Race and Vehicle Simulations

As another year draws to a close, it seems as good a time as any to look back over the past 12 months and pick out a few personal highlights. In no particular order, and without further ado, here’s what tickled our sim bits in 2013:

Niels Heusinkveld’s “Talk & Drive” videos

Simon:- Niels has long since established himself as a prominent member of our community. He has worked on and released a number of stand out mods for the aging rFactor (and, along with a short list of other noticeable content makers, shown just what the original rF is capable of given some TLC and understanding), as well as having a professional role at Reiza Studios (not to mention ventures into hardware, and having fingers in a number of other sim-flavoured pies).

But here I want to focus on his relatively recent “Talk & Drive” series of videos, and one in particular. The T&D series do exactly what they say on the tin; Niels drives a car (often one of his own making) around a track, and talks about various facets of what we are seeing. Light-hearted and humorous, the videos are also insightful both into the machinery at his disposal, but also often some of the details that went into making them.

Be it teasing an NSX around a karting track, a no-nonsense first look at AC, or drifting an NSX around a snowy (and very slippery) Nordschliefe, the videos always entertain, and pay testament to Niel’s personality as well as his (more than ample) driving ability. With the NSX/karting track combo I thought the series might peak, but then he released what, for me, has to be the sim-video highlight of the year- Episode 7: Ninja Turbo F1 at Adelaide.

The signs of what are about to follow are immediately obvious as an out of breath and rather moist Niels introduces the video. As a demonstration of physicality, insane performance, and also some bloody amazing driving, this video is right up there. I honestly can’t think of a sim video that has had me as tense whilst watching it. During the first viewing (I’ve watched it quite a few times now), I realised I was taught and clenching my tablet, and would have literally been on the edge of my seat were I not literally, erm, lying in bed. As much as I find Niels’ videos interesting and entertaining, this one took it to a different level where it simply had me in awe; there are hairy moments aplenty. It also makes me very much want to go and spend some serious quantities of money on new hardware…

As 2014 approaches, I very much look forward to future installments of this instant classic series. One thing does niggle away at the back of my mind though; his “Merry NSXmas” video surely does beg the questions: what would one of these videos be like if Niels were drunk?…

Jon:- About says it all really. Niels is a top guy and what he has given back to simracing over the many years is impossible to quantify, I avoided these videos for a while on the basis of:  “oh, I’ve been sent another YouTube link” fatigue, but hearing Niels brace himself onto a brake pedal and grunt in exertion is a classic simracing video moment.

iRacing 

Jon:- It seems to be quite fashionable to bash iRacing, as the evil empire over there in the shadows that tries to steal all the money anyone had.  But the reality is that iRacing is a probably the best all-round simracing product in the market and that has not changed in 2013.  Sure, for a new starter it costs a lot, but once you have the content you need, the subs cost is no different to buying two triple A games a year. For that you get problem-free online racing, a huge range of laser scanned tracks and an every growing list of series, all wrapped up into a “game” that gives you something to actually race for.

This year in particular has seen continued development of Big Dave’s (Yes, Mr Kaemmer, for services to simracing you have the honour of being magisterially titled thusly) experimental tyre model, and additions of two remarkable cars that test any sims physics to the limit.  Whilst the Lotus 49 may not hit the mark on all yaw angles, the RUF labelled Porsche 911’s feel very pleasant to drive indeed.  As well as this, in 2013 we have seen the addition of three not good, but great tracks in Interlagos, Montreal and Bathurst.  If there is a car series that suits a driver in iRacing, I can see no reason why they would look elsewhere.

Simon:- The attention to detail and utter commitment to accuracy in their tracks is arguably unrivaled. I don’t dispute whether or not iRacing offer value for money, as I think it is something one has to decide for themselves. For some it all adds up and makes sense, for others it doesn’t. But when you see the man hours poured into the creation of likes of their Bathurst circuit, I think it’s very difficult to contest the asking price, and hard to argue they’re not doing things right.

BeamNG.drive

Simon:- What started with a few highly tempting (but very low on detailed information) videos fairly quickly became a tech demo release. As soon as the demo was available for purchase I slapped down my money, and put it to one side. Now before I go any further, I would like to add that I have spent very little time with it since (hence why nothing has been written as yet). I’m not here to laud it as being anything other than it is for me right now: an incredibly exciting development for simming with huge potential.

Why haven’t I spent any real time with it? Well, mainly because it was released at an incredibly busy time in my life where I was trying my best to avoid all distractions, and since then I just haven’t gotten around to sitting down and having a good play. But even if I were to play it and find it massively disappointing as a driving experience, I wouldn’t really care. For me this is just enthralling and thrilling as a piece of “look what can be done” technology. If they can craft a game around it that ticks all the boxes, then great; if not, I’ve no doubt this technology’s time will come. Watch this space.

Assetto Corsa

Simon:- Before I go any further with discussing AC, I’d first like to clear up a couple of points (that sadly do seem to need to be cleared up):

1. My last piece was not serious. It was satire. Those who thought/think otherwise, read it again: there are a couple of subtle clues in there. It isn’t even really about AC.
2. I am not an AC “fanboy”, on their payroll or anything else.

This blog site is put together by a few of us with limited free time. We have jobs, families, commitments and so on, and get nothing from writing this site other than a small sense of satisfaction, a few complimentary comments, and a bit of abuse. As such, we write about things we want to write about. Not being sadists, we tend to spend time playing titles we enjoy, and we prefer to write positive things about stuff we like, than spend time putting ourselves through misery (no thanks to Kunos…  <- ******THAT WAS A JOKE******).

I have written positive words about AC for no other reason than I feel positive about it. Since its release a short while ago, it has dragged me back to my rig countless times and has seen me rack up a not insignificant number of hours behind the wheel. My heartfelt apologies to any offended by my liking it and wanting to say so. AC still has a long way to go, and still has a lot of areas in which, in time, it really needs to prove itself. But as it stands, for a title at the current stage of development, I see far more to be happy about and to celebrate than to complain about. The recent arrival of the Grp A E30 M3 has given me what I always said I was looking forward to from AC, and right now I am not in the least bit disappointed with it.

If the next year brings continued development, improvements, refinements and content (inclusive and paid), I don’t see that position changing. Unless the AI and MP suck monkey balls. Time will tell.

Jon:- I wrote the exclusive “first drive” piece on Assetto Corsa in AutoSimSport after a journey to Italy to meet the team in March 2011, and was lucky enough to be the first ‘journalist’ to get behind the wheel in the sim. AC has come a long way since then, but the core base of the physics was clear even back then.  Over the last couple of years I’ve managed to have the odd go here and there when meeting up with the Kunos team but only recently, when the Early Access Beta hit the public, did everyone else get to see what I was raving about.

Seeing the sim “up in lights” in Steam is a pleasing moment in 2013, and though AC recently seems to have developed a little too much of a social media reality TV show, driving the sim itself never fails to raise a smile. Next year, however, will be the proof of the pudding for AC, and I look forward to the development as it goes on.  Oh, and FERRARI F40!

Reiza Studios

Simon:- First of all, confession time: I haven’t purchased all of Reiza’s releases, let alone played them. As above, that is a simple restriction of time on my part. So I am not here to tell you all to go and play them and how brilliant they are. No, instead I am simply here to celebrate a company who is mixing tradition with some forward thinking. Whilst the conventional business model for sim releases has changed significantly over the last few years, Reiza have stuck to the good old ‘pick a series, model all the relevant cars and tracks, and give people a full series’ approach. Where they’ve diversified is in their choice of series; lacking the clout and finances required to go after the traditional big licenses, they have instead (no doubt partly through choice, too) gone for more abstract and obscure series, with Brazilian stock cars and now Brazilian truck racing given the full treatment.

Not everyone wants the disparate collections of machinery today’s sims tend to offer, and for those who want a full field of similarly specced (but not identical) machinery to race against, Reiza seem to be the only ones offering a solution. They’ve also continued to offer, in my eyes, fantastic value for money, with generous (too generous, perhaps?!?) offerings of content and updates to customers.

