I worked at Turn 10 on forza motorsports 2 and we absolutely were trying to make the best simulation possible (with the 360 hardware). We had some laserscanned tracks (very new at in 2006), pioneered new calspan tire testing to develop tire models when you reach the limit of traction (that's why forza 2-4 drift so well). We had a very large team of great people and worked right next to the much smaller (at the time) MSFT flight sim team. Once the game launched and we hit a 94 out of 100 rating, and sold WAY more copies than expected; leadership above the studio wanted to make the sim more casual so more people would buy it. The rest is history.
I have a copy of Forza 2 for the 360 laying somewhere, i feel honored to have talked to one of the devs of that game.
From the bottom of my heart, thank you.
Btw, personally been wondering what are you up to right now? Moved on from racing game dev? Still in the industry?
Thank you both for playing! I still work in the gaming industry but not specifically on racing games anymore. After a lot of years on my sim rig I finally jumped into IRL endurance racing in 2019. Also, I recently helped my friend set up the Speed Secrets [simraceracademy.com](http://simraceracademy.com) and we have been having a lot of fun with it!
Funny you mention drifting, I remember drifting in forza 2 and 3 being absolutely huge. I was amongst that first wave of drift teams that sprung up on the forza forums, some truly amazing times were had.
I wound up getting rid of my Xbox before 4 came out so I missed it at its peak but it’s so positively received to this day for a reason I’m sure.
I'm biased obv, but the way you could modify/tune the car (the realism of response to the changes) and the livery editor were completely revolutionary at the time. The magic was in the real world tire tests we (the team, not me) invented with the help of Calspan. It tested the assumptions of the pure math models all sims used in those days and that's why the sim was so ahead of it's time with how it handled the tire/contact patch beyond the limit of grip. It turns out measuring the real word loss of grip proved the theoretical math/physics models were fundamentally wrong and very far off.
There were a series of tire models by Hans Pacejka that have since been dubbed the "Magic Formula". The model was not good at low speeds because a velocity term in the denominator makes the formula diverge. We found it also it lost coherence at higher levels of traction loss (ie. drifting) when we compared our real world tire test data to the MF model output.
"Solving a model based on the Magic curve with high frequency can also be a problem, determined by how is the input of the Pacejka curve computed. The slipping velocitytct point) will change very quickly and the model becomes a [stiff system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiff_equation) (a system, whose [eigenvalues](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigenvalues) differ a lot), which may require special solver."
Check out more info here - [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/magic-formula-tire-model](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/magic-formula-tire-model)
MSFS 2024 looks amazing. I made sure to build my rig to be both a racing and flight cockpit so I’ll be using it for flight a lot come the end of the year. But yes, I agree with you. I wish we could see the same dedication and innovation into a car/racing sim!
Not who you asked but for mine I have an extrusion rig and because I am from UK I will be mounting my shifter and handbrake on my left which leaves the right side for HOTAS
I have a seat pulled from a BMW that fully adjusts height and recline etc so that helps too
I also have a touchscreen monitor attacked to the rig
I'm big into both flightsim and simracing.
The simracing world is in pretty good shape to be honest, iRacing and Assetto Corsa have it covered. There is plenty of innovation going on there and the future looks good with iRacing bringing big updates like the Tempest weather system and Assetto Corsa Evo just around the corner.
Flightsim however was in dire need of some love, with various sims built on legacy codebases and various companies just kind of stuck in their ways. It really needed shaking up and dragging into the modern era and thankfully Microsoft have been able to do that and it's only getting better from here. Flightsim is in an incredible place compared to where it was 5 years ago, largely due to Microsoft's efforts and their willingness to leverage expertise from the community to benefit everyone.
Yeah I run into these guys every now and then who insist on not being 'gamers' while playing iracing several hours a day. Just seems like living in denial about your hobbies to me.
That is fair.
But you gotta draw the line somewhere, or everything will blend together into mass appealing dogshit.
We've watched it happen to every other form of media. Do you think we can hold this one line?
A Game still can be a sim. The line is the purpose of the sim, if you do it for fun it’s a game, if you use the sim to test aerodynamics to apply it to an actual car, then it’s just a sim
I play video games for entertainment. The full on sim sessions real drivers do are for work, to evaluate the car or something. The sim sessions they do at home are for fun.
I get the difference between arcade and simulation when it comes to detail, but at the end of the day, we all sim for fun. If we enjoy it, what does it matter if it's "a videogame" or "a simulation". They're both entertainment to us
>I get the difference between arcade and simulation when it comes to detail, but at the end of the day, we all sim for fun. If we enjoy it, what does it matter if it's "a videogame" or "a simulation". They're both entertainment to us
I don't think you understood his opinion. It doesn't matter how much simulation the engine does. It's still a "video game" at the end of the day. All of them! Just look up the definition.
That's my point, though I guess I might have worded it poorly. Hence I mentioned they were all entertainment and me playing video games for entertainment.
The amount of detail needed for each one as well as the scope is different. You have to simulate CFD in both, but then in sim racing you have to simulate accurate tire friction (compounds, temperatures, deformation), suspension behavior, a variety of surfaces both dry and wet, realistic damage model, and the bumps and dips on the racing surface. Nobody cares if a runway has a small piece of tarmac missing from an edge. 100% detail on the entire racing surface is the goal. There are no corners that can be cut.
Actually that kind of modeling would be beneficial to flight sim. Runway conditions do play a part in airplane performance during landing and takeoff. I know i for one would welcome a realistic damage model and accurate wear and tear modeling in the base sim. Even ACC could use better damage model but most rigs probably couldn't handle the debris spread at Monza T1.
