Gran Turismo 6 vs Forza Motorsport 5-Test Drive SRT 2013@Bathurst

[Ridox2JZGTE]

GT6 is also total toe, as I said in the post, total toe out 1.53 degrees.

 

[MidNightGT]

GT6 is also total toe

What makes you say that, Total toe is usually called "total toe" a few manufactures give toe specs, but a total toe value simply marked as "toe angle" (I think Honda), but that's specific to that manufactures use and not to the Tuning world, or even other/most manufactures. Nothing in the game suggest the angles in the game are "Total Toe" unless I missed it somewhere. GT and all video game tuning I know of uses individual wheel angles mirrored on the left & right sides, none I know of let us offset angles to achieve a total toe value worth looking at. NASCAR should but its been a while I haven't messed with a NASCAR title. If we were adjusting total toe I wou;d expect 2 degrees angle both ways not 1.

Video game tuning is always perfect. -1.53 is still being real world tuned looking at the toe on each wheel individually. Its on the machine, and -1.39 on one wheel to -0.14 on the other wont track correctly, forget -1.53 total toe, look at the offset of both the camber and toe. If this were a short track with most corners to one side, or an oval track maybe, but not on the Nurb. The back end is done, and has a very minimal difference between the wheels. Looks like they are still working on the front.

 

[Imari]

Hey, how about GT6 definitive edition? If PD were such a cash grabber they would publish that you know.

They still might. They made GT5 XL (and GT5P Spec 3).

 

[SSQES]

They still might. They made GT5 XL (and GT5P Spec 3).

They can't with GT6, it only have free DLC. GT5 XL included paid DLC

 

[Imari]

They can't with GT6, it only have free DLC. GT5 XL included paid DLC

GT5P was also only free updates. I have a Japanese GT5P Spec 3 case sitting right in front of me.

And they still may bring out paid DLC for GT6 at some point as well. It took a long time for them to get to that point in GT5, and it would probably be publicity suicide to do so for GT6 while they still have major features to implement. I wouldn't be at all surprised if there was some paid car or track packs made available once they get the Course Maker, B Spec and Community Features out (as long as it's not too far in the distant future).

 

[NixxxoN]

I still disagree with @Johnnypenso @SlipZtrEm and @Exorcet - GT6 is comparable with the xbox 360 forza games only as they're running on similar hardware specs. A game for an underpowered machine doesnt equal to an outdated game.
GT6 is supposed to be the response to Forza 4 and GT5 is the direct comparison to Forza 3. PD went late in both cases, true... if you have to bash PD, do it for being too slow.
GT7 will be the answer to Forza 5, they will be a bit late aswell, or T10 will be faster, take it as you want.

 

[332i]

It's an interesting point, absolutely. Of course, we'd have to look at it in terms of percentage of the copies out there; GT5's seasonals probably should've had higher numbers than FM4's, since the game had many more copies sold. Also, GT5 didn't get a sequel until December 2013; FM4 had a spin-off (FH1) and sequel on a new system.

I'll also agree that the core of the gameplay is the main draw for me with both games; I'm not that into full-on race cars, but prefer the massive road car list they provide, and the ability to modify them. The type of game, or at least the sub-genre that FM and GT occupy, is my favourite, and there's not really anything that competes on the same footing on either system. Which might explain both games' staying power; where else will you find hundreds of cars in a semi-realistic setting, without jumping to the other system (if you don't own both)?



I like to discuss. You've made it abundantly clear you'd rather do this:

That isn't a discussion.



Here, I'll bring up all of GT3's (or especially GT4's) physics short-comings. As if they matter in a discussion about the most recent installment.



As a fun aside; I'm almost certain FM6 will release before GT7, so long as T10 stick to their two year schedule. But would you be so quick to insist on comparing same-gen-only if the tables were reversed?



Well now, that wouldn't be strictly true then, right? I mean, the XBOne and the PS4 don't have the same specs; the PS4 is more powerful. That's not faaaaaair.