If it is a dying way of doing business, it’s at least nice to see someone carrying the flag and making sure it goes out with a bang, rather than a sad “remember the days of Papyrus?” whimper.

Jon:- When GTR3 was rumoured to be coming up from Simbin there was a remarkable reaction in the community, and I think this was partly related to the nature of the previous GTR sims. It is becoming increasingly more and more difficult to licence an entire series and pick up all tracks and cars in one package, as so many of the entities involved have become savvy to securing their own royalty deals.  This makes it even more pleasing to see a small group of, what once were, modders, grabbing the bull by the horns and sticking with the tried and tested method and making it work; not unlike Ian Bell’s development of GTR1.

Reiza’s products ooze detail and though the underlying engine may struggle to display graphics on the level of pCARS or AC, each one of their products deserves a space on any simracers hard drive. I mean, where else can you drive an enormous racing truck?

DIY pedal “mod”

Simon:- More. We always want more. More and better than before. Oh, and it has to cost next to nothing. Otherwise it’s a ripoff. Well this year saw me make a very small and cheap modification to my hardware that has made a surprisingly large difference to the experience. After the best part of 10 year’s solid service, I decided to make a modification to my trusty BRD Speed 7 pedals. It wasn’t a fancy load cell mod or anything near as adventurous, rather I simply replaced the pedal pads. £10 on eBay saw a genuine set of OMP rally pedals delivered (for free) from the Italian factory to rainy old York. A quick trip to B&Q, a small pack of screw cup washers, 10 minutes with some pliers and some slightly sore hands later, and my pedals were updated to be a little more car like and a little less computer peripheral. The effect? Apart from just generally feeling nicer underfoot, the key benefit is avoiding the need to contort my legs in weird ways to avoid accidental throttle presses under braking. Not only is braking vastly improved, but heal and toeing is now much easier and more comfortable. For a few quid and a little effort it has made a big difference to my sim driving experience, and leaves me kicking myself for not doing it earlier. For those of you who are angered by the thought of paying for anything, I’m sure you could model something from leftover tin foil or whatever you have lying around.

rFactor 2

Jon:- Quietly plugging away in the background the small team at ISI still have a racing sim on their hands that is daring to dream when it comes to the overall race driving experience.  Put simply, nothing does weather, live track rubbering, and overall customisation better. Whether rFactor 2 will go on to become the commercial sim platform of choice, as its predecessor did, remains to be seen. The downside is that it can be troublesome for the non-tech savvy to get the sim running right, and some aspects of the sim seem curiously worked out (I see you there, baseline setups!). In beta now for around two years it will be fascinating to see where ISI can take this platform in 2014.

Simon:- It seems quite easy for rF2 to slip under the radar at times. ISI seem quite content to just quietly get on with things without much fanfare along the way. So much of what ISI are doing brings a smile to my face; the environmental side, for example, is so far ahead of what others are doing as to be in a league of their own. But whatever it is, for whatever reason, it just hasn’t quite clicked with me recently. But whilst rF2 might not have been receiving much seat time from me lately, it most definitely has my attention and, like Jon, I’m excited to see where the new year will take it. If Tim Wheatley keeps working on licenses like he has been doing, I dare say sooner or later I will be lured right back in.

iGPManager.com

Simon:- As I have written before, I am quite a fan of iGP Manager. Christmas day saw the final race of The League Of Rooks’ sixth season, and thankfully all major honours were already tied up and so attendance wasn’t required. This season has seen a few changes in the league, with perhaps the biggest being that we have seen a number of managers reaching the level cap (that’s another discussion for another day…), and so things are plateauing at the top and bunching up from below. Although far from what could described as a tight season for top honours, there was an increased level of competition across the board, with a number of closely contested battles throughout the running order.

The closing up of the field has put more of an emphasis on the manager getting things right on the track rather than behind the scenes, and subtle changes to strategies have made all the difference from race to race. Six seasons (a bit over two years) in, and whilst a few names have come and gone, I know I’m not alone in still being rather hooked. Next season should only see things get closer, and there are probably a good eight or so teams who have a real chance of competing for wins, providing their managers don’t forget to top up the fuel (yes Suresh, I’m looking at you… ;-)).

Jon:- iGP Manager has not really changed much since it’s inception, with focus from the small development team being on stability over the addition of new features.  Regardless, the formula for the game has not needed much change, because it is a game of constant learning.  Very much in the style of games made twenty years ago, this game leaves the onus on the player to work out what it is they are supposed to do, nothing is on a plate, and so a fresh league starting up with new players will see victory going to those that work it out the fastest.  Over the two years and over a hundred races we’ve contested, each new development has been a race to see who can get there first and the competitive order has been shaped by those with the most open minds to creative thinking. As Simon notes, the teams are all levelling out now, which means a different focus will be required for us all.

Most of all what I have enjoyed about iGPManager is that every Wednesday a group of sixteen players have got together to race, but not in a “sweaty in your sim rig” way, but in a “sitting quietly with a beer” way. Friendships have been bolstered and in some cases formed anew, and a sense of kinship exists that makes us all celebrate milestones for other players as well as unite in annoyance against the dominance of team Spamsac!  iGP races are a cherished time of the week for me, regardless of where my drivers bring the cars home, and I hope it will be for many years to come.

The Community

Jon:- A highlight?  What?  Yes, yes, I know, in recent years the simracing community has kept up with the rest of the world when it comes to its rants, entitled pricks and comments sections that should be deleted and put at the bottom of the sea.

However, at the same time, solid community sites such as RaceDepartment, DrivingItalia.net, NoGrip and SimHQ Motorsport have retained a semblance of normalcy amongst the many maelstroms that have come and gone.  As well as this there are dedicated game forums for the likes of iRacing, ISI, Kunos Sim and SMS that do a great job of bringing players together where other “emergent” social media may be failing.  Ultimately, this community grew out of web forums (and newsgroups, hands up who posted on rec.autos.simulators back in the day?), and to this day they can remain a great source of information to newcomers and experienced hands alike, provided they can find the right place to look.

The natural downside is that, just as it ever was, too many people still don’t read through their post and have a think before clicking “post”.  It remains a truism that taking a quiet moment to think about whether one’s post will achieve anything productive is a golden art that we all need to try to engage sometimes.

Simon:- It’s all in our hands guys…

So there you have it, a few select highlights from the past year. If we didn’t mention something, it doesn’t mean we hate it or are biased, or they’re not paying us enough; it just wasn’t something we picked out in this hurried together list. Thanks for reading, all the kind words and the feedback this year, and wishing you all a happy and healthy 2014.

Cheers,

The RAVSim team.

Whilst RAVSim’s bread-and-butter genre, the humble racing sim, appears in many ways to be in pretty rude health right now, there is another “simulation” genre that is also enjoying something of a boom period: space combat and exploration.  “Simulation”? Obviously this stuff isn’t going on in the real world (or, rather, real universe) right now, at least not by our species, so can such titles really be called simulators? It’s perhaps up for debate, but physics are physics regardless of the setting, and a number of these titles look to incorporate realism into many areas on a level that matches the most accomplished of traditional simulators.

To my knowledge, nowhere is this more true than for Michael Juliano’s Rogue System title. Following a varied career that currently sees him on ISI’s staff books leading up the environment team on rFactor2, Juliano decided to scratch a long standing itch and start working on the project that he wanted to make and to play: Rogue System. In a nutshell, Rogue System is a space combat, exploration and trade game, and Juliano is hoping to secure funding through a Kickstarter campaign to safeguard the future development of the title.

If words like “space”, “combat”, “trade”, “exploration” and “Kickstarter” are eliciting thoughts of words like “Braben”, “Elite”, “Roberts”, “Star” and “Citizen”, you won’t be alone. But make no mistake: Juliano is no bandwagon jumper, and Rogue System is no simple “me too” title. Initially (and quietly) announced over a year ago, Rogue System has been a quarter of a century in the making within the mind of its creator.