The problem is that in a flight sim, those things are present in less than 1% of scenarios. Flying is different in the sense that if conditions are deemed unsafe, you just don’t fly. That’s why I reckon they’re not simulated. In flight you operate within safe margins, in racing you’re trying to toe the line between safety and loss of traction. That’s why the amount of detail in the simulation is different. It really is more demanding in racing. You’re trying to place a car in any given spot on the track within an inch of precision. You’re probably fine within a few feet or even meters in flight.
At this point I’d think flying is far easier to sell as “complete” than driving. Once you’re in the air, that’s pretty much it since development in the field has decades of come-up while driving changes on some impactful level every 5 years.
I would disagree here.
As tire physics and other modeling gets better, cars sims get closer to closer to accurately replicating the real world dynamics of driving fast.
For flight sims, we still can't calculate real time fluid dynamics accurately on consumer hardware. So shortcuts are always taken, even with the "CFD" that is available right now. It's a Fast Aproximation, but not a true complete analysis.
So what that means, is aircraft dynamics still have a long, long way to go before accurately simulating everything that can happen. The way the aircraft stalls, how it behaves with a bad CG, etc, etc.
So on that front, I'd say driving sims are far closer to the real thing that aircraft sims at this time. And that's because accurate CFD analysis requires A LOT of horsepower, and we're still not at the point where consumer hardware can do it in real time for a video game.
Ground vehicles are much more challenging than flight, both have similar approximation issues on consumer hardware, but even if we say flight has more issue there than driving, driving has problems that don’t exist in flight: four points of contact with the ground. This makes the suspension extremely difficult to get working correctly with discrete time steps, no matter how small.
I’d also argue that aside from simulating Blue Angels in a multiplayer, the networking challenge of flight sim vs racing is vastly easier when your not expecting vehicles moving that quick to be remotely close to each other. Of course this is opening other doors but I think is the bigger let down in sim racing right now.
I think people get caught thinking that because airplanes are more complex in real life, the simulation must also be. It really isn’t. You still have to model CFD in driving especially race cars where aero packages are used and part of setups. You don’t have to care about the variety of surfaces in tracks around the world, how suspension handles bumps and steering inputs, tire deformation and temperatures to the degree in sim racing, etc. In flight sims you gotta get CFD modeling right to get a convincing product. In racing it’s CFD plus a bunch of other elements.
Its so sad. Playing Forza 4 on the xbox 360 is what got me really into racing games and eventually sim racing. Even going back now that game feels like a genuine, passionate celebration of motorsport and just cars in general. now Forza is just a soulless cash grab, its the call of duty of racing games.
Honestly I just want VR support in Horizon 5 so I can do VR in Hotwheels land.
I don't need Forza to be a hard core sim, I have other games for that. I need Forza to be Pokemon for cars in a simcade environment... But with VR support.
I wish Sony and Poly would just rollover and bring GT7 to PC. Forza just ain't it and GT could easily pick up those that were disenfranchised by the FM and FH launches.
I have a feeling this might happen. Psvr2 is getting PC support at the start of August, so I wouldn't really be surprised if they release a PC version of gt7 with/shortly after the googles have pc support.
>Forza just ain't it and GT could easily pick up those that were disenfranchised by the FM and FH launches.
Polyphony would be dreaming to pick up the Forza Horizon market. Even NFS and TDUSC are hopeless and you think a track-racing game would do it? Lol.
They could definitely attract the FM fanbase, only.
Forza Motorsport should have absolutely been the Motorsport equivalent of thier flight simulator. With great controller support. It looks amazing already. A track builder instead of the flight path. Is it the physicist need to change or the tire model? Where do I sign up for that?
NGL I'm happy they have cornered the flight sim market as id argue, they have the resources to dedicate to such a huge undertaking and they have done a fantastic job.
Id prefer they do 1 thing to the best of their ability as and let others handle the sim racing.
I and my rig can't wait for MSFS2024
I agree and honestly that’s where I thought they were going to go with FM8. FM started as a simcade but they have FH for that now. Don’t really get why they didn’t lean more into the simulation side in FM.
Microsoft Flight simulator is one of Microsoft's first products . Something they made even before Windows OS. Sim racing isn't that old in their product line, Forza is something they launched to compete with Granturismo to compete on consoles, I don't think they have any thoughts sim racing, can't blame them for that.
In a way it's good that Microsoft isn't competing in sim racing, if they come then competition will die and us sim racers will be the biggest losers.
Point of order. XPlane has better flight dynamics than MSFS. If you want pretty, MS got you. You trying to accurately simulate fight - Laminar Research is OP.
ya but fh is supposed to be arcade, and fm is designed to also be acsessible to xbox kids who just crash into every wall and think they are the next verstappen
He's talking about a potential "Microsoft Racing Simulator" to rival the quality of MSFS 2020/2024. Imagine such a game with iRacings multi-player framework. That'd shake up the sim racing market.
Lies, it's not perfect but it's up there. Compared to the ones on PC that have insane minimum requirements they have to release theirs on console. It was already a problem for Asobo to optimize the entire planet as a map. None of the supposed names of PC have dreamed of achieving such feat.
Different development studios produce different results. Turn 10 keeps dropping the ball on the Forza Motorsport front. Forza Motorsport 4 was the last great simcade racer put out by the studio. It's been all downhill since. They keep trying to do things with the franchise that absolutely nobody asked for.
Maybe someday Microsoft will either build or acquire a proper sim racing development studio and put out something worthy.
If you ask me though, Asobo dropped the ball hard with 2020's Microsoft Flight Simulator. The game is a disastrous buggy mess still to this day. It's of course playable and enjoyable, but holy moly there is just so much broken and wrong with it.
2024 MSFS is just going to be more of the same. No doubt in my mind it's going to be broken as shit, too.
No thanks. Then you would probably have to paid for each individual car like a dlc. I'm not saying that it wouldn't have the potential to be good, I'm just saying that we all know they would monetize the living hell out of it.
