. I already reviewed Camera options, its disabled but still something is enabling the movement. Please advice.

[Zaskarspants]

I see my head movement (no VR) based on track surface, whenever going up or down. I would like to disable that, that the "eyes view" would be static. I already reviewed Camera options, its disabled but still something is enabling the movement. Please advice.

Adjust 'world movement' to change the ratio between dash movement and horizon movement.

A lower number gives more dash movement with a higher number reducing dash movement and increasing horizon movement.

[yannara]

Adjust 'world movement' to change the ratio between dash movement and horizon movement.

A lower number gives more dash movement with a higher number reducing dash movement and increasing horizon movement.

I don´t understand this. Only option of these I have is the world movement and it is set to 0. In "Movement", everything is set to NO or to 0.

[Mahjik]

Set World Movement to 100.

[yannara]

Set World Movement to 100.
Perfect, thank you!

[Maskmagog]

Regarding AI and puddles, Doug has said that the AI do lift. But still, the AI really needs more work to balance the speed. My main concern is that they are way too slow when the track is saturated. Really hope they can fix this. I mainly race the AI, but I stay away from wet races now. Which is a shame, cause it's super fun.
Also, make the Light rain lighter :)

[Jezza819]

I just ran a race and at the finish I noticed one of the AI names was Miles Behind :D

[PostBox981]

I just ran a race and at the finish I noticed one of the AI names was Miles Behind :D
I also came across that guy a few times. Guess it´s a fake name, at least a good one for a racing game. :)

[balderz002]

I also came across that guy a few times. Guess it´s a fake name, at least a good one for a racing game. :)

I was in a race last week against 2 Jussi's!

[Sankyo]

I just ran a race and at the finish I noticed one of the AI names was Miles Behind :D
It's a reference to one of the first racing sims ever (Revs on BBC Micro/Commodore 64):

262481

[Bealdor]

It's a reference to one of the first racing sims ever (BBC Micro/Commodore 64):

262481

This grid is pure comedy gold. lol

[PostBox981]

It's a reference to one of the first racing sims ever (Revs on BBC Micro/Commodore 64):

262481
Not 100% sure but I believe to have met Max Throttle as well o PC2

[Stewy32]

Not 100% sure but I believe to have met Max Throttle as well o PC2

Think I have as well

[Jezza819]

It's a reference to one of the first racing sims ever (Revs on BBC Micro/Commodore 64):

262481

I think I've raced against Davey Rocket and Johnny Turbo also.

A couple of nights ago I had a race with Tommy Milner but he was in a BMW.

[sas5320]

A couple of nights ago I had a race with Tommy Milner but he was in a BMW.
Not totally inaccurate
https://www.bmwblog.com/2009/08/19/behind-the-wheel-of-a-bmw-m3-gt2-by-tommy-milner/

[F1_Racer68]

I think the best one I saw was in pC1... Raced against Paul Walker in the Ginetta Junior series

[Smoked_Cheddar]

I was racing Vintage Indy class at Indianapolis. That is total carnage. It is insane. I tried to do a 40 lap race but had 12 cars left by lap 12! Cars and parts littered everywhere.

I wrecked the next lap trying to lap a watson.

Lotus 38 vs Lotus 56 is a lot of fun though.

Credit due for the destruction that happens. But I wish it would get cleaned up. Hard to avoid that stuff on an oval.

[Jezza819]

I was racing Vintage Indy class at Indianapolis. That is total carnage. It is insane. I tried to do a 40 lap race but had 12 cars left by lap 12! Cars and parts littered everywhere.

I wrecked the next lap trying to lap a watson.

Lotus 38 vs Lotus 56 is a lot of fun though.

Credit due for the destruction that happens. But I wish it would get cleaned up. Hard to avoid that stuff on an oval.

The class that I see this kind of stuff the most in is Vintage Prototype. I race with damage turned off but it seems almost every race regardless of the track there is this huge pileup at some point with cars spinning out of control or flying in the air. Last week I ran Vintage Spa and on the part after that sort of banked right hand turn (I guess you would call it the backstretch) two or three of them got tangled in front of me and a blue 917k went flying off the track to the left way up the bank and into the trees. That one I wish I had recorded because it was spectacular.

[Cholton82]

I played the first round of the GEC at Fuji in the LMP2 class last night , Off the top of my head there was 8 lmp1 cars and only 4 LMP2 cars with the rest of the field made up of GTE cars.

I’m sure normally there are more LMP2 cars as I’ve played this championship before albeit a while ago. Basically I had me and my Team mate Ben Collins vs 2 Oreca’s.

[PostBox981]

Your team mate Ben Collins? Great, that really adds to the immersion. :yes: :)

[Stewy32]

I played the first round of the GEC at Fuji in the LMP2 class last night , Off the top of my head there was 8 lmp1 cars and only 4 LMP2 cars with the rest of the field made up of GTE cars.

I’m sure normally there are more LMP2 cars as I’ve played this championship before albeit a while ago. Basically I had me and my Team mate Ben Collins vs 2 Oreca’s.

Always only been 4 LMP2s in GEC, I wish they took advantage of a 32 car grid with GEC though

[Cholton82]

Always only been 4 LMP2s in GEC, I wish they took advantage of a 32 car grid with GEC though

Oh right , Yeah a little disappointing isn’t it.
Yeah Ben Collins is my team mate , I have seen Kevin Estre in the PWC also , not sure if all the names in PWC are legit.

[Stewy32]

Oh right , Yeah a little disappointing isn’t it.
Yeah Ben Collins is my team mate , I have seen Kevin Estre in the PWC also , not sure if all the names in PWC are legit.

I think they are if I remember right.

[REXPITVIPER1]

Not 100% sure but I believe to have met Max Throttle as well o PC2

yeah, Max spun me out, so I returned the favour.

[Cholton82]

How do I auto start my engine ?
I have mapped buttons for ignition and engine on my button box but for some reason when I go to a session the engines already running ? I have auto start engine set to off , Am I missing something ?

[Mahjik]

Auto start is for when the car stalls, only. There is no option to have the car not already running for your session.

[Cholton82]

Auto start is for when the car stalls, only. There is no option to have the car not already running for your session.

Thank you for clearing that up , I was looking through the options for a while thinking I must be missing something.
That’s a shame as it would be pretty cool to fire it up in the garage , oh well I’ll disable it.

Edit: Just realised I asked how do I auto start my engine , I should of said how do I manually start my engine in the pits. Oh well cleared up now

[David Wright]

Thank you for clearing that up , I was looking through the options for a while thinking I must be missing something.
That’s a shame as it would be pretty cool to fire it up in the garage , oh well I’ll disable it.

Edit: Just realised I asked how do I auto start my engine , I should of said how do I manually start my engine in the pits. Oh well cleared up now

Of course you could stall it in the garage and then start it manually ;)

I remember this feature in Net Kar Pro. You had to use the mouse to turn on (click on) two cockpit switches in the right order to start the engine. But it was the default and many people (me included) had no idea what to do to start the engine, so you sat there cursing the game :)

[balderz002]

I wonder if SMS would be willing to move the 908/03 up a class in to Vintage Prototype A? It feels alot faster than the Ford and Ferrari (and Deffo the Lotus) on all but the uber fast circuits (As it would be also against the 917 and 512).

