Can we actually call GT5 a simulator?

[Spagetti69]

lol forza physics is so off it would have no problem being ported to an air hockey sim

Do you use a wheel in Forza?

 

[kilttraeger]

Do you use a wheel in Forza?

Troll. Feed. Don't.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

There's no doubt Gt5 is a simulator but just as other games it has it's limits. It's the same ffb wheel tries to simulate a steering wheel but far from feeling close to the real thing.
I'm not too sure Forza 4 feels more realistic it just feels different. It definitely still has the "Forza" feel to it.

 

[mikeonthebike]

This, right here, is how I can tell some of you aren't reading. It's no different than being able to tell when someone is listening and when they're just waiting to interject their opinion. I wanted this to be a serious discussion on how much a simulator should cover before it gets the title, NOT fanboys (who percieve questioning as negative criticism) skimming the material and going "nuh-uh."

Before you post: Exorcet's comments are now required reading. I haven't been on to respond to a lot of you, but he's done a great job clearing up any misconceptions.

What right do you have to tell me what I have to do before I post??? I replied to YOU and you quoted a tiny piece of what I typed and then generalized me with a group of others that you don't agree with and then go on to call me/us fanboys to further your point. Great job.


I'll say it again. "It's common knowledge that race tires in gt5 are completely unrealistic". You took a car that does not currently exist in GT5, then took it's times from the top gear test track IN REAL LIFE and then you did a completely unrealistic comparison of a COMPLETELY different car on race tires on the top gear test track in GT5 and ran faster or comparable time to the Ariel Atom and now you feel that GT5 is not a simulator because of your comparison.

The name of your thread is "Can we actually call GT5 a simulator?" actually I think we can.

You are the one that posted the thread as a question combined with your comparison. What do you expect? You asked a question and you don't like the answer or disagree so that makes me a fanboy??? That's pretty lame. Tell me, are you still using X BUTTON for throttle?
I've read through your posts here on GTPlanet and see how much you dislike GT5 so much and how your attitude is always negative toward PD and gt5. Nobody is forcing you to play it.

I'll stop I guess so you can get back to those x1 top speed runs.

 

[danardif1]

The issue isn't so much the lap times, but the fact that every car benefits as much as the next. Tires work best under a specific load/temperature/slip angle. If a tire is used in such a way that all of these are way off, it won't work very well. You shouldn't be able to use LMP tires on a stripped down featherweight hatchback that has no downforce. It won't be able to heat tire tires or compress them enough to get a decent contact patch.

If GT5's tuning was more realistic, we would need to have dozens of tire options for each class of car and mismatching tires and cars would produce negative results. Though to be honest, I don't expect that level of complexity to be modeled because of how complex tires are. However, throwing RS tires on a Mini should create a very different result from placing those same tires on a Corvette.

The issue with only having 9 'grades' of tyre, is that PD in implementing them has made it that each tyre will always be perfectly matched to the car you're buying them for. Because they only have certain characteristics built into their tyre model as a whole, what they've done is just 'add grip' for each tyre grade you go up. So when you bolt an RS onto your otherwise stock F40, they're the perfect size, shape, stiffness etc. for the car to be having 'Racing Soft' levels of grip. It's a crude compromise that means it's easy for everyone to know the differences in handling between the 9 tyres (11 with Dirt and Snow).

I have no problem with it at all really, because to me it's an accessible way of 'simulating' the differences in a much wider range of tyres that are in real life. You hear racing drivers so often mention the step in grip they get going from one compound to another, you hear road testers rave about the optional sports tyres on the latest sportscar compared to the stock option, and PD have tried to create that feeling in a way that's not overly complicated either for the player or for the program that's running it all itself!

 

[NotSoSilentBob]

Doesn't matter as it is a driving simulator. And my wife and her friends(both mid twenties and driving since eighteen) were able to pick up the game(with a g27) like they've played for years. Driving simulator YES, racing sim still being worked on.

 

[axl54]

It's definitely a simulator alright. Career mode is a tedious boredom simulator,
while online can be a total frustration simulator a lot of the time. It's also a dress up simulator too

 

[Exorcet]

So when you bolt an RS onto your otherwise stock F40, they're the perfect size, shape, stiffness etc.

It does more than that. Even if you had perfect tires and wheels, ancient suspension would still hurt performance, and older and/or less sporty cars would show less grip. Putting RS tires on also re-engineers your chassis to get the most out of them.