This isn’t a bad thing. Capturing the accuracy of a specific car takes time and money. If you want something done right and don’t want to pay for it then just say it.
They would lose out on a massive player base switching to full sim. Same reason why Sony/Polyphony has just stuck with GT and not made a full sim title either. The sim racing category is also arguably more competitive than flight sims, you have about 2-3 competitors to MSFS compared to sim racing which has more than double that in competition. Microsoft would have to work extremely hard and really put a focus on online stewarding and lobbies. And that’s when they’ll face competition to iRacing which will be a tough feat. Will people be willing to drop iRacing when they’ve spent all that money on it? When it has filled lobbies and greater impact on clean racing?
The reality of it is, if they knew they could break the market they would have created a full sim title. But they can’t, they would have to focus on another game too when they can’t even manage the one they have out now. It’s not only about money to make something like this happen, it’s about willingness, dedication, knowledge, and caring for a market demographic. None of which Microsoft has shown to care much for except for what will bring them the most profit.
I’m pretty convinced what keeps people into iRacing is sunk-cost fallacy. I mean if someone really likes the act of driving would they really need to play against a real person online that badly?
If they just want to drive then no, if they want proper competition then yes. You just can’t beat driving against real people compared to AI. AI in a lot of games aren’t the best, either predictable, slow, will back out of a fight easily, or all of the above. iRacings online is indisputable, I say this even though I don’t use it, but it is true, they have one of the best online systems. There’s always a race going on, because of the subscription system you’ll mostly only have people who are there to race properly and not take you out every corner forza style. You could join leagues but still you’re not guaranteed great racing or filled lobbies. A lot of the times it’s season based so you can’t just hop into a random race. LFM is working its way up, but the reality of it is that it still is just not at the level iRacing is at. I can’t justify the pricing for my needs, but a lot of people can.
I honestly just can’t accept that all these people are online and ready to race. This is a niche field- especially with the addition of anything competitive. ACC has around 10k players on a monthly basis. Sadly, matchmaking is nonexistent as far as I’m aware in it. GT sport had a good thing going in terms of matchmaking. But I just can’t believe in a field as niche as sim racing will have this many people from all skill levels ready to go (not to mention the extra hassle of work/life, having any type of setup, time zone differential, etc just happening to come together for this fluid of an experience). I play other papyrus games and they’ve always had great ai that can pass for actual people.
You might not want to accept it, but it’s true, that’s why iRacing is so popular. When I had a once month trial I can confirm the online is great. While sim racing is a niche it’s not like there’s only 20k sim racers out there, there’s way more than you might think, niche doesn’t mean tiny. That’s why I point out the leagues, and like I said, what draws more people into iRacing is the ability to just hop in to an online race whenever, unlike in most leagues or public lobbies. Matchmaking in console is pretty non existent, yes, but that’s because majority of sim racers are on PC. ACC on PC I can hop into a lobby, but then I’m either racing on monza all the time or racing with like 5 people which is just sad. iRacing you can hop in to a full field or half field no issues. I thought the same until I could try it myself.
My thing is basic deduction- out of all the racing sims on steam (which is the main platform for pc gaming) maybe there’s a total of 30,000 people on monthly for it which is a low number to start. Then filter out those who will never be above average in it. Then filter out those who are in the same time zone as you or are free from working. Then filter out those who don’t have kids so they can play whenever they want (this field tends to attract grown adults more than kids). Coincidentally, iRacing has wildly massive numbers- including the expense of being able to play it monthly/what car and tracks you want. When all this gets factored in, it’s highly unbelievable that all of these people are real and waiting on John from Kentucky to log on for an equal matchup in skill level on the exact same tracks whenever John from Ohio is ready. ACC is deemed an “up there” game and the skill level is all over the place and it only has 10k revolving player counts. And I’m supposed to believe iRacing is the magic child who randomly recruited tons of people equal in whatever skill I am at any time of day to play on the exact tracks I paid for? This just doesn’t add up.
The races are scheduled every 15 minutes to an hour depending on the series. At any given moment there are about +10,000 people on iRacing. You only need about 8 other people to have a solid race.
The skill levels are managed by a combination of licence class and safety rating. So for the most part you generally get people around your skill level unless your racing more niche series.
What people do leave out is that if you don't mind what car you're driving, yeah you can always find a good race. If it's a car/series that isn't very popular, then you might run into issues. If you're racing MX-5's, there's going to be plenty of people, like a few hundred per time slot. If you want to do something like rally cross, it drops down to like 12 people if your lucky.
You also don't fully select a track, usually each series rotates what track they are on for the week. So you that helps to funnel people together.
This is my point- with all of this adding difficulty to join with random people at all times of day/times zones/ responsibility in life and with the addition of paying a monthly fee and extra fees for any specific car and needing any type of additional equipment, I just don’t see this as very logical in expecting it all to be real people. I play other papyrus games and the ai is pretty good on these games even by todays standards. I’m shocked nobody has put 2 and 2 together with this. I can see call of duty getting these numbers (pretty much every other form of online gaming has admitted to doing this except niche fields). But the numbers simply aren’t there for sim racing at the magnitude iRacing is indirectly claiming. Hell, even if a streamer who gets tons of views playing gt7 will see their views cut in half playing anything more hardcore. I’m sure there’s SOME streamer getting tons of views for iRacing but there’s no comparison with the lighter “sims”. I’m not saying one is better than the other but what I’m trying to say is the interest just isn’t there for the numbers iRacing is indirectly inferring and based off their past in racing games, no matter how good you are there’s 100% chance they can all be bots and be believable. I think the bigger accomplishment is papyrus ai than anything else from a historical sense alone.