I tried a quick race at Imola, a circuit i tend to think of as a meduim/fast circuit since it has a looong straight but also some medium/fast corners. I did it with the Vintage Proto A and B, and i won a 15 lap race with pit stop starting from 11th. It was on 90 difficulty which is about my level. Now the rest of the grid was as expected. With the Fords and 330P4's some 4-5 seconds off the pace of everyone else. The Lotus even further back. So i think the 908/03 could handle running with the VPTA class in normal circumstances.....

[Mahjik]

Edit: Just realised I asked how do I auto start my engine , I should of said how do I manually start my engine in the pits. Oh well cleared up now

No worries. I understood what you were asking. :)

[Shinzah]

I wonder if SMS would be willing to move the 908/03 up a class in to Vintage Prototype A? It feels alot faster than the Ford and Ferrari (and Deffo the Lotus) on all but the uber fast circuits (As it would be also against the 917 and 512).

I tried a quick race at Imola, a circuit i tend to think of as a meduim/fast circuit since it has a looong straight but also some medium/fast corners. I did it with the Vintage Proto A and B, and i won a 15 lap race with pit stop starting from 11th. It was on 90 difficulty which is about my level. Now the rest of the grid was as expected. With the Fords and 330P4's some 4-5 seconds off the pace of everyone else. The Lotus even further back. So i think the 908/03 could handle running with the VPTA class in normal circumstances.....

The problem is that the car is competing in a purely fantasy class against vastly inferior racing hardware. The Ford should technically be in the same class as the 917 and 512 under the regulations of the day (Group 4) But it would get destroyed there, too.

The 908/3 ran in Group 6 which was 'meant' to be the premier sports prototype category, but with the changes to Group 4 allowing bigger engines, it kind of didn't turn out the way they'd hoped. So in essence, the 908/3 was supposed to be the flagship car *not* the 917, and it's competing against cars that (aside from the 330P4) it wouldn't have in era. The 917 never raced tracks like Nurburgring and Targa Florio in factory hands. Because it was designed for tracks like Spa and LeMans, while the 908/3 was designed for most of the rest of the tracks.

In any case, the 908/3 wouldn't really run against the 917 in era either, although it did run in competition in a few races against the 917 during time trials, the 917's didn't start those races. So it's an oddball situation where to have more or less period accurate races, you'd run VPTA at Spa and LeMans but probably not at anywhere else except tracks that aren't in the game.

I'd agree that the 908/3 should be in the same class, except that the VPTA class is exclusively Group 4 cars as far as I can tell, which is nice for continuity.

Edit: SMS Targa Florio DLC when?

[REXPITVIPER1]

The problem is that the car is competing in a purely fantasy class against vastly inferior racing hardware. The Ford should technically be in the same class as the 917 and 512 under the regulations of the day (Group 4) But it would get destroyed there, too.

The 908/3 ran in Group 6 which was 'meant' to be the premier sports prototype category, but with the changes to Group 4 allowing bigger engines, it kind of didn't turn out the way they'd hoped. So in essence, the 908/3 was supposed to be the flagship car *not* the 917, and it's competing against cars that (aside from the 330P4) it wouldn't have in era. The 917 never raced tracks like Nurburgring and Targa Florio in factory hands. Because it was designed for tracks like Spa and LeMans, while the 908/3 was designed for most of the rest of the tracks.

In any case, the 908/3 wouldn't really run against the 917 in era either, although it did run in competition in a few races against the 917 during time trials, the 917's didn't start those races. So it's an oddball situation where to have more or less period accurate races, you'd run VPTA at Spa and LeMans but probably not at anywhere else except tracks that aren't in the game.

I'd agree that the 908/3 should be in the same class, except that the VPTA class is exclusively Group 4 cars as far as I can tell, which is nice for continuity.

Edit: SMS Targa Florio DLC when?

I wish we actually got cars that have headlights.. tired of 70% of the classic cars in game not having headlights.

but yeah, Project CARS 2 and Vintage car classes do not mix, I wonder in Project CARS 3 will they actually have year locked classes like RR. I think the classifications of vehicles would be easier. and the 908 did race with the 917 at Le Mans... it just didn't finish lol.



EDIT: the 908 wasn't never in the same class as the 917, Group P was for the low-end Prototypes and Group S was for the High-End Prototypes, so like Group S being LMP1, while Group 2 being LMP2.

[Shinzah]

and the 908 did race with the 917 at Le Mans... it just didn't finish lol.

We have a 908/3 in the game. A factory backed 908/3 NEVER entered Le Mans. Ever. The only 908's to have entered Le Mans are 908/2's (In one instance finishing very high in the overall order, piloted by Hans Herrmann. 2nd Overall.)

And 908 Langheck Coupes.

*not* 908/3's.




EDIT: the 908 wasn't never in the same class as the 917, Group P was for the low-end Prototypes and Group S was for the High-End Prototypes, so like Group S being LMP1, while Group 2 being LMP2.


Whatever your class designations come from, it isn't FIA.

The 908 was a Group 6 prototype. The 917 was a Group 4 sportscar.

[REXPITVIPER1]

We have a 908/3 in the game. A factory backed 908/3 NEVER entered Le Mans. Ever. The only 908's to have entered Le Mans are 908/2's (In one instance finishing very high in the overall order, piloted by Hans Herrmann. 2nd Overall.)

And 908 Langheck Coupes.

*not* 908/3's.





Whatever your class designations come from, it isn't FIA.

The 908 was a Group 6 prototype. The 917 was a Group 4 sportscar.

the Porsche 908 was Class Sport or Sportcar, the Porsche 917 was Class Prototype, in the late 70s the classes got rebranded as Group 6, and Group 5, with Group 4 being a GT car class, and not many entered into Group 4.

The 917 was never a Group 4 race car, as A. it was too fast to even be considered a Group 4 car, and B. wasn't even on the grids when Group 4 was a thing.

the Porsche 908/3 did enter into Le Mans in these years:

-1972
-1973
-1975
-1976

there are legit pictures of this car at Le Mans.

you cancel yourself out by saying " wasn't factory backed" when racing teams back then... was factory backed...

[REXPITVIPER1]

the Porsche 908 was "Group" S(portcars), the Porsche 917 was "Group" P(rototype), in the late 70s the classes got rebranded as Group 6, and Group 5, with Group 4 being a GT car class, and not many entered into Group 4.

The 917 was never a Group 4 race car, as A. it was too fast to even be considered a Group 4 car, and B. wasn't even on the grids when Group 4 was a thing.

the Porsche 908/3 did enter into Le Mans in these years:

-1972
-1973
-1975
-1976

there are legit pictures of this car at Le Mans.

you cancel yourself out by saying " wasn't factory backed" when racing teams back then... was factory backed...



if we go by modern standards then yeah the 908 was Group 6 and the 917 being Group 5. but when they first started they was not Group 6 and Group 5.

[Shinzah]

the Porsche 908 was Class Sport or Sportcar, the Porsche 917 was Class Prototype, in the late 70s the classes got rebranded as Group 6, and Group 5, with Group 4 being a GT car class, and not many entered into Group 4.

