The nordschleife is horrible in this game

Zer0
2m2ht3n0n7t.jpg


GT5 Nurburgring is the most accurate in any sim.
Click to expand...

+1. Even in GTR Evolution, which I played a lot, the Hell isn't as accurate as it is here. You feel many heartblood flew in designing this fantastic racetrack:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=newX-mvGlm8
 
I bet alot of you missed the article that stated some tracks have been altered due to request. They approached this track with a race mentality, not hot lapping or endurance. I haven't race it yet in the game but I am sure I'd love it. At least its passable now. In GT5, the A.I. was so preprogrammed to race a thin line. That line was always in the middle of the Ring. I am not the best driver there is but I am fairly descent. Its difficult to pass on the Ring. Take in account the causal racer or people who can't race the Ring at all due to its skill needed to master it. If your not happy, go play the game with the version you do like. Otherwise take it for what it is.
 
I don't know why people are complaining about it. I think its fine and I actually learned how to drive it in shift 1 to get me ready for gt5. I drove it in every single car in the game and took down the times to see which was the fastest.
 
Oh, now I see we're talking about Shift. Sorry mates, consider me as accidentally stranded here :) Was referring to GT5's course. I don't have any info about Shift's design of the Hell.
 
brambos
Really? All the real life footage (videos on Youtube and pictures) show that it's much wider. Or is the scale of the cars in GT5 off, because it's definitely not wide enough for two lanes like in real life.
Click to expand...

I am really inclined to say the car scale might be off. I think I may test that tonight. I recall feeling so congested everywhere during the Lupo race in GT5. Anyone can see that in the Mini Cooper picture I posted they hardly take up any of the track and considering Lupo's are close in size, something is off in GT5.
 
deftonesmx17
👍

I've always thought it was funny how everyone talks about the track being too wide in every game but GT while completely ignoring that it is too narrow in GT. In GT you can hardly fit two cars wide while the real track is not like that...
The Lupo cup in GT5 to me proved that either the track was far to narrow or the car model scale for the Lupo's were completely wrong.

http://www.e90post.com/forums/pictu...tic.panoramio.com/photos/original/6282920.jpg
http://www.tsrennsport.com/weblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/2008-Mini-03-B-2188-1860.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/Nurburgring_lap.jpg
http://px6.streetfire.net/0001/40/65/1660456_600.jpg
Click to expand...
deftonesmx17
I am really inclined to say the car scale might be off. I think I may test that tonight. I recall feeling so congested everywhere during the Lupo race in GT5. Anyone can see that in the Mini Cooper picture I posted they hardly take up any of the track and considering Lupo's are close in size, something is off in GT5.
Click to expand...
I guess that you are too used to assume distances in faked tracks(Forza, PGR, NFS, ect). GT5 track is ridiculously spot on, also are all its proportions and car measures. If you are concerned search for a real photo with a car in, search the same zone in GT5, leave the car at the same spot, make a photo and compare. No game comes close.

gt-7kqk3.jpg

gt-6zp74.jpg

gt-5wtlk.jpg

gt-4yqix.jpg

gt-3oow5.jpg

gt-2fqj2.jpg


[youtubehd]7wsZtGyTnrQ[/youtubehd]

3632523879_ed9f0632fa_pr33.jpg

5262129058_6509b6f758_zpvi.jpg


Monty-Sidhu1.jpg

gt-1lsqx.jpg
 
Last edited:
^Who cares, we're talking about the track model. Shift 2 is a descent game but as a sim, GT5's track and physics models put it to shame
 
Interesting one this guys. I think a lot of it is down to field of view. We used the CADs that are supplied by the officials at the Nords' as does everyone else when you license the track (bloody expensive BTW!).

In a previous life, we made that rfactor version also IIRC ;)
 
xSTIG_JUNIORx
Races at Nordschleife in Shift 2 Unleashed are so hot and challenging more than Grind'in'ismo 5.
Click to expand...

CarreraGT
^Who cares, we're talking about the track model. Shift 2 is a descent game but as a sim, GT5's track and physics models put it to shame
Click to expand...

I care, that is my opinion, races at Nordshleife in Shift 2 are so hot and more challenging than in Grind'in'ismo !

Also, an other thing you can comment about here: "Grind'in'ismo". Is it well typed ? :lol: lol
 
Here's a comparison of GT5 vs the real deal:

[YOUTUBEHD]bFFRm3dl-Hc[/YOUTUBEHD]

And SHIFT (not quite in-sync) but you can see the difference in how SMS interpret the track in the game.

[YOUTUBEHD]G-P9UOhT3qs[/YOUTUBEHD]

My opinion on the SHIFT2's version- highlight if you want to read it but I don't want to affect yours: Just like it was in the first SHIFT, the track is bit too flat lacking the camber and curvatures that makes it the Green Hell. If you look at (or driven) the version in Forza 3 (and 2), you notice the same lateral flatness (similar to that of a bowling lane). The there's the trees- everything seems so manicured including the countless trees which makes it less Green Hell and more "Park Drive".
 
xSTIG_JUNIORx
I care, that is my opinion, races at Nordshleife in Shift 2 are so hot and more challenging than in Grind'in'ismo !