You’re answering your own question here, based on your numbers it just proves that people are willing to pay for iRacing more than non subscription games. You don’t want to believe just because you don’t think the numbers add up when you haven’t even tried it for yourself? What I can’t seem to believe is how much and how far you’re even going to just try and disprove why iRacing is so successful. To bring your other points into perspective, for a lot of iRacing subscribers, that’s literally all they play, they don’t touch any other titles. So for them paying an annual fee is the same as if others were to buy another title, and buying cars and tracks is the equivalent of buying dlc’s. It may not be worth it to you and that’s okay, I’m with you on that, I can’t justify the cost of iRacing personally, but a lot of people can, what’s so hard to understand about that. Plain and simple, you just can’t get from other titles what you can get with iRacing and that’s why people prefer it. Why do people play FH instead of The crew? Why do people play LoL over Smite? Because they do certain things that people want better than the competitor.
Literally my proof is looking at steam/site player numbers and breaking down logic. I’m not saying iRacing may not be fun. I’m sure it is. But my point is in stating the fun is more than likely bots due to numbers simply not being there for sim racing (or any sim the more hardcore it gets) to have these amounts of people readily available due to numerous complications. The other games you mentioned are far more accessible for many reasons and I’d expect these numbers, at least at some point, from these games as they can be played with base equipment well. Hardcore sims have always been a niche field and with the advancement in graphics, they’ve only gained more popularity in the past 15ish years but it’s still relatively low. But randomly iRacing magically figured it out and it was so awesome that people even in countries with $200/month wages working all month to get into it AND pay subscriptions? It just seems highly unlikely, especially given the devs history with making great ai previous to iRacing. Again, I’m not trying to say the game isn’t fun, but the logic it’s sold from is highly unlikely and I think the population either knows it or hides from the reality forming a suck-cost fallacy.
>Literally my proof is looking at steam/site player numbers and breaking down logic.
You know the vast majority of iRacers don't have their accounts linked to steam, right?
The sunk cost fallacy might make sense. But does it not make more sense that the reason everyone gravitates towards iracing is because it has no real competition?
>My thing is basic deduction- out of all the racing sims on steam (which is the main platform for pc gaming)
Again, most iracers don't have their accounts linked to steam (and iRacing is the main platform for online racing).
That’s why I added “site”. They have roughly the same player count as ACC there and ACC is no juggernaut in online racing in any way. Even if it were triple what I found, the numbers and odds still don’t match up.
And, sure, I’ll entertain it may be fun as many papyrus games have always had great ai. My main topic is the actual “player” count.
Just added this: I find it very odd that iRacing doesn’t show player counts and never have…..
Anyone who has raced against an actual person, in anger, will be able to tell the difference. AI and bots are getting better, but they simply aren't there yet when it comes to AI in racing.
You can literally see the other person's emotions, in how they drive their car. You can see when someone is frazzled and pushing too hard. You can see when someone is ultra fast and is just calmly toying with you.
You can see when someone is confident as hell behind you, and then immediately unsure of their pace when in front of you.
Straw man argument or you’re really just trying to grasp at air. I never said anything about having fun. So you’re just making up pointless rebuttals to get your way. Nor is using steam by itself enough to compare to iRacing stats. You also don’t seem to understand how big the world is. Also doesn’t seem like you know much if anything about iRacing other than it is subscription based. iRacing is not this new thing that popped up and magically gained a massive following. It’s a pretty old title where one person sunk money into to create something that addresses a lot of sim racers complaints. It took a long time and a lot of work to get it to what it is today. You can believe your conspiracy theories when you haven’t even given it a go. I’m gonna leave you to it lol.
It’s somewhat that but it’s also the fact that to stay with the good drivers you are constantly racing. It’s why people recommend it because has great drivers, then someone mentions they just started and got rammed into constantly, the answer is always “well yea it sucks to begin with but you gotta keep trying”.
I don’t have an issue with iracing. I don’t play it enough to justify it, but there is a lot of moving of goal posts about the game.
That IS pretty cool. They’re just different animals altogether. Maybe I’m speaking from ignorance as well, but the physics model of a driving/racing sim seem more complex to me. Tires, brakes, and suspension on top of CFD. Crash modeling, surface temperature and friction characteristics (asphalt, concrete, gravel, sand, grass, etc.) and their wet counterparts. I don’t think it’s even close.
I think you’re right, there is just less to stuff to model in terms of physics.
Plus flight sims have just been doing it longer and have had more money invested in it by airline operators
I don't really think flight is simpler, but MSFS does a very simplified model of flight and I'd honestly compare it similarly to Forza in the arcade physics nature.
The primary areas MSFS tries to sim also don't push flight to extremes like racing games do.
The problems with FM are well documented by now, but it is a management and contract issue, not a budget issue.
I worked at Turn 10 on forza motorsports 2 and we absolutely were trying to make the best simulation possible (with the 360 hardware). We had some laserscanned tracks (very new at in 2006), pioneered new calspan tire testing to develop tire models when you reach the limit of traction (that's why forza 2-4 drift so well). We had a very large team of great people and worked right next to the much smaller (at the time) MSFT flight sim team. Once the game launched and we hit a 94 out of 100 rating, and sold WAY more copies than expected; leadership above the studio wanted to make the sim more casual so more people would buy it. The rest is history.
I have a copy of Forza 2 for the 360 laying somewhere, i feel honored to have talked to one of the devs of that game. From the bottom of my heart, thank you. Btw, personally been wondering what are you up to right now? Moved on from racing game dev? Still in the industry?
Thank you both for playing! I still work in the gaming industry but not specifically on racing games anymore. After a lot of years on my sim rig I finally jumped into IRL endurance racing in 2019. Also, I recently helped my friend set up the Speed Secrets [simraceracademy.com](http://simraceracademy.com) and we have been having a lot of fun with it!
Just wanted to add as well thank you as well. I spent so many hours on that game and its what made me want to do endurance racing.
