Project Cars developer releases jaw-dropping screenshots

[Russ Boswell]

Remember back when you first loaded up Gran Turismo 4 for the Playstation 2? Were you astounded by “how far graphics had come?” What about the latest version of Forza, for the Xbox One, which boasts some amazingly realistic car designs and graphical elements. Some new screenshots from World of Mass Development are threatening to blow the top off the realistic racing scene, and their newest venture dubbed Project Cars is a shining example of just how far gaming has come in the last few decades.

The developer's newest blog post wrapped up 2013 by introducing a slew of visually stunning pictures. There are over 60 beautifully composed photos here, showcasing everything from cars, to tracks, to the tiniest of environmental details. WMD promises in their post that all of these screenshots are completely in-game footage and that no specialized photo software or game modes were used to create these images.

These snapshots were compiled by the WMD community, meaning they most likely came from a variety of computer types with varying graphical strengths. This would be welcome news to PC gamers, who wish to obtain this type of visual elegance without having to spend a fortune on PC upgrades.

Project Cars is slated to release on a variety of platforms, including Xbox One, PS4, Wii U, Windows, and the Steam OS. It will be very interesting to see where Project Cars goes in the future, and just what kind of PC-based requirements it will carry. Until then, just enjoy staring at these jaw-dropping pictures.

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/55203-project-cars-developer-releases-jaw-dropping-screenshots.html

 

[wastedkill]

WOW I thought this were real screenshots at first xD
Graphics would be 3-5x better than what they are now if consoles didnt exist... thanks btw for making developers lazy over the years.

 

[9Nails]

The camera field of depth and motion blur in some of those is fantastic. And the high resolution textures are so lifelike. I hope that it controls as good as it looks, if so it'll be a terrific game.

 

[Ranger12]

Imo Cars in racing games have looked spectacular for years. What always throws me off is the surrounding scenery. The textures and models are bland. Trees and fans look like cardboard cutouts and the environmental effects are bland. I don't care how realistic the car looks I just can't get absorbed in the game if there is such a stark contrast between nice care and crappy environment.

 

[Guest]

I lucked out 9 months ago when World of Mass Development (WMD), the developers of Project Cars, re-opened enrollment to the public to raise "seed money" for pCARS development costs. I got in at the Team Member+ level (aprox $30USD back then), and have been playing the weekly builds as they are released. pCARS originally had their own downloader, but 4 months ago they moved to Steam thereby making the updating much easier (weekly build updates are large, typ. 400MB-1.5GB). WMD is *not* accepting new public members. As a Team Member+, I will get the released game for free.

And yes pCARS graphics are awesome! And the handling physics seem very real to me (albeit I have never driven any of the game cars IRL). Physics are biased toward simulation, a very welcome change from the many arcade-ish racing games on the market. Being strictly a PC gamer thus far, I wasn't aware that pCARS will also come out for consoles.

I encourage racing game enthusiasts to check out pCARS when it is released (later this year, when it's ready...), you will be impressed!

 

[Guest]

1. PCARS is an attempt to deliver a racing sim game to the market, but they don't know who exactly is their final client, since the game is being developed for multiple platforms, I.e. consoles, including the terrible "Wii U", and PC;

2. Since there's no focus on a platform, the game is a complete mess. They are trying to please hardcore sim racers and the casual, play-once-a-week-player from consoles. The game has both, real tracks and fantasy tracks. The worst thing about this is that the physics are not good and the main objective is to make some money. No commitment to the sim racing community. The developers don't have experience enough to deliver a true, genuine sim racing, something everybody thought it would be in the first place;

3. This game is cooking for years and God knows what they are making of this software. The game will be release in a market already dominated by the other companies with far more experience in racing games.

4. There are at least 3 options a lot better: iRacing, rFactor and Asseto Corsa, not to mention the titles from the Brazilian studio Reiza, with Stock Car Game and Formula Truck. The latter uses the same engine from original rFactor, so the graphics are not top notch, but the physics are spectacular, and that's what matter in this type of game!