And PD decided to release on that "piece of crap".



You know, it does raise an interesting point; this long, drawn-out delay of the Course Maker might be down to the relative lack of power the PS3 has, so yeah, why force themselves to release on something that can't even handle what they're trying to do. If GT6 had been developed for the PS4 from the get-go, would these things have come on-line sooner?

Yeah, bud. Firstly...I'm sorry, maybe my screen is broken. It says you are a moderator.

Secondly, you're right, that's a good example of my current internet expression, moderator. Thanks for sharing that for me.

I tried to have a conversation with you and attempted to debate or whatnot, until you stopped making sense and I had better things to do. Lol simple as pie, son. You can post all the pictures you want of what you think I look like. All I can imagine is you as one of those kids who makes no sense or acts very childish and thinks he won an argument, because the other person walked away baffled, dismissing you. When really they just can't tolerate someone who is not worth their time, thinking his opinion and everyone else's in disagreement is wrong.

Let me be clear: if you think I'm dismissing you, because you think I can't argue or don't want to hear xyz, you are higher than a kite. Keep up the good work, dude.

You don't engage in conversations anything like I have ever seen another moderator do.

QFP as you seem to have forgotten a thing that are two in the AUP and you are not an average member either.

 

[Tornado]

I tried to have a conversation with you and attempted to debate or whatnot, until you stopped making sense and I had better things to do. .

You're sorely mistaken if you think that is how I handle things on here. Discuss until I am challenged? What? If anything, I discuss until I remind myself that I am probably arguing with a teenager.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Why? There is literally no reason that you can't compare across consoles. If you wanted a racing game you'd figure out what your choices are and look at them side by side and decide what you want. GT6 isn't limited to competing with Forza (and vice versa), they compete with AC and PC as well.


GT is running on inferior hardware. This is a design choice. PD had as much freedom as Turn 10 in making a next gen game (not that this matters anyway when it comes to comparing consumer choices). They chose not to. Somehow this makes things unfair to you. So what are you supposed to do when shopping for a game? Ignore GT?

I suggested before that maybe you are looking at the comparison in terms of what each developer can produce given enough resources. In that case you might be able to say it's an unfair comparison because I'm sure PD can develop games for PS4, but this is a completely separate topic. It has nothing to do with the current selection in the sim racing genre.


Hardware isn't even a determining factor in game quality anyway. A next gen console does not make a better game. I've compared GT1 to much newer games, and in some cases I did not bother with those new games because GT1 was a better title. That it's an old PS1 game doesn't have any relevance to anything really.


That doesn't make any difference. GT6 is hardware limited compared to the competition. If you're looking for games, GT6 is the "high end" of the GT series. It either meets your needs or it does not, and based on that you either buy it or get something else.

You can compare across consoles and PCs but you need to do it in context of hardware power and comparison is not as apples to apples as you can get between FM5 and GT6 as you mentioned earlier. Likewise if I was comparing games running on PC, would you have issue with me comparing to say GT6 with a PC that runs a PC sim at lowest detail at slideshow framerates? Will that be a fair comparison as that will the best that PC game developers game can do on the system I used? Is it fair to compare like for like both FH2 Xbox 360 and Xbox One versions which were released at a similar time in features, gameplay and graphics as it is best the developers behind the franchise could do and hardware excuse is not a worthy reason for any shortfalls?

 

[332i]

Speaking of Kaz's Nurb 24H GTR GT3, I came across this alignment spec from a picture at this year Nurb 24H The front axle total toe out value is quite high : 1.53 degrees , not reachable in GT6 Rear at 0.70 degrees toe in. I'm guessing the machine uses decimal degrees not degrees° & minutes.

Higher than stock rear toe in on all cars in GT6, and people complain about stock 0.60 decimal degrees rear toe in

Were probably in the middle of setting it up. Those are left and right, top to bottom. Note that left camber is further negative than the right, along with the toe. Didn't he wreck the car this year? If he did, I wonder if those was posts wreck. -1.39 toe on the left front, but only -0.14 for the right.

