Is the isiMotor really what makes it's children titles not popular?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Amanda Santini, Sep 9, 2018.

  1. Amanda Santini

    Amanda Santini Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2017
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    162
    After a recent comment on the Steam forums saying how all ISI powered games are a flop, I decided to think about it and see if that's actually the case. Here's where I got:

    (the vast majority of my reply to such topic was pasted - some parts were omitted for the sake of keeping the discussion here clean).

    (all of what was written bellow is what I perceive to be how the described events turned out. I can be wrong in one or multiple subjects, so don't be afraid of doing research to correct me on things)

    (I ask that, if you find who made the original comment -which I censored-, do not bring this person up here. The point of this thread is to attack the argument, not the person)

    ----------------------------------------------------


    ISI-powered games (which includes rF2) aren't a flop because of the engine itself, but because of developer/publisher bad decision making.

    There's several reasons a lot of sims use the engine from rF1 as a base, the most common one being a great physics starter, but there's also the fact that it's a known piece of software that was used for several years in many great titles, it's historic relevance, and so on.

    ISI did great titles in the past, like F1 Challenge '99-'0 (and some older F1 titles) where you got consistency in what cars and tracks to expect.
    But then, for some reason, they decided not to do the same with rFactor 1.
    Even some of these old F1 games were moddable, and for whatever reason ISI decided to leave most of the content creation for rFactor 1 in the hands of the community. This led to a big inconsistency in mod quality, of 1000 mods you could count on very few of these to be any good.

    After rFactor 1, the glorious GTR2 came about. It was revolutionary in quite a few features, and content. It had all cars and tracks for the FIA GT series that spanned 2 full seasons, full 24h day/night transitions, rain, some basic real road technology, a driving school, animated pit marshals, and a bunch of features and consistency/focus not yet seen in the sim world for at least 12 years. It used the same isiMotor as a base and it was a success, still regarded today as one of the best simulators ever made (made by what is now SMS, the makers of Project Cars 1&2 ------ SimBin, the developers of Race07, Race On, and then later RaceRoom, had almost nothing to do with the development of GTR2).

    Then a year later, SimBin used the same base engine for Race07, and while it still had great physics, graphically the engine started to show it's age, specially on the same year Crysis was released.
    Still, the game is regarded as a great product.

    Now in 2008, iRacing was released. No more bad cars, no more bad tracks. Not only it was consistent in content, graphically it was already surpassing anything isiMotor related that was released to that day.
    I think many people migrated to iRacing because the overall experience was better not only graphically but in terms of cars and tracks as well, not to mention in multiplayer.

    Then in 2011 Kunos started development of Assetto Corsa with an in-house engine. Physics and feature wise the title was a downgrade from their previous, netKar Pro, but graphically AC was step in the right direction. Still, the title lacked many core features even several years after it's release.

    And yet again, people were migrating more to promises and shiny graphics rather than staying at stable core and good physics present in the rF1 engine.
    It's understandable, though. If companies want to sell a bit more titles, they have to attract the eye of the audience as well.

    At this point it is said that ISI had already started development on rFactor 2. In fact, there are records of development starting in 2009.

    In 2012 the open beta of rFactor 2 was released. It was a huge step forwards in physics, being at least a decade ahead of any competition - sadly, ISI focused so much effort into 'just physics' that the title was broken in a lot of ways. The pricing model was horrible, it lacked documentation for modders which were now looking for an easier platform to mod since modding for rFactor 2 was too complicated because of the massive advance in physics (and so parameters as well).
    That mentality of "let the community produce content" did work in 2005 because there was not many sim platforms to jump around, but it certainly didn't work for rFactor 2, specially after the release of iRacing with many official cars and tracks and later with the release of Assetto Corsa which also revolutionized sim racing in many, many ways.

    In 2013 RaceRoom was released. Being regarded as merely a 'hotlap simulator' it lacked content, features, even multiplayer.
    And even now, after 5 years of development, RaceRoom (the company, not to be confused with Sector 3 or even the game's name) somehow still has a poor pricing model, stupid online DRM, and not many features for the game. Users can't even change the tire pressure, the setup part of the simulation is still very basic, more basic than GTR2 in 2006.