PD have tried to create that feeling in a way that's not overly complicated either for the player or for the program that's running it all itself!

But even if they did make it more realistic, would it be that overwhelming? The game could just recommend tires based on the weight of the car, and options like the sports suspension which lower and stiffen the car should improve tire useage 99% of the time for non sporty cars.

In general, you would still have a range of tires to pick out, from hard to soft, street to race

Tire selection could look more like this (imagine 3 classes; comfort, sport, race with 9 grades/materials each - performance always increases from left to right, but there is some optimum point when going up and down)

Pick the class of tire you want, then the correct material for the type of car. Just a 2D extension of the current 1D process, it doesn't sound that complex and it would be better than what we have now.

But really, even this is needed. We could go even simpler and keep 1D tire selection, but just have different cars get different levels of grip out of them. I wouldn't want the numbers hard coded in, but in the worst case they could do that. Just somehow make it so that a stock road legal Mini on RS tires can only get 1.25 g, while a Corvette gets 1.5, and a race car gets 1.75 (even without downforce).

 

[Tenacious D]

Funny because it's true?

Besides GT5 being far from a sim, I think he's pretty much right.

I have a problem with this, because you've gone on for quite a bit about the tire issues in GT5. But Forza's are even simpler. You basically get street, sport, race and drag Pirellis, which basically do the same things. How is this any better? For another thing, something very strange is going on with Forza 4's physics. Beyond a certain power range, usually 200 hp or so, cars behave in ways that I can't relate to. They behave differently than in any other game I've ever played, with the possible exception of Enthusia. At low power, or in collisions, Forza is amazingly lifelike. Beyond that vague boundary, something isn't connecting with me.

I can say that the GTRs, Live For Speed and rFactor have better physics and technical aspects than either GT5 or Forza 4. But oddly enough, GT5 feels quite a bit similar to my PC sims, while Forza mostly does in those lower power regions. Though more than anything, F4 feels like a strong evolution of Forza. To me, because what's going on between these games and myself is an experience.

As I said elsewhere, both Forza and GT are doing some things right enough to be called simulations, some things the same, some things differently, some things unrealistically. They're going to connect differently with different people. In my case, one feels very natural, while the other communicates rather poorly, and if I can't race with authority, then all the "better, more realistic physics" in the world are essentially nothing more than a slogan or buzz word to me. These games are just as much works of art as they are recreations of reality, or like styles of music. Which group produces the "truest music"?

This is where the question really gets answered, when you can take turns the way cars are meant to take turns. There is no technical explanation for how you feel that wheel in your hands, and how real that car feels, the tires, or the road. That's where it all comes down, to quote daiki kasho, and technical aspects have to take a back seat to your individual preference. Because one is much more real than the other, and this is an individual experience which may or may not be shared by someone else.

 

[xSNAKEx]

It does more than that. Even if you had perfect tires and wheels, ancient suspension would still hurt performance, and older and/or less sporty cars would show less grip. Putting RS tires on also re-engineers your chassis to get the most out of them.



But even if they did make it more realistic, would it be that overwhelming? The game could just recommend tires based on the weight of the car, and options like the sports suspension which lower and stiffen the car should improve tire useage 99% of the time for non sporty cars.

In general, you would still have a range of tires to pick out, from hard to soft, street to race

Tire selection could look more like this (imagine 3 classes; comfort, sport, race with 9 grades/materials each - performance always increases from left to right, but there is some optimum point when going up and down)

Pick the class of tire you want, then the correct material for the type of car. Just a 2D extension of the current 1D process, it doesn't sound that complex and it would be better than what we have now.

But really, even this is needed. We could go even simpler and keep 1D tire selection, but just have different cars get different levels of grip out of them. I wouldn't want the numbers hard coded in, but in the worst case they could do that. Just somehow make it so that a stock road legal Mini on RS tires can only get 1.25 g, while a Corvette gets 1.5, and a race car gets 1.75 (even without downforce).

Are you telling me at the moment a mini or elise has the same grip and pulls the same gs on RS TYRES as an lmp car or hyper car has on rs if their weight and downforce is equall? The wider tyre should have more grip.

Just a note more weight on a tyre = more grip.

 

[Exorcet]

I have a problem with this, because you've gone on for quite a bit about the tire issues in GT5. But Forza's are even simpler.