5. Nobody wants to see pictures, we need a video showing the gameplay of the game. This is basic. Enough cutscenes, enough pictures. The most important thing in a game is the gameplay and nothing better to show it than a video.

 

[IKROWNI]

WOW I thought this were real screenshots at first xD
Graphics would be 3-5x better than what they are now if consoles didnt exist... thanks btw for making developers lazy over the years.

Agreed consoles do nothing but hold back the gaming industry. Problem is people are to dull to understand it and just want to be spoonfed advertisements about the newest crappy consoles.

 

[Nobina]

WOW I thought this were real screenshots at first xD
Graphics would be 3-5x better than what they are now if consoles didnt exist... thanks btw for making developers lazy over the years.

Agreed consoles do nothing but hold back the gaming industry. Problem is people are to dull to understand it and just want to be spoonfed advertisements about the newest crappy consoles.

Or they can't afford/don't want to spend $2000 on a PC that could run newest games on max settings.

 

[SirChocula]

Or they can't afford/don't want to spend $2000 on a PC that could run newest games on max settings.

Where does this idea that a "$2000 PC" is needed to run newest games on maximum? What a horrible proliferation of an asinine idea that has no basis in reality. Depending on resolution, you only need about a $1k PC to run 95% of games on max settings at 1080p, and that's being very generous. Not to mention great AAA titles routinely go on sale on steam/gog/gmg/amazon, etc for a few bucks, which saves tons of money in the long run compared to 40-50$ console titles.

 

[Nobina]

Where does this idea that a "$2000 PC" is needed to run newest games on maximum? What a horrible proliferation of an asinine idea that has no basis in reality. Depending on resolution, you only need about a $1k PC to run 95% of games on max settings at 1080p, and that's being very generous. Not to mention great AAA titles routinely go on sale on steam/gog/gmg/amazon, etc for a few bucks, which saves tons of money in the long run compared to 40-50$ console titles.

For the best PC gaming experience you need more than $1k, including peripherials. See the TechSpot PC buying guide. For the best console experience you just need a console and a monitor/TV. Plus, you have to upgrade your PC often while the same consoles will be able to run all games for a couple of years. If I had money coming out of my ***, I could say the same thing you guys are saying.

 

[wastedkill]

Or they can't afford/don't want to spend $2000 on a PC that could run newest games on max settings.

I am sorry but where on earth do you live that requires you to spend $2k on a pc to max out games? You are either new to this whole computer gaming thing or you just are a big troll.

You only need to spend $600-800 on a pc to run it at max settings for the newest games, I recently build a gaming pc for a friend that cost $718 it can currently run everything at max settings 1080P with 40-60FPS even BF4, Crysis etc.

 

[Nobina]

I am sorry but where on earth do you live that requires you to spend $2k on a pc to max out games? You are either new to this whole computer gaming thing or you just are a big troll.

You only need to spend $600-800 on a pc to run it at max settings for the newest games, I recently build a gaming pc for a friend that cost $718 it can currently run everything at max settings 1080P with 40-60FPS even BF4, Crysis etc.

I'm looking at this: https://www.techspot.com/guides/buying/page4.html
You all forget the peripherials cause you already have them.

 

[wastedkill]

I'm looking at this: https://www.techspot.com/guides/buying/page4.html
You all forget the peripherials cause you already have them.

Are you serious...... well if you mentioned 1440P then its obvious you need to spend $2k+ to run games at that setting I mean come on its like what twice as demanding as 1080P?

Anyone that wants to build a good pc that can run games at max with 40-60FPS will only need to spend around $600-800 WITH peripherials and no not a costly 1440P monitor you can just deal with 1080P its still good....

 

[Nobina]

Are you serious...... well if you mentioned 1440P then its obvious you need to spend $2k+ to run games at that setting I mean come on its like what twice as demanding as 1080P?

Anyone that wants to build a good pc that can run games at max with 40-60FPS will only need to spend around $600-800 WITH peripherials and no not a costly 1440P monitor you can just deal with 1080P its still good....