The 917 was never a Group 4 race car, as A. it was too fast to even be considered a Group 4 car, and B. wasn't even on the grids when Group 4 was a thing.

the Porsche 908/3 did enter into Le Mans in these years:

-1972
-1973
-1975
-1976

there are legit pictures of this car at Le Mans.

I know of literally two pictures of a 908/3 with headlights.

Believe me you're going to lose this fight.



you cancel yourself out by saying " wasn't factory backed" when racing teams back then... was factory backed...

Racing teams back then weren't factory backed, the majority of cars produced were for privateers. The 908/3 didn't run Lemans in factory hands. The car didn't even have headlights.



if we go by modern standards then yeah the 908 was Group 6 and the 917 being Group 5. but when they first started they was not Group 6 and Group 5.

I'm really not sure why I bother with you. Group 4 was created in the late 60s and changed to Group 5 in 1970. Group 6 was created in late 60s. Both of these are documented. They weren't "rebranded" in the late 70s. The 917 was a Sportscar class racing car. Whether it was Group 4 where it began or Group 5 where it finished.

The 908/3 was a Sports Prototype. It was DESIGNED to compete with top class cars. Where this idea that it is some 'underclass' car is absolutely nonsense. As is "modern standards" as these group meeting rules were made probably decades before you were even born.

[hkraft300]

you cancel yourself out by saying



racing teams back then... was factory backed...

:D

[Stewy32]

I see where some confusion comes from:
The classes are Group 3, Group 4, Group 5 and Group 6.
However, in the World SportsCar Championship there was a "Sports Protoype" "Prototype" and "Grand Touring" title up for grabs. These, however, are not the names of the car class.

It is like calling GT3 cars A6-AM cars, as an example.

[Shinzah]

I see where some confusion comes from:
The classes are Group 3, Group 4, Group 5 and Group 6.
However, in the World SportsCar Championship there was a "Sports Protoype" "Prototype" and "Grand Touring" title up for grabs. These, however, are not the names of the car class.

It is like calling GT3 cars A6-AM cars, as an example.


Well yes, and no. From 68 until 71 the primary championship was the WCM (World Championship for Makes) with a sub-championship for Grand Touring. Groups 4(later 5) and 6 were eligible for the WCM. Because of the rules of the time, the 917k and the 908/3 Co-Won the WCM in 70 and 71, but the award is mostly attributed to the 908/3 on the technicality that it competed in the top class which was Group 6. Fans of course recognize the 917k because of its dominance. Porsche also won the WCM in 69 with the 908/2 and the 908 Langheck. And finished second to the Ford GT40 in 1968 with the 907 and the 908, the Ford GT40 remains the only single WCM winner from the Group 4/5 regulations, as Porsche and Ferrari built Sports Prototypes for Class 6 which would have co-won with their Group 4/5 cars. The WCM was open to two classes, which can generate some confusion, but not enough to say that the 917 wasn't a Group 4/5 sportscar. It famously made 25 homogalation models and competed in Group 4/5 as a Sportscar and not a Sports Prototype.

This P and S thing must be some post-designate, but as far as I can tell from limited internet resources, P is Group 6 and S is Group 4/5. Which still again, places the 917 as a Sportscar and not a Sports Prototype.

Plus the idea that the 917 wasn't even on the grid when Group 4 was a thing is just outright fallacious. FIA Group 4 existed for quite some time before the 25 car Homogalation revamp in 1969 and Group 5 from 70 to 71 was merely an extension of the Group 4 rules.

Edit: I've also taken the liberty of going through LeMans finishing orders. I found entrants for 908/3 for LeMans in 72DNF, 74DNF, 75 4th OA, 7th OA in 76

Porsche Kremer racing also entered a 917k in 1981

But it's important to keep in mind that these customer cars are NOT the versions of cars in the game.

[REXPITVIPER1]

I know of literally two pictures of a 908/3 with headlights.

Believe me you're going to lose this fight.



Racing teams back then weren't factory backed, the majority of cars produced were for privateers. The 908/3 didn't run Lemans in factory hands. The car didn't even have headlights.




I'm really not sure why I bother with you. Group 4 was created in the late 60s and changed to Group 5 in 1970. Group 6 was created in late 60s. Both of these are documented. They weren't "rebranded" in the late 70s. The 917 was a Sportscar class racing car. Whether it was Group 4 where it began or Group 5 where it finished.

The 908/3 was a Sports Prototype. It was DESIGNED to compete with top class cars. Where this idea that it is some 'underclass' car is absolutely nonsense. As is "modern standards" as these group meeting rules were made probably decades before you were even born.

917 was never a group 4 car.
908/3 ran at Le Mans when ever you get done.
The classes wasn't called Group 4 and Group 5 in the 60s, Group 4 was another class to Prototypes and GT and Sportcars, naming for the classes became legitimate in the late 70s, as those was what the cars we're legitimatly mean't for, but before the era of Group 6, the classes we're nothing more than tags, shit, Multi-class racing didn't even exist back then, if you had a GT car, you had to win the race in a whole to get the 1st place trophy, not a 1st place trophy within you class, overall.

you're trying to over-complicate an extremly simple classification.

[REXPITVIPER1]

Well yes, and no. From 68 until 71 the primary championship was the WCM (World Championship for Makes) with a sub-championship for Grand Touring. Groups 4(later 5) and 6 were eligible for the WCM. Because of the rules of the time, the 917k and the 908/3 Co-Won the WCM in 70 and 71, but the award is mostly attributed to the 908/3 on the technicality that it competed in the top class which was Group 6. Fans of course recognize the 917k because of its dominance. Porsche also won the WCM in 69 with the 908/2 and the 908 Langheck. And finished second to the Ford GT40 in 1968 with the 907 and the 908, the Ford GT40 remains the only single WCM winner from the Group 4/5 regulations, as Porsche and Ferrari built Sports Prototypes for Class 6 which would have co-won with their Group 4/5 cars. The WCM was open to two classes, which can generate some confusion, but not enough to say that the 917 wasn't a Group 4/5 sportscar. It famously made 25 homogalation models and competed in Group 4/5 as a Sportscar and not a Sports Prototype.

This P and S thing must be some post-designate, but as far as I can tell from limited internet resources, P is Group 6 and S is Group 4/5. Which still again, places the 917 as a Sportscar and not a Sports Prototype.

Plus the idea that the 917 wasn't even on the grid when Group 4 was a thing is just outright fallacious. FIA Group 4 existed for quite some time before the 25 car Homogalation revamp in 1969 and Group 5 from 70 to 71 was merely an extension of the Group 4 rules.

Edit: I've also taken the liberty of going through LeMans finishing orders. I found entrants for 908/3 for LeMans in 72DNF, 74DNF, 75 4th OA, 7th OA in 76

Porsche Kremer racing also entered a 917k in 1981

But it's important to keep in mind that these customer cars are NOT the versions of cars in the game.

the 917 was a Sportscar Prototype and it raced in the Prototype degination or class or grouping I don't f'ing know, until 72.

the 917 wasn't on the grid because guess what buddy? Group 4 didn't race le mans until 1976.

the Porsche Kremer Group C wasn't a 917 it was a 908/936.

Group 5 didn't race until 1976.
Group 6 didn't race until 1976.
Group 4 didn't race until 1976.

do you see the pattern? the 1976 cars are Group 6, Group 5, Group 4. but the cars before it wasn't technically called that.

