So GT3 (Simbin) have used what they can from RR and are full steam ahead for a 2019 (Q2) release, great news! Or is it, for people reading this? In the recent RD interview it was stated that GT3 should be seen as the stepping stone to RR kinda eliminates the majority of people on here from dropping some Dollar, some may jump with the promise of an extensive career mode, others allured by the pretty pictures but I can't see many taking the backward step. I found a few strange things about the interview, will it or will it not be WEC, may go this way, may go that, yet it has a running PC and PS4 game with all the cars and tracks modelled. It is gonna take a bloody good Sim to drag me from here that's for sure, what with the new WTCR's, refresh of GT2, Touring classics, DTM92 etc etc, new tracks to come, a trio of Porsche's etc etc. (Now J-F Chardon has requested I refrain from bigging up Alex Hodgkinson anymore, else he'll have to give him a pay rise.) So all I will say is the GT1's and WTCR's recently released are of a quality that deserves a pat on the back and an extra biscuit (Chocolate). Go take a look at the interview over at Race Department, interesting read.
Not sure I agree with that. I don't think it'll make me leave R3E either, but then I never expected it to. What to me is a little weird is that everybody focuses on that one sentence in the interview. GTR3 won't be a fully-fledged sim?!? Heresy! Burn the witch! (@GooseCreature Not aimed at you, more aimed at the sim-elite over at RD) Let's start with the fact that the interview doesn't state it won't be a sim. It says it won't be perceived as a sim. Exactly what that entails, we don't know yet. Nor for that matter has anyone adequately explained to me exactly what constitutes a sim. I mean, 99,8% of the sim-racers have never driven one of these cars in real-life, nor will they ever. So you're left with comparing one sim to another, instead of one sim to reality. And if there's a difference between two sims, all that proves is that one or both of them have gotten it wrong. For all I know, Grid might be a better sim than rF2. Unlikely, I'll fully admit, but having never driven one of the cars, I can't argue one way or the other. Besides, a game doesn't have to simulate everything in order to make it good. All it has to do is have enough physics in it to make the cars react in a way that the player expects it to. Is F1 '18 a sim? Dunno. But I do know that it's a very fun game. ETS2 has a fanatic following despite the physics in that one being more than questionable. My point is that not every car game has to be a fully-fledged sim, just like not every movie has to be a multi-million dollar blockbuster. There is room for both on my hard-drive. And if GTR3 turns out to be "PCars2-done-right" with Monteil sounds, a good career-mode, UE4 graphics, and just half-decent FFB/handling, you'd better believe I'll be buying it. I'm far more interested in being entertained and immersed, than whether it simulates chassis-flex or not. And despite what the sim-elite may claim, I strongly suspect I'm not alone in this. At any rate, the basic fact remains that we simply don't know yet. We've got half a dozen photos, and a few vaguely worded interview excerpts to base our perception on. Which really isn't enough. Personally, I'll wait until we see some game-footage. Until then, I remain quietly optimistic. I agree. Just don't read the comments. Holy gawd, that forum is just toxic beyond belief.....
@CheerfullyInsane Well, I think most people on this forum and especially RD cater to the fully fledged simulation side of things. And given the legacy that simbin and the GTR series has, anything else then simulation would be considered a let down. I'm not saying GTR3 will be a bad game, but I can definitely say that I'm disappointed that they are going for the "wider audience" route, which we all knows just means a dumb down experience. It never ends well. Me for one, think that the f1 series is far too casual and is done better with a gamepad than a wheel. And if GTR3 is the same way, which isn't unlikely given the statements in this interview, I'm most likely not going to buy it. But I do look forward to R3E getting the graphics tech used in it.
I tried to add some love but had 2 or 3 quotes telling me to piss off and how paul should be burned alive ... jeez ... About GTR3, i'm really interested in a more "informal" racing game. I really like PC2, GT or even Forza. They all have their space and it will be interesting to see where GTR3 shows up. However i understand most people will be pissed since the GTR name is very much associated with simulation.
Yeah... I thoroughly enjoy the racing at RD, but I have long since learned to stay far away from anything even remotely controversial in the forums.
With ACC around the Corner.and a slew of other great Game's coming out sim racing has got it good next 2 years Also after reading that interview all i saw as Aston Martin SOLD!!!