What I love seeing is awesome devs turned to awesome leaders doing awesome things in their awesome off-time stay awesome my dude
Thanks! Just to clarify it was my first job out of college and I was not a developer. Those guys were the rock stars. I was the single player QA lead.
Thank you for getting me into cars and racing!
Rip. Cool story, thanks
Funny you mention drifting, I remember drifting in forza 2 and 3 being absolutely huge. I was amongst that first wave of drift teams that sprung up on the forza forums, some truly amazing times were had. I wound up getting rid of my Xbox before 4 came out so I missed it at its peak but it’s so positively received to this day for a reason I’m sure.
I'm biased obv, but the way you could modify/tune the car (the realism of response to the changes) and the livery editor were completely revolutionary at the time. The magic was in the real world tire tests we (the team, not me) invented with the help of Calspan. It tested the assumptions of the pure math models all sims used in those days and that's why the sim was so ahead of it's time with how it handled the tire/contact patch beyond the limit of grip. It turns out measuring the real word loss of grip proved the theoretical math/physics models were fundamentally wrong and very far off.
If you don't mind, can you elaborate more on what exactly went wrong with the mathematical model? As a math student, I'm very curious.
There were a series of tire models by Hans Pacejka that have since been dubbed the "Magic Formula". The model was not good at low speeds because a velocity term in the denominator makes the formula diverge. We found it also it lost coherence at higher levels of traction loss (ie. drifting) when we compared our real world tire test data to the MF model output. "Solving a model based on the Magic curve with high frequency can also be a problem, determined by how is the input of the Pacejka curve computed. The slipping velocitytct point) will change very quickly and the model becomes a [stiff system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiff_equation) (a system, whose [eigenvalues](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigenvalues) differ a lot), which may require special solver." Check out more info here - [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/magic-formula-tire-model](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/magic-formula-tire-model)
Forza 2 was a lot of fun and it was the first game I got for my 360 along with FEAR. Thank you for your work on the game.
Still have my copy of 1 and 2
MSFS 2024 looks amazing. I made sure to build my rig to be both a racing and flight cockpit so I’ll be using it for flight a lot come the end of the year. But yes, I agree with you. I wish we could see the same dedication and innovation into a car/racing sim!
That's what I want to do with my rig as well. but I still struggle to find a good balance. Can you give some insight about your rig?
Not who you asked but for mine I have an extrusion rig and because I am from UK I will be mounting my shifter and handbrake on my left which leaves the right side for HOTAS I have a seat pulled from a BMW that fully adjusts height and recline etc so that helps too I also have a touchscreen monitor attacked to the rig
Why is your monitor attacking your rig? Jk, where is your rudder?
I just use the Fanatec CSL Elite V2 pedals as rudder. Works like a charm...
Sorry I meant whatever the steering wheel equivalent is
I'm big into both flightsim and simracing. The simracing world is in pretty good shape to be honest, iRacing and Assetto Corsa have it covered. There is plenty of innovation going on there and the future looks good with iRacing bringing big updates like the Tempest weather system and Assetto Corsa Evo just around the corner. Flightsim however was in dire need of some love, with various sims built on legacy codebases and various companies just kind of stuck in their ways. It really needed shaking up and dragging into the modern era and thankfully Microsoft have been able to do that and it's only getting better from here. Flightsim is in an incredible place compared to where it was 5 years ago, largely due to Microsoft's efforts and their willingness to leverage expertise from the community to benefit everyone.
*Not a video game*. Sure buddy. Just say arcade or something, it's ridiculous.
I really love all the pretentious „no I’m not playing games, I’m simulating“ as if they aren’t doing it for enjoyment
Yeah I run into these guys every now and then who insist on not being 'gamers' while playing iracing several hours a day. Just seems like living in denial about your hobbies to me.
Next time, tell them to look up the definition of "Video game".
That is fair. But you gotta draw the line somewhere, or everything will blend together into mass appealing dogshit. We've watched it happen to every other form of media. Do you think we can hold this one line?
A Game still can be a sim. The line is the purpose of the sim, if you do it for fun it’s a game, if you use the sim to test aerodynamics to apply it to an actual car, then it’s just a sim
Science is boring! CAR GO FAST
I play video games for entertainment. The full on sim sessions real drivers do are for work, to evaluate the car or something. The sim sessions they do at home are for fun. I get the difference between arcade and simulation when it comes to detail, but at the end of the day, we all sim for fun. If we enjoy it, what does it matter if it's "a videogame" or "a simulation". They're both entertainment to us
>I get the difference between arcade and simulation when it comes to detail, but at the end of the day, we all sim for fun. If we enjoy it, what does it matter if it's "a videogame" or "a simulation". They're both entertainment to us I don't think you understood his opinion. It doesn't matter how much simulation the engine does. It's still a "video game" at the end of the day. All of them! Just look up the definition.
That's my point, though I guess I might have worded it poorly. Hence I mentioned they were all entertainment and me playing video games for entertainment.
The amount of detail needed for each one as well as the scope is different. You have to simulate CFD in both, but then in sim racing you have to simulate accurate tire friction (compounds, temperatures, deformation), suspension behavior, a variety of surfaces both dry and wet, realistic damage model, and the bumps and dips on the racing surface. Nobody cares if a runway has a small piece of tarmac missing from an edge. 100% detail on the entire racing surface is the goal. There are no corners that can be cut.
Actually that kind of modeling would be beneficial to flight sim. Runway conditions do play a part in airplane performance during landing and takeoff. I know i for one would welcome a realistic damage model and accurate wear and tear modeling in the base sim. Even ACC could use better damage model but most rigs probably couldn't handle the debris spread at Monza T1.