[David Wright]

917 was never a group 4 car.


The FIA beg to differ

https://historicdb.fia.com/car/porsche-917

[Shinzah]

the 917 was a Sportscar Prototype and it raced in the Prototype degination or class or grouping I don't f'ing know, until 72.

If you don't know, you probably should shut your mouth before you look stupid.



the 917 wasn't on the grid because guess what buddy? Group 4 didn't race le mans until 1976.


Guess what buddy, you're wrong.



the Porsche Kremer Group C wasn't a 917 it was a 908/936.


The Porsche Kremer that ran in 1981 was built based on original 917 technical drawings and using original Porsche 917 parts. I literally have a book about it. *THE* book about it. You're not going to win that argument. Not when there's LITERALLY A BOOK ABOUT IT.


Group 5 didn't race until 1976.


WRONG.


Group 6 didn't race until 1976.


WRONG.



Group 4 didn't race until 1976.


WRONG.



do you see the pattern? the 1976 cars are Group 6, Group 5, Group 4. but the cars before it wasn't technically called that.


WRONG.


Appendix J 1971

Art. 251 - Categories & groups
Art. 252 - Definitions
Art. 253 - Prescriptions common to all cars
Art. 254 - Rule for changing from one group to another & authorized amalgamation of groups
Art. 255 - Series Production Touring Cars (Group 1): Definition
Art. 256 - Series Production Touring Cars (Group 1): Minimum production, number of seats
Art. 257 - Series Production Touring Cars (Group 1): Mountings & modifications authorized
Art. 258 - Special Touring Cars (Group 2): Definition
Art. 259 - Special Touring Cars (Group 2): Minimum production & number of seats
Art. 260 - Special Touring Cars (Group 2): Modifications & additions authorized
Art. 261 - Production Grand Touring Cars (Group 3): Definition
Art. 262 - Production Grand Touring Cars (Group 3): Minimum production, number of seats
Art. 263 - Production Grand Touring Cars (Group 3): Modifications & or additions authorized
Art. 264 - Special Grand Touring Cars (Group 4): Definition
Art. 265 - Special Grand Touring Cars (Group 4): Minimum production & number of seats
Art. 266 - Special Grand Touring Cars (Group 4): Modifications authorized
Art. 267 - Sports Cars (Group 5): Definition
Art. 268 - Sports Cars (Group 5): Manufacturing
Art. 269 - Sports Cars (Group 5): Conditions required for recognition
Art. 270 - Sports Cars (Group 5): Modifications & additions authorized
Art. 271 - Sports Cars (Group 5): Supplementary prescriptions concerning the use of aero-dynamic devices
Art. 272 - Sports Cars (Group 5): Safety fuel tanks

Incase this still doesn't register, you are WRONG.

https://i.imgur.com/ITZchY9.jpg

[Shinzah]

908/3 ran at Le Mans when ever you get done.

Not the factory 908/3. And not in 1971.


The classes wasn't called Group 4 and Group 5 in the 60s, Group 4 was another class to Prototypes and GT and Sportcars, naming for the classes became legitimate in the late 70s, as those was what the cars we're legitimatly mean't for,

This is just categorically untrue.

but before the era of Group 6, the classes we're nothing more than tags, shit, Multi-class racing didn't even exist back then, if you had a GT car, you had to win the race in a whole to get the 1st place trophy, not a 1st place trophy within you class, overall.


THIS isn't even true. The FIA WSC had a specific GT Championship! FOR DECADES!


you're trying to over-complicate an extremly simple classification.
I'm explaining the actual history of these racing machines and the classifications they ran under, which were NOT simple.

[REXPITVIPER1]

Not the factory 908/3. And not in 1971.


This is just categorically untrue.



THIS isn't even true. The FIA WSC had a specific GT Championship! FOR DECADES!


I'm explaining the actual history of these racing machines and the classifications they ran under, which were NOT simple.

they we're simple. Prototype, Sportcar, GT, done deal, don't know where you're getting Group 5 and Group 4 from, they wasn't even a thing until 1976.

the 917 never raced Group 4.
the 908/3 raced at lemans, sure not in 1971, but it raced at le mans, whenever the hell you get done with it.

the Porsche Kremer Group C believe the CK5? was a 908 and 936 with 935 mixed in there, I'm not sure if they made another GC, but that's the one I know about.

god damn chill out, it's okay to be wrong. just don't stay ignorant.

[REXPITVIPER1]

If you don't know, you probably should shut your mouth before you look stupid.



Guess what buddy, you're wrong.



The Porsche Kremer that ran in 1981 was built based on original 917 technical drawings and using original Porsche 917 parts. I literally have a book about it. *THE* book about it. You're not going to win that argument. Not when there's LITERALLY A BOOK ABOUT IT.


WRONG.


WRONG.



WRONG.



WRONG.


Appendix J 1971

Art. 251 - Categories & groups
Art. 252 - Definitions
Art. 253 - Prescriptions common to all cars
Art. 254 - Rule for changing from one group to another & authorized amalgamation of groups
Art. 255 - Series Production Touring Cars (Group 1): Definition
Art. 256 - Series Production Touring Cars (Group 1): Minimum production, number of seats
Art. 257 - Series Production Touring Cars (Group 1): Mountings & modifications authorized
Art. 258 - Special Touring Cars (Group 2): Definition
Art. 259 - Special Touring Cars (Group 2): Minimum production & number of seats
Art. 260 - Special Touring Cars (Group 2): Modifications & additions authorized
Art. 261 - Production Grand Touring Cars (Group 3): Definition
Art. 262 - Production Grand Touring Cars (Group 3): Minimum production, number of seats
Art. 263 - Production Grand Touring Cars (Group 3): Modifications & or additions authorized
Art. 264 - Special Grand Touring Cars (Group 4): Definition
Art. 265 - Special Grand Touring Cars (Group 4): Minimum production & number of seats
Art. 266 - Special Grand Touring Cars (Group 4): Modifications authorized
Art. 267 - Sports Cars (Group 5): Definition
Art. 268 - Sports Cars (Group 5): Manufacturing
Art. 269 - Sports Cars (Group 5): Conditions required for recognition
Art. 270 - Sports Cars (Group 5): Modifications & additions authorized
Art. 271 - Sports Cars (Group 5): Supplementary prescriptions concerning the use of aero-dynamic devices
Art. 272 - Sports Cars (Group 5): Safety fuel tanks

Incase this still doesn't register, you are WRONG.

https://i.imgur.com/ITZchY9.jpg

"incase this didn't register, you are wrong" no I am completely right. you're the wrong one here.

[Shinzah]

they we're simple. Prototype, Sportcar, GT, done deal, don't know where you're getting Group 5 and Group 4 from, they wasn't even a thing until 1976.

It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid, than to open it and remove all doubt.



the 917 never raced Group 4.

Somebody not even me, proved you wrong, with the official FIA database.



the 908/3 raced at lemans, sure not in 1971, but it raced at le mans, whenever the hell you get done with it.


And the 908/3 in the game? Is the 1971 model, that didn't.

Keeping in mind this discussion started because of the 908/3 outclassing its category before you came in here and decided to be empirically wrong about motorsports history.




the Porsche Kremer Group C believe the CK5? was a 908 and 936 with 935 mixed in there, I'm not sure if they made another GC, but that's the one I know about.


