CONTACT US

The detail we can extract from the software, combined with a significantly greater tuning range within the hardware is the stand out difference.  This detail in turn gives us the ability to tune the weight, the feedback, the detail of action, immersion level and crucialy the speed at which the hardware communicates back to us. 

An Xbox, Playstation and lets be honest a PC even with the best harware is only going to give the same result... a vague game like driving experience from the box. The ability to tune is what turns a driving game into a driving simulator.   

We have built motion simulators and in fact all our simulators can be retro fitted with motion if desired at a later date but we should point out significant factors to ownership first.  

The only physical factor missing in any simulator is G Force and Yaw movement which motion is imagined to replace. However, motion on a simulator cannot sustain any of its movements, motion simply makes a movement a few tenths of second after the fact and fails to build on it, so G Force and Yaw is still missing from the information the driver receives.

Serious racing drivers always minimise the movement in the motion system to reduce information overload (noise) where as gamers crank it up to feel more how they imagine a race car would be.  If you want proof look at all the serious real world racing drivers and indeed sim racers and their personal simulators... no motion on any of them unless they are also sim focused Youtubers who by purpose are in business to sell simulation hardware.

When one sees motion on an F1 or factory team simulator, what we have to understand is that they have a lot of space, multi million pound running budgets, and a team of between 3 and 25 people managing it. These platforms often twist as well as going up and down and the visuals are calibrated to move with the motion. It is also worth noting they use highly bespoke software in all areas. 

Motion has its place however and will always be fun for inexperienced racing drivers and gamers. It works particularly well with VR to a point. Considering the above and then the additional cost of adding a fast motion system and you can see why we don not encourage motion unless the customer goal requires it.     

There is no getting away from the fact practice makes perfect!  Once we learn to drive our simulator with the same responsibility and focus we drive a real car, then no question the answer is yes.  After all...  cars are all about physics/dynamics/environment and have zero interest in what we want to do to them!

Drive a simulator like a game and it will remain a game and you will learn nothing of relevance.  Top line racing drivers are naturally good in simulators which tells us one simple thing, they apply discipline and understanding to their driving which the simulator requires all the time, just as in the real world.

The hardest part of driving in simulator is not the lack of seat of the pants movement, it is the lack of consequences.  These consequences are in our face in a real car so encourage us to apply discipline, make us focus and make us slow down when we are over driving.  A simulator cannot give this fear factor although the physics behind the car and track remains almost exactly the same. This is why really good real world drivers are also very good in a simulator.    

Hardware and therefore tuning detail alongside expectation tax!  

Some companies charge significant sums of money for their simulators and to be brutaly frank the only unique part in all these simulators is the cockpit and occassionaly "re-inventing" the pedals to look like ones found in a race car (its still a pedal with a load cell!). 

Moving from good quality entry level simulation hardware to the highest end hardware will not make a non sim racer faster.  It will however, offer more tuning capability and therefore improved immersion and detail. For real world drivers, that makes the simulator easier to understand once it is all set up properly.

So in short, the more expensive a simulator gets the more impressive it becomes but like all things there is a limit where the extra cost becomes entirely aesthetic or imagined rather than for purpose. Take a look at Max Verstappen and Lando Norris's simulators, they are simply high quality steering, pedals, cockpit, PC and monitor the same we all choose from. No motion, no fancy cockpit, no over engineered pedals.    

This is a subjective area and largely depends on the space available and your expectation.

Triple monitors do offer the best in practical immersion because they take up more of our visual area.  They do not offer any more than this.  However, triples can be more complicated to set up and maintain. If easy ownership is your goal then the next option is best.

If space or practicality of ownership is a priorty then a single 49" Super Ultra Wide monitor is the way to go.  They offer all the field of view we need without the space consumption.  A top end 49" SUW is more valuable and easier to own than any triple but you are always aware you are looking at a monitor so other features help to incresae immersion.   

VR is easily the best for pure immersion, however VR creates lots of practical issues. Considering the importance of looking ahead in racing, the pixilation can be a limit alongside the practicailities of tuning and adjusting settings which can be a problem if you take sim racing seriously.

Big TV's (over 32") only work in triple set up (useless in single set up scenarios for simulators) provided they are 120Hz refresh plus and can be mounted seperate from the cockpit, they take up a lot of space, over size the cockpit images, the cost a jump is substantial and they require a lot of PC power to work for something that ultimately only adds real value if one has poor eye sight or the focus is on wow factor for visitors rather than sim racing/training.