With a focus on intricate systems modeling, realistic physics and detailed avatar health modeling, Rogue System is going for the jugular of the genre and attempting to stamp a “Hardcore Simulation” tattoo across its forehead. In a genre that is quickly beginning to look crowded, it will increasingly take something extra special to standout. Thankfully, Rogue System’s uncompromised focus and approach could see it do just that. In the midst of final Kickstarter preparations, Michael kindly took time to answer some questions about the title.

When combining the concepts of flight-sim realism and a science fiction setting, in regard to flight control systems, how do you envision your approach to the player’s responsibility for system management given that it could be argued that futuristic systems could eliminate the need for micromanagement?  How do you see using the fiction aspect to manage the balance between engaging gameplay and ‘hard science fiction’ realism?

In response to a couple of the early WIP videos I released I “heard” a few comments along the lines of ‘not very realistic, you could start a ship in one button press’ and ‘there wouldn’t be nearly that many buttons in a futuristic spacecraft’. Presumably because the systems would take care of themselves. So, since I was still in a prototype phase, I tested a ship with only a start button. That alone was pretty boring. But then I took the ship out and got into a small bit of combat and systems started being damaged—I had no way to shut them down (again, thinking as a pilot would inside the ship), or alter their operation. How could you trust a damaged system to manage itself properly? You could argue that the ship’s computer could manage this; but what if THAT is knocked out? At that point you’d be pretty much dead-stick, which would be silly if the rest of the ship was mostly functional.

I also saw a few comments about not needing hard switches. So, I tried that, too (and you can see this in the teaser videos I recently released), with an EFD-only (Eye’s Front Display—sort of my interactive HUD) controlled ship. First, you’ll notice I STILL had to resort to a few buttons on the “dash”. Second, if the EFD system is knocked out, again, you’re left with no way to control the ship.

So, long story short, as I see it as it applies to Rogue System, as long as there is a pilot in the cockpit, even if you have assistance from the ship’s computer (which I do in RogSys), and you have systems that can aid you in their operation (again, which I do), you HAVE to be able to manage your ship in a real and tangible way. If an engine has a fuel cut-off valve, you must be able to close it manually if all other automatic means have been disabled, for example.

Do you plan to include atmospheric modeling for atmospheric flight and combat at some point?  If so, what sort of possibilities do you see for this sort of combat in potentially interesting alien atmospheres (extremes of temperatures, pressure, gravity, wind speed, and so on)?

This is a long term goal, yes. However, I will NOT do it if we can’t do it better than previous attempts. So far, every time someone has tried this it turns out being a mostly barren planet with maybe one or two star ports to visit and that’s all. For something like a dead, inhospitable world this sort of makes sense I suppose. But for a world supposedly inhabited it’s just… Well, it doesn’t “feel” right.

From a simulation point of view I’d want to model at least a very good approximation of various gravities, pressures, temperatures, etc. All these things would affect flight performance drastically. Using density as an example, you’d have higher drag and would need more power to “push” through the atmosphere. You’d also have a risk of more easily pushing the ship beyond its structural limits. So, I could envision a situation where the player is chasing a potential bounty who took their ship down planet side. Before continuing the chase the player would have to scan that world and get an idea of what was in store (or even know if their ship could manage planet side to begin with).

To sum up though, if I can’t present terrestrial flight in an appealing way, that also offers a rewarding simulation experience I won’t do it. I don’t do fluff; and I don’t add half-baked ideas just for the sake of the feature list. I’d rather leave it out than weaken the rest of the sim by including it…

If atmospheric flight were deemed appropriate to include, this would obviously present not just a new set of challenges from a programming/implementation point of view, but also as you mention different stresses on the craft themselves. On this front, how challenging is it to create a craft that can function across a variety of atmospheric condition? Different air densities, gravitational forces etc. would place different needs on the ships for thrust, lift and so on; whilst things like thrust levels can be set somewhat arbitrarily (this ship uses an X13 3.0 thruster which creates X newtons of thrust), from an aerodynamical point of view that’s something much more difficult to work around within a simulation framework. Designing a craft to fly well within the Earth’s atmosphere is enough of a challenge as it is; how would you approach this from a craft design point of view?

What you’re asking is another one of those, “If we can do it right” items. What I imagine is that any ship that could perform atmospheric flight would need some form of lifting bodies (such as the Space Shuttle), and that these would need to have some sort of shape shifting ability (similar to how flaps and slats and the wing sweep change the lift and drag properties on the B1-b, for example). You’d not only need to change the cord, but also the entire surface area in some cases. Even then, you’d still encounter atmospheric types that your ship wouldn’t be able to deal with, which is where my ‘evaluate the planet’s atmosphere before entering’ statement came from.

Sure, you could just say, “We have this anti-gravity device so you can go anywhere,” but that seems the easy way out. If we try to tackle this later I really want to take a different approach to what’s been done previously. Entering an atmosphere is no small feat, and it should be an endeavour you’d only want to do in the sim if you REALLY had to.

Now, all that said, I want to tackle this issue in steps (just as the entire sim is being built). At first we’ll provide a way to set down on asteroids and small moons with no atmosphere. All you’d have to worry about with these is having enough escape velocity to get away (and you’d want to think about that BEFORE setting down 🙂 ). Then, we’ll try for larger moons with an atmosphere, and finally planets. For bodies with no atmosphere–we’ll be able to do this and I’d like to include it with the “Maverick Module” (exploration and trading) for mining and such. We’ll take the rest in stages and see what we can do…

How do you keep a game world open and devoid of gameplay related barriers? You could obviously just create planets with atmospheres unsuitable for flight, and so burn up on entry negates the need for worrying about planet-side detail, but such an approach would perhaps feel a little artificial. When creating a game where the environment is on such a large scale, how do you aim to limit and condense the experience without killing the atmosphere associated with “go anywhere, do anything” freedom, especially when the trading/exploration side to the game develops?

A bit of RogSys lore here: when the race that the player belongs to first started colonizing space, they sent out these massive colony ships to various locations. Once there, they parked in orbit and over time were added to (much as we added to the ISS over time until it was complete) using resources from the planet below. These “Orbital Stations” are the trading hub for each planet, since it’s more efficient to allow ships to park in orbit, dump and pick up cargo in a zero-g environment, and then leave. The cargo is shuttled to and from the planet by dedicated ships.

So, in the core module the player flies small fighter-like craft from this station that simply cannot handle atmospheric transition. Plus, in every outing the player is on a mission–they need to be where they are SUPPOSED to be in order for the mission to succeed. So that takes care of that..

Once exploration play is added we simply provide ships with no lifting bodies; and, since we don’t have anti-gravity devices, if they enter the atmosphere they just crash and burn since they can’t fly. As we add the ability to land on various objects then we will begin providing ships, systems and equipment that can deal with that.

That’s really the only “limiting” factor–atmospheric flight. Otherwise, yes, you can fly anywhere within your ship’s range. As far as keeping that interesting and focused? There are (when the Maverick Module is added) events going on all the time around the known colonies. These events occur at random, based on other events, etc. The player will have access to this “news” as often these events will provide work–specific trade items to pick-up/deliver, people to ferry or track down, and so on. So, that will provide a way for the player to find interesting things to do.

I also have a mechanic for what I’ll call “Local Events”. These are things that occur locally around the player, based on certain factors, to give the player other things to do if they choose; and I don’t simply mean dropping in a couple enemy ships every five minutes to provide something to shoot at. If there are no enemies in that area then you won’t see any. Think of these more as… quests. Some of these can include strange signals to investigate, derelict space craft to interact with, and many other things. I have a lot already planned. The cool thing is that I already have an event data structure in place that allows for expansion, so we can add new events all the time.