You'd think the world had stopped spinning on this one! It's more the stepping stone to RR comment that intrigued me and the vagueness of the whole thing, why bother saying anything if you have bugger all to say. SunnySunday don't forget the tracks that RR don't yet have, we get them in exchange for the sounds, surely! Stickdeath1980 the Sim racing world is most definitely entering a (wait for it) golden period but alas with the popularity it's gaining, so to is the cost of everything, I think it's fair to say the Sim racing world has been propped up by a hard core of virtual drivers who would own most of the Sims, if not all but those times are gone, what with DLC, Pay2Play competitions, a raft of Sims already on the market and a plethora in the wings, the day of the buy a £40 game, hammer it to death, then move on to the next is long gone. The time has come where those few will have to pick and choose carefully, as everyone is not happily divorced and single like me! People are moving to specialising in just a couple of their preferred genre and maybe cherry picking a couple of wild cards. Who wants to waste money on something untested and miss out on some DLC from your favourite Sim. Don't even get me started on Hardware, D/D wheels, Pro Pedals, Rig's that lower 3 x 27" curved Oled's into position, H-shifter/Sequential shifter's, button boxes, Motion Platforms, VR, 10 different Rims because, because, well you can. The list goes on and on and if you think, "well I won't spend more than X on Sim racing" whatever X was triple it, times it by your shoe size and if you really like it, say goodbye to half the value of your house, oh and the wife, so not all bad! Then, you go buy the latest £700, best of the rest GFX Card and low and behold 2 weeks later it's bloody superseded, buy the latest CPU and it won't fit your MoBo, order a new one and all the bits off your old one don't fit or are no longer catered for.................................... I could go on for day's (I know, it feels like I already have), just one last word of advice, if your not that heavily invested in Sim racing yet, STOP, take up Crochet, you only need a couple sticks and a couple Sheeps!
In this particular case I think it may end well, at least for R3E. There are a lot of players who just want to sit on a couch, take a gamepad and do some racing. These players will pay for such possibility if GTR3 turns out to be one of them, shining among the rest. And in the end they will partly fund constant development of our beloved sim
Teach me, senpai! (But sadly, I don't think I have it in me. Though I do at least make an effort to stay away from controversies a bit more than I did, and certainly from any criticism of RD, and on the rare occassion I don't, I try really hard to tread very, very carefully. My success rate's still not very good, though )
Patience, grasshopper. Eventually you'll figure out that arguing with fanatics (be they racing, political, religious or otherwise fanatical) is a mugs game. You can't change their mind, and they won't change their story. So as soon as anyone tries to tell you that there is only one true way to look at something, that's when you should start running the other way. As far, and as fast as you can. To quote Nietzche: "You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist."
What happened to "There can be only one truth. When they seem to be more than one truths, all but one must be wrong."
And Gran Turismo Sports got the VW 1200 yesterday. That catapults GTS to the top of the heap of all other sims anyway.
I think you'll find that the only place where you can find 'truth' is possibly in math..... And even there it's questionable. As any mathematician will tell you, two plus two equals five....For sufficiently large values of two.
It will be interesting to see where GTR3 is positioned. PC and AC avoided a head to head with Forza and Gran Turismo offering more realistic driving physics. Given Forza and Gran Turismo are marketed as simulators and it would appear GTR3 won't be, I suspect they may be aiming at a title less realistic than these two - maybe like the old Codies Grid or TOCA titles.
