Assetto Corsa Porsche Videos: Cayman GT4 & 911 RSR

[oneloops]

Which doesn't change the fact that by your definition he's not doing clean laps.

He's not doing clean laps and that's not his goal except when he's looking for the best laptime in some other videos.

No it's not.

For example it's not subjective that weight transfer in GT us wrong, you can see it in the way rear engined cars do not respond to weight transfer as they should.

It's not subjective that torque steer from a standing start us wrong in GT.

It's not subjective that tuning doesn't respond as it should in some areas in GT.

It's not subjective that GT doesn't model the reduction in self aligning torque during understeer.

All of these can and have been tested.

Now GT is not alone in having physics issues (and some of these have improved on the build of GT:S I played), but they are most certainly present and objectively testable.

In a objective world everyone should drive in the same way in real life than in simulators, not doing zig-zag, spins and lots of accidents like the first times we (and everyone) drove with GT and with AC.

So it's something wrong with all simulators (even with the lack of G force).

In all simulators the brain has to accomodate to the simulation and the visual, acoustic and FFB outputs, so it's always subjective.

You can fake all physics laws and get something that feel real, equally you can simulate all the true physics and get a fake feel.

It's becomes philosophical, but I understand your opinion

 

[Scaff]

He's not doing clean laps and that's not his goal except when he's looking for the best laptime in some other videos.

His laps are clean because he's staying within the limits of the track (which is the commonly accepted definition).

Do you not see how absurd the length are that you are having to go to in order to support your personal definition.

In a objective world everyone should drive in the same way in real life than in simulators, not doing zig-zag, spins and lots of accidents like the first times we (and everyone) drove with GT and with AC.

So it's something wrong with all simulators (even with the lack of G force).

In all simulators your brain have to accomodate to the simulation and the visual, acoustic and FFB outputs, so it's always subjective.

No that depends on the car, track and degree of accuracy of the sim in question.

At no point have I or anyone stated that any sim is 100% accurate, none are, however that doesn't make every aspect of simulation subjective at all.

You can fake all physics laws and get something that feel real, equally you can simulate all the true physics and get a fake feel.

It's becomes philosophical, but I understand your opinion

I'm not talking about what GT fakes to try and get a semi realistic outcome (such as its tyre model), I'm talking about what it gets plain wrong and that is never going to feel right.

I do notice that the examples I gave of some of these you have simply ignored.

 

[oneloops]

His laps are clean because he's staying within the limits of the track (which is the commonly accepted definition).

Do you not see how absurd the length are that you are having to go to in order to support your personal definition.

In terms of limits of the track his laps are clean, in a racing driving line term is not clean.

Examples of your "common" clean lap definition :

A driver hits another drivers but he stays within the limits of the track.
A drunk driver making zig-zags but he stays within the limits of the track.
My grandmother driving at 20 km/h but she stays within the limits of the track.

and +1000

Don't get it wrong, i'm talking about MY grandmother

No that depends on the car, track and degree of accuracy of the sim in question.

At no point have I or anyone stated that any sim is 100% accurate, none are, however that doesn't make every aspect of simulation subjective at all.

If so you could measure every aspect of simulation from 0 (totally fake) to 100 (totally true) and you can't, how real is tyre model simulation in AC ? You can't say 100% real or 67.9% real, you can't measure that, because it's a simulation. So it's subjective.

As users or testers, we only can say "that's feel real","that's feel more real than ... ", etc

I'm not talking about what GT fakes to try and get a semi realistic outcome (such as its tyre model), I'm talking about what it gets plain wrong and that is never going to feel right.

I do notice that the examples I gave of some of these you have simply ignored.

"Going to feel right" Ok, we both are talking of feelings for the first time.

I'm ignoring nothing, i'm simply talking subjectively about feel of reality.

This discussion between you and me has no sense because you're talking in a rational way and i'm in a "feelings" way to approach simulators. You are ok in that rational way to defend AC, I understand you.

 

[killerjimbag]

In terms of limits of the track his laps are clean, in a racing driving line term is not clean.

Examples of your "common" clean lap definition :

A driver hits another drivers but he stays within the limits of the track.
A drunk driver making zig-zags but he stays within the limits of the track.
My grandmother driving at 20 km/h but she stays within the limits of the track.

and +1000



If so you could measure every aspect of simulation from 0 (totally fake) to 100 (totally true) and you can't, how real is tyre model simulation in AC ? You can't say 100% real or 67.9% real, you can't measure that, because it's a simulation. So it's subjective.