Again, all this is really important when exploration play is added. The trick is not to limit the player, but to keep the player the focus of attention where appropriate…

To what degree do you see the pilot’s physical limitations affecting the usable performance of in game space craft?  Are you planning on limiting this to the human limits of acceleration and environmental conditions, or might there be some technologies to limit or overcome this?  A Newtonian model for ship-to-ship ‘space fighter’ combat can often become a series of repeated high-speed jousts, but limiting the g-stresses a pilot can take would significantly alter that equation in a potentially positive way from a gameplay perspective.  If you’ve tested this sort of thing, what have your findings been?

While you can fly pure “Newtonian Style” (and in some cases you HAVE to) we do also have limits on both the “pilot” and the ship. I’ll begin with the pilot:

One of the things we’re trying to do is pull you into the cockpit by simulating your pilot “avatar”, as well as the ship they fly. We track their heart rate, we track every inhale and exhale (so we can properly remove oxygen and add CO2), and we track their physical and mental states and how they are reacting to the current situation. You’ll see condensed breath when the cabin temp is too low. If you pull too many negative g’s you’ll hear your heartbeat in your head, etc. For the AI, all this affects their flight performance.

Now, speaking along the lines of flight limitation, while we offer systems to allow higher load tolerances, there IS still a limit, and the pilot will react to this properly. That alone limits the player so that they don’t overstress their pilot. To aid in this we have something called a FIS (Friction Induction System). The theory behind this is that a field is generated around the ship that reacts with the particles outside to form a minimal amount of friction, which causes flight to feel a bit more atmospheric. You can control the strength of it, as well as turn it on and off.

The ship has its limits, too. For example, use of the FIS DOES increase hull temperature, and engaging it while going too fast can have catastrophic results (on this ship as well as the pilot). Also, many weapon systems can only be used within certain flight parameters. Exceeding these parameters can cause “space-frame” failures, jammed weapons, “frozen” moveable controls (such as a vectored thruster).

All this does affect combat obviously. We have several levels of long range engagement—BVR, WBVR (well-beyond) and FBVR (far beyond). But, once those weapon systems are spent, and you have to take it to VR, I have to say the combat feels a lot like “overclocked” WWI flying–maneuvering is deliberate and methodical. Engagement can easily break down into circle fights if you allow it, which makes you an easy target. You’re only saving grace is you can’t stall out. But, what CAN happen is you can become almost “stationary” (relatively speaking in relation to the combat area), making you a very easy target. Scoring a victory in a properly managed dogfight is actually very gratifying, I’ve found, even when the target is not completely destroyed (the AI suffer the same system failures as the player).

How do you anticipate space-dogfighting might unfold? One-to-many, many-to-many? Capital ships involvement?

I’ve tested most of these (one vs. one, one vs. many, many vs. many). Unless you’re employing WBVR or FBVR the merge happens pretty quickly. The pilot who uses his sensors best will have the advantage in pre-engagement maneuvering. To that end, you’ll have proper wingman commands for pincer moves and that sort of thing. Newton can help on the initial merge as you can disengage FIS and, while maneuvering in one direction, aim in another. However, after the initial this advantage is gone. You reengage FIS to help you stay oriented properly with your opponent and the combat area in general. It also helps you stay within the operational limits of your weapons.

You start thinking about energy management, trying to avoid circle fights so you can extend or escape if you have to. Getting “slow” is bad—you can only accelerate so quickly from a stand-still (again, in relation to the combat zone and the ships around you). Again, you can get Newton’s help by disengaging FIS—removing the friction so you can accelerate faster. Just be careful not to overstress your ship or your pilot avatar. You also have to think about energy management in relation to certain weapons. Energy-based weapons require both a fuel source and a charge to create a successful shot. You have to monitor these levels. You also can’t just lie on the trigger. Weapons build up heat and too much can cause them to fail (excessive heat also shortens their operational life—important when you’re the one paying the bills later on).

You also start thinking about WHICH weapons to use. Short-range missiles, while effective, can have a large blast radius. You can easily get caught up in it and damage your own ship if your target is too close. Some weapons are affected by shields and reactive armor, others could care less about them. In a typical space shooter you get a lock, fire a missile or two, and lay on the guns until the target is dead. Not here. In Rogue System your head is in the cockpit, thinking about your ship and how best to get the most out of it, at LEAST as much as it is outside the cockpit trying to aim and make the kill.

The information you’ve released so-far indicates a pretty hardcore approach to realism.  It’s not difficult to imagine a player might find themselves with damaged systems that prevented long-range travel, or even any sort of maneuvering at all, left endlessly adrift in space.  How might these circumstances be handled?  Is it game over or might there be game-world systems in place to help?

It’s not “game over” by any means, but yes, it is VERY easy to become “dead-stick” if you’re not careful. It depends on who you are, who you fly for and WHERE you are as to how quickly, and by what means, you get recovered. As well as for long distance flight, this is where SAN (Suspended ANinmation) comes in. Beyond that, I have some cool gameplay mechanics planned here that I really don’t want to divulge just yet.

On the subject of the scale of your universe, are you going for 1:1 across the board, or keeping some distances realistic while scaling others?  How do you propose keeping the environment interesting while respecting the fact that space is vast and largely empty?

Our scaling is 1:1 in that a meter is a meter. You can travel anywhere you like—there are no “zones” or regions that you jump to. So, yes, there is a lot of space to fill. Obviously some “space” is more interesting than other “space”. Of course, in the initial sim, unless Kickstarter does exceedingly well, we’re focusing on a military campaign and as such we don’t have as much space to fill at first. Later, when trading/exploration is added there are several things we can do to help focus the player to areas of interest—scanners can pick up ships and objects to investigate, news events will keep you alerted to things to check out, random events will happen from time to time, etc.  The great thing is we can add events long after release.

Visually, procedural generation makes filling such large voids possible. We’ll be implementing this once we start making the assets to support it. The base code is already there, so it’s really just a matter of adding all the art and then debugging.

Also, you’ll be able to move around inside larger ships, so during those times when things are a bit slow you can get up from the pilot’s seat and go to another section of the ship. We have some great ideas to help keep you entertained. And, if all else fails, there’s always SAN, which will allow you to sleep until you reach your destination (or until your computer wakes you up for various reasons). While in SAN time is accelerated, so planets and moons still orbit, other ships go about their business, etc.

Have you found the recent resurgence in the genre to be encouraging, or perhaps even in some ways discouraging?

I have mixed feelings here. On the one hand, being a long time flight/space sim fan, it’s absolutely fantastic to see this resurgence. As I suspected for a LONG time, there is still a LOT of interest in this genre. If anything, people are longing for a new space-sim that offers a fresh, intelligent and exciting take on the genre. Although I’m probably locking myself into a very niche audience, I think it’s worth it. Rogue System is going to be a very unique, even if on a global scale it is similar to other recently announced titles.

I’m not sure if “discouraged” is the correct word. When I first announced Rogue System a year ago I received excellent feedback and a lot of support. If I could have gone to Kickstarter in June of last year as I wanted I think it would have done exceedingly well. But, we just weren’t quite ready to show yet. In the meantime Braben and Roberts beat me to the punch. It’s thrilling to see their names again; but it has made it harder for me to get my foot in the door. I currently don’t have a team to work on promotional material. I don’t have a bunch of artists building high detailed game assets yet. I mean I COULD have focused on art for the past two years in my spare time, but I choose to focus on gameplay. I worked on the initial ship systems and core elements on which I can add all the art later and fancy stuff later.

I now have to work very hard to prove that Rogue System is worthy to stand alongside these two big titles; and I only have the game design, current technology, and the few early art assets I’ve created to do it with. I’m up for the challenge though. If Rogue System’s Kickstarter is successful it will be on its own merit and because people feel that what I’m trying to do is worth giving me the means to build a proper team to see it to completion.

Going back before the current Kickstarter trend, there has been a steady stream of space-sims announced as in development; some that looked fairly ambitious and many even had impressive tech demonstration videos, but almost all of these failed to materialise.   It seems there is a sizable demand for space-sims (if still firmly niche relative to the AAA titles of the world); what do you think has made the space-sim genre one that seems to invoke so much passion in both players and potential developers?  Do you think there is a particular technical or design challenge that makes getting these projects past the core technology development stage to the playable game stage especially difficult?