I don't think I've ever made a comment about F4's tire upgrades. It's because I haven't had a chance to tune anything in Forza. Still, the physics model in Forza feels much better than in GT to me (see my comments in the F4 vs GT thread).

If I remember correctly in FM3, suspension did change the lateral g rating of your car (though I never tested to see if it was just a random number that popped up in the tuning screen or if it was representative or real performance gains), so this at least hints that Turn 10 took this into account.

Though if you really want to know why I posed what I didn't it's because I don't like favoritism where someone defends something only because they like it. Unfortunately, GT favoritism does exist on GTP. I will admit however, I did read the Forza guy's comment quick and I did not pick up the hint of favoritism on his end.

I can say that the GTRs, Live For Speed and rFactor have better physics and technical aspects than either GT5 or Forza 4. But oddly enough, GT5 feels quite a bit similar to my PC sims, while Forza mostly does in those lower power regions. Though more than anything, F4 feels like a strong evolution of Forza.

The goal should not be to emulate PC sims. It should be to emulate reality. Going from GT to GTR to Forza was not a huge transition for me. I've never played iRacing, rFactor, or Live for Speed. I owned FM3 and besides the tires being hyper grippy (irony) on road cars in that game, it wasn't much different from GT physics wise.

There is no technical explanation for how you feel that wheel in your hands, and how real that car feels, the tires, or the road.

I disagree, I think that pretty much everything can be boiled down to an objective science. This issue is whether or not we have the capability to explain things in a purely objective way now.

I personally hate comments that say that "GT has it's own feel" or that "Forza 4 still has the Forza feel" [( I make a distinction between those comments and "X feels more realistic [because...]") in realism discussions because they mean nothing and probably show hints of favoritism. Whatever feel (whatever that means) the game has doesn't matter, it's how well it simulates reality that matters.

Are you telling me at the moment a mini or elise has the same grip and pulls the same gs on RS TYRES as an lmp car or hyper car has on rs if their weight and downforce is equall? The wider tyre should have more grip.

LMP cars, etc have downforce that you can't get rid of, and there has been speculation of grip multipliers in GT's physics. So no, the LMP has more grip. However I did take a stock Samba Bus and stock ZR1 to Monza and they both pull 1.5 with RS tires equipped.

Just a note more weight on a tyre = more grip.

Define grip. More weight = more force, but not always more lateral/longitudinal acceleration. Making your car heavier for the sake of having more weight is the stupidest thing you can do from a performance standpoint.

 

[kilttraeger]

The last few posts remind me strongly of discussions with Sheldon Cooper..

And on the original question of the topic starter - yes it is a simulator. No, it is not perfect. Nor are any other commercially available products.

 

[Exorcet]

No, it is not perfect. Nor are any other commercially available products.

Where was anyone complaining that GT5 was not perfect? The post above doesn't seem to address the question asked in the first post.

 

[Mac K]

Doesn't matter as it is a driving simulator. And my wife and her friends(both mid twenties and driving since eighteen) were able to pick up the game(with a g27) like they've played for years. Driving simulator YES, racing sim still being worked on.

I could agree with your logic. Good point.

 

[shurnster]

The short answer is: "debatable". The long answer is this thread here. GT5 feels a bit simpler now going back to it, and the tire model in FM4 is astounding, but it really is a "horses for courses" situation. Your best bet is to find a way to try it yourself (for a significant amount of time) to figure out which you prefer 👍

As for the topic at hand; sadly, it's always been the case with GT, as the further you modify a car, the less realistic it seems to be, as its capabilities far surpass what's usually possible in real life. It's not always the case, of course, but GT seems to work as a better simulator when you're running stock or near-stock cars. The single biggest thorn in its side, in my view, is the amount of grip the higher-level tires provide, but if you keep a road car on stock tires, or only go one grade up, while pairing it with only some light mods in the other categories, it really can be quite impressive while still feeling "analog" enough

Thanks for the info 👍

 

[Tenacious D]

The goal should not be to emulate PC sims. It should be to emulate reality. Going from GT to GTR to Forza was not a huge transition for me. I've never played iRacing, rFactor, or Live for Speed. I owned FM3 and besides the tires being hyper grippy (irony) on road cars in that game, it wasn't much different from GT physics wise.

