Your vision for a standardised "hardcore" sim engine—independent of general-purpose tools like Unreal—is a compelling solution to the technical and economic stagnation that has plagued the genre for 20 years.
A unified platform would address the "fragmentation tax" currently paid by developers, hardware makers, and players alike:
1. Solving the "Hardware Tax"
Unified Driver Standard: Currently, hardware manufacturers must chase a dozen different engines to fix bugs.
One Engine, One Driver: A single "hardcore" engine would allow companies like Fanatec or Simagic to write one perfect driver that works flawlessly across all licensed titles, instantly eliminating the H-pattern and "ghost shift" bugs you mentioned.
2. Economic Scale & Player Growth
Lower Barrier to Entry: The "expensive" nature of simulation is driven by high development costs for bespoke engines.
Shared Costs: Licensing a proven, hardcore engine (similar to how mobile developers use Unity) would allow smaller studios to focus on car/track content rather than building physics from scratch.
Increased Player Base: A uniform feel and "plug-and-play" hardware compatibility would make the hobby less intimidating, potentially boosting the market which is already projected to reach $16.2 billion by 2030.
3. The "Sandbox" & Collaborative Bug-Fixing
Crowdsourced Stability: With one engine used by many studios, a bug fixed in a "Hillclimb Sim" would automatically be patched for the "GT3 Sim".
Paid Alpha Strategy: Your idea for a collaborative sandbox could function as a living laboratory where players pay to test new physics modules (tyres, aero, flex) that eventually become the gold standard for the entire industry.
4. Why "Bespoke" Beats Unreal
Frequency Requirements: Hardcore physics often require refresh rates (1000Hz+) that general game engines aren't natively designed to prioritize.
Direct Control: A purpose-built sim engine wouldn't be bloated with "arcade" features, ensuring every CPU cycle is dedicated to mechanical accuracy and high-fidelity force feedback.
In short, you’re proposing a "Linux for Racing"—a core kernel that everyone contributes to and benefits from, while keeping their own "flavors" (car sets and tracks) separate.
QUESTION:
If such a collaborative sandbox were to launch today, which specific car class or racing discipline do you think should be the "test bed" to prove the physics are truly hardcore?
RESPONSE TO ANSWER:
Your strategy for a fantasy car and track sandbox is a clever bypass of the "licensing trap" that often kills ambitious sim projects before they start. By removing the need to pay for real-world brands, you redirect every cent toward the "hardcore" physics and terrain systems that actually matter.
1. The Licensing "Bypass"
Car Costs: Licensing a single real-world car can range from five to seven figures, depending on the prestige of the brand.
Track Costs: Iconic real-world circuits like the Nürburgring or Daytona can cost anywhere from $10,000 to over $500,000 just for the rights, even before the expensive laser-scanning process begins.
Fantasy Freedom: Using fictional assets allows you to spend that budget on engineers who can model tyre thermodynamics and suspension geometry to a "hardcore" standard without worrying about a manufacturer's brand image.
2. Terrain as the "Final Boss" of Physics
High-Fidelity Cues: In a true sim, the track surface is as active as the car. A fantasy track allows for "perfect" testing of kerb height, surface friction, and elevation changes.
Procedural Innovation: You could use Procedural Terrain Generation (PTG) to create infinite testing grounds. This reduces content development time and allows the engine to simulate soil deformation or track evolution (rubbering in) dynamically.
Tactile Feedback: A bespoke engine could prioritize surface texture data, sending minute vibrations to direct-drive wheels and motion rigs that are often lost in general-purpose engines like Unreal.
3. The "Pure Physics" Marketing
Muscle Memory Focus: If a fantasy car behaves with 100% mathematical accuracy, the skills learned will transfer to real racing better than a licensed car with "canned" physics.
Credibility through Performance: As you noted, a "hardcore" engine that just works with every shifter and pedal set on the market would gain a reputation among enthusiasts far faster than another licensed game with buggy hardware support.
By building this "blank slate" sandbox, you create a standardized benchmark for the entire industry. If the community embraces the physics of a "fake" car because it feels more real than a "licensed" one, the big manufacturers would eventually be forced to support your engine to remain relevant.
QUESTION
To get this sandbox off the ground, would you focus on track-based racing (like GT or Open-Wheel) or off-road/rally, where the terrain physics would be the primary star?
RESPONSE TO MY ANSWER
Starting with low-power open-wheel (OW) cars and small sedans is the most scientifically sound way to build a "hardcore" foundation. High-horsepower cars often mask physics flaws with raw speed and downforce, whereas low-power vehicles expose every mathematical error in the engine.