Space and flight sims really were the genres that gave PC gaming the boot in the pants it needed in the early days. When people look back to the heyday of PC gaming these are the titles that they tend to fondly recall. Certainly, the LACK of space-sims since the late 90’s has been a reason to try and build a new one. If anyone could have made a great space-sim that invoked the same feelings that the early games did they would have been a hero. However, building a tech demo is a lot different to actually taking that and creating a complete product.

To create any game/sim project and actually finish it takes a huge commitment in time and resources. For one or two people, sooner or later life gets in the way, I think. Even I had to pause the development of Rogue System for about 6 months because of my “day job”. You have to have tremendous dedication to your project to come back to it after an extended delay like that. Then, too, you realize that there’s a LOT of work to be done, so much that it can become overwhelming. When you have a job and a family to support and all that other life stuff, eventually most of these just get left by the wayside.

Even if you have people to do the work needed, you have to be able to manage them and their schedules. To get the commitment you need from talented people you HAVE to be able to pay them. They can’t dedicate themselves to a project long term if the project can dedicate itself to them. Let’s not forget that making a game doesn’t auto-magically make it a fun game. Lots of people “feel” they are great designers, but not many of them truly are. If you have all of THAT, then you still need to invest to create your company, to advertise, to get trademarks, to purchase software and licenses. It’s just a huge, HUGE endeavor.

I’ve taken a LOT of time and money away from my family to get to this point. I have the experience to manage people and scheduling. I certainly have the commitment to see this through. Finally, with all the positive feedback I’ve received I know I’m on the right track as to design. All I need now are the funds to build a proper team to support the project.

Does going the Kickstarter route reflect an unwillingness to go down the traditional developer/publisher path on your part, or is it more a reflection of the current market and broader economic climate? Would you like to see Rogue System potentially picked up by a publisher further down the line?

I honestly can’t imagine any publisher would touch Rogue System because it simply wouldn’t return what they’d want it to. Sure, I believe it will turn enough to support itself and generate a modest profit (mainly to keep handy for a “rainy day”), which is GREAT for me–it supports my goal of building up Rogue System over time and giving it a long life.  But, it’s my experience that big investors (publishers) want big returns.

Besides, for Rogue System to go under a publisher’s banner I’d have to have very explicate, contractual assurance that I’d have complete creative control, and that’s VERY hard to get. Publishers can be funny in that, they see a project and like it enough to support it. But then, when they do, they start asking (and many times demanding) for changes based on focus groups and other whims, normally turning the project into something completely different. I KNOW exactly what I want Rogue System to be. If a publisher was willing to stand behind that I’d consider it. But again, based on past experience I just don’t see that happening. I’d be pleasantly surprised if it did, honestly.

“Crowd funding,” asking the potential audience to provide the financial support early, is the only way I can think of to get this thing off and running. Kickstarter, bless them, have offered an incredible way for many creative, independent people to get their foot in the door with all sorts of projects. One just has to prove their project is worthy of others’ support, and get the word out there enough to generate enough support for success. Finally, if they are supported, they have to deliver what they promise. I KNOW I can deliver Rogue System–I just need the support to do it.

There is a clear demand for, and also now a presence of, space combat/exploration/trading titles in the works. Whilst hardcore aficionados of the genre may well buy into all titles, there are a lot of people, like myself, who have yet you step into this world. From my point of view, I found the announcements of Braben and Roberts’ projects both enticing and exciting, and for me personally your focus on the simulation side with Rogue System is highly appealing. A focus on hardcore, simulation based gameplay probably has the double edged effect of appealing to some and drawing them in, but at the same time perhaps discouraging others looking to dip their toes in the water. Have you made a conscious decision to cut your losses with some players to maximise appeal to others, or do you plan to try and keep a balanced, broad (within the context of a niche title) appeal? Racing simulations, for example, can feature aids and other “artificial” features to soften the blow for new comers; will Rogue System have an equivalent suite of features to help players of varying ability, experience, and desire for hardcore?

Yes, I realize that I’m going to cater to a rather specific audience. I accept this. Were I out to make a lot of money I’d provide a more arcade-like experience (and I’m NOT saying Roberts and Braben are–I’m simply speaking for myself here) to try and draw in large numbers. But I don’t want that. What I want is for Rogue System to support itself over the course of its life while providing this unique type of “hardcore” simulation. I believe that even a small, dedicated audience can provide this if we are as willing to provide Rogue System with new content to keep it exciting and entertaining. Besides, each title (Rogue System, Star Citizen and Elite) ALL will have unique features that will appeal to different people. There’s enough personal preference, opinion and “taste” to support multiple titles as long as each one provides something unique.

Now, that said, OBVIOUSLY I want to try to bring in new people to experience Rogue System, as well as simulation in general. While I will NOT alter the simulation in any way as far as how systems work, how the flight model operates, etc., what I will do (and am) is provide things that I call “Accessibility Options”. These include more typical things like invisibility, unlimited ammo, turning off system damage, etc.; but also things more subtle such as having the ship in various states of readiness when you enter it (all off, switches set, already running, etc.). These don’t alter the simulation, just how much of it is presented to the player–they can turn things “on” as they get more comfortable. Plus, there is a “simulator” the player can use to get up to speed without sacrificing their pilot’s life. I also have a small flight training campaign planned, but that will depend on resources if we’ll be able to tackle that the way I’d like to.

Finally, when multiplayer is added, the server will be able to allow or disallow these options…

This brings me onto something you mentioned in your previous SimHQ interview, that you plan for expanding the team and building up assets, but also the progressive implementation of gameplay styles and features (solo scripted missions -> dynamic missions -> multiplayer -> open ended trader play…). Thinking long term, you seem to be taking a very pragmatic, ground up approach: start with the basics and fundamental foundations, and steadily built from there. In terms of the lifespan of the project, potentially how long do you see Rogue System persisting as a developing platform? Will the approach taken allow in the future for the core to be updated with everything else remaining in place around it (a Rogue System 2.0 as it were)?

Indeed, my approach is very progressive. I only want the team focusing on one goal at a time. For a small team this is essential because you can’t afford one minute to wonder aimlessly through a forest of design items. For a large team, it offers the chance to really NAIL the implementation of each goal–making each one a quality effort.

Yes, as long as all the “hooks” and tie-in’s remain the same, the core of Rogue System can be updated. The main thing that would cause this is if we switched engines at some point. The idea is to make sure that nothing that we add later sits apart from the core, but rather rests on it. In a way this can cause a bottleneck as some information could be handled more efficiently on its own. But again, the idea is to be able to add on to the core AND be able to update the core later while still allowing everything to work.

I don’t want to put out a new version every year–adding one or two new features and calling it 2.0–just to generate more income. The main reason being that in doing that all you do is focus on the same thing over and over and over. I don’t want Rogue System to stay the same. I want it to grow. Maybe I’m being naive; but, I believe there’s a better way–that a project can have a long life and not have to get old in the process.

With a futuristic genre, not only do crafts and environments provide you with a lot of freedom, but also I imagine the implementation of input devices. Do you envision the best way to get the most out of Rogue System to be to go down the traditional joystick approach that many space shooters have adopted from the world of flight sims and Hollywood, or might a console style controller offer a more appropriate, “futuristic” control mechanism?

The engine Rogue System uses currently supports up to three joystick devices. These can be anything–joysticks, pedals, quadrants or even game controllers–that use this interface. I’ve requested more joystick support in the future. The creator of the engine is always adding and updating, so there’s no reason to think this wouldn’t be a possibility. It’s really personal preference as to what feels better for each player–I’ll let them decide. All I have to do is give them the means. I will say that for pitch, roll and yaw you REALLY want something linear, rather than on/off. You do need a certain level of finesse when performing some manoeuvres.