I figure they were prob aligning the car, because the camber values aren't nearly as far apart. But yeah, .7 in is a lot. That's a LOT of toe IRL lol. Especially with a rear wing and diff. That thing must have road gritting front traction IRL.

 

[Tornado]

Likewise if I was comparing games running on PC, would you have issue with me comparing to say GT6 with a PC that runs a PC sim at lowest detail at slideshow framerates?

That depends on if the system you were testing it on fell under the developers' minimum specifications, because at that point it would be a developer issue because it wasn't tested properly under the specifications they deemed "acceptable". I remember quite a few quickie circa-2006 ports of 360 games (like Guitar Hero 3) to PC that the developer seemed to simply assume that having a PC with similar specs to a 360 would mean the game would run fantastically.

Is it fair to compare like for like both FH2 Xbox 360 and Xbox One versions which were released at a similar time in features, gameplay and graphics as it is best the developers behind the franchise could do and hardware excuse is not a worthy reason for any shortfalls?

Don't see why it wouldn't be.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

That depends on if the system you were testing it on fell under the developers minimum specifications, because at that point it would similarly be a developer issue because it wasn't tested properly under the specifications they deemed acceptable.


Don't see why it wouldn't be.

I guess we have a different idea of a fair comparison then. I try and take as many factors into account when comparing like hardware power.

 

[332i]

\\\two quotes from 332i with no response///

Not sure what you're getting at, because you're merely quoting not posting. Either way, I just realised you are referencing a post I made...maybe what? A three weeks to a month ago? I find it thoroughly amusing that I had to try and figure out what you were doing with the subtle teenager crap, italics, etc.

Pretty sad that you remember my posts, whilst I'm sitting there scratching my head..."ohhh, I forgot I posted that!"

That is weird.

 

[Davoxx]

Yeah, bud. Firstly...I'm sorry, maybe my screen is broken. It says you are a moderator.

Secondly, you're right, that's a good example of my current internet expression, moderator. Thanks for sharing that for me.

I tried to have a conversation with you and attempted to debate or whatnot, until you stopped making sense and I had better things to do. Lol simple as pie, son. You can post all the pictures you want of what you think I look like. All I can imagine is you as one of those kids who makes no sense or acts very childish and thinks he won an argument, because the other person walked away baffled, dismissing you. When really they just can't tolerate someone who is not worth their time, thinking his opinion and everyone else's in disagreement is wrong.

Let me be clear: if you think I'm dismissing you, because you think I can't argue or don't want to hear xyz, you are higher than a kite. Keep up the good work, dude.

You don't engage in conversations anything like I have ever seen another moderator do.

QFP as you seem to have forgotten a thing that are two in the AUP and you are not an average member either.

Omg look at you, look at how you behave and speak, come back to earth and stop farting higher than one ass "son".

 

[332i]

Omg look at you, look at you behave and speak, come back to earth and stop farting higher than one ass "son".

Have fun riding those tail coats Let the mod speak for himself. You can't look and act a single way on the internet, either.

I read that with a valley girl accent.

 

[Imari]

GT7 will be the answer to Forza 5, they will be a bit late aswell, or T10 will be faster, take it as you want.

GT7 will be the answer to FM6, unless GT7 does somehow come out this December. The highest probability is that GT7 and FM 6 will be releasing at around about the same time and will be most comparable.

GT is likely to never have an answer for FM5, if GT6 isn't it.

QFP as you seem to have forgotten a thing that are two in the AUP and you are not an average member either.

Point out where he's violated the AUP.

You're the one who refuses to converse with anyone who thinks that Forza does better physics than GT, because thinking that is "jaded" or "satire". Why waste your time actually swapping info with people on which parts of the games you think are more correct and why, when you can just attack people? Why bother stepping in and having a reasoned conversation when you can just keep taking shots from the cheap seats?