As users or testers, we only can say "that's feel real","that's feel more real than ... ", etc



"Going to feel right" Ok, we both are talking of feelings for the first time.

I'm ignoring nothing, i'm simply talking subjectively about feel of reality.

OK, now this is getting a bit off track here. Drunk drivers,grannies doing 20, hitting someone is clean? Ok so if you keep it between the lines doing 20 KMH you'll get black flagged, race over. Drunk on a race track,not going to happen,race over. Smashing into people,even staying between the lines, race over. GT6 is probably the worst example of a SIM, period! Utterly terrible FFB,tire model,camber,I could go on for days.

 

[Scaff]

In terms of limits of the track his laps are clean, in a racing driving line term is not clean.

Examples of your "common" clean lap definition :

A driver hits another drivers but he stays within the limits of the track.
A drunk driver making zig-zags but he stays within the limits of the track.
My grandmother driving at 20 km/h but she stays within the limits of the track.

and +1000

As I previously said your having to reach to the levels of absurd to support your re definition.

A lap can be clean and slow, the two are not mutually exclusive, and hitting other cars, well your definition didn't exclude that.

Drunk drivers? Seriously that the best you can now muster?

If so you could measure every aspect of simulation from 0 (totally fake) to 100 (totally true) and you can't, how real is tyre model simulation in AC ? You can't say 100% real or 67.9% real, you can't measure that, because it's a simulation. So it's subjective.

As users or testers, we only can say "that's feel real","that's feel more real than ... ", etc

Does GT model lift off oversteer in FWD cars?

Does GT model torque steer in FWD cars?

Does GT model push on understeer in RWD cars?

Do all elements of GT tuning act as they should in reality?

These are not subjective areas, they are objectively testable.

If something is modelled in the physics engine then yes the exact degree of how well it's modelled becomes subjective. However if something is totally absent from the physics model then its not subjective.

"Going to feel right" Ok, we both are talking of feelings for the first time.

I'm ignoring nothing, i'm simply talking subjectively about feel of reality.

This discussion between you and me has no sense because you're talking in a rational way and i'm in a "feelings" way to approach simulators. You are ok in that rational way to defend AC, I understand you.

Nope. I'm talking about physics elements being totally absent from a sim, that will never feel right. Not for any subjective reason, but for the totally objective fact that it's missing.

Oh and don't ever edit another members post when quoting them to change the meaning or put it out of context again.

Take the rear of a car stepping out on launch, it was totally absent from GT5 and only got patched into GT6 late in its life.

Now before that patch it absence wasn't subjective at all, once it got patched it's accuracy is then semi-subjective (as the exact accuracy can't be perfectly quantified, but it can be narrowed down via comparison).

 

[Johnnypenso]

...snip....
But I'm still thinking that the physics reactions and the feel of the cars aren't reals for me and they are more natural in GT6 ( I know almost nobody agree with me )

Ironic, that the only person who "agrees" with you so far with his like button, doesn't own the game, a pc capable of playing it, or a current gen console

 

[jm79]

I guess not many of us commenting have been in a real race car, let alone all the ones that AC offers, so surely @oneloops is right in claiming the experience is subjective, at the very least.

 

[Scaff]

I guess not many of us commenting have been in a real race car, let alone all the ones that AC offers, so surely @oneloops is right in claiming the experience is subjective, at the very least.

He's talking about road cars in this context, but some of us have been in race cars.

 

[Drausio]

Alfa 4C at Nordschleife. No aids, no ABS, street tires. The car appears very steady. Made three hours ago just for fun. Not a great driver.

 

[ALB123]

I guess not many of us commenting have been in a real race car, let alone all the ones that AC offers, so surely @oneloops is right in claiming the experience is subjective, at the very least.

You are absolutely right that most of us have not been in the majority of the race cars available in Assetto Corsa. There are a handful of posts in this AC forum from members who claim to have real world experience with certain cars. I have no reason to not believe those people, so I do pay a little bit more attention to people who A) have real track experience (not 1 track day 12 years ago) & B) People who can say "I've driven car X for 8 years" or something along those lines.

@oneloops isn't the first person to prefer GT6 and I'm sure he won't be the last. Heck, there are people who know AC is garbage even never having played the game. Personally, I think AC provides a more realistic experience than GT6. It's not real...but realistic. I would never foolishly state that AC does every single thing perfectly. They're continuously developing their tire model, for instance, so clearly AC tires can't be 100% exactly like the real world.

