How Do You Know It's Not a Sim?

[RaychelSnr]

Sim racing as described by Wikipedia: Sim (simulated) Racing is the collective term for computer software (i.e. a vehicle simulation game) that attempts to simulate accurately auto racing (a racing game), complete with real-world variables such as fuel usage, damage, tire wear and grip, and suspension settings. To be competitive in sim racing, a driver must understand all aspects of car handling that make real-world racing so difficult, such as threshold braking how to maintain control of a car as the tires lose traction, and how properly to enter and exit a turn without sacrificing speed. It is this level of difficulty that distinguishes sim racing from "arcade" driving games where real-world variables are taken out of the equation and the principal objective is to create a sense of speed as opposed to a sense of realism.

If you are a digital racing fan (PC or console), then most likely you are all too familiar with the rally cries "it’s not sim enough!" or "it’s too arcadey!" when talking about any new racing title that hits the market. What makes the video game racing genre such a tough enigma is that the large majority of people complaining have never ever climbed into a state of the art race car and pulled those belts tight.

Read More - How Do You Know It's Not a Sim?

[Happy29]

This is a great question and can open lots of debate. I think you would have to classify it as a simulation if a real racing team was to take it and use it as a tool to prepare for an upcoming race. I heard an interview with Jimmie Johnson this year where he raced in a sports car race at Watkins Glen but had never raced on the configuration that was being used. He used iRacing as a tool to test for the upcoming race to learn the things he needed for that weekend, he finished 2nd in that race. That is something that I don't think you would be able to get out of a console type game and that is why they may be targeted more for the arcade or casual gamer. When I go into iracing I know what I want my car to feel like and how it should respond to a certain bump and if it doesn't the set up area is so deep that I have many options to get the feel I want. The downside to this is if you are just a casual fan and don't know much in building cars this can become very complicated and overwhelming, causing frustration and people giving up because they do not understand what to do. This a good subject and I look forward to seeing what everyone has to say.



This is one thing I think makes iracing so much above the rest.

[bluengold34_OS]

I would agree that the lack of good setups, and peoples knowledge(or lack there of) can be extremely frustrating. A lot of people do quit and give up because of this point.

[lnin0]

I think the physics engine is one part of the equation but the science of something like that can only go so far. At some point, all that number crunching has to be distilled down by talented game programmers. Molded together with the tricks of their trade and turned into what us wannabe racers perceive as truth.

I think the perception is far greater than the reality behind it. Take Forza 3 and Race Pro on the 360. Forza 3 probably has the more complex physic engine behind it. However, translated to the flat screen, I would put my money on Race Pro for conveying a more realistic feeling every time.

For me 'sim' goes beyond the pure physics or feel of the car. I want something more than a driving simulation - I want a racing sim. I want all those other real world variables. - tire wear, fuel load, setups, track condition, rules, flags, damage, weather - the more little details the more I can forgive the 'feel' to some extent.

Of course...multiplayer can go a long way in compensating for a lack of little details but even the best feeling physics engines can get a bit drab online. I think the best games are the ones that can balance all these aspects together.

[RJTurneR]

Quote:

I think the physics engine is one part of the equation but the science of something like that can only go so far. At some point, all that number crunching has to be distilled down by talented game programmers. Molded together with the tricks of their trade and turned into what us wannabe racers perceive as truth. I think the perception is far greater than the reality behind it. Take Forza 3 and Race Pro on the 360. Forza 3 probably has the more complex physic engine behind it. However, translated to the flat screen, I would put my money on Race Pro for conveying a more realistic feeling every time. For me 'sim' goes beyond the pure physics or feel of the car. I want something more than a driving simulation - I want a racing sim. I want all those other real world variables. - tire wear, fuel load, setups, track condition, rules, flags, damage, weather - the more little details the more I can forgive the 'feel' to some extent. Of course...multiplayer can go a long way in compensating for a lack of little details but even the best feeling physics engines can get a bit drab online. I think the best games are the ones that can balance all these aspects together.

Good post. I pretty much agree with all of that. Especially that last sentence. So far F1 2010 has pretty much been the closest to simulating the real world of F1. It may not be spot on (Especially the Multiplayer of it which needs an 'Automatic Noob/Idiot kicking system), but compared to the last few racing games I have owned it beats all of them.

NFS Shift was fun, but the single player wasn't good enough for me, and the multiplayer turned into demolition derby on a bigger scale. Racedriver GRID was pretty much the same, although I liked the wider range of cars available.

What ruins F1 2010 is the online. The majority of players are just idiots who see it as an arcade game and think its perfectly fine to ram, shunt, and destroy other peoples cars to win. The single player is actually a lot of fun. The AI is very competitive and the weather system can really make it difficult. My theory is the harder the game the better.