Also, an other thing you can comment about here: "Grind'in'ismo". Is it well typed ? :lol: lol
Click to expand...

I don't think it matters how much you care and how you think the races are hot.. When the subject is which one is actually closer to being the real Nordschleife. Shift 2 is still a long way off.

Also very cool, new and interesting name you have for Gran Turismo.
 
After watching the Shift2 vs real life comparison video, I don't see anything wrong with the track in Shift. Ok, a bit more trees, some more trackside objects. But it's all for good. If you want real simulation, go to Germany and race it for real.

As Ian said, they used the real CAD data, so there's not much that could be different between GT5 and Shift2. Some of you only seem to hear what you want to. If a person who has actually been involved in the game development says that it's the same CAD data then I tend to believe him more than some people here. No offense intended to anyone. It's just that I find funny that Ian commented and yet no one seems to pay attention to that. People just keep on blabbing.
 
cypher2004
After watching the Shift2 vs real life comparison video, I don't see anything wrong with the track in Shift. Ok, a bit more trees, some more trackside objects. But it's all for good. If you want real simulation, go to Germany and race it for real.

As Ian said, they used the real CAD data, so there's not much that could be different between GT5 and Shift2. Some of you only seem to hear what you want to. If a person who has actually been involved in the game development says that it's the same CAD data then I tend to believe him more than some people here. No offense intended to anyone. It's just that I find funny that Ian commented and yet no one seems to pay attention to that. People just keep on blabbing.
Click to expand...



The extra trackside objects and trees are what kill it for me.

I've been there several times in real life.
 
IanBell
Interesting one this guys. I think a lot of it is down to field of view. We used the CADs that are supplied by the officials at the Nords' as does everyone else when you license the track (bloody expensive BTW!).

In a previous life, we made that rfactor version also IIRC ;)
Click to expand...

Can it be that extra trees makes like an illusion to the eye that its not steep enough. Like when you think the road is going up its actually going down.
If you had the trackside rendered as in reality it would be a different track to the eye! Can this be the reason?
 
Not got any issues with the width tbh but one thing that confuses me is why have the developers added/removed things that aren't there in real life? For example there's parts of the track without armco round it, and just a grass bank, why? Seems very strange, plus too many annoying billboards...Its not just this track though serveral "real life" tracks have been changed, Brands Hatch has an infield barrier at Clearways that is not there in real life for example. I know not a massive deal but I find it irritating, if you are going to model real tracks you model them as close to the real thing as you can get you do not **** with them!
 
I did countless laps of the 'Ring in GT5 and don't notice much difference between that and Shift 2. At all. Elevation changes are identical, track width is the same, etc. To claim that it doesn't have any bumps in Shift 2, but it did in GT5 - when every track in GT5 was as smooth as glass - that's borderline comical.
 
The extra trackside objects and trees are what kill it for me.
Click to expand...

I have been to Road America many times and have been on the track a few times - does it look (GT5 or Shift 2) "exactly" like I remember... well, it depends on if I recall from race video dating back to the 50's or visits over the past 25 years. Things DO change - trees grow/die, track management builds/raises buildings, promoters add/remove billboards.
The experience is "close enough" to enjoy something familiar.
 
In looking at the comparison videos and talking about the track itself, GT5 and Shift are essentially the same. There are slight differences but nothing huge. What I think is creating the illusion of a bigger difference than there actually is, the fact that in GT5 the trackside trees cast shadows over the track surface. This gives a visual impression of more depth and curvature.
 
I don't know where people can say with a straight face that the ring in GT5 and Shift 2 are the same. I think the biggest problem is the smoothness of the track and the flattening of elevation changes. The most glaring difference is at Flugplast. With a high modded hp road car you can flip your car there in GT5, but in Shift 2 the jump is considerably shallower.
 
cypher2004
If you want real simulation, go to Germany and race it for real.
Click to expand...

I'm sure we all would if we could.

cypher2004
As Ian said, they used the real CAD data, so there's not much that could be different between GT5 and Shift2. Some of you only seem to hear what you want to. If a person who has actually been involved in the game development says that it's the same CAD data then I tend to believe him more than some people here.
Click to expand...

The developers also claimed that they had the most sophistocated physics engine ever seen in a racing game. And they said they used CAD data for Mount Panorama but it's clearly way off.

Just saying, you shouldn't take marketing info as bible.
 
CarreraGT
The developers also claimed that they had the most sophistocated physics engine ever seen in a racing game.
Click to expand...

Remember that sophisticated and accurate are not necessarily the same thing. We know that Shift 2 models several parameters that GT5 does not, tyre temperature and pressure to name two. That makes it more sophisticated. However, if the numbers they use in the physics system are a bit off, then it wouldn't necessarily be more accurate.

You see how marketing statements like that aren't wrong? It's all in how you read them.
 
Imari
Remember that sophisticated and accurate are not necessarily the same thing. We know that Shift 2 models several parameters that GT5 does not, tyre temperature and pressure to name two. That makes it more sophisticated. However, if the numbers they use in the physics system are a bit off, then it wouldn't necessarily be more accurate.

You see how marketing statements like that aren't wrong? It's all in how you read them.
Click to expand...

That's splitting hairs a bit though... It wouldn't matter if there were a hundred times more input parameters, if it doesn't feel right then what's the point in bragging about it? We don't see what goes on below the surface, all we see is how the game looks and feels. To be honest I couldn't give a rats 🤬 how "sophistocated" the physics system is, because GT5 still feels 10 times better.

I would consider that misleading advertising. I'm not going to lie, SMS did a good job of it, but I would just rather they let the game do the talking.
 
CarreraGT
I would consider that misleading advertising. I'm not going to lie, SMS did a good job of it, but I would just rather they let the game do the talking.
Click to expand...

Advertising is pretty much misleading by definition these days. I agree, it sucks. But that's what the people are paid to do, come up with keyphrases that get people excited about the game, but aren't provably false. I believe most countries have laws against outright dishonesty in advertising.

This is a problem that we experience with all racing titles. Forza 3: "Turn 10 takes realism to new heights, leading the industry with the most advanced physics model, artificial intelligence and damage calculations." Possibly true, possibly not, pretty much impossible to ever know one way or the other. The obvious candidate for blatant mis-truths is GT5: Contains more than 1000 cars. That really needed a disclaimer that said (*800 of these cars are the car list from GT4), but people wouldn't have been as excited then.

So yeah, the stuff is splitting hairs but you have to expect it. It's the times we live in. When someone says they have a class-leading such-and-such, you don't believe them. You know that they're talking bollocks, and the real message is that the such-and-such is really just quite good. And when people start quoting numbers instead of perceptions, you start getting even more suspicious.

Whenever you read advertising taglines, know that there's always a "but" waiting in the shadows that they're not telling you about.
 
polyphony worked on the nurburgring for what 10 years?

slighty mad probably reused the ring from shift 1, so what? 6 months making it.

now, are we going to compare the rest of the tracklist? because GT5's is terrible and makes the game an absolute bore.
 
Imari
Remember that sophisticated and accurate are not necessarily the same thing. We know that Shift 2 models several parameters that GT5 does not, tyre temperature and pressure to name two. That makes it more sophisticated. However, if the numbers they use in the physics system are a bit off, then it wouldn't necessarily be more accurate.

You see how marketing statements like that aren't wrong? It's all in how you read them.
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking it is only tyre pressure, since GT5 models tyre temp, how could you have missed that?

Anyway, i think the most important thing is the end result, and no matter how much you talk about how sophisticated the Shift 2 physics engine is, the end result is still something that is much further from reality than the GT5 one.

I signed back up to iRacing last night, along with a friend who joined me and the first thing he said to me was how the driving model reminded him of GT5, I had been playing GT5 for months since the last I played iRacing and I jumped in and was able to drive perfectly natural without it feeling weird. iRacing is better than GT5 in terms of physics but since they are both going for the same reality they feel strangely similar at the same time, and the driving techniques i developed in GT5 have actually improved my driving in iRacing in certain cars that i had difficulty with before.


The Nurburgring on Shift 2 isnt bad, but for some reason it just keeps on lighting bulbs in my head that say "wait a second, theres something not right here". Its still a fun track and its still relatively close to the real thing but theres just something not right. The GT5 version is near perfection and perhaps with that we have been spoiled.
 
Bigbazz
Strictly speaking it is only tyre pressure, since GT5 models tyre temp, how could you have missed that?

Anyway, i think the most important thing is the end result, and no matter how much you talk about how sophisticated the Shift 2 physics engine is, the end result is still something that is much further from reality than the GT5 one.
Click to expand...

Proof of it in GT5 please? Considering there is no way for you to show tire temps in a form of telemetry, it does not exist. Just because the tire icons change from blue to red to blue does not mean tire temperature is being accurately modeled and instead is probably some loose approximation.

I have to disagree about GT5 being any closer to reality for multiple reasons.
Cars do not just bounce off each other or walls. They absorb the impact and collision physics are highly important and for them to be wrong leads to another issue, weight transfer being wrong.
The cars in GT5 seem to lack realistic weight and do not shift it properly. GT5 has always given me the feeling that I am driving a car which weighs perhaps what a Formula 1 car does. Yes, GT5 has weight transfer, but it is way off. This is one of the reasons why a tip is hard to pull off. Considering how many of the people around here talk about how GT shines when driving stock cars with normal tires, it's amazing how you can all overlook such a major flaw. Seriously, I dare any of you to take a stock car with everyday tires and fling the wheel back and forth.
 
Last edited:

Latest Posts

Back