I went back and drove some of the cars I loved while I was a GT6 player and to me, probably 90% of them felt like something was being faked. Cars didn't respond the way I've become accustomed to with AC. I'm talking comparing F40 vs F40 or Yellowbird vs Yellowbird, for instance. I do think that GT6 does provide a very close approximation of what real cars are capable of when moving, but it feels artificial to me now. When I had zero experience with any driving sim besides GT6, I thought GT6 was the cat's pajamas! Not only do I believe Assetto Corsa has much better physics, but I believe it transmits driving feel into my hands much better as well.

EDIT: Ooops! I meant to include this into my post above. Check out what @panjandrum has to say about driving real life older 911s versus 911s/RUFs in Assetto Corsa:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/ac-porsches-vs-rl-porsches-rear-engined.350801/

 

[praiano63]

Alfa 4C versus green hell.

The 4C is a nice car with a good driving feeling but not a great precision to place it on the ideal driving line, a bit stuck on his front end using semi slicks for the event , perhaps too soft dampers for this compound , better using with street tires, it match perfectly and lay better on his grip with a nice rotation and balance.

 

[killerjimbag]

Alfa 4C versus green hell.

The 4C is a nice car with a good driving feeling but not a great precision to place it on the ideal driving line, a bit stuck on his front end using semi slicks for the event , perhaps too soft dampers for this compound , better using with street tires, it match perfectly and lay better on his grip with a nice rotation and balance.

Nice driving Praiano.Stock or tuned? Good to see your still around.

 

[Andrescalvo]

praiano63 Crack.

 

[panjandrum]

This game is completely unreal, no sense of feeling the grip, no sense of steering effect, always correcting the gas input and the steering wheel (see the videos) ... Impossible to make two cleans laps, like in real life and in GT6, you never knows what line you will finally do if you try to push a bit... AC is a lack of consistence and lack of progressiveness, as you can see in these videos. It's a shame because with more progessive physics and more sense of speed it would be gorgeous as simulator. (I already have AC in PC and a T500RS steering wheel)

Either something is very, very wrong with your setup or you are taking something like GT6 (which is pretty bad) and using that as your baseline "reality", leading you down a completely wrong path. That's tempting to do, of course, but in the end it just doesn't really work well. Take a look here https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/ac-porsches-vs-rl-porsches-rear-engined.350801/ for a pretty-direct real-world comparison to AC. I expect there are more comparisons like that around.

TLDR; AC models the classic rear-engined RUF / Porsche machines so realistically it's downright amazing.

 

[oneloops]

As I previously said your having to reach to the levels of absurd to support your re definition.

A lap can be clean and slow, the two are not mutually exclusive, and hitting other cars, well your definition didn't exclude that.

Drunk drivers? Seriously that the best you can now muster?


Does GT model lift off oversteer in FWD cars?

Does GT model torque steer in FWD cars?

Does GT model push on understeer in RWD cars?

Do all elements of GT tuning act as they should in reality?

These are not subjective areas, they are objectively testable.

If something is modelled in the physics engine then yes the exact degree of how well it's modelled becomes subjective. However if something is totally absent from the physics model then its not subjective.



Nope. I'm talking about physics elements being totally absent from a sim, that will never feel right. Not for any subjective reason, but for the totally objective fact that it's missing.

Oh and don't ever edit another members post when quoting them to change the meaning or put it out of context again.

Take the rear of a car stepping out on launch, it was totally absent from GT5 and only got patched into GT6 late in its life.

Now before that patch it absence wasn't subjective at all, once it got patched it's accuracy is then semi-subjective (as the exact accuracy can't be perfectly quantified, but it can be narrowed down via comparison).

GT6 has recorded several car sounds in real life. That means GT6 has realistic sounds ? Of course not ! We can doubt about each aspect modeled in GT6 and also in AC, if it feels real or not, even if it comes from physical real life data.

Which of these two renders is a physical unbiased render engine and which one is fake in physical terms ?

https://visperfect.com/assets/img/blog/2016/cycles-vs-vray/cycles-vs-vray-interior.jpg

The fake is VRAY, but it doesn't matter ! Because both are simulators and all we have to do with both is to make it FEEL real, like in driving simulators, as users, who cares about their code ? If they cheat or not, we will never verify their internal code.

It doesn't matter if someone is a pro or an amateur, a pro can say the fake is the image on the left or whatever, it's about how he feels the virtual image.