Could you give some details about the engine behind Rogue System? Is it an “off the shelf” engine like Unity, or a collection of sub parts (graphics, physics etc.) that you have picked for the specific task? Has the engine choice in anyway particularly empowered (beyond giving you an engine!) or limited what you can achieve in reference to what you would ideally like to do?

The engine used is called Nuclear Fusion (NF). It’s been in development since 2005, and still is actively supported. It’s a very robust, efficient multi-core engine that has so far handled everything I’ve thrown at it. Graphically, it’s quite modern in that it will support HLSL shaders up to DX11. It is also platform non-specific so, at least from an engine point-of-view, there’s not a reason we couldn’t try for a port to another OS later.

I did “shop around” for several months looking for an engine that, at the time, I could afford. Although the plan was to “upgrade” to a more well-known engine when funds were available I’ve been so impressed with this so far I don’t see a reason to do that.

While it does support things such as skinned animation and such, this is really more of a backbone engine rather than a complete game engine. For example, I had to code the particle system we use because NF doesn’t come with one built in. In a way, I prefer this–I can add exactly what we need and the engine isn’t bogged down by a bunch of stuff we’ll never use.

About the only thing I had to add is irrKlang for full sound support, as NF’s sound engine doesn’t have the feature set Rogue System required…

Have you thought about the inclusion of touch screen controls (such as using tablets) for some of the systems management, or new technology like the highly anticipated Oculus Rift (a Kickstarter success story of huge proportions)?

Funny you should ask this. I just added a section to the Kickstarter page the other day about future peripheral support. One thing I’d REALLY like to explore is using a touch-screen monitor to interact with the EFD (Eye’s Front Display)–I think this would offer a fantastic sense of immersion. I’ve actually sat at my monitor while testing and reached out to touch the buttons to see how it feels–I think it would work REALLY well, ESPECIALLY if you had a dedicated cockpit for simming.

The OculusVR is also something I REALLY want to support. From everything I’ve heard it’s fantastic. I plan on ordering a dev unit soon so that I can at least evaluate it. If it’s all they say it is I’ll be sure to support it.

With the Kickstarter now live, it’s obviously going to be a case of wait and see for how things pan out. Where do you go from here providing the project exceeds targets, meets them or, gulp, fails to reach the goals? You’ve obviously been working on the title for some time now and put a lot of effort into it; I assume a potentially failed Kickstarter does not signal game over for the project?

On the Kickstarter page I go into some detail as to what can be expected at the base goal, and what happens if we exceed that. They are not glamorous, grand jumps in content; but rather honest, well-thought items that we can achieve based on the amount of people we’ll have (based on salaries and other expenses). For example, the first “stretch goal” talks about adding a “tools” programmer so we can deliver a full complement of mod tools. This isn’t just for the end-user–we NEED these in order to develop the base content more efficiently. The other addition is another content artist. With the accelerated art production we should be able to offer 4 flyable ships rather than two.

If we go WELL above what I have planned then we’ll figure out how best to use it to reward the community for their support. I only planned out up to a certain dollar amount because I feel that’s about what we could expect to achieve at maximum.

I’ve thought long and hard about what happens if the Kickstarter fails. It’s really going to come down to how much it fails, if it does. If we only miss by a few thousand dollars then what I’ll do is open a store over at our site and ask everyone to donate there, offering the same rewards. Missing by such a small amount would STILL allow us to get started and then hopefully the rest will come in over time. But, we’d have to run the store ourselves. Kickstarter is all or nothing–missing the base goal by even one dollar means the entire campaign fails.

If it fails horribly–well what can I do? I’ve invested far too much time and money to simply let it all go. If nothing else it would be a huge insult to my wife and daughters who have honestly sacrificed a lot so that I could do this. I owe it to them to finish it SOMEHOW if for no other reason than to say, “thank you for believing in me”. So, I’ll press on as I have been–a little here, a little there. Perhaps in time something will present itself to give Rogue System the proper support that I really feel it deserves.

As you say, we’ll just have to wait and see and then go from there…

You are still working at ISI along with working on Rogue System; what has the reaction been from the guys at ISI, and will you be leaving subject to the success of the Kickstarter campaign? Has Gjon had to warn you off from poaching staff? 🙂

Yes, I am still employed with ISI happily. This HAS made the last few months a bit trying because I didn’t have all the prep time I could have to get Rogue System ready for Kickstarter. But, I still have a family to support and, until I know what the future holds, I have a responsibility to ISI to do my assign duties to the best of my abilities.

If the Kickstarter is successful I will have a big obligation to fulfil that will require all my attention. So yes, I don’t think I’d have any other recourse than to resign my position. Gjon and I have already discussed this and we’ve prepared for both outcomes. I am eternally grateful to him for allowing me the opportunity to give this a shot AND retain my position at the same time.

As far as the reaction to the guys at ISI, they’ve all been incredibly supportive. I never hid the fact that my ultimate goal has ALWAYS been to have my own studio. They seem to truly want me to succeed at this, and I’m very grateful for this.

You’ve obviously had (and no doubt will continue) to weather the comparisons to similarly themed titles out there, so either in relation to those titles or just on Rogue System’s  own merits, in a hundred words or less tell our readers why they should get on over to Kickstarter and lay down some money to support Rogue System?

I can’t really compare Rogue System to the others on a detail-for-detail basis because I only know what info they’ve provided. All I can say is that Rogue System is the space combat sim that I, as a “hardcore” flight-simmer, have always wanted to play. If you want control of your ship at a system by system level–to be able to use your knowledge of it to complete your objective, survive and succeed in combat, and bring it and the pilot inside back home alive–I believe Rogue System is where you want to look. I am dedicated to it heart and soul, 100%–it WILL succeed given the chance. I’ve given it everything because I believe that.

Thank you for taking the time to talk to us, and good luck with the Rogue System Kickstarter campaign and beyond!

I’d like to thank everyone at RAVSim for taking such an interest in Rogue System, and allowing me the opportunity to present it to your readers. It is always my pleasure to talk about Rogue System, and any chance to do so (and to help get the word “out there”) is a most appreciated opportunity. So, again, thank you so much!

It could be seen as unfortunate that Michael Juliano has got his project onto the Kickstarter table after the Elite: Dangerous and Star Citizen banquettes have taken place, but in many respects I’m really not sure it matters. Whilst some might adopt the stance that backing one space combat title at a time is enough for them, there are others who will probably be willing to put their money down to support anyone ambitious enough to attempt such an undertaking.

But in some ways being late to the table could even be beneficial. Juliano has enough faith and belief in himself and his project to not be perturbed by the success of his competitors. Rogue System as it stands is not the result of a few months hurriedly scraping together some concept art and an idea for a game; in terms of code it is a basis, a platform, on which to build, to flesh out and to develop. But Rogue System is clearly much more than that: it is a vision, a belief and a philosophy.

Roberts and Braben might have got in there first by securing their crowd-sourced funding, but just as Braben successfully followed Roberts by offering something different to entice potential consumers into becoming paying customers, Juliano is proposing something quite different once again. Just as I found Roberts and Braben’s visions and scope for their respective titles alluring and exciting, I can now easily add Juliano to that list.

You can find more detail on Rogue System at the following sources:

Website: http://www.roguesystemsim.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/RogueSystemSim
Twitter: @RogueSystem
tumblr: digitscrossedinteractive
YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/fingerscrossedint
Kickstarter: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1298800608/rogue-system

Realism is the enemy of fun in video games, or so is the feeling in the wider gaming community.  In a recent blog post, the mysteriously named “qntm” posited that, had Deus Ex been focussed on realism, then realistic password security may have been a significant block to gameplay progress.  He states “making a game which is realistic is a goal totally opposed with making a game which is enjoyable to play.”  So where, then, does this leave simulators; a genre that has strived for realism in everything it does since its inception?