Is it fair to compare like for like both FH2 Xbox 360 and Xbox One versions which were released at a similar time in features, gameplay and graphics as it is best the developers behind the franchise could do and hardware excuse is not a worthy reason for any shortfalls?

Of course it's fair. People want to know how much the 360 falls short compared to the X1 version. It doesn't make it a bad game just because it can't do what the X1 can do (and no one expects it to, hardware is absolutely a valid reason for some things), but it should absolutely be compared.

I bought the X360 version, and I wanted to know beforehand what differences I could expect from the X1 version. I wanted to know if I was going to be hating myself for not coughing up the extra money and getting and X1, or whether the X360 version was a reasonable facsimile given the limitations of the platform.

I also wanted it compared to FH1, the other comparable game. It's older, but FH2/360 needed to be at least as good as the original FH as well.


You see how the same thing happens with GT6 and FM4 and 5? It's relevant to compare GT6 to FM5, because people want to know about the differences between the two latest releases. People are smart enough to cut GT some slack in areas where hardware makes a difference, but they want to know so that they can judge whether upgrading is a reasonable proposition or if they're just as well off sticking with the current hardware.

Likewise it's relevant comparing GT6 to FM4 and GT5, the hardware equivalent competitors. It's relevant comparing it to GT5 to see how much of an improvement GT6 is, or whether you're better off buying GT5 for $5. It's relevant comparing it to FM4 because that's the other main competitor on roughly equivalent hardware, and it's more or less a straight "who does the most things better".

But no, people don't want to compare GT6 to FM5 because there's a whole lot that FM5 does really well, and that would require saying "damn, it would be nice if GT did that". There are things that go the other way too, but I think FM is catching on to the fun car ownership type of things faster than GT is catching on to the strong racing fundamentals.

 

[332i]

GT7 will be the answer to FM6, unless GT7 does somehow come out this December. The highest probability is that GT7 and FM 6 will be releasing at around about the same time and will be most comparable.

GT is likely to never have an answer for FM5, if GT6 isn't it.



Point out where he's violated the AUP.

You're the one who refuses to converse with anyone who thinks that Forza does better physics than GT, because thinking that is "jaded" or "satire". Why waste your time actually swapping info with people on which parts of the games you think are more correct and why, when you can just attack people? Why bother stepping in and having a reasoned conversation when you can just keep taking shots from the cheap seats?



Of course it's fair. People want to know how much the 360 falls short compared to the X1 version. It doesn't make it a bad game just because it can't do what the X1 can do (and no one expects it to, hardware is absolutely a valid reason for some things), but it should absolutely be compared.

I bought the X360 version, and I wanted to know beforehand what differences I could expect from the X1 version. I wanted to know if I was going to be hating myself for not coughing up the extra money and getting and X1, or whether the X360 version was a reasonable facsimile given the limitations of the platform.

I also wanted it compared to FH1, the other comparable game. It's older, but FH2/360 needed to be at least as good as the original FH as well.


You see how the same thing happens with GT6 and FM4 and 5? It's relevant to compare GT6 to FM5, because people want to know about the differences between the two latest releases. People are smart enough to cut GT some slack in areas where hardware makes a difference, but they want to know so that they can judge whether upgrading is a reasonable proposition or if they're just as well off sticking with the current hardware.

Likewise it's relevant comparing GT6 to FM4 and GT5, the hardware equivalent competitors. It's relevant comparing it to GT5 to see how much of an improvement GT6 is, or whether you're better off buying GT5 for $5. It's relevant comparing it to FM4 because that's the other main competitor on roughly equivalent hardware, and it's more or less a straight "who does the most things better".

But no, people don't want to compare GT6 to FM5 because there's a whole lot that FM5 does really well, and that would require saying "damn, it would be nice if GT did that". There are things that go the other way too, but I think FM is catching on to the fun car ownership type of things faster than GT is catching on to the strong racing fundamentals.

How about his picture he attempts to portray me with, because that is definitely not my expression, anything as to what I look like, so on and so forth, etc.,etc. That's defamation.