So, the only important things in simulators is the feeling, not to try to simulate 50 things instead of 10, for someone can feel wrong, for another can feel right. There are fanatic people in both sides.

They're continuously developing their tire model, for instance, so clearly AC tires can't be 100% exactly like the real world.

I agree with that.

 

[killerjimbag]

Either something is very, very wrong with your setup or you are taking something like GT6 (which is pretty bad) and using that as your baseline "reality", leading you down a completely wrong path. That's tempting to do, of course, but in the end it just doesn't really work well. Take a look here https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/ac-porsches-vs-rl-porsches-rear-engined.350801/ for a pretty-direct real-world comparison to AC. I expect there are more comparisons like that around.

TLDR; AC models the classic rear-engined RUF / Porsche machines so realistically it's downright amazing.

Thanks for the post and link. Some people should take a long read of this!

 

[oneloops]

Either something is very, very wrong with your setup or you are taking something like GT6 (which is pretty bad) and using that as your baseline "reality", leading you down a completely wrong path. That's tempting to do, of course, but in the end it just doesn't really work well. Take a look here https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/ac-porsches-vs-rl-porsches-rear-engined.350801/ for a pretty-direct real-world comparison to AC. I expect there are more comparisons like that around.

TLDR; AC models the classic rear-engined RUF / Porsche machines so realistically it's downright amazing.

I don't discredit your experience nor your opinion. If you feel that AC pretty accurately mirrors RL, I believe you

All simulators have better and worse car simulation in their list. For sure, the 3 or 4 RUF from GT4 that are inside GT6 are very poorly simulated in terms of driving realism. We all surely agree at that point.

In AC there are also cars that feel wrong and situations that feel wrong too, AC and GT6 are both simulators with imperfections.

 

[killerjimbag]

I don't discredit your experience nor your opinion. If you feel that AC pretty accurately mirrors RL, I believe you

All simulators have better and worse car simulation in their list. For sure, the 3 or 4 RUF from GT4 that are inside GT6 are very poorly simulated in terms of driving realism. We all surely agree at that point.

In AC there are also cars that feel wrong and situations that feel wrong too, AC and GT6 are both simulators with imperfections.

A situation feels wrong? 1 is a sim that's has imperfections. The other is like a dog with fleas.

 

[oneloops]

A situation feels wrong? 1 is a sim that's has imperfections. The other is like a dog with fleas.

Ok, that's your opinion, I respect that, even if you pull down GT in that excessive way

Many people was defending the realism of AC one or two years ago. AC has changed a lot since 2 years, now is a lot easier to drive than before. Some people will think that new one is more arcade than the old one... It's about your personal feeling of realistic.

Even if you change a little the FFB settings in AC, all your sense of realism changes... so that is what a good simulator do ?

 

[Scaff]

GT6 has recorded several car sounds in real life. That means GT6 has realistic sounds ? Of course not ! We can doubt about each aspect modeled in GT6 and also in AC, if it feels real or not, even if it comes from physical real life data.

Which of these two renders is a physical unbiased render engine and which one is fake in physical terms ?

https://visperfect.com/assets/img/blog/2016/cycles-vs-vray/cycles-vs-vray-interior.jpg

The fake is VRAY, but it doesn't matter ! Because both are simulators and all we have to do with both is to make it FEEL real, like in driving simulators, as users, who cares about their code ? If they cheat or not, we will never verify their internal code.

It doesn't matter if someone is a pro or an amateur, a pro can say the fake is the image on the left or whatever, it's about how he feels the virtual image.

So, the only important things in simulators is the feeling, not to try to simulate 50 things instead of 10, for someone can feel wrong, for another can feel right. There are fanatic people in both sides.

Are you not actually going to answer any of my very specific questions and simply change the goalposts again.

The discussion is clearly about the physics engine, not about sounds or graphics (not that your analogies even make sense in that regard either).

Does GT model the areas I mentioned, yes or no, it's quite simple.

Ok, that's your opinion, I respect that, even if you pull down GT in that excessive way

Many people was defending the realism of AC one or two years ago. AC has changed a lot since 2 years, now is a lot easier to drive than before. Some people will think that new one is more arcade than the old one... It's about your personal feeling of realistic.

Even if you change a little the FFB settings in AC, all your sense of realism changes... so that is what a good simulator do ?

Which you may have a point about if anyone had said that AC at that time was 100% perfect as a sim. I don't recall anyone in this conversation doing so.