Anyone that remembers playing vehicle simulations over twenty years ago will look upon some of the titles released at the time with a certain fondness.  Driving laps in 1988’s “Grand Prix Circuit” was never something you thought of as stunningly realistic, just as no one would have extolled the complexity of the flight model in “F-15 Strike Eagle 2”. Yet, as our PCs got stronger, and could move more polygons and make more calculations, we began to demand more from simulators, so some software houses took up the challenge and delivered.

When we look to the modern day, where people travel on hovering skateboards and pictures of cats occupy more of the totality of human free time than politics, what has changed?  Instead of “F-15 Strike Eagle II” we have “DCS:A10 Warthog”, featuring realism so fearsome as to require a 670 page manual for one aircraft.  As well as this we have racing simulators that have put in so much work replicating real-world tyres and vehicle dynamics that their technology goes beyond the understanding of all but the longest of beards.   It’s what we wanted, it’s what we demanded, but is it still fun?  Well, I derive a lot of fun from it, and I know a few other people that do as well, but how about the millions of people that play video games day to day; the enthusiasts, the knowledgeable, the keen?  Oh, they know about vehicle simulators; they read PC Gamer and see the reviews, and they remember the days when they fired up “Ayrton Senna’s Super Monaco Grand Prix II” on their Mega Drive, they look at screenshots wistfully, and they dream.  Then they see the reality: that racing simulators of the highest calibre are hard, very hard, and not an easy genre to break into.  Can it be played with a joypad?  Can I play from a camera on the roof, or maybe from behind the car on a ladder?  The concerns of the everyday gamer are at odds with what most hard core simulator pilots would yearn for; on the one hand you have a niche market of simracers and simpilots that regard any compromise to realism to negatively impact on their enjoyment of the title, on the other hand you have a much larger demographic that wonders what fun can really come out of studying Motec to ascertain optimum ride height settings.

I remember reading an exceptionally long thread on rec.autos.simulators concerning whether simulators should be classified as video games or not. Whether there should be conventional concepts of video gaming implanted into simulators to broaden their appeal, or whether they should always be pure simulators, with no compromises.  The argument suggested that a pure simulation of a vehicle, such as those we now see in use with F1 teams, is a different form of software, a training tool such as the aviation industry has used for years, and not for entertainment.  Indeed, the recently released “Prepar3D” states in its terms of service that it is not for entertainment use.  When it comes to racing car simulators, this is a difficult angle to level at any sim on the market now.  As much as the likes of iRacing will tell you that they can be used as a professional driver training tool, there is inevitable compromise in its design that ensures a “game” element to the whole process. Online racing is a game, and very few will argue, beyond a press release, that it is a tool they use to get better at racing in real life.  However, the core simulations have continued to become more and more realistic, but whilst realism is near the top of the design criteria, where is it getting the developers?

If you’re a casual gamer and you look at iRacing, you see a video game that is focussed only on online racing, and an existing player base with up to five years’ experience under its belt.  What drags you in?  Would it be the assertion that racing without a wheel and pedal set is unlikely to be much use?  That competitiveness requires a concerted commitment to practice over a potentially long period?  That your experience of most online only gaming environments tells you that making a mistake and crashing into a fellow player could result in a torrent of vile abuse coming your way?

Well, maybe, but what is more likely is that the casual gamer will play a simulator for fun; to have a bit of time away from more mainstream games, as a diversion, and to enjoy delving into something new.  When they see the website for a given simulator, terms like “ultimate realism” might as well translate as “It’s really tricky and you haven’t got the time.”

It’s the same thing I ponder when I consider it might be a bit of fun to do a different type of simracing in “Virtual Skipper 5.”  What fun, I imagine, racing sailing boats online against the world’s best.  Then, as the download slowly grinds on I think a little more: “But hang on, I don’t know the slightest thing about sailing. Am I going to have to learn?  Is it going to use terms like “gaff rigged” or “scow”?  Am I going to look like an inept buffoon in front of the assembled masses of the world’s best virtual sailors?  I know I shouldn’t think these things, but all of it becomes daunting, and before I’ve hit confirm on the sign up page, I’ve abandoned the whole idea and gone out to get a baguette.

Once I’ve got my baguette and I sit down and have a think, I can only wonder as to quite how many people really want to race virtual sailing boats, or how many people want to be the best simulated fighter pilot and, really, how many people want to drive a tooth grindingly accurate racing simulator?

The answer to the question is clear: not that many.  iRacing’s 30,000 odd members seems to tie up with assorted sales numbers here and there, but could it be more? Should it be more?  I don’t know.  From an outsider’s perspective, many of the current crop of racing simulators have been based around the desires of the online racer for many years now.  Instead of the delights of Grand Prix Legends, that let us drive a variety of cars in the 1967 F1 field against AI versions of the heroes of the time, we now have a selection of sims that let us drive this or that car on this or that track, with little or no correlation between tracks and cars, and in many cases no option to drive the car in question against its contemporaries.  In the same sense, we can look at flight simulators such as X-Plane 10,  that give us a broad mix of aircraft to fly around the world, but no purpose in doing so.  I’m a big fan of realism in simulators, I positively revel in it, but when a simulator has nothing to offer beyond the driving of a vehicle, is it still video game?  It’s all good and well flying a Boeing 737 from LAX to San Diego, but why? What are you doing it for other than to prove to yourself that you can?  Similarly, what’s the point in finishing fourth in a Renault Clio race in rFactor 2 against people you don’t know?  This absence of purpose breeds a deficit in immersion, which can fail to capture the imagination of all but the most committed.

There is a contention that in a racing simulator you can win, and winning is important for humans.  We find winning a special thing, even if it is pointless.  We like that we can say that we won at something, sometime; it gives us a warm glow inside.  It’s a curious thing, and not one I really partake in.  Whenever I have won an online race I don’t really feel any different to how I do when coming second or third.  In fact, a few weeks ago I came second after starting last and it felt better than any win I can remember.  It didn’t achieve much when it comes to “game” though, and it could be said that the simulator I was playing didn’t involve any emotional moments at all.  Had I failed and crashed, there would be another race in 20 minutes to try again, and by that time everyone involved will have forgotten who won the last race.

This is all good and well for simracing enthusiasts; in a good sim I can usually find myself sufficiently motivated to run plenty of laps on my own.  I have lots of equipment specific to the task, and I derive fun from just driving the virtual car. But what of our forsaken casual player?  When they look at some simulators, do they wonder where the game really is?

It’s long been a thought of mine that racing simulators could do a lot more in this respect, and the push towards online meant that many sims left behind their single player elements over ten years ago.  It is a shame, but fairly common amongst developers across the video game spectrum: online was new and exciting back then.  Now many players actively avoid online gaming if they seek a relaxed and immersive experience. Immersion depends on imagination; playing with others, who may not be in the same imagination space as you, can easily break that immersion.  Playing alone, just you against the game, can also be more relaxing, because everything you do only matters to you, and not to someone on the other side of the world who might get unreasonably upset with something you do in the game.

What’s quite apparent to me in the simracing arena right now is that the single player is not being catered for particularly, and in the larger scale, over the many years we’ve had virtual cars to race, single player aspects of racing simulators have not really changed much since Grand Prix Circuit.

Kazunori Yamauchi, creator of the Gran Turismo series (who curiously cites Grand Prix Circuit as the first racing game he enjoyed), has tried to change this.  His approach, that allows cars to be customised and upgraded -along with bought and sold- based on money made from race winnings has been duplicated in a number of other racing games since.  Whilst the driving physics were never class leading, they were pleasing to drive, and the Gran Turismo series has been an undoubted hit for console simracers.  This “Elite” like method adds a simple financial aspect to the game that allows players to progress steadily and provides various gameplay advantages such as: players never end up in a car that is beyond their skills before they have the experience to cope; players have a considerable number of races to partake in and cars to buy, making the game have significant longevity; and finally, when the player is competing in their Mazda Demio against a fleet of Hyundai Atoz (Atozez?), they have a purpose to do so.  This strive for more, the good fight in the Demio, is based around the desire to be able to afford a Subaru Impreza, and then a Lotus Evora, and onwards and upwards.