Okay, I take the bait, Sir! Some years ago I saw a German lecture at youtube, later got it as bonus on some movie DVD as well, on the philosophic problem of materialism versus idealism, matter versus idea, "Sein" versus "Bewußtsein". Or is it a versus "indeed" ? In it the author, at the end, shows a demonstration for s certain purpose that nevertheless serves me nicely to show my point as well: that there always can be only one truth, never several ones. Where we think there are severla ones, this impression or misled conclusion may come from our limited understanding or overview of the context the given situation/problem is embedded in. You know what a Möbius strip is. Take a long strip of paper and attach the two loose ends, just before you do turn just one of them by 180°. What you then have, is a Möbius strip, a loop wth just one side. Now imagine this experimental setup: there are two persons, lets imagine they get symbolised by two small toy figures, and they get set up so that they face each other. Now you take a Möbius loop and place it in such a way that it surrounds one of the figures (which then stands in its centre), while the other remains outside. It now appears that left and right of the part of the strip that is located between the two figures, there are these two figures: one left and one right of the strip. Is that the truth? Out eyes say so. But two facts: 1. There cannot be one figure on the left side and one on the right side - because the Möbius strip has just one side. Where there is only one side, you cannot define a left and a right of it. 2. The strip is not between the two figures, because again: a Möbius strip has just one side, so both figures must be on the same side of it, since there is no second side. Now we already have several truths, and they seem to contradict each other. But one truth is wrong here, and the other is the only true truth: Both figures are staring not on the whole Möbius strip, but only on a small part of it. As I said, both figures face each other vis a vis, and so they only see that part of the strip that is directly in front of their faces, between them. If you take a scissor and cut out this small part, what you get is then a small, short strip that has two sides, and that is as what the whole Möbius strip appears as to the two figures before: two sided. But that is an illusion, because both figures/persons do not overlook the complete arrangement, just a very small fraction of it. This tiny piece of two sided paper that was just cut out - that is what is called the "either this or that"-logic. There was always just one truth, from all beginning on. Just our perception of what we call our reality, was misled, hence our idea of several truths, changing truths, relative truths. But its all nonsense. There is just one truth. We also imply the uniqueness of truth being the inhererent meaning of the term, thats why it exists and what sets it apart from other terms. Severla truths are not only not possible but are a concept that is also mislabled. We should better talk of several alternative hypothesis or theories. And theory is all we can ever, under best circumstances, hope to achieve: that is he principle of science: not to deal in absolutes, but theories, of which some are better and some are weaker supported. But as long as we can not eliminate ourselves from the contexts in which our existence is embedded, as long as the observer must accept to stay inside the experimental situation he observes and unavoidably influences, and strict separation of subject and object is not possible (the eye cannot watch itself) - as long as this all is the case, we need to see that our ideas of truth are somewhat relative indeed and are hampered by due to simply not having divine, unlimited total knowledge and insight into all any everything. We do not see the complete Möbius strip. We alsways see just one tiny part of the strip. And still - there is just one truth: that of the utimate final totality of things: the Möbius strip, in this example. Not several truths. Just one. Always. With this contemporary dogma of relativism that currently si so much en vogue, modern politics and Zeitgeist ideologists create a lot of trouble and damage in the world, and our societies. thats why I a a bit pedantic here. I must say this Italian wine they gifted me on Monday and which I just opened, is good. Too good, if you know what I mean.
I'm going to have to do this without the aid of wine, so you'll have to bear with me here. First, the Möbius experiment. It's a neat analogy, but it's flawed. Or rather, it's an exercise in semantics, rather than an illustration of truth. Utter bollocks. The whole premise intermixes the definition of 'sides' in order to prove a point. While it's true that the Möbius band only has one side and therefore the two people can't be on separate sides, this doesn't change the fact that they are clearly on either side of it. One cannot reach the other without crossing the circumference. All you have to do to illustrate the absurdity of the premise is to remove the Möbius band, and instead draw a line between the two persons. A line is two-dimensional, and thus have no sides. So the people can't be on either side of it. And yet, the line is clearly between them. Or if you prefer an physical object, instead of the Möbius band, use an upright drain-pipe between the two persons. A pipe has an inside, and an outside, which means that both people are on the same side of it. And yet, the drain-pipe is still between them. It's like Zeno's Paradox. It's an illustration of the mismatch between how we describe the world and how the world actually is. But all you need is a moment of logical thought, and the bubble bursts. Wrong again. Any definition of left and right will necessarily include a point of reference, whether this is one of the two persons or a third observer. It is in fact impossible to define left and right without a visual clue of some sort. Again, to illustrate the absurdity of the premise, ask the person within the Möbius band to walk through it. It only has one side and that side is at his back, therefore he should be able to simply walk forward through it. It's a clever word-play, and it's a good illustration of how cool Möbius bands are (and they are very cool), but that's about it. Now, as to the concept of truth, I actually agree with you. An absolute truth relies on omniscience. The problem is that you can't acquire omniscience. Outside some sort of divine intervention (and I'm not entering a meta-physical discussion), there is no way to gain access to all knowledge. Which means that all truths become relative. Now, we can wax philosophical about whether this means that they're actual truths or simply theories, but we're back to arguing semantics.