    Then Assetto Corsa was released. Shinny graphics, good documentation for modders and easy to mod (way simpler physics than rF2 or even rF1 from 2005 according to some known personas here in RD), a large community started growing around it. But to me, if it wasn't for the good price and moddability AC would end up close to what R3E is now, perhaps even worse considering how long it took for AI to come and be perfected, for instance (and that is, with a higher budget than what I think Sector3 has had).

    A year later, SMS, which had developed GTR2 and was picked by EA to develop a few Need for Speed titles, developed Project Cars. Shinny graphics (probaby the best graphics of it's time), lots of content. The hype was good; the title, however, not so much. Shady physics, bug infested, players were not happy about it.

    Still a year later, Automobilista came to be. Being regarded as one of the best racing titles out there, it lost a good deal of potential because Reiza didn't have money to license known tracks/cars, and the fact that they decided to use an ever graphically-aging engine didn't help the title. Still, it's regarded as one of the best when it comes to physics, force feedback, car/track polish, and sounds.
    Reiza also did a good job with the isiMotor2 engine.

    Again a year later, SMS released Project Cars 2. While improving a lot upon the first title, it's still quite buggy, physics change with every update and can be wonky at times, and their sound engineer should be fired.
    Still, player count continues to increase. It has a name for itself, multiplayer is well populated, graphically it is one of the most advanced titles, and it's loads of fun - specially when you go up on it's Competitive License.
    It took SMS many years to make such progress with their own engine. They're very capable (as proven by GTR2), but to get to the level of consistency of the isiMotor2 was not an easy task.

    2018 comes by, Kunos decided to use the Unreal Engine 4 for their next title, a smart move I might add. A very good engine, it has all the features a game developer might want.
    Most of the engine and it's features are already developed.

    In conclusion, I don't think it's the isiMotor that makes titles flop, I think the developers play the biggest role if this happens (same for the success of their titles). SMS developed what is considered one the best sim racing titles, using the isiMotor - and the same company developed what is considered one of the biggest disappointments of the genre with the release of Project Cars, a sim that uses it's own engine. Funny how when they stayed with a good engine base they did good progress, but when decided to create their own engine the game was a flop in reception - it had pretty graphics, sure, but the physics side of things can generate heated debates to this day.

    Same goes for Kunos. Stefano and his team did a good job at developing a graphics engine that, while looking good, can only be lit by one source of light, so you have no night racing. It also lacks rain, among many other features.

    The isiMotor was a powerful tool for those who have chosen to use it correctly, and it was also the doom of titles that used it poorly. The main problem for the isiMotor2, nowadays, is graphics, it still uses a DX9 engine. (somehow Sector3 did a great job on it graphics wise, it looks good and even more natural-looking than AC at times, and the physics are also good).
    Physics wise the isiMotor2 is aging as well, but that is to be expected from a 13 years old engine.

    And for rFactor 2, if ISI had focused a bit more on content, engine optimization, and graphics, rF2 could be the best sim ever made. I just hope S397 makes the right calls now and continue optimizing the engine while bringing content. The most important part, which is the physics, we already have and to me there's nothing that comes even close to it.

    So what's your take on this?
     
    Last edited: Sep 10, 2018
    TPGRacing75 likes this.
  2. mesfigas

    mesfigas Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2015
    Messages:
    1,722
    Likes Received:
    830
    must be the most respected "flop" on the universe or else it doesn't make sense
     
    Amanda Santini likes this.
  3. hitm4k3r

    hitm4k3r Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,320
    Likes Received:
    3,121
    I don't think that titles based on the isiMotor aren't popular. Even the opposite, when you take a look at where the base/core of the engine is used to a bigger or smaller extent. Basicly all SMS titles sold quite well, but at the end those titles are aiming for a different market. The list of sims and devs that are tied to the engine is quite big for such a small genre and my guess is that most sim racers have touched isiMotor based sims in one way or another.

    With rF2 I think it was just bad timing and a few not so good desicions on the way and how the sim racing community changed in general. If you take a look at the focus on most sim racing blogs today compared to 5-10 years ago it is pretty obvious that the priorities of users have shifted quite a bit. Today you won't win the hearts of many if you have the best physics engine in business, but an average presentation and no laser scanned tracks and cars. Sex sells, simple as that. But at the end this is also a chance for S397: if they apply the right amount of polish at the right places of this sim, they have a good chance to create something that offers it's own unique experience. And as it seems right now, there isn't really an alternative on the near horizon offering something similar as rF2 does. Maybe the next Reiza projects, but that needs to be seen. For me it is still an unmatched experience to get behind the wheel in this sim as it simply feels connected and natural.
     