Ultimately, however, this design leaves the player flat.  As with Elite, once a player has huge reserves of money and a vehicle that is nigh-on unbeatable, the purpose starts to ebb away.  It becomes simply about expanding ones garage, and watching the “completion” number increase.

So how can a single player racing sim become more of an engaging game for the casual player, but not at the expense of realism?  What’s that, no compromise to realism?  Well, I am not convinced compromising realism is necessary.  A good car driving sim should be able to implement simple aids to help a player get around the track using any control device; how many of us played Crammond’s F1GP on keyboard?  How many people play Gran Turismo on a joypad?  It shouldn’t be impossible, and may not be the way to get the best out of the game, but if you’re the only one playing and you can lower the difficulty to your tastes, then what does it matter?  If a casual player gathers from reviews that a sim is unplayable without a Logitech G27, they turn away.  So let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that the whole controller issue is fixed.

Bringing narrative and story elements into racing simulators has been loosely tried before as well, initially with Codemasters’ “Race Driver” series.  This was not met with huge interest by the hard core simracers at the time (Oh yes, in 2002 the hard core were just as vociferous in their judgement in the “simcade” debates!), but sold well in the wider world, aided by its cross-platform release.

The plot of the game saw the player take the role of a young, up and coming racing driver, trying to make a name for themselves in a variety of different racing series.  This push for triumph was clouded by the tragedy in their life of having witnessed their father die in a racing car on track. If that were not enough, they also, like Ralf, had an older brother who raced cars -with a considerable amount more success- to contend with.

It’s all good stuff, maybe a little clichéd, but it covers the excitement of racing, the pressures of a superior sibling, it even approaches the tragedy in motor racing that is rarely addressed by any simulation of the subject.  Clichés exist for a reason, and this plotline mirrors the kind of stories we see in motor racing all the time.

We’ve seen from other media that motor racing can be portrayed well alongside compelling storylines: Steve McQueen made for an enjoyable watch in Le Mans, and Garth Stein’s novel “The Art of Racing in the Rain” told a splendid, heart wrenching tale of a man obsessed by his career as a racing driver.  So even if Codemasters didn’t necessarily bang the ball out of the park, why has this concept not been picked up and developed further by anyone else?

Well, a story, when written, usually needs to have a beginning, middle and end; so if you are a video game writer you often have to work the “beginning, middle, more than one end” angle, and this is generally accepted as normal.  If you’re talking about a motorsports simulation, you’re putting a player in various situations in which they must perform, and the level to which they perform determines the development of the storyline.

So what happens when your objective is to finish second or above and you finish sixth?  Well, you do it again, and again, and again… Storm off, rant at girlfriend, back to it, again, and again, then you make it and the story can move on.  It’s not great gameplay, some might even say a touch frustrating, but how else can it be?  The alternative of a game that dynamically modifies your “campaign” as you advance surely would involve too many endings?

For a potential answer, the simracing world could do worse than take a look at “Rise of Flight” from 777 Studios.  This World War One flight sim is a tremendous piece of simulation software that models various aircraft used in the Western Front between 1916 and 1918.  It features meticulous vehicle detail, outstanding flight physics and sumptuous graphics.  In its own right, this alone makes it a success in the genre, but you can also go online and test your skills against the world’s finest sim pilots.

However, another aspect to its online modes is the career mode.  Essentially a single player campaign, the player is baffled (if they are me) initially as to why this is classed as online play, until one delves deeper.  Each sortie you fly in Rise of Flight (ROF) is treacherous; there is a very real chance you will not make it back alive, and there is also a very real chance that your other (AI) squadron members won’t survive either.  Thus, a major part of the career mode is to survive.  This means that often you may find yourself in your Sopwith Camel getting rather shot and struggling to keep the engine running.  If, in said scenario, you elude your attacker, the best thing to do is to head back to base, thus failing to fulfil your mission objectives, but fundamentally living to fight another day.

What happens next is where the fun comes in, because the results of your mission are uploaded magically to 777 Studios servers and taken into account to establish what your next mission will be and, ultimately, how your tour of duty will play out.  This means that every foray into the career mode will result in a potentially different result for every player, but there is always a purpose and an overbearing campaign that links in with ground forces and an ever changing front line that forces a narrative.  Whilst you will never change the outcome of the war, you can make the kind of small difference that one fighter pilot could.  All of this, I remind you, in a sim that makes no bones about keeping everything “hard core” in the physics department.

I would say that this system could well work in a racing simulator, and add a vast amount to a single player experience.  A championship campaign over fifteen or more races is something a single player could embark on knowing full well they may not win, but if you take the example of TOCA Race Driver’s career mode, allied to a dynamic system as seen in ROF, then a driver’s performance could change the way the AI respond to them, to other teams or series interest in them as a driver. Maybe they would get to the end of that first season and their career has to end, maybe they would get a test contract in a shiny red Ferrari that leads to a race contract after the surprise retirement of their star driver.  The survival aspect of ROF could also be employed to great effect, with persistent vehicles needing to be repaired or maintained, as well as the important maintenance of the player character should they get involved in any scrapes.  Hospital time, or bodyshop time could make for missed races. And, macabre as it sounds, historic sims could address the reality or their given eras’ accident survival rate, thus forcing a cleaner style of racing, in the name of verisimilitude.

The possibilities are endless, and present the chance for a truly dynamic offline racing experience that engages the player over a longer time period.

But why stop there? Such a system is not dissimilar (though maybe more complex) than that seen in Codemasters current round of F1 based games.  Motor racing is a sport filled with emotion and human stories, it is not all about the cars and the driving, often there are complex human relationships that influence the smallest of matters.  How can video games bring this to life?

RPGs have long been making complex algorithms seem like social interrelationships via the use of tools that the player can use to their advantage or detriment.  In many RPGs a player’s attributes are based around various unseen numbers, some of which will govern the player’s “reputation” in the game world, this attribute reflecting the way the many non-player characters (NPCs) you have interacted with regard you.  Thus, if you talk to old Greybeard McMountainface in the village, and your responses to his requests for help are dismissive, or maybe even scornful, this NPC will react to you differently the next time you speak.  It will then be assumed that one NPC will talk to a number of other NPCs, and your reputation around the whole village can become one of being a surly, scornful, misery guts.  This then potentially affects gameplay in the future as and when you may need help from the people of said village.

It’s not the most groundbreaking concept, but the unseen nature of these attributes makes for a mystique to the playing experience.  What if it were employed in a racing simulator?  RPG elements that let you walk around the paddock, interact with other drivers, team owners, press officers, or even just the guys that run the burger van?  Coupled with an over arcing storyline that offers a rich experience outside of the car, your ability to make friends, or conscious decision to be a strong, silent type, could directly influence the way other drivers react to you on track.  Paradoxically, how you behave on track with some drivers may change the way they feel about you off it.  Bundle this with the detail of vehicle simulation put forth by Simon here and you end up with a game that gives you plenty to do outside of the car as well as inside it.

All of these suggestions: a varying and complex career mode; storyline with RPG elements; and a reactive and adaptive system for dynamic AI throughout a campaign, could all add a noted richness to any racing simulator if done right, and provide a chance for the offline player to have an experience that goes beyond just pure driving simulation.  Any such game could sit alongside an online mode that can keep the hard-core players happy, and ultimately appeal to a broader spectrum of players.

The downside?  Building a game like this would require a large development team with a broad range of skills and, fundamentally, a reasonably large budget.  Modern day video games are all too often bereft of innovation as publishers strive for the safest route to their ultimate goal: making profit.  It’s not really unreasonable as publishers are in business to make money, but this stifling of the art form is causing a theme which results in video games homogenising throughout the genres. Simulators have been following a similar trend, and by focussing on the desires of their committed player base they have rejected the gameplay elements that could make them appeal to a broader sphere.  Is it time for something new?