As such you've created a situation that didn't exist to simply support you're own argument.

That's quite a dishonest and misleading approach to take.

 

[Whitestar]

Even if you change a little the FFB settings in AC, all your sense of realism changes... so that is what a good simulator do?

Not sure I understand what you're saying here.

 

[ALB123]

Not sure I understand what you're saying here.

I think he's saying, "How realistic can a supposed simulator, like Assetto Corsa, be if you can change FFB settings? Because changing FFB settings is going to change the sensations you feel..." or something like that. I don't know.

I don't understand how someone calls Assetto Corsa "a work of art", but then says it doesn't feel realistic. I think he is completely within his right to believe AC doesn't feel realistic to him, but then why heap praise upon it? I thought GT6 felt super realistic too...when I had never tried a single other driving game. Then I experienced AC and my thoughts changed. Who knows? Maybe I will try R3E or rF2 some day and be even more impressed than I was with AC. But, I wouldn't then declare AC to be unrealistic.

 

[tka_tha]

Even if you change a little the FFB settings in AC, all your sense of realism changes... so that is what a good simulator do ?

Yes, a good simulator will allow the users a good range of FFB adjustment to accomodate different wheels. I think that if you spend more time driving in AC with good settings, and trying differrent cars, you will like AC.

 

[jm79]

Why does the 917/30 only seem to have a proper engine sound at 7-8k revs? Seems a bit odd...

...Maybe it's because I'm listening on a phone

 

[BrandonW77]

I thought for sure that by this morning someone would have won the argument and all parties would be in total agreement on the topic. Much to my shock, the internet argument with strangers rages into a third day! Who would have guessed?

Carry on.

 

[oneloops]

I went back and drove some of the cars I loved while I was a GT6 player and to me, probably 90% of them felt like something was being faked. Cars didn't respond the way I've become accustomed to with AC. I'm talking comparing F40 vs F40 or Yellowbird vs Yellowbird, for instance. I do think that GT6 does provide a very close approximation of what real cars are capable of when moving, but it feels artificial to me now.

Well, it happens every time I change from a simulator to another for some hours or days, in both senses, when I pass some months with GT6 and I change to AC or PCARS everything seems weird and fake till the brain is reaccomodated to the changes. It happens to me when I come back from AC to GT6 too.

Are you not actually going to answer any of my very specific questions and simply change the goalposts again.

The discussion is clearly about the physics engine, not about sounds or graphics (not that your analogies even make sense in that regard either).

Does GT model the areas I mentioned, yes or no, it's quite simple.

When a question is rhetorical you can answer or not. Yes, you are right at that point about items that GT doesn't model and AC does.

The discussion is about simulation. You should introduce "in my opinion" often in your sentences, you can't try to impose if some analogies about physical-respecting simulation are acceptables or not. In my opinion, that analogy with images and sounds (both simulating something real) matches perfectly here and can offer a new perspective to undestand my view, that it's not difficult at all to understand, even if you don't agree.

Which you may have a point about if anyone had said that AC at that time was 100% perfect as a sim. I don't recall anyone in this conversation doing so.

As such you've created a situation that didn't exist to simply support you're own argument.

That's quite a dishonest and misleading approach to take.

There's nothing dishonest nor misleading in my opinion. I'm saying that I feel better with GT6 and that AC doesn't feel real to me. I agree that playing others simulations give you a relative judgement for something you thought "realistic" as it happens to many people who trys AC after GT6. I understand that, but not everybody has the mandatory to think that AC feels more realistic than GT6. The realistic feel in a simulation happen 100% in your brain.

When you are driving in AC do you feel 100% of time that is realistic ? Or sometimes your brain says "i'm playing" or "I'm not sure if this car should do that in RL in this situation" ?

You want only have reason instead of understand anothers points of view. For me, AC isn't so real, I'm having fun with it, it's a masterpiece and awesome in huge amount of details, and I recommend to play it to everyone. Same thoughts about GT6 which, for me, makes me feels more connected to the virtual reality more constantly than AC.

Not sure I understand what you're saying here.

I'm try to say that all is simulation and if AC changes so much with FFB variations it means that some variations are less realistics than others. In all cases you have to "believe" that you're in a real car, you have to lie to your brain to have the immersion feeling. If a model have too many options to try to feel real that's because it's isn't so real.

Every car could simulate their real FFB like it is. For example, the Lotus EXOS T125 have no extra steering-hardness to turn in comparison with the modern Abarth. I'm 100% sure that's not the real steering-hardness in that kind of car (Lotus EXOS T125).