You had a problem with my posts about forza5 v gt6, you're probing with this...seems like you just like to argue/lock on to people who you went back and forth with over one thing and you snowball it; ie an arguer.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Of course it's fair. People want to know how much the 360 falls short compared to the X1 version. It doesn't make it a bad game just because it can't do what the X1 can do (and no one expects it to, hardware is absolutely a valid reason for some things), but it should absolutely be compared.

I bought the X360 version, and I wanted to know beforehand what differences I could expect from the X1 version. I wanted to know if I was going to be hating myself for not coughing up the extra money and getting and X1, or whether the X360 version was a reasonable facsimile given the limitations of the platform.

I also wanted it compared to FH1, the other comparable game. It's older, but FH2/360 needed to be at least as good as the original FH as well.


You see how the same thing happens with GT6 and FM4 and 5? It's relevant to compare GT6 to FM5, because people want to know about the differences between the two latest releases. People are smart enough to cut GT some slack in areas where hardware makes a difference, but they want to know so that they can judge whether upgrading is a reasonable proposition or if they're just as well off sticking with the current hardware.

Likewise it's relevant comparing GT6 to FM4 and GT5, the hardware equivalent competitors. It's relevant comparing it to GT5 to see how much of an improvement GT6 is, or whether you're better off buying GT5 for $5. It's relevant comparing it to FM4 because that's the other main competitor on roughly equivalent hardware, and it's more or less a straight "who does the most things better".

But no, people don't want to compare GT6 to FM5 because there's a whole lot that FM5 does really well, and that would require saying "damn, it would be nice if GT did that". There are things that go the other way too, but I think FM is catching on to the fun car ownership type of things faster than GT is catching on to the strong racing fundamentals.

I have no problem comparing and haven't said anything different but in context is important IMO to how fair it is. Surely then if you think it is fair to compare FH2 like for like then you should treat the Xbox 360 equally to Xbox One version but it seems you are not.

 

[IneedSchool]

I don't know why but whenever I see a heated argument about Forza and GT, Louis Armstrong plays in my head.

 

[Tornado]

I think the person with more posts saying he isn't interested in actually discussing the ignorant generalizations he started off with than he has actually defending them is the last person to dictate who is just posting for the sake of posting.

Not sure what you're getting at, because you're merely quoting not posting. Either way, I just realised you are referencing a post I made...maybe what? A three weeks to a month ago? I find it thoroughly amusing that I had to try and figure out what you were doing with the subtle teenager crap, italics, etc.

Pretty sad that you remember my posts, whilst I'm sitting there scratching my head..."ohhh, I forgot I posted that!"

That is weird.

Yes, it is pretty sad that you throw one of these elitist hissy fits so often that you can't remember any single specific instance of you doing so.

 

[332i]

I think the person with more posts saying he isn't interested in actually discussing the ignorant generalizations he started off with than he has actually defending them is the last person to dictate who is just posting for the sake of posting.

Hard not to respond to other posts that address me specifically and very little to nothing on the topic. Considering it is a mod (of which he should be is easily debatable IMO) and two or three of his defendants lol. Are you under the impression that I care about saving face, embarrassment, being wrong or making myself seem like xyz on the internet? Haha

My posts and the posts from you Imari, toko and the mod have shifted away from the topic as well. I made points until it wasn't worth it and then the little squad decided they wanted to go back and forth with me. Looks like it is working out fantastically for the four of you.

 

[Tornado]

I made points until it wasn't worth it

A determination on your part concidentally lining up exactly when someone actually directly challenged your "points", unsurprisingly.

Looks like it is working out fantastically for the four of you.