  4. stonec

    stonec Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    3,399
    Likes Received:
    1,488
    To me it's sad that sim racing went into a direction of graphics engine, content and optimization only. IMO that's perhaps 10% of what a sim should be, yet those three concepts are the only ones that seem to matter in marketing these days. One day graphics engines will begin to look so good that people cannot make a difference. That day many sims will be forced to rethink their concept and start to rely on other things.

    This change is already happening elsewhere. If you look at the most popular esports games for instance like CS:GO or Dota 2, almost all of them run at very high FPS, don't require a huge GPU and don't come with the latest effects. The players of CS:GO aren't constantly demanding new maps or effects, because they realize that's not what makes the game special. I hope sim racing is going towards this direction as well, where a fluid experience with VR or triples is prioritized over fancy effects. I'm afraid with ACC leading the way this won't happen anytime soon.
     
    Narrowbackwing, bwana, Ho3n3r and 3 others like this.
  5. Louis

    Louis Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,379
    Likes Received:
    840
    Agree with stonec way of thinking but must say that graphic quality must be one of the top priorites of sim racing mostly because, i think, the major part of users has mid prices hardware (steering wheels, pedals and screen setups) so graphics play a big role in immersion. I think in expensives sim cockpits or even VR (not me, still waiting better prices and better quality) doesnt need superb graphics to have a great time.
    I think it depends on which kind of users (how much spent on this hobby) the sim software wants to reach.
    What is good for me the great physics of rf2 if im playing in a small notebook playing with a keyboard and bad graphic quality?
    In that case, i probably would choose a game with less detailed physics and better graphics
    edit: im not saying that how much spent in hardware is equivalent in how much love sim racing or know about it.
     
    Filip likes this.
  6. patchedupdemon

    patchedupdemon Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2017
    Messages:
    1,602
    Likes Received:
    1,151
    Can someone clarify for me, rf2 isi engine is different to all the other Isi powered rf1 titles
     
  7. Bernd

    Bernd Registered

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2013
    Messages:
    1,509
    Likes Received:
    755
    It's a bit off topic, but this is something that i want to mention since a long time to such kind of discussions.
    Our community, that unfortunately don't exists anymore, was using GTR 2, rFactor 1 and DTM Race Driver 3 (DTM RD3).
    People who know these 3 titles will also know that DTM RD 3 was far away of being a simulation. :D
    But the most of our members were racing DTM RD3 for a simple reason.
    It was the only game that allowed you to come home from work, start up the computer, go online, start or join a server (within 5 minutes) with no setups allowed and have fun immediately.
    There always were enough people online!
    End of the Story. ;)
     
  8. Flaux

    Flaux Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    1,012
    Likes Received:
    422
    How can u right so much stuff about a single "flop"-post?
     
  9. Lazza

    Lazza Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2010
    Messages:
    12,346
    Likes Received:
    6,572
    Something I'm learning - slowly - is that people with an opinion like this are either having a laugh, trying to wind you up (success! based on this thread), or so convinced they're right there's no point trying to change their mind.

    I don't see any reason to discuss whether it's correct or not.
     
  10. DrivingFast

    DrivingFast Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2018
    Messages:
    1,638
    Likes Received:
    1,083
    Everything is important in a simulation, I think we all agree.

    On the other hand everything does not have the same importance, and all does not have the same priority ..........

    The importance is to prioritize, prioritize to prioritize ....

    Then everything depends on the vision of the simracing editor : What is the most basic ?

    - Performance/FPS/ input lag or ultra beautiful graphics.
    - Etc...............
     
  11. Filip

    Filip Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2017
    Messages:
    1,208
    Likes Received:
    937
    You make it sound like ACC is all about fancy graphics and is dragging people away from real sims.
    They have rewritten big parts of physics engine for ACC to make it more realistic.
    And AC was also already considered good in that aspect so I don't understand your concern.
    Adding nice graphics isn't necessarily related with arcade.
     
  12. DrivingFast

    DrivingFast Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2018
    Messages:
    1,638
    Likes Received:
    1,083
    No of course!

    I do not agree at all. But I will not try to convince you otherwise.
     