Wrong. The Porsche Kremer 917 was labelled 917K81



god damn chill out, it's okay to be wrong. just don't stay ignorant.

I'm not the ignorant one, you're empirically, categorically and just flat out, outright, and undeniably, fucking wrong. Get over it.

[Shinzah]

"incase this didn't register, you are wrong" no I am completely right. you're the wrong one here.

Yes, FIA Went back in time and rewrote their official rulebook to make even less sense than it already did, just for the sake of laffs.

[REXPITVIPER1]

It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid, than to open it and remove all doubt.



Somebody not even me, proved you wrong, with the official FIA database.



And the 908/3 in the game? Is the 1971 model, that didn't.

Keeping in mind this discussion started because of the 908/3 outclassing its category before you came in here and decided to be empirically wrong about motorsports history.




Wrong. The Porsche Kremer 917 was labeled 917K81



I'm not the ignorant one, you're empirical, categorically and just flat out, outright, and undeniably, fucking wrong. Get over it.

okay back to seriousness and not trolling, the Porsche Kremer CK5 was a 908/936 did I say the car was the K81? I don't understand how I was wrong, when that car existed in the 1981 season.

[REXPITVIPER1]

Yes, FIA Went back in time and rewrote their official rulebook to make even less sense than it already did, just for the sake of laffs.

from 1969 and before Group 4/Group 5 was called Sportcars, but in 1970 it was re-named and split to Group 4 and Group 5, in 1971 the classes got re-regulated into this:

Group 4 for Upgraded GT cars
Group 5 For Sports cars

in 1971 the Porsche 917 should be a Group 5. but since the car came out in 1970 is was categorized into the Group 4 category.

so you are correct but also incorrect. in 1971 yeah it was Group 1 through Group 6, but my point was that they weren't allways called that.

[blinkngone]

http://6-12-24.com/six-porsche-engined-prototypes-from-the-80s/?lang=en
CK5, 1982 for the newly formed Group C.
https://www.ultimatecarpage.com/chassis/3124/Porsche-917-K-81-917-K81.html
Porsche 917 K/81, 1981

[REXPITVIPER1]

http://6-12-24.com/six-porsche-engined-prototypes-from-the-80s/?lang=en
CK5, 1982 for the newly formed Group C.
https://www.ultimatecarpage.com/chassis/3124/Porsche-917-K-81-917-K81.html
Porsche 917 K/81, 1981

so I got the years wrong.

[Shinzah]

from 1969 and before Group 4/Group 5 was called Sportcars, but in 1970 it was re-named and split to Group 4 and Group 5, in 1971 the classes got re-regulated into this:

Group 4 for Upgraded GT cars
Group 5 For Sports cars

in 1971 the Porsche 917 should be a Group 5. but since the car came out in 1970 is was categorized into the Group 4 category.

You're still wrong, my god. Please just end this. The 917 was Homogalated to Group 4 in 1969, not 1970. It even says so in the link provided by somebody else, who again, was not me. And that link goes to the OFFICIAL FIA DATABASE.

In 1970 and 71 the 917 was a Group 5 car because Group 5 was an extension of the Group 4 rules. Group 4 changed in regulation and became Group 5. The 917 because it made the 25 car homogalation in 1969 was technically approved to Group 4 and then Group 5.

The car didn't come out in 1970, it came out in 1969.



so you are correct but also incorrect. in 1971 yeah it was Group 1 through Group 6, but my point was that they weren't allways called that.

Except for the purposes of this discussion, all cars were under this rule scheme with the only sole change in nomenclature being that Group 4 was revamped and Group 5 which was originally a touring car category in 1968 was revisioned as a sportscar category for 1970.

In 1961 it was groups 1-4. For the entire era this nomenclature remained from the 60s until the 80s. With the addition of Group 5 special touring cars, later special grand touring cars, then sportscars. The sportscars rule changed in 1972 because of mounting economic pressure which meant the big five litres were regulated down to three litres and merged with existing Group 6 regulations. In 1976 the rules changed for 4th generation of Group 5, which is the Group 5 premier category that people mostly associate with Group 5 racing. This however, wasn't the debut of Group 5, it was the debut of Group 5 as special production GT cars. With Group 6 being used for sports prototypes since at least 1966.

You would need to go back to the 50s, or even pre-war to get to a non-group race meeting nomenclature. So I have no idea where this idea "They weren't always called that" has come from. No, they weren't always called that. But for this entire era, they were.

But the 917 was homogalated in 1969 to Group 4 and grandfathered to Group 5/
The 908/3 was always a Sports Prototype in Group 6 besides 1972 to 1975 when the sports prototype class was Group 5

The 917 was never a sports prototype, it was ALWAYS a homogalated Sportscar.

Either your sources are made up, or factually incorrect, because it wasn't until 1982 that the nomenclature changed to letter designates with Group N being Production, B being GT cars and C being Sports Prototypes. And then of course came the fuckery of the 90s and 2000s. I've found only two sources on the internet for the P/S designates you mentioned earlier, and these were not designates from the sporting code of FIA which was broadly used for racing meetings for these cars (WSC and WSPCC)

This entire discussion I don't know about, because it only stems from the fact that the 908/3 outclasses all the other cars in its class, with good reason as they are all Group 4/5 cars and not sports prototypes with the sole exception of the outdated Lotus.

The rest of the discussion stems from you directly saying that the 917 was never Group 4, when it was.

[REXPITVIPER1]

You're still wrong, my god. Please just end this. The 917 was Homogalated to Group 4 in 1969, not 1970. It even says so in the link provided by somebody else, who again, was not me. And that link goes to the OFFICIAL FIA DATABASE.

In 1970 and 71 the 917 was a Group 5 car because Group 5 was an extension of the Group 4 rules. Group 4 changed in regulation and became Group 5. The 917 because it made the 25 car homogalation in 1969 was technically approved to Group 4 and then Group 5.

The car didn't come out in 1970, it came out in 1969.



Except for the purposes of this discussion, all cars were under this rule scheme with the only sole change in nomenclature being that Group 4 was revamped and Group 5 which was originally a touring car category in 1968 was revisioned as a sportscar category for 1970.

In 1961 it was groups 1-4. For the entire era this nomenclature remained from the 60s until the 80s. With the addition of Group 5 special touring cars, later special grand touring cars, then sportscars. The sportscars rule changed in 1972 because of mounting economic pressure which meant the big five litres were regulated down to three litres and merged with existing Group 6 regulations. In 1976 the rules changed for 4th generation of Group 5, which is the Group 5 premier category that people mostly associate with Group 5 racing. This however, wasn't the debut of Group 5, it was the debut of Group 5 as special production GT cars. With Group 6 being used for sports prototypes since at least 1966.

You would need to go back to the 50s, or even pre-war to get to a non-group race meeting nomenclature. So I have no idea where this idea "They weren't always called that" has come from. No, they weren't always called that. But for this entire era, they were.

But the 917 was homogalated in 1969 to Group 4 and grandfathered to Group 5/
The 908/3 was always a Sports Prototype in Group 6 besides 1972 to 1975 when the sports prototype class was Group 5

The 917 was never a sports prototype, it was ALWAYS a homogalated Sportscar.