Yes, I was talking about high resolutions. It's something that separates PC from consoles, quality. Now you said that 1080p gaming can be done with $600-$800 with peripherials, while I agree with that, I still think that you will have to upgrade that kind of PC often to keep up with the newest games, right? It's still cheaper and requires less hasle to get a console. And don't think I'm a console fanboy, I'm not, never had one, I'm all for PC. But still consoles look like a better solution right now.

 

[wastedkill]

Considering consoles are currently what 3-4yrs old already I dont see how they are a better solution, support for new hardware on pc games would be tons better if consoles wernt sapping everything.

What we need is new studios/developers that only do pc games with the kind of quality that puts hardware to the test.

 

[cliffordcooley]

To build a machine from the ground up for less than $900, you must have used the cheapest of parts. That is usually what I do. And by the time I removed all unnecessary items from the tally, it still cost over $900.

 

[Jad Chaar]

Imo Cars in racing games have looked spectacular for years. What always throws me off is the surrounding scenery. The textures and models are bland. Trees and fans look like cardboard cutouts and the environmental effects are bland. I don't care how realistic the car looks I just can't get absorbed in the game if there is such a stark contrast between nice care and crappy environment.

Yeah I hate how the crowds are like flat blobs xD.


I really think the rain in the first screenshot is well done. Imagine this with ray tracing.

Thirdly, I find it interesting how they are developing for Wii U and Steam OS. They must have a huge team of devs.

 

[m4a4]

WOW I thought this were real screenshots at first xD
Graphics would be 3-5x better than what they are now if consoles didnt exist... thanks btw for making developers lazy over the years.

It has nothing to do with consoles. Tech is moving forward for CPU's and GPU's regardless if gaming consoles (you know, something more simple than a PC to have fun on) are popular or not -_- If anything they supply funding (this time around to AMD) to research more powerful and cheap GPU's...
I hate it when graphics *****s bash on stuff like this. It can be the most realistic simulation out there, but the tech is not cheap enough for the masses to play it (or admire it, assuming that the gameplay is sub-par) on full graphics settings.

 

[wastedkill]

Ye because game devs developing for 7yr old tech is moving forward right then porting to pc.... ye thats really helping gaming evolve...

The new consoles might be new but they are already out of date, ye the console will get optimized but how long will they hold tech back this time? last gen consoles are what 7-8yr old now whats the xbox one and ps4 gonna last for 10-12yrs?

All I am saying is without consoles, technology wouldnt have been held back like it is graphics cards and cpu's wernt exactly stressed not like when crysis first came out anyway. If consoles were gone developers would be able to make some amazing games that got better each year on the plus side no crappy console ports...

 

[IKROWNI]

Or they can't afford/don't want to spend $2000 on a PC that could run newest games on max settings.

Or just like them your uninformed and think it costs that much for pc. Cause last month when I checked $500 pc runs better than the consoles do. Then the 85% you save on games in 1 year can boost your pc performance massively. You know with gddr6, ddr4, mantle, rift, and all the other great things coming to pc this year.

 

[IKROWNI]

Where does this idea that a "$2000 PC" is needed to run newest games on maximum? What a horrible proliferation of an asinine idea that has no basis in reality. Depending on resolution, you only need about a $1k PC to run 95% of games on max settings at 1080p, and that's being very generous. Not to mention great AAA titles routinely go on sale on steam/gog/gmg/amazon, etc for a few bucks, which saves tons of money in the long run compared to 40-50$ console titles.

For the best PC gaming experience you need more than $1k, including peripherials. See the TechSpot PC buying guide. For the best console experience you just need a console and a monitor/TV. Plus, you have to upgrade your PC often while the same consoles will be able to run all games for a couple of years. If I had money coming out of my ***, I could say the same thing you guys are saying.

Once your pc is capable of handling intense graphics games much better than the consoles do there is no need to upgrade. The pc will still play every game that the consoles play but much better with no need to upgrade. Upgrading is only needed if 4-5 years from now there are major improvements in games that desire those upgrades, but still you could always turn down AA, shadows, and what not to achieve still great gameplay.... The consoles come with very little if no AA at all. And the sliders that are on pc for graphics are all turned down to medium. The crap argument about costing $2000 for the pc and needing to upgrade every year is a myth created by console fanboys.