I agree with you in essence, but there's a problem with that because video games aren't real. You experience cars in real life through your hands, your arms, your legs and feet, your lungs, your gut, your butt, your eyes, your inner and "outer" ear, etc. Now assuming you're playing with a wheel, a video game reduces all that down to your hands, feet, eyes and your ears. How does this virtual car communicate with you that you should be pushing harder through a turn, or that you're about to lose it? There are only certain cues that a game can give you through FFB and tire noise, which are just a fraction of the sensory feedback you'd need to safely ride the edge of grip in a real car.

How differently should two similar virtual front engined rear drive sports cars feel in a game? Do you have to exaggerate certain factors to differentiate them, and if so, then how realistic is the simulation?

There is no technical explanation for how you feel that wheel in your hands, and how real that car feels, the tires, or the road.

I disagree, I think that pretty much everything can be boiled down to an objective science. This issue is whether or not we have the capability to explain things in a purely objective way now.

I personally hate comments that say that "GT has it's own feel" or that "Forza 4 still has the Forza feel" [( I make a distinction between those comments and "X feels more realistic [because...]") in realism discussions because they mean nothing and probably show hints of favoritism. Whatever feel (whatever that means) the game has doesn't matter, it's how well it simulates reality that matters.

You may hate those comments, but it's very much true.

I put up a friend a few years ago, and invited him to give Forza 3 a spin with the FFB wheel, as I was infatuated with it at that point. He chose a Miata, which was his previous real life ride. Well, it didn't go so well, and I'll hasten to add that he just plays racers every once in a while. But as with me, things were okay as long as he wasn't being too aggressive, and then the nose would go round and he'd lose it in a turn.

Watching him struggle for a while, I decided to switch to Prologue, and I forget what he chose, maybe the Capucchino tuner. For whatever reason, all of a sudden things made sense, and he began throwing his car around turns as if he knew what he was doing.

Now obviously this isn't everyone's experience with Forza, because quite a number of folk love it. Our own Scaff who thought Forza 3 was a bit all right has become quite taken with F4. But this is something I've noted about Forza, is that some people just can't completely get comfy with its version of reality. Some flat out hate it. And I sincerely doubt that you can give a technical or scientific explanation for this almost schizophrenic difference between fans and dislikers, why some can almost bolt themselves into their cars, and some can hardly find the door handles.

And this is what you seem to be missing. Sure, Forza 4 has some amazing stuff going on under the hood which I've only tasted in Live For Speed. But, I can race just fine in Live For Speed after getting reacquainted, and I have to fight almost every aspect of Forza. And after the opening Ferrari race F4 threw me into, I was quite enthusiastic about getting into it. So what scientific explanation do you have for the problems?

I'll say it again, if differently. Making a good racer is as much art as science. You can sweat intense computations and formulas and have a model that works well on paper. But then it has to feel real in the hands of a gamer. It has to make sense. Things have to work as expected. There has to be a rapport between you and that virtual world. If it doesn't work, all the most awesome math in the world doesn't mean squat.

 

[Spagetti69]

^ dons boffins suit.

You hate Microsoft.

 

[Tenacious D]

You're a boffin. But yes, I hate Microsoft. Who doesn't?

 

[Exorcet]

How differently should two similar virtual front engined rear drive sports cars feel in a game? Do you have to exaggerate certain factors to differentiate them, and if so, then how realistic is the simulation?

As different as they feel in reality. Through weight, power, moment of inertia, stability, grip, and a host of other variables.

When you get down to it, simulation is about numbers. You're completely right that the game can't give you g forces (well, it can, but not many people are willing to pay for it). But then trying to replace that with "feel" nonsense doesn't help. It ends up creating Need for Speed Shift.

You may hate those comments, but it's very much true.

I put up a friend a few years ago, and invited him to give Forza 3 a spin with the FFB wheel, as I was infatuated with it at that point. He chose a Miata, which was his previous real life ride. Well, it didn't go so well, and I'll hasten to add that he just plays racers every once in a while. But as with me, things were okay as long as he wasn't being too aggressive, and then the nose would go round and he'd lose it in a turn.

The fact that he changed cars hurts the comparison already. FM3 had undefeatable wheel assist, and completely wrong tire grip like I mentioned before. I've never tried FM3 with a wheel, but I do believe a major point of complaint was how horrible the MS wheel was. If it's anything like the wireless wheel I used when trying the FM4 demo, I agree with those who complained. I don't see the story as evidence of "feel" being influential.

Watching him struggle for a while, I decided to switch to Prologue, and I forget what he chose, maybe the