It is pretty amusing to see people make fools of themselves with indefensible statements like "People who want physics accuracy don't play Forza", certainly; all the better when it is a member with a history of saying such nonsense and then acting like everyone else is at fault for calling them on it: though even I would have preferred if the thread had stayed between people actually saying things of value like whether or not the games can be compared across generations.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

What makes you say that, Total toe is usually called "total toe" a few manufactures give toe specs, but a total toe value simply marked as "toe angle" (I think Honda), but that's specific to that manufactures use and not to the Tuning world, or even other/most manufactures. Nothing in the game suggest the angles in the game are "Total Toe" unless I missed it somewhere. GT and all video game tuning I know of uses individual wheel angles mirrored on the left & right sides, none I know of let us offset angles to achieve a total toe value worth looking at. NASCAR should but its been a while I haven't messed with a NASCAR title. If we were adjusting total toe I wou;d expect 2 degrees angle both ways not 1.

Video game tuning is always perfect. -1.53 is still being real world tuned looking at the toe on each wheel individually. Its on the machine, and -1.39 on one wheel to -0.14 on the other wont track correctly, forget -1.53 total toe, look at the offset of both the camber and toe. If this were a short track with most corners to one side, or an oval track maybe, but not on the Nurb. The back end is done, and has a very minimal difference between the wheels. Looks like they are still working on the front.

I have build a lot of replicas, back in GT5 I built my own cars via hybrid, not possible with legit ways I tested some of my owned car's alignment ( toe particularly ) and I deduced that the toe value in GT5/6 are total toe. The Apex book also shown the toe from the top showing both wheels in description and the words are not pointing at per wheel, but total value. In the book, camber is shown as per wheel and described as such.

If I were to use the toe per side from real life, the car would be different in handling Most of the alignment data that I have are total toe, sometimes also include toe per side. Generally, most forums ( car owners/ club racers etc ) often use total toe to describe their alignment, while camber always per side.

Were probably in the middle of setting it up. Those are left and right, top to bottom. Note that left camber is further negative than the right, along with the toe. Didn't he wreck the car this year? If he did, I wonder if those was posts wreck. -1.39 toe on the left front, but only -0.14 for the right.

I figure they were prob aligning the car, because the camber values aren't nearly as far apart. But yeah, .7 in is a lot. That's a LOT of toe IRL lol. Especially with a rear wing and diff. That thing must have road gritting front traction IRL.

Who knows what they were doing with the values ? Fixing it up or the display showed the value before the start ? Different value per side is common occurrences, maybe the driver intentionally wanted to compensate for other suspension settings or cross weight of the car ? There are many things that could be variable.

For amount of toe in, even road cars factory value can be that high or even more. Ferrari 512BB for example, Ferrari factory alignment of rear total toe in can be from 5mm to 6.5 mm. That would be over 0.70 decimal degree of toe in. I have read owner reports when the car is being aligned, and the toe in were set at over 0.75 The NA1 NSX also has similar situation with 6mm total toe in, the same goes for Audi R8 alignment, some even have over 0.50 total toe in front and rear and the owner said the car drives normal with tire not showing abnormal wear on the 1st service.

Stil, front toe out at such large amount is unique It may work well on FF AutoX car.

 

[Imari]

I have no problem comparing and haven't said anything different but in context is important IMO to how fair it is. Surely then if you think it is fair to compare FH2 like for like then you should treat the Xbox 360 equally to Xbox One version but it seems you are not.

I'm not saying they're like for like. I'm saying they should be compared.

I'm not saying the GT6 and FM5 should necessarily be compared like for like (although that's helpful as well, sometimes). There should be consideration for which areas are affected by hardware and which aren't.

I'm happy to give GT6 a pass on some stuff where it shouldn't be expected to keep up with FM5. GT6 could do a better job with graphical quality and framerate, sounds, AI, etc., but even if it's perfectly optimised it's never going to be able to keep up with FM5.

Decent physics have been done on PC hardware that's significantly weaker than the PS3, and while being on the PS3 locks them out of some of the more advanced and processing intensive tyre models, it doesn't mean that they can't have a simple, well calibrated Pacejka lookup table or something similar. If a crappy PC can run netKar Pro, then there's nothing holding GT back from having a great physics system.