Either your sources are made up, or factually incorrect, because it wasn't until 1982 that the nomenclature changed to letter designates with Group N being Production, B being GT cars and C being Sports Prototypes. And then of course came the fuckery of the 90s and 2000s. I've found only two sources on the internet for the P/S designates you mentioned earlier, and these were not designates from the sporting code of FIA which was broadly used for racing meetings for these cars (WSC and WSPCC)

This entire discussion I don't know about, because it only stems from the fact that the 908/3 outclasses all the other cars in its class, with good reason as they are all Group 4/5 cars and not sports prototypes with the sole exception of the outdated Lotus.

The rest of the discussion stems from you directly saying that the 917 was never Group 4, when it was.

let me explain it like this so you can understand it because it seems your arrogance won't let you take the hint.

Before 1966 the classes were called:
GT Prototypes (P)
Grand Touring (GT)

1966 to 1968 the classes were called:
Group 4 Sportscars (They were still called Sportscar, but just Group 4 was added to the name)
Grand Touring Cars
Group 6 Prototypes (same here)

1969 to 1970 the classes were called:
Group 1 series-production touring cars
Group 2 special touring cars
Group 3 grand touring cars
Group 4 sports cars (they called it Group 4)
Group 5 special touring cars
Group 6 prototype-sports cars (same here)

1971 to 1982 the classes were called:
Group 1 series-production touring cars
Group 2 touring cars
Group 3 series-production grand touring cars
Group 4 special grand touring cars
Group 5 sports cars
Group 6 prototype-sports cars


The cars are called SPORTCAR PROTOTYPES, but the class they raced in was Group 4. learn the difference between the car class and car designation.

[hkraft300]

let me explain it like this so you can understand it because it seems your arrogance won't let you take the hint.



Or you could provide a source.

[REXPITVIPER1]

Or you could provide a source.

you can't. there is only so much the internet knows, 1965 doesn't say Group 4 cars existed. tried to find a source that proved they existed in 1965.. I couldn't, even putting in blatant ones like "Group 4 car in 1965" or "when was FIA Group 4 created" all strike 1966. Wikipedia is actually the only source... other sources is just ripping information out from it. I even looked at the FIA File database, and it only showed the regulations/requirments, not the year the class was created. so really this is a dead discussion.

[REXPITVIPER1]

Or you could provide a source.

https://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/0EDDDE781107874FC12574A50039996B/$FILE/Hist_App_J_65_Art_275_a.pdf

says at the bottom:

"A new Appendix J, being completed at the time of going to press, is to be brought into effect in 1966"

so prior to 1966, the class was being thought up and talked about but wasn't a legit class until 1966.


https://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/whistj?open

EDIT: so I looked at Appendix J 1961, and Group 4 is listed, so I was like "maybe I got something" wrong, but no, this was only the concept of the class.

https://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/A0697EBF5E35CCDDC125749C00543B5F/$FILE/Hist_App_J_61_Art_275_a.pdf

you can say they existed in 1961 if you want, I don't give a {REDACTED} anymore.

[Konan]

Guys,this is starting to look like a cat fight...:rolleyes:

[Shinzah]

so really this is a dead discussion.

You're right. It has been since you came here being all wrong, continue to be wrong, and still won't shut up with your wrongness.

None of this has anything to do with the 908/3 and the class it's in, and it's been three pages of wasting my time trying to educate a child on history.

Don't worry Konan, I'm frikken done. I can't do this anymore. I'm losing braincells every time I check this thread. If anyone wants to discuss the issue of the cars in the game and their class structure, I'll be willing to join that discussion. I'm out of this one. And Rexxy is going on iggy.

[hkraft300]

you can't.

So you can't find any evidence that backs your claim and the only source you link says the opposite to your claims.


there is only so much the internet knows

Pity.

[Sankyo]

264072

[REXPITVIPER1]

So you can't find any evidence that backs your claim and the only source you link says the opposite to your claims.



Pity.


https://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/0EDDDE781107874FC12574A50039996B/$FILE/Hist_App_J_65_Art_275_a.pdf

says at the bottom:

"A new Appendix J, being completed at the time of going to press, is to be brought into effect in 1966"

so prior to 1966, the class was being thought up and talked about but wasn't a legit class until 1966.


https://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/whistj?open

EDIT: so I looked at Appendix J 1961, and Group 4 is listed, so I was like "maybe I got something" wrong, but no, this was only the concept of the class.

https://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/A0697EBF5E35CCDDC125749C00543B5F/$FILE/Hist_App_J_61_Art_275_a.pdf

you can say they existed in 1961 if you want, I don't give a {REDACTED} anymore.



it was like the post directly right under my original post.

[REXPITVIPER1]

So you can't find any evidence that backs your claim and the only source you link says the opposite to your claims.



Pity.

also, why didn't you link the whole quote?

[Mahjik]

Do's and Don'ts....

* Do have discussions, debates, agreements and disagreements
* Do use valid sources to back up your points

* Don't partake in personal attacks

[eracerhead]

* Do learn how to use the multi-quote function

[Keena]

Speaking of personal attacks by cute fluffy animals..
https://youtu.be/pmu5sRIizdw

[REXPITVIPER1]

Speaking of personal attacks by cute fluffy animals..
https://youtu.be/pmu5sRIizdw

wait so cat pictures aren't allowed here?

[Konan]

wait so cat pictures aren't allowed here?

They are... In the right context...

[REXPITVIPER1]

They are... In the right context...

oh..
264116
how about foggy pictures?

[Konan]

oh..
264116
how about foggy pictures?

Don't know...too early in the morning,still a little misty eyed :p

[Pekka Salminen]

Late to the party, but the 908/03 most definitely raced at Le Mans, indeed in the 1971 spec, except added headlights for obvious reasons. Here is some history&photos of 908/03 chassis #13, which raced at LM multiple times in the original spec: http://www.racingsportscars.com/chassis/photo/908__03-013.html

However, it raced there from 1972 onwards, after likes of 917K were phased out. At LM, the car was massively out of pace from the fastest cars of same category. Nonetheless it would fit better in VPA, as the classes would be better balanced over different tracks. Also the time aspect would be more accurate, if it was in VPA.

[Shinzah]

Late to the party, but the 908/03 most definitely raced at Le Mans, indeed in the 1971 spec, except added headlights for obvious reasons. Here is some history&photos of 908/03 chassis #13, which raced at LM multiple times in the original spec: http://www.racingsportscars.com/chassis/photo/908__03-013.html

However, it raced there from 1972 onwards, after likes of 917K were phased out. At LM, the car was massively out of pace from the fastest cars of same category. Nonetheless it would fit better in VPA, as the classes would be better balanced over different tracks. Also the time aspect would be more accurate, if it was in VPA.


Am I mistaken in believing that Escuderia Monjuich, Romand, Tergal, Evertz and so on and so forth are not Porsche Factory backed teams? Because in my initial post, I did qualify my statement that a factory backed 908/3 never raced LeMans, NOT that the 908/3 never raced LeMans. The important distinction coming from that 908/3 in the game isn't a 1972 and beyond Customer purchased car, it's the 1971 Factory backed car.