The problem is that in a flight sim, those things are present in less than 1% of scenarios. Flying is different in the sense that if conditions are deemed unsafe, you just don’t fly. That’s why I reckon they’re not simulated. In flight you operate within safe margins, in racing you’re trying to toe the line between safety and loss of traction. That’s why the amount of detail in the simulation is different. It really is more demanding in racing. You’re trying to place a car in any given spot on the track within an inch of precision. You’re probably fine within a few feet or even meters in flight.
At this point I’d think flying is far easier to sell as “complete” than driving. Once you’re in the air, that’s pretty much it since development in the field has decades of come-up while driving changes on some impactful level every 5 years.
I would disagree here. As tire physics and other modeling gets better, cars sims get closer to closer to accurately replicating the real world dynamics of driving fast. For flight sims, we still can't calculate real time fluid dynamics accurately on consumer hardware. So shortcuts are always taken, even with the "CFD" that is available right now. It's a Fast Aproximation, but not a true complete analysis. So what that means, is aircraft dynamics still have a long, long way to go before accurately simulating everything that can happen. The way the aircraft stalls, how it behaves with a bad CG, etc, etc. So on that front, I'd say driving sims are far closer to the real thing that aircraft sims at this time. And that's because accurate CFD analysis requires A LOT of horsepower, and we're still not at the point where consumer hardware can do it in real time for a video game.
Ground vehicles are much more challenging than flight, both have similar approximation issues on consumer hardware, but even if we say flight has more issue there than driving, driving has problems that don’t exist in flight: four points of contact with the ground. This makes the suspension extremely difficult to get working correctly with discrete time steps, no matter how small. I’d also argue that aside from simulating Blue Angels in a multiplayer, the networking challenge of flight sim vs racing is vastly easier when your not expecting vehicles moving that quick to be remotely close to each other. Of course this is opening other doors but I think is the bigger let down in sim racing right now.
I think people get caught thinking that because airplanes are more complex in real life, the simulation must also be. It really isn’t. You still have to model CFD in driving especially race cars where aero packages are used and part of setups. You don’t have to care about the variety of surfaces in tracks around the world, how suspension handles bumps and steering inputs, tire deformation and temperatures to the degree in sim racing, etc. In flight sims you gotta get CFD modeling right to get a convincing product. In racing it’s CFD plus a bunch of other elements.
They need to make other simulators like MFS too, like farming simulator or truck sim
Its so sad. Playing Forza 4 on the xbox 360 is what got me really into racing games and eventually sim racing. Even going back now that game feels like a genuine, passionate celebration of motorsport and just cars in general. now Forza is just a soulless cash grab, its the call of duty of racing games.
Honestly I just want VR support in Horizon 5 so I can do VR in Hotwheels land. I don't need Forza to be a hard core sim, I have other games for that. I need Forza to be Pokemon for cars in a simcade environment... But with VR support.
I wish Sony and Poly would just rollover and bring GT7 to PC. Forza just ain't it and GT could easily pick up those that were disenfranchised by the FM and FH launches.
I have a feeling this might happen. Psvr2 is getting PC support at the start of August, so I wouldn't really be surprised if they release a PC version of gt7 with/shortly after the googles have pc support.
>Forza just ain't it and GT could easily pick up those that were disenfranchised by the FM and FH launches. Polyphony would be dreaming to pick up the Forza Horizon market. Even NFS and TDUSC are hopeless and you think a track-racing game would do it? Lol. They could definitely attract the FM fanbase, only.
Forza Motorsport should have absolutely been the Motorsport equivalent of thier flight simulator. With great controller support. It looks amazing already. A track builder instead of the flight path. Is it the physicist need to change or the tire model? Where do I sign up for that?
Yea , everyone else's car would look like a 747 unless you are in the same exact car
No....they had their shares way back racing with America CART series. Another one driving simulator.... And they went with Forza eventually.
NGL I'm happy they have cornered the flight sim market as id argue, they have the resources to dedicate to such a huge undertaking and they have done a fantastic job. Id prefer they do 1 thing to the best of their ability as and let others handle the sim racing. I and my rig can't wait for MSFS2024
I agree and honestly that’s where I thought they were going to go with FM8. FM started as a simcade but they have FH for that now. Don’t really get why they didn’t lean more into the simulation side in FM.
Microsoft Flight simulator is one of Microsoft's first products . Something they made even before Windows OS. Sim racing isn't that old in their product line, Forza is something they launched to compete with Granturismo to compete on consoles, I don't think they have any thoughts sim racing, can't blame them for that. In a way it's good that Microsoft isn't competing in sim racing, if they come then competition will die and us sim racers will be the biggest losers.
Point of order. XPlane has better flight dynamics than MSFS. If you want pretty, MS got you. You trying to accurately simulate fight - Laminar Research is OP.
It's still a videogame
ya but fh is supposed to be arcade, and fm is designed to also be acsessible to xbox kids who just crash into every wall and think they are the next verstappen
He's talking about a potential "Microsoft Racing Simulator" to rival the quality of MSFS 2020/2024. Imagine such a game with iRacings multi-player framework. That'd shake up the sim racing market.
well msfs is not that realistic in terms of physics either, but we will see into msfs 2024 what would happen
Lies, it's not perfect but it's up there. Compared to the ones on PC that have insane minimum requirements they have to release theirs on console. It was already a problem for Asobo to optimize the entire planet as a map. None of the supposed names of PC have dreamed of achieving such feat.
Different development studios produce different results. Turn 10 keeps dropping the ball on the Forza Motorsport front. Forza Motorsport 4 was the last great simcade racer put out by the studio. It's been all downhill since. They keep trying to do things with the franchise that absolutely nobody asked for. Maybe someday Microsoft will either build or acquire a proper sim racing development studio and put out something worthy. If you ask me though, Asobo dropped the ball hard with 2020's Microsoft Flight Simulator. The game is a disastrous buggy mess still to this day. It's of course playable and enjoyable, but holy moly there is just so much broken and wrong with it. 2024 MSFS is just going to be more of the same. No doubt in my mind it's going to be broken as shit, too.