  13. Louis

    Louis Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2016
    Messages:
    1,379
    Likes Received:
    840
    Btw, if its true that Reiza will use the same engine of rf2 in their new title, i will insta-buy
     
    DrivingFast likes this.
  14. hitm4k3r

    hitm4k3r Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2016
    Messages:
    1,320
    Likes Received:
    3,121
    I think there is a bit of misunderstanding, when people discuss graphics in games today. When game blogs discuss the tech in games, it is 90% talking about graphics, in an allmost obsessive way. And to some extend the same applies for sim racing today. It isn't good enough to have solid functional graphics and very good phyics, so at the end most sim racers will get their wallets out way faster when most of the superficial values (graphics, lisences, track rosters ...) tack their boxes. In some way understandable, but interestingly AC wasn't a good allaround package at all and I would go that far to say that for example AMS offers a much better package from the current pile of softwares. Now it is pretty easy to guess wich one of the two products was more successfull from a business perspective. Ofcourse it all depends of what you are looking for in sims, but objectively speaking the worse looking product offers a much deeper experience with alot more features and content. And at the end of the day it comes down to what Niels Heusinkveld mentioned in his talk&drive testing AC: the impression of good graphics will fade out. I am not saying, that visual quality isn't important in simracing and the discussion of good graphics=arcade is actually quite laughable. But I really question if it has the top priority.
     
    Louis likes this.
  15. KittX

    KittX Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Messages:
    147
    Likes Received:
    62
    Sorry, but what's the point in that initial post? Over-analyzing to get clicks?
    Look how fast it went to standard "X sim is better than Y sim" discussion.
     
  16. stonec

    stonec Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    Messages:
    3,399
    Likes Received:
    1,488
    Right, I wasn't fully clear about it. I don't think ACC is all about graphics, but I dislike the fact that the hype seems all about the Unreal engine, which is all graphics (unless they brought physics elements from Unreal somehow).

    I understand the graphics argument up to the point that we want to have tracks that are modeled with all details and bumps, such as Sebring or iRacing tracks. But what else is really missing from graphics now that we already have tracks with a high-detail scanned road as Sebring? There is anyhow a limited view from cockpit and mostly we just see the tarmac and curbs in front of us. I don't know what Unreal engine could provide that would make the car cockpit, sky and track surface look much better. All the ray tracing, fancy shadows etc. may not do anything much to the cockpit view experience other than killing FPS.

    I think sim racing developers are already running out of ideas to make the graphics look fundamentally better. It tells me all that the major change to F1 2018 graphics was that Codemasters added some thick bluish fog everywhere in the horizon.
     
    Louis likes this.
  17. MarcG

    MarcG Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    6,854
    Likes Received:
    2,234
    I personally feel the hype for ACC going to the UE4 is justified as it's the first proper Simulation to do so, though for me that's more about the new Engine working *with* the upgraded Physics (the Blogs by Kunos this week have been very interesting in this regard, well worth a read). As for graphics I agree with you, Devs have essentially done most of what they can to make Sims look more life like over recent years and we've come a long way since the 1990s. But fans of games whether they be Sims or not are always demanding the next best graphical level, that won't ever change and because of that Devs still feel the need to push Graphics as much as they can...after all shiny things sell better than dull things.
     
  18. Nielsen

    Nielsen Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 29, 2016
    Messages:
    181
    Likes Received:
    60
    As I understand it its only rF2 that uses the gMotor2 physics engine.
    All other socalled gMotor based racing games are based on the the more simple gMotor1 physics engine.
    Its only the comming Reiza Studios/AMS sim that maybe(!) will be using the gMotor2 physics.
    Maybe - because its difficult to clarify if Reiza has decided to develope some kind of gMotor1.5 physics engine based on the gMotor1 engine they allready use.

    Conserning the graphic part of the gMotor engine then (beside rF2) its probably only GTL that uses the gMotor2.
     
    patchedupdemon likes this.
  19. Filip

    Filip Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2017
    Messages:
    1,208
    Likes Received:
    937
    Well I have read quite a few of real racing drivers opinions and some modders who supposedly work with real racing teams and they think AC is really good.
    So you cannot convince me just by saying it is not.
     
  20. patchedupdemon

    patchedupdemon Registered

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2017
    Messages:
    1,602
    Likes Received:
    1,151
    Thanks for the info
     

Share This Page