Honestly, just as far as physics go there are advantages to having more power on tap. But I strongly suspect that given the limited range of reasonably competent simulations around and the difficulty some of them have getting it right that it's more about the person behind the physics engine design than it is about the power they have to run it with. The PS3 couldn't run the seta tyre model that pCARS will be using for next-gen, but it was perfectly capable of running the brush model which was 95% as good.

I'm pretty OK with comparing physics across hardware, and I'm very OK with comparing game design. Again, occasionally there's stuff that can't be done on the lesser hardware, but usually design is quite independent of the platform.

I made points until it wasn't worth it...

What points did you make again? I had a little read, and all I can find is:

The physics in GT6 are far better than F5. GT6 feels like there are more physical actions and reactions taking place. As if there is just more going on; ie suspension travel and the tires reacted to the road and vehicle.

Anyone I've come across who raves about forza doesn't care about the physics. ZOMG you can even change pistons! Ok? But every car drives like a race car lol.

I mean, that's the heart and soul of sophisticated and rational conversation right there. How are any of us supposed to have a conversation with you if that's your contribution, and then you throw your toys when probed for more information?

 

[IneedSchool]

@332i Knock knock.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

I'm not saying they're like for like. I'm saying they should be compared.

I'm not saying the GT6 and FM5 should necessarily be compared like for like (although that's helpful as well, sometimes). There should be consideration for which areas are affected by hardware and which aren't.

I'm happy to give GT6 a pass on some stuff where it shouldn't be expected to keep up with FM5. GT6 could do a better job with graphical quality and framerate, sounds, AI, etc., but even if it's perfectly optimised it's never going to be able to keep up with FM5.

Decent physics have been done on PC hardware that's significantly weaker than the PS3, and while being on the PS3 locks them out of some of the more advanced and processing intensive tyre models, it doesn't mean that they can't have a simple, well calibrated Pacejka lookup table or something similar. If a crappy PC can run netKar Pro, then there's nothing holding GT back from having a great physics system.

Honestly, just as far as physics go there are advantages to having more power on tap. But I strongly suspect that given the limited range of reasonably competent simulations around and the difficulty some of them have getting it right that it's more about the person behind the physics engine design than it is about the power they have to run it with. The PS3 couldn't run the seta tyre model that pCARS will be using for next-gen, but it was perfectly capable of running the brush model which was 95% as good.

I'm pretty OK with comparing physics across hardware, and I'm very OK with comparing game design. Again, occasionally there's stuff that can't be done on the lesser hardware, but usually design is quite independent of the platform.

You replied saying it is fair when I mentioned comparing like for like between both FH2 versions. I'm saying they can be compared but my main point is how fair it is if hardware power is not taken into consideration.

Regarding comparisons in physics engines, there are different architectures involved and I imagine there is some difficulty in having a great physics engine on PS3, otherwise nearing the end of its life for any new games with new game engines to come out, there is yet one title that has a great physics engine on PS3 and if aim is for 60FPS, I imagine it gets even harder to achieve especially if you need to have decent graphics too. If there is nothing holding them back to do so, there must be reasons why no one else managed to release a game that has a great physics engine on the PS3.

 

[332i]

A determination on your part concidentally lining up exactly when someone actually directly challenged your "points", unsurprisingly.



It is pretty amusing to see people make fools of themselves with indefensible statements like "People who want physics accuracy don't play Forza", certainly; all the better when it is a member with a history of saying such nonsense and then acting like everyone else is at fault for calling them on it: though even I would have preferred if the thread had stayed between people actually saying things of value like whether or not the games can be compared across generations.

lol ok bud. Haha.

 

[Spagetti69]

Does Kaz keep updating the physics in GT6 or has he passed that phase now?

 

[Tornado]

Again, time that is so valuable that you are incapable of bringing yourself down to the level of defending a statement you made when someone actually pointed out that it was incorrect, but not so valuable that you can't constantly remind everyone how much better you are than everyone else for running away from the conversation when it stopped going your way.