Msfs 2020 basically just convinced my dad that he needed to swap to xplane.
No thanks. Then you would probably have to paid for each individual car like a dlc. I'm not saying that it wouldn't have the potential to be good, I'm just saying that we all know they would monetize the living hell out of it.
This isn’t a bad thing. Capturing the accuracy of a specific car takes time and money. If you want something done right and don’t want to pay for it then just say it.
So, just like iRacing and half the racing game market?
They would lose out on a massive player base switching to full sim. Same reason why Sony/Polyphony has just stuck with GT and not made a full sim title either. The sim racing category is also arguably more competitive than flight sims, you have about 2-3 competitors to MSFS compared to sim racing which has more than double that in competition. Microsoft would have to work extremely hard and really put a focus on online stewarding and lobbies. And that’s when they’ll face competition to iRacing which will be a tough feat. Will people be willing to drop iRacing when they’ve spent all that money on it? When it has filled lobbies and greater impact on clean racing? The reality of it is, if they knew they could break the market they would have created a full sim title. But they can’t, they would have to focus on another game too when they can’t even manage the one they have out now. It’s not only about money to make something like this happen, it’s about willingness, dedication, knowledge, and caring for a market demographic. None of which Microsoft has shown to care much for except for what will bring them the most profit.
I’m pretty convinced what keeps people into iRacing is sunk-cost fallacy. I mean if someone really likes the act of driving would they really need to play against a real person online that badly?
If they just want to drive then no, if they want proper competition then yes. You just can’t beat driving against real people compared to AI. AI in a lot of games aren’t the best, either predictable, slow, will back out of a fight easily, or all of the above. iRacings online is indisputable, I say this even though I don’t use it, but it is true, they have one of the best online systems. There’s always a race going on, because of the subscription system you’ll mostly only have people who are there to race properly and not take you out every corner forza style. You could join leagues but still you’re not guaranteed great racing or filled lobbies. A lot of the times it’s season based so you can’t just hop into a random race. LFM is working its way up, but the reality of it is that it still is just not at the level iRacing is at. I can’t justify the pricing for my needs, but a lot of people can.
I honestly just can’t accept that all these people are online and ready to race. This is a niche field- especially with the addition of anything competitive. ACC has around 10k players on a monthly basis. Sadly, matchmaking is nonexistent as far as I’m aware in it. GT sport had a good thing going in terms of matchmaking. But I just can’t believe in a field as niche as sim racing will have this many people from all skill levels ready to go (not to mention the extra hassle of work/life, having any type of setup, time zone differential, etc just happening to come together for this fluid of an experience). I play other papyrus games and they’ve always had great ai that can pass for actual people.
You might not want to accept it, but it’s true, that’s why iRacing is so popular. When I had a once month trial I can confirm the online is great. While sim racing is a niche it’s not like there’s only 20k sim racers out there, there’s way more than you might think, niche doesn’t mean tiny. That’s why I point out the leagues, and like I said, what draws more people into iRacing is the ability to just hop in to an online race whenever, unlike in most leagues or public lobbies. Matchmaking in console is pretty non existent, yes, but that’s because majority of sim racers are on PC. ACC on PC I can hop into a lobby, but then I’m either racing on monza all the time or racing with like 5 people which is just sad. iRacing you can hop in to a full field or half field no issues. I thought the same until I could try it myself.
My thing is basic deduction- out of all the racing sims on steam (which is the main platform for pc gaming) maybe there’s a total of 30,000 people on monthly for it which is a low number to start. Then filter out those who will never be above average in it. Then filter out those who are in the same time zone as you or are free from working. Then filter out those who don’t have kids so they can play whenever they want (this field tends to attract grown adults more than kids). Coincidentally, iRacing has wildly massive numbers- including the expense of being able to play it monthly/what car and tracks you want. When all this gets factored in, it’s highly unbelievable that all of these people are real and waiting on John from Kentucky to log on for an equal matchup in skill level on the exact same tracks whenever John from Ohio is ready. ACC is deemed an “up there” game and the skill level is all over the place and it only has 10k revolving player counts. And I’m supposed to believe iRacing is the magic child who randomly recruited tons of people equal in whatever skill I am at any time of day to play on the exact tracks I paid for? This just doesn’t add up.
The races are scheduled every 15 minutes to an hour depending on the series. At any given moment there are about +10,000 people on iRacing. You only need about 8 other people to have a solid race. The skill levels are managed by a combination of licence class and safety rating. So for the most part you generally get people around your skill level unless your racing more niche series. What people do leave out is that if you don't mind what car you're driving, yeah you can always find a good race. If it's a car/series that isn't very popular, then you might run into issues. If you're racing MX-5's, there's going to be plenty of people, like a few hundred per time slot. If you want to do something like rally cross, it drops down to like 12 people if your lucky. You also don't fully select a track, usually each series rotates what track they are on for the week. So you that helps to funnel people together.
This is my point- with all of this adding difficulty to join with random people at all times of day/times zones/ responsibility in life and with the addition of paying a monthly fee and extra fees for any specific car and needing any type of additional equipment, I just don’t see this as very logical in expecting it all to be real people. I play other papyrus games and the ai is pretty good on these games even by todays standards. I’m shocked nobody has put 2 and 2 together with this. I can see call of duty getting these numbers (pretty much every other form of online gaming has admitted to doing this except niche fields). But the numbers simply aren’t there for sim racing at the magnitude iRacing is indirectly claiming. Hell, even if a streamer who gets tons of views playing gt7 will see their views cut in half playing anything more hardcore. I’m sure there’s SOME streamer getting tons of views for iRacing but there’s no comparison with the lighter “sims”. I’m not saying one is better than the other but what I’m trying to say is the interest just isn’t there for the numbers iRacing is indirectly inferring and based off their past in racing games, no matter how good you are there’s 100% chance they can all be bots and be believable. I think the bigger accomplishment is papyrus ai than anything else from a historical sense alone.