[Pekka Salminen]

Am I mistaken in believing that Escuderia Monjuich, Romand, Tergal, Evertz and so on and so forth are not Porsche Factory backed teams? Because in my initial post, I did qualify my statement that a factory backed 908/3 never raced LeMans, NOT that the 908/3 never raced LeMans. The important distinction coming from that 908/3 in the game isn't a 1972 and beyond Customer purchased car, it's the 1971 Factory backed car.

Fair enough. Although it is arguable that the 908/3 raced in LM is not a same car as in PCars2, as the 1971 factory backed cars are literally same specification as the privateer cars raced in 71 and later. Apart from added headlights in some cases and livery. So yes, the car in game did race at LM, just in different livery and with lights. Also, are the gulf liveried cars factory backed or privateers? Pure factory team it is not, perhaps factory supported.

[David Wright]

Also, are the gulf liveried cars factory backed or privateers? Pure factory team it is not, perhaps factory supported.

The Gulf team, JW Automotive Engineering, was certainly factory backed, and had virtually no input to the 908/3. JW Automotive Engineering race prepared their 917s, but the 908/3s were supplied directly from the Porsche factory to the race venue.

Porsche pulled their own team out of racing at the end of 1969. They felt JW Automotive Engineering could do a better job of race preparation and strategy. Porsche supplied all the cars, engines, parts and some of their drivers.

[Shinzah]

Fair enough. Although it is arguable that the 908/3 raced in LM is not a same car as in PCars2, as the 1971 factory backed cars are literally same specification as the privateer cars raced in 71 and later. Apart from added headlights in some cases and livery. So yes, the car in game did race at LM, just in different livery and with lights.

The addition of headlights is key here, Porsche didn't add those headlights - the privateers did. While it does seem a bit silly and pedantic to argue when and where a virtual car raced, the 908/3 in game, with its specific bodywork, didn't run LeMans. This is probably because of licensing. A good many of the Porsches in game do not have privateer liveries and several do not even have fictional ones.



Also, are the gulf liveried cars factory backed or privateers? Pure factory team it is not, perhaps factory supported.

I would say that in the early 70s, John Wyer Racing was most definitely a factory backed Porsche team. Keep in mind, that this is literally the engineer that made the 917k a dominant racing car. John Wyer was the primary Porsche partner during this time. With Martini Racing also being a Porsche partner.

Edit: Ninja'd

[REXPITVIPER1]

Late to the party, but the 908/03 most definitely raced at Le Mans, indeed in the 1971 spec, except added headlights for obvious reasons. Here is some history&photos of 908/03 chassis #13, which raced at LM multiple times in the original spec: http://www.racingsportscars.com/chassis/photo/908__03-013.html

However, it raced there from 1972 onwards, after likes of 917K were phased out. At LM, the car was massively out of pace from the fastest cars of same category. Nonetheless it would fit better in VPA, as the classes would be better balanced over different tracks. Also the time aspect would be more accurate, if it was in VPA.

I said that.
he said I was wrong.
even though the dude keeps saying a factory backed 908/3 never raced at le mans, which is a confusing statement.

[Konan]

Don't start up that argument again please...

[PostBox981]

Mh - I fell asleep a few pages ago... is it really still going on? Can someone please wake me up once they´re done with the 908? Thanks. :p

[Invincible]

Mh - I fell asleep a few pages ago... is it really still going on? Can someone please wake me up once they´re done with the 908? Thanks. :p

They'll probably move on to the 909 or the 910. :rolleyes:

[Konan]

Time for a thread title change? :p

[Haiden]

Mh - I fell asleep a few pages ago... is it really still going on? Can someone please wake me up once they´re done with the 908? Thanks. :p

Haven't cared since the second post. Honestly, what difference does it make?

[REXPITVIPER1]

Haven't cared since the second post. Honestly, what difference does it make?

you're right.

[Konan]

you're right.

... Or is he left?... :p

[balderz002]

Can we not drag this back on topic with anything posted on the social media accounts? Since I don't do the social, I cannot look to see. Are the official channels all quiet?

[Konan]

This is all we know so far

http://forum.projectcarsgame.com/showthread.php?65821-Mad-Box-new-game-console-by-SMS

... Not about pCARS 2 though...

[Keena]

Quick question aboit livetrack.. can someone in the know sum up the parameters that influence grip in livetrack- eg rubberbeing laid down over time but also whether that rubber becomes slippery when wet?
The more info the better.
Cheers.

[MrTulip]

What I read during the development Livetrack 3.0 truly aims at full realism, and it is designed to be highly dynamic. This includes but is not limited to varying temps anywhere on the track, gravel and dust buildup, different tyres and widths laying different amount of rubber on track and even how rubber buildup is getting washed away by rain. Also how water flows per material, and there is a drainage systems on tracks to keep it clear. Although sometimes it probably has badgers in the pipes, as many of us have seen on some specific tracks and conditions.
The devs also confirmed that with existing information they could make the water drainage system to get stuck with gravel thrown from passing cars to cause unexpected puddles, for instance. Not sure if it was taken into use (and maybe it is not badgers after all).

Considering what it already is doing I'd be surprised if the rubber didn't become more slippery when wet, but I haven't exactly seen this mentioned anywhere by the devs. It is difficult to go through thousands of pages of WMD, and find possibly only one post if it ever has been mentioned at all. There was talk regarding whether reasons for being more slippery is actually more caused by varying levels of smoothness of track than actual rubber, so it wouldn't always be so that the rubbered part would be slippier. And as already mentioned, rubber also washes away in the rain.

The CPU and memory cost was the major designing factors for leaving out features, such as freezing water, but mostly Livetrack is really supposed to be a simulation of changing track conditions, and with simulations you often tend to get the results even if you didn't try to put them in. Even if it is not mentioned does not mean it wouldn't be in; Livetrack 3.0 is that sophisticated.

During the development there were tools that assisted seeing the state of the track to confirm all kinds of things happening as they should; depth of puddles, spots of gravel on track etc, so Livetrack is not just marketing buff. Some effects are still well visible live (as they should), such as how individual cars clear way / dry up parts of puddles. Just park the car next to a medium sized puddle when it is not raining anymore and you can see how the puddle changes its form for a while on the spot where the tyres go over it. :)

[MrTulip]

I'd like to add to above that the discussions regarding Livetrack were filled with dropped jaws of WMD members. It is a shame that this awesome tech became mostly known to the regular players as a base cause for the mega puddles.

[PostBox981]

I'd like to add to above that the discussions regarding Livetrack were filled with dropped jaws of WMD members. It is a shame that this awesome tech became mostly known to the regular players as a base cause for the mega puddles.

Yes, LiveTrack 3.0 is simply fantastic and it would have deserved a little more attention during the hot advertising period. I don´t know as much about the competitors but I guess all of them don´t come even close. I assume that at least 99% of all pCARS2 gamers don´t have the slightest clue about it. Some people even think it´s a bug when the car doesn´t feel exactly the same all the time.

[Keena]

Thanks for yhe responses. Yeah its a pretty amazing system. I find myself using all sorts of creative lines sometimes! The more i know the better in terms of getting an edge ;)

[David Wright]

Thanks for yhe responses. Yeah its a pretty amazing system. I find myself using all sorts of creative lines sometimes! The more i know the better in terms of getting an edge ;)

Yorkie's video does say

a) the rubbered line gets slippy when wet
b) the rubbered line does eventually get washed away

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=I-sBgmFg0cE

I fully agree with the earlier posts that while SMS seem to have a reputation for hype and salesmanship, they have not "sold" LiveTrack 3.0 sufficiently nor indeed the many advanced features in the physics engine. Yorkies amazing video has under 3K views.

