Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love this sim, but man, the Volvo 240 Turbo (Group A) has to be one of the sloppiest modeling jobs in racing game history. It pains me to see it so out of proportion as it's one of my favorite race cars of all time. I can't believe I'm the only one who seem to be bothered by this?
That difference is profound indeed. Genuine question: could it maybe be that the modelling is based on a face-lifted model? I'm not sure how many and what face lifts the 240 received in its +/-20 year(?) lifespan
Careful with what you think you can deduce from this comparison. First of all take a closer look at the rearspoiler. You can clearly see that the angle under which you see them in both images is different, which means the whole angle of the images overall must be different. Furthermore the exact angle, distance, zoom factor and kind of objective of a photograph can have a rather big impact on the position of those lines being drawn. Also camera optics always have some amount of distortion, which might or might not have been corrected in the photograph, we don't know. So for a comparison you would need to replicate these circumstances exactly as in the photo to be of any value. This is impossible to achieve. Even if you knew all this data from the original photograph, RR external cameras don't have the functionality to replicate all of this stuff. I'm not saying the model of the Volvo 240 in RR is 100% spot on because I simply don't know and couldn't prove it myself as I don't have the data to do so. Maybe it is wrong, maybe not. All I'm saying is that from this kind of "comparison" you can't prove anything too. And calling it "one of the sloppiest modeling jobs in racing game history" based on this poor data, I honestly think is a bit of a bold statement... If anything, I think even with the slightly different angle in the screenshot, there is some stuff of the underbody missing that should still be visible. Especially underneath the trunk.
In general, yes. But in this case, the difference is just too big to be explained with a slightly off angle or a FOV.
Face lift or not, the main body shape is the same for all model years (all the way back to 1967 when the 140 series was introduced actually.) The roof line is even the same on the 4 door version, but with shorter doors. Also, the version in this game is obviously based on the Group A race car, and they were all built out of ’81 - ’83 242 Turbos, which all look identical. I’ve grown up with these cars. They’re everywhere here in Sweden, and I’ve owned three of them myself. I know when something looks off, and this version is not even close.
Tbh. I find all classic TCs lack a bit of finesse after all ( compared to the Originals and to the late GT3 and other models) But keep in mind that these cars stem from one of the earliest releases years ago. Guess thats the point
True, but I’ve seen amateur made mods with more accurate proportions, and the 242 Turbo Evolution in Forza Motorsport 3 (released in 2009) looks pretty much spot on. While the Evolution model has the American front end, everything else is identical, and I’m talking about the main body proportions here. I mean, it’s not the end of the world, but it’s quite frustrating, especially considering Sector 3 is a Swedish developer. Also, I’m not asking for a super detailed model, but it wouldn’t be too much work to at least tweak the proportions a bit.
I sit here and wonder what problems some here have. My goodness, there's an inch or two missing here and there, and here they're making a fuss as if two doors are missing or something. You must not forget, for the car there is certainly no CAD data available from the manufacturer, so he had to be modeled by hand in some software. Of course there are a few small deviations.Where is the damn problem? If you don't like it, get the software and do it better.
For example, the cabin won't look significantly shorter while the overall length of the car remains the same. That's not how geometry works, and I really doubt the photocamera had a distortion like that. Again, he's not the only one who noticed the difference. I couldn't find the thread, probably it was on Discord. A different photo was used as a reference, but with the same result, the cabin is shorter and taller in the game than in real life.
If we take an object like Volvo 240 - with a "boxy" shape and mostly flat surfaces, take pictures from a slightly different angle and with a different FOV, and try to align the images, we'll see a minor, uniform, explainable difference. Here's an even more extreme example. Two photos taken from two different points, in the second photo the camera is higher, further to the back of the car and further away from the car. Notice what kind of misalignment we get, and that's with a bigger difference in angle and distance than in the opening post. Then look at the opening post and see how it's randomly all over the place.
Something like "I know it, because I saw it" is not a valid proof of anything. Just like the "comparison" you made in the OP, which is far from being valid due to the reasons I mentioned. Again: I'm not saying you are wrong, but your claims are based on more feelings than facts. You could have asked for confirmation where the 3D data has been taken from, because you have a feeling something might be off. But instead you just outright insulted the devs. Very nice. So the answer to my question is "no". And yes, distortion on optics is different from the center to the edges and can be quite noticeable. But we don't even know how the photo was made and if it has been cropped and which part of the original photo we are seeing. And the overall length of the cars is only the same as both pictures were scaled in that way to make them the same length. So, in case there is any kind of distortion, it will be mostly visible towards the centre. Anyway, I'm out of this discussion. Way too much dogmatic nitpicking about feelings towards deviations in measurements for my taste.
What’s wrong with being critical of sonething obviously faulty/off? Who needs CAD data to get a somewhat accurate shape? There’s something called blueprints, and then you can look at pictures, just like we do now.
It's the same with other photos. This pair has quite similar distance/perspective (you can tell it by noticing how much of the front and rear glass is visible), but the angle is different. Nonetheless, they overlay nicely. Another pair, this time the angle is close, but the perspective is massively different. In the opening post the perspective is very similar, you can tell it by looking at the rear spoiler and at the A-, B-, C-pillars on the opposite side (visible through the windows), how much they are offset compared to A-, B-, C-pillars on the camera side. So I say, the pictures for comparison were chosen good enough. Neither angle, nor perspective are too off in the screenshot to explain the difference; the photo doesn't seem to be distorted out of proportions either.
"I saw it" is not the same as "I owned three of them". You're jumping through hoops to find any slightest possibility the poster is wrong. Would be good if you had anything constructive to add to this discussion so that we can, collectively, find what's really happening here - whether the model is wrong or it's only an optical illusion.