I think he's saying, "How realistic can a supposed simulator, like Assetto Corsa, be if you can change FFB settings? Because changing FFB settings is going to change the sensations you feel..." or something like that. I don't know.

I don't understand how someone calls Assetto Corsa "a work of art", but then says it doesn't feel realistic. I think he is completely within his right to believe AC doesn't feel realistic to him, but then why heap praise upon it? I thought GT6 felt super realistic too...when I had never tried a single other driving game. Then I experienced AC and my thoughts changed. Who knows? Maybe I will try R3E or rF2 some day and be even more impressed than I was with AC. But, I wouldn't then declare AC to be unrealistic.

For me GT2 is a work of art too, as Limbo (the game), and Hotline Miami. They all aren't realistics. AC is for sure a work of art for me too.

I can undestand that you and many others find AC more realistic than the others simulators. It's logical to have and respect other opinions. I like AC a lot and I'm having fun with it. No problem

I thought for sure that by this morning someone would have won the argument and all parties would be in total agreement on the topic. Much to my shock, the internet argument with strangers rages into a third day! Who would have guessed?

Strangers rages ? I like AC and GT6. I bought AC two times (PC and PS4 versions) and I'm happy with it.

I hope we can like or love a simulator and make some subjective critics about it.

 

[BrandonW77]

Strangers rages ? I like AC and GT6. I bought AC two times (PC and PS4 versions) and I'm happy with it.

You and Scaff have never met, I presume? Therefore, you're strangers, and you're both having an argument on the internets that has raged on for three days now. It's been quite entertaining, but I somehow doubt either of you will change the other's mind on the subject.

 

[Scaff]

When a question is rhetorical you can answer or not. Yes, you are right at that point about items that GT doesn't model and AC does.

Which makes those areas objective and not subjective.

The discussion is about simulation. You should introduce "in my opinion" often in your sentences, you can't try to impose if some analogies about physical-respecting simulation are acceptables or not. In my opinion, that analogy with images and sounds (both simulating something real) matches perfectly here and can offer a new perspective to undestand my view, that it's not difficult at all to understand, even if you don't agree.

It's not my opinion that GT doesn't model those areas, so I don't need to add that in at all. Its an objective fact that GT doesn't model those areas.

As such I'm not sure why you keep insisting that every area of physics has to be a subjective discussion, because that's clearly not the case at all.

The reason why the analogies don't work for every area of the physics engine in question is that it assumes that both try and model exactly the same areas, and they clearly don't, as you have acknowledged yourself.

There's nothing dishonest nor misleading in my opinion. I'm saying that I feel better with GT6 and that AC doesn't feel real to me. I agree that playing others simulations give you a relative judgement for something you thought "realistic" as it happens to many people who trys AC after GT6. I understand that, but not everybody has the mandatory to think that AC feels more realistic than GT6. The realistic feel in a simulation happen 100% in your brain.

When you base your argument on a point no one has made and change what people have said when you quote them you are being dishonest and misleading, its not up for debate, don't do it.

When you are driving in AC do you feel 100% of time that is realistic ? Or sometimes your brain says "i'm playing" or "I'm not sure if this car should do that in RL in this situation" ?

No one has said otherwise, so I'm not sure why you keep insisting on pushing a point no one has ever made.

You want only have reason instead of understand anothers points of view. For me, AC isn't so real, I'm having fun with it, it's a masterpiece and awesome in huge amount of details, and I recommend to play it to everyone. Same thoughts about GT6 which, for me, makes me feels more connected to the virtual reality more constantly than AC.

Please don't tell me what I do or don't think, you don't know me and the presumption is quite rude.

I've already agreed with you that some areas of physics are subjective (but that doesn't make it impossible to quantify them to a degree and compare them). I don't agree that every area of the physics is subjective, as if one doesn't model an area and the other does, then its totally objective.

 

[oneloops]

You and Scaff have never met, I presume? Therefore, you're strangers, and you're both having an argument on the internets that has raged on for three days now. It's been quite entertaining, but I somehow doubt either of you will change the other's mind on the subject.

You are right, we have never met and I agree with you that we will not change our minds on the subject. But I understand and respect him.

 

[jm79]

I really wish people who loved AC wouldn't be so derisive about other games, superior about their own and so affronted at any differing opinions, while forever claiming objectivity and fairness.

Tends to put me off wanting to play the damn game.

Puts me off the damn internet.