The ps4 has what's equivalent to a 7870 in it. So by your argument my 7970 won't be able to play the same games at higher settings than the console. You see how dumb that sounds right?

 

[IKROWNI]

I am sorry but where on earth do you live that requires you to spend $2k on a pc to max out games? You are either new to this whole computer gaming thing or you just are a big troll.

You only need to spend $600-800 on a pc to run it at max settings for the newest games, I recently build a gaming pc for a friend that cost $718 it can currently run everything at max settings 1080P with 40-60FPS even BF4, Crysis etc.

I'm looking at this: https://www.techspot.com/guides/buying/page4.html
You all forget the peripherials cause you already have them.

What peripherals? A keyboard and mouse are cheap man! You can hook your pc straight to your TV. So if by peripherals you mean that a pc needs a monitor your uninformed. I guess your console will just hook right up to thin air right?

 

[Lionvibez]

Or they can't afford/don't want to spend $2000 on a PC that could run newest games on max settings.

Where does this idea that a "$2000 PC" is needed to run newest games on maximum? What a horrible proliferation of an asinine idea that has no basis in reality. Depending on resolution, you only need about a $1k PC to run 95% of games on max settings at 1080p, and that's being very generous. Not to mention great AAA titles routinely go on sale on steam/gog/gmg/amazon, etc for a few bucks, which saves tons of money in the long run compared to 40-50$ console titles.

While I think the $2000 amount is on the high end Nobina it not 100% wrong.

I think a more realistic number is around $1500.

Playing games at max settings will depend on the monitor res aswell.

You need to speed $300-$500 on the Gpu.

If you decide to put a haswell cpu in that build that is another $200-$300

lets just say you spend $200-$300 on the monitor that will be a lowerend1080p screen with a TN panel and for my standards that would be garbage.

Next a SSD 128GB drive is too small for a gaming rig so your going to be looking at 256GB or higher.

Then we need a keyboard, mouse, headphones or speakers then the OS.

And if you care about sound you won't be using onboard audio so some more money for a discreet sound card.

Maybe you can build a rig for $1000 but to say it will play all games maxed out is far from the truth.

however what Nobina is overlooking is the upgraded ability of the computer.

If I only throw in a new Gpu 3 years into the build that brings the whole system up to speed, I can sell the old videocard to cut the cost of the upgrade. if I only buy my games from steam and I wait for sales I'm not stuck paying $60 a pop for the console games and that price stay the same for the whole life of the console. So you will be paying $60 bucks a game for the full 5-7 years you own that console.

And the end its not a cut and dry answer cause everyone needs will be different. What some of you considering an acceptable gaming experience for you may not cut it for someone else.

 

[Lionvibez]

Or they can't afford/don't want to spend $2000 on a PC that could run newest games on max settings.

I am sorry but where on earth do you live that requires you to spend $2k on a pc to max out games? You are either new to this whole computer gaming thing or you just are a big troll.

You only need to spend $600-800 on a pc to run it at max settings for the newest games, I recently build a gaming pc for a friend that cost $718 it can currently run everything at max settings 1080P with 40-60FPS even BF4, Crysis etc.

What GPU did you put in that $718 build that runs crysis 3 at "max settings"?


http://www.anandtech.com/bench/GPU13/709

These numbers are at high quality so they are not max settings because you can go up one to very high quality in crysis 3.

 

[Lionvibez]

Considering consoles are currently what 3-4yrs old already I dont see how they are a better solution, support for new hardware on pc games would be tons better if consoles wernt sapping everything.

What we need is new studios/developers that only do pc games with the kind of quality that puts hardware to the test.

The consoles this game will be released on are the ones that were released a month ago, that is what people are referring to.

PS4 and Xbone only there is no mention of the xbox 360 or the PS3 which is what your speaking about so your point it not even valid.