The only aspect which seems to be missing is "polishing" of the track surface on the racing line which means the more abrasive tarmac off the racing line is still more grippy in the wet, even after the rubber has been washed away. I don't think any sim has this and in theory you would have to measure this at every corner at every track as presumably its not present on new tarmac and more pronounced with old tarmac.

[Keena]

Thanks David, I appreciate you taking the time to find that.

[yannara]

Is the pCars2 Still the future, or is there any plans about pCars3? Will there be more patches for pCars2?

[Konan]

Is the pCars2 Still the future, or is there any plans about pCars3? Will there be more patches for pCars2?

Patches are over for pCARS2...Ian talked about a possible pCARS3

[Konan]

https://www.gtplanet.net/project-cars-3-will-be-a-spiritual-successor-to-shift/

[Cholton82]

I sometimes go on GT Planet and Raceroom for news on various things and it does make me sad when I see new things coming to various sims yet PC2 has been left. I understand the need to move on to develop other titles and projects but I wish some of the team could still improve and add new content.

[David Wright]

I sometimes go on GT Planet and Raceroom for news on various things and it does make me sad when I see new things coming to various sims yet PC2 has been left. I understand the need to move on to develop other titles and projects but I wish some of the team could still improve and add new content.

I know what you mean and wish the same. However, in 12 months PC2 got over 30 new cars and 6 new tracks in DLC. When Raceroom, rF2 or iRacing get new content just think of it as them slowly catching up with what PC2 got some time ago.

[Cholton82]

I know what you mean and wish the same. However, in 12 months PC2 got over 30 new cars and 6 new tracks in DLC. When Raceroom, rF2 or iRacing get new content just think of it as them slowly catching up with what PC2 got some time ago.

Your right I suppose , I certainly can’t complain about content as PC2 is stacked with it. A few updated GT3 and GT4 cars would be nice though.
Looking forward to the day I switch to PC and have a bit more choice, unless I hold out for a Mad Box

[yannara]

If I move to different car class in a middle of a career, will I loose the progress of a previous class?

So, situation is - in career, I completed 2/3 of championships in Touring Cars, last championship is still left and I have an option to select something else beside TC. Right now I feel like driving GT3. So if I go to GT3, maybe fail it.. can I get then back to TC 3/3 championship?

[cxMilk]

While doing some testing at Hockenheim Classic I noticed my potential lap time was 30 seconds clear of my actual lap times. Is there some weird time glitch on this track? There's a few times where I blew my braking points and straight-lined the chicanes, but I'm certainly not netting 30 seconds from that. In fact, I think of all the times I blew the chicanes, only twice did I manage to save time compared to my best lap and it was only 2/2.5 seconds tops.

Haven't seen this issue on any other track.

If you jump back to the pits from somewhere on track, does this affect the potential time? Can't think of any other out of the ordinary thing I might have done.

[hkraft300]

Almost all tracks the potential time glitches out if you run wide/off track and invalidate your lap.

[Zaskarspants]

Yes, I always use potential time and it can be temporarily wonky after mistakes and offs, but sorts itself out after a few sectors.

[Cholton82]

I’m exhausted , Just finished the last race of the GEC in the Ligier Nissan at Le Man . Scaled it to 3 hrs and all was well until around 25 minutes left when a passing Lmp1 clobbered me and took the rear wing off .
An Unscheduled pit stop and 20 minutes of qualifying lap pace and I managed 3rd finishing less than a second behind second place . Climbing out my rig I’m knackered , Sitting now with a well earned beer . Great stuff

[cxMilk]

Almost all tracks the potential time glitches out if you run wide/off track and invalidate your lap.
Good to know, thanks. Like I said, never seen it happen before so really confused me - like a whole sector time went missing.

[Cholton82]

New season in the GEC , Help me choose a GTE car .
I’ve ruled out the Porsche as I cant put up with the sound , Also the Fords as that Eco Boost engine grates on me which leaves the Ferrari , BMW , Aston and Corvette . Struggling to decide which one to go for as I quite like them all.

[MrGold]

New season in the GEC , Help me choose a GTE car .
I’ve ruled out the Porsche as I cant put up with the sound , Also the Fords as that Eco Boost engine grates on me which leaves the Ferrari , BMW , Aston and Corvette . Struggling to decide which one to go for as I quite like them all.

First of all, the Corvette.

Second, what is the GEC? is it a league?

[hkraft300]

New season in the GEC , Help me choose a GTE car .
I’ve ruled out the Porsche as I cant put up with the sound , Also the Fords as that Eco Boost engine grates on me which leaves the Ferrari , BMW , Aston and Corvette . Struggling to decide which one to go for as I quite like them all.

C7R has pace.
Aston is a challenge but I like it as much as the C7R.
I haven't managed to tame the M6 or RSR.
488 is pretty much on par with the Ford GTLMGTLMGTELMGT.

[rich1e I]

Ford GTLMGTLMGTELMGT.

Wtf xD

If you don't like the Porsche and the Ford, then the Corvette is the obvious choice in my view. It really has pace and sounds awesome!

[hkraft300]

Wtf xD



You know exactly what I mean :rolleyes:

Ye love the C7 and its my pick if the competition is tough. Aston is arguably slower (or I just haven't got it to go fast enough) and still a sweet drive.

[Cholton82]

First of all, the Corvette.

Second, what is the GEC? is it a league?

Thanks for all the replies , I do like the Vette . For me the cockpit plays a big part in selection and this car has a nice cockpit.
GEC is the Global Endurance Championship in career.
I have done some practice earlier today and pretty much narrowed it down to the Vette and Ferrari , The Fords are the biggest competition so I need to try and keep pace with them.

[MrGold]

Thanks for all the replies , I do like the Vette . For me the cockpit plays a big part in selection and this car has a nice cockpit.
GEC is the Global Endurance Championship in career.
I have done some practice earlier today and pretty much narrowed it down to the Vette and Ferrari , The Fords are the biggest competition so I need to try and keep pace with them.

Cool. I am doing career as well but still in formula C. What AI settings do you recommend?

In my casual races I use 100% and 80% aggression and I can keep up and win at Le Mans or Daytona road course. On my FC campaign I have AI at 60% and i struggle to cone 5th. Also in donnington circuit the world record is 1:28 and i am standing on 1:35s... about same pace as AI but one mistake means I can't really catch up.

[Cholton82]

Cool. I am doing career as well but still in formula C. What AI settings do you recommend?

In my casual races I use 100% and 80% aggression and I can keep up and win at Le Mans or Daytona road course. On my FC campaign I have AI at 60% and i struggle to cone 5th. Also in donnington circuit the world record is 1:28 and i am standing on 1:35s... about same pace as AI but one mistake means I can't really catch up.

Most of the time I’m racing in GT3 , GTE or LMP2 . I think it’s on 90 skill and 90 aggression at the moment, I think I may lower aggression to maybe 80 for multi class as the lmp1 cars coming through can be a little overly aggressive.