You’re answering your own question here, based on your numbers it just proves that people are willing to pay for iRacing more than non subscription games. You don’t want to believe just because you don’t think the numbers add up when you haven’t even tried it for yourself? What I can’t seem to believe is how much and how far you’re even going to just try and disprove why iRacing is so successful. To bring your other points into perspective, for a lot of iRacing subscribers, that’s literally all they play, they don’t touch any other titles. So for them paying an annual fee is the same as if others were to buy another title, and buying cars and tracks is the equivalent of buying dlc’s. It may not be worth it to you and that’s okay, I’m with you on that, I can’t justify the cost of iRacing personally, but a lot of people can, what’s so hard to understand about that. Plain and simple, you just can’t get from other titles what you can get with iRacing and that’s why people prefer it. Why do people play FH instead of The crew? Why do people play LoL over Smite? Because they do certain things that people want better than the competitor.
Literally my proof is looking at steam/site player numbers and breaking down logic. I’m not saying iRacing may not be fun. I’m sure it is. But my point is in stating the fun is more than likely bots due to numbers simply not being there for sim racing (or any sim the more hardcore it gets) to have these amounts of people readily available due to numerous complications. The other games you mentioned are far more accessible for many reasons and I’d expect these numbers, at least at some point, from these games as they can be played with base equipment well. Hardcore sims have always been a niche field and with the advancement in graphics, they’ve only gained more popularity in the past 15ish years but it’s still relatively low. But randomly iRacing magically figured it out and it was so awesome that people even in countries with $200/month wages working all month to get into it AND pay subscriptions? It just seems highly unlikely, especially given the devs history with making great ai previous to iRacing. Again, I’m not trying to say the game isn’t fun, but the logic it’s sold from is highly unlikely and I think the population either knows it or hides from the reality forming a suck-cost fallacy.
>Literally my proof is looking at steam/site player numbers and breaking down logic. You know the vast majority of iRacers don't have their accounts linked to steam, right? The sunk cost fallacy might make sense. But does it not make more sense that the reason everyone gravitates towards iracing is because it has no real competition? >My thing is basic deduction- out of all the racing sims on steam (which is the main platform for pc gaming) Again, most iracers don't have their accounts linked to steam (and iRacing is the main platform for online racing).
That’s why I added “site”. They have roughly the same player count as ACC there and ACC is no juggernaut in online racing in any way. Even if it were triple what I found, the numbers and odds still don’t match up. And, sure, I’ll entertain it may be fun as many papyrus games have always had great ai. My main topic is the actual “player” count. Just added this: I find it very odd that iRacing doesn’t show player counts and never have…..
Anyone who has raced against an actual person, in anger, will be able to tell the difference. AI and bots are getting better, but they simply aren't there yet when it comes to AI in racing. You can literally see the other person's emotions, in how they drive their car. You can see when someone is frazzled and pushing too hard. You can see when someone is ultra fast and is just calmly toying with you. You can see when someone is confident as hell behind you, and then immediately unsure of their pace when in front of you.
Straw man argument or you’re really just trying to grasp at air. I never said anything about having fun. So you’re just making up pointless rebuttals to get your way. Nor is using steam by itself enough to compare to iRacing stats. You also don’t seem to understand how big the world is. Also doesn’t seem like you know much if anything about iRacing other than it is subscription based. iRacing is not this new thing that popped up and magically gained a massive following. It’s a pretty old title where one person sunk money into to create something that addresses a lot of sim racers complaints. It took a long time and a lot of work to get it to what it is today. You can believe your conspiracy theories when you haven’t even given it a go. I’m gonna leave you to it lol.
The fact you can’t entertain it for a second definitely screams “cult” to me lol. But peace out ✌️
It's funny, your logic does add up, but you could not have come to a more wrong conclusion lol
After while you forget how much you spent.
It’s somewhat that but it’s also the fact that to stay with the good drivers you are constantly racing. It’s why people recommend it because has great drivers, then someone mentions they just started and got rammed into constantly, the answer is always “well yea it sucks to begin with but you gotta keep trying”. I don’t have an issue with iracing. I don’t play it enough to justify it, but there is a lot of moving of goal posts about the game.
tbf what can they really do that isn’t a clone of an already made racing game that’ll get hated on within seconds
Microsoft do own BeamNG. Could happen one day.
What, what?
Since when?
I seam to have made this fact up. My brain was 100% sure this was a fact but I can't find anything to back it up. I'll politely leave now.
But what about the stoning?
I'm busy that day.
MSFS and Forza are relatively similar.
That’s charitable
To MSFS.
My guy, I’m sure they didn’t laser scan the whole Earth. The level of precision needed for each one is different.
They did photogrammetry to the whole earth though. Which is pretty cool.
That IS pretty cool. They’re just different animals altogether. Maybe I’m speaking from ignorance as well, but the physics model of a driving/racing sim seem more complex to me. Tires, brakes, and suspension on top of CFD. Crash modeling, surface temperature and friction characteristics (asphalt, concrete, gravel, sand, grass, etc.) and their wet counterparts. I don’t think it’s even close.
I think you’re right, there is just less to stuff to model in terms of physics. Plus flight sims have just been doing it longer and have had more money invested in it by airline operators
I don't really think flight is simpler, but MSFS does a very simplified model of flight and I'd honestly compare it similarly to Forza in the arcade physics nature. The primary areas MSFS tries to sim also don't push flight to extremes like racing games do.