The good spirits had turned me a bit into a daredevil yesterday. What I originally wnated to dmeosbtrate by choosing an example, was that there can only be one truth (the defintiin of this temr defines it so), and where it seesm diferent truths can be imaginable, this may appear so by people just now knwing all the facts or not overlooking the whole, just a fagment. And the example that first came to my diabolically giglging mind, was what I explained. Well, simple exmaple from a simple mind. My fault. The wine lowered the defences of my critical thinking. I somewhat abused it, and the author I learned it from used it in a lecture abut somethign very diferent that had not much to do with our topic. It was a bonus material on the german DVD for Tarkowski'S movie "Solaris", and deals , as I shortly described, with the relation between matter/being (Sein), and idea/mind (BewußtSein = bewußtes Sein). However, to continue the fun a bit, I must oppose some of your points you replied with. As I said, for my purpose the example chosen was not best explained by me why I came up with this one, my fault. But: Who said "crossing"? You must not cross it. Even worse: you cannot cross it, since it is not really a circumference. If you have just one side, you cannot have an external reference point then, and thus all must be on tis and no ther one side. The separation by the strip - is an illusion. Isn't that ironic! That is what I originally tried to illustrate when diggin out this exmaple: we "describe the world" as many truths, while in reality the world actually is just one truth. Simplified summary. We do not understand or see the full context, and thus do not see the full picture. And so come to false conclusions about "world". Or alternating truths (plural). I try to burst yours, but you are stubborn. And two sides...!!! The clue is in the illustration. Its the Möbius strip . That external reference point here is not really relevant. The point is that "left" and "right" are not separated at all when you have just one side. It is "leght" . It makes no sense to think in "left" and "right" here. Thus, the persons cannot be left and right of the Möbis strip, but must be on the same side of it. The ants in the illustration of Escher - do they walk on the outsie or inside lane of the Möbius strip? In fact it makes no sense to think in these terminology. That is the whole point of why these - and many other such illusions - are being done and visualised. To help the observer to break thorgh the wall in his head and think outside his usual limited imagination. Its math - in visual presentation. MRE - Math ready to eat, so to speak. No, not "through"it. On an ordinary, three-dimensional level, the person just needs to walk along the wall it is facing, and then will necessarily meet the other person. On a meta-level of that illustration, yes. One could say that if you go with this statement of yours and really beleive it is like that, it has served its purpose and you understanding of the Möbis strip has been transformed, or better: transcended. Now, as to the concept of truth, I actually agree with you. An absolute truth relies on omniscience. [/quote] Science means a way of travelling with the intellect, a tool to collect information to form and test new theories systematically, sometimes initiated by observing somethign new first. Thus it can never deal with and state absolutes, but always just temporary models. I do not know what you mean by omniscience, therefore. Do you mean "absolute, total knowledge"? Well regions wouod claim somethign that the absolute truth, the final answers, rest in divine states of mind, gods and deities of any sort and format. Or in other words: these "relative truths" were no truths in the first. Which already must be the case when you mention them in plural but mean the as alternative explanations for one and the same thing. Its the piece of the Möbius strip between the two persons# face that they stare it: cut it out and you have just that snippet of it all, with two sides, the one being "either this" and the other side being "or that". But that is just ignorrane of the greater context. The Japanese Zen philosopher Wishi Washi once said that a bamboo flute without holes is no flute, but that a hole without a flute is somethign completely different. P.S. Since you engaged in this cheerfully insane conversation, you might have a certain interest in these topics, and if you do not know it, I can full-heartly recommend that movie I started with, Solaris, the verison by Andrej Tarkwoski (Soderbergh's remake sweetened and streamlined it into extinction, evade it, glossypictures, yes, but a total chnage of the ending, and quite profance, comoared to the novel and the original movie. - And Tarkowski's "Stalker" has a place on my list of the best movies of all time. Any typos I correct timorrow. Or not. Long bicycle tour today, I'm tired like a dead dog.