 

[Imari]

You replied saying it is fair when I mentioned comparing like for like between both FH2 versions. I'm saying they can be compared but my main point is how fair it is if hardware power is not taken into consideration.

Then I misspoke. To be fair, the first words of my post were "I'm not saying they're like for like."

There are situations in which it would be fair to compare them like for like. If you're purely looking at which is a better game to play, then I wouldn't bring hardware into it. The game stands on it's own two feet.

If you're looking at which one is better value for money, then hardware is a factor. If you're looking at which one is better designed in terms of systems (AI, graphics, physics, sounds), then hardware is again a factor because it's a limitation that must be met. If you're looking at gameplay design, then hardware may be a factor but probably isn't a major one.

Regarding comparisons in physics engines, there are different architectures involved and I imagine there is some difficulty in having a great physics engine on PS3, otherwise nearing the end of its life for any new games with new game engines to come out, there is yet one title that has a great physics engine on PS3 and if aim is for 60FPS, I imagine it gets even harder to achieve especially if you need to have decent graphics too.

Yeah, well, that becomes the questions that Polyphony hasn't answered to the satisfaction of many.

How much will you sacrifice other elements of the game to make your graphics look pretty?
How much value do you put on graphical stability and clarity over eye candy?

The answers from looking at GT5 and GT6 is that they're willing to sacrifice a lot of other things to make their game look pretty, and they're willing to accept a significant amount of instability in the frame rate along with it. Sounds have been an obvious casualty, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn that the physical simulation is limited in what it can achieve because of the need for graphical performance as well.

And I'm quite OK with marking them down for that. That's a design choice that they made, eye candy over physics. The hardware limits are what they are and there's no free lunch. Mutually exclusive options are something that designers just have to deal with, and saying "but it was too hard" isn't valid. If it was too hard, then they should have set their targets lower.

If there is nothing holding them back to do so, there must be reasons why no one else managed to release a game that has a great physics engine on the PS3.

I don't think that's a valid argument.

Why is there no competitor for Gran Turismo on PS3, or at all other than Forza Motorsport?
Why did the "competitors" from the PS2 era die out?
Why are there so few games that could be classed as simulation on 360/PS3, even if you're being really generous?

Apart from the two big ones, I can think of Race Pro and Ferrari Challenge/Supercar Challenge. Maybe the Codies F1 games if you're being really kind. I suppose Horizon 1, but that's really just a tweaked FM underneath.

I don't think the reason for no one else building a great physics engine is the console. I think the reason is that there's no incentive to do so. Let's be honest, as much as people are excited about the idea of Project CARS it could be a colossal flop simply because the market for it may not exist.

Even on PC where there isn't the coding difficulties of the PS3, racing simulations are a rare breed. And they're mostly made by smallish, semi-indie companies who happen to give enough of a 🤬 that they would probably be doing it in their spare time if it wasn't their job.

Kunos started as a tiny team, and are still relatively tiny.
iRacing was only really viable because it had John Henry throwing money at it.
SMS are a bunch of refugees from Blimey! after that folded, desperately trying to get crowdfunding to make the game they want to make instead of sucking at the teat of EA.
LFS was another tiny team of three guys.
Reiza is essentially a bunch of modders working with the rFactor engine.
Simbin and ISI seem to be the big boys, but if you're not into sim racing then you'll never have heard of them.

Gran Turismo is the only simulation-ish game to have knocked it out of the park. The fact that it first did so back in the days of GT1 and GT2 where calling it a simulation was very generous tends to suggest that it's less about the simulation and more about something else. I have my theories, but I don't think the majority of GT buyers care how accurate the simulation is, only that it is reputed to be accurate. The simulation has come along in leaps and bounds of recent times, but it's still a game that started out pretending to be a simulation when really it was an oddly tuned arcade game.

Don't get me wrong, GT1 is a very fun game. But it's not a simulation and never was. Given that understanding, you can sort of see how the GT series might only feel that it needed to progress the simulation physics just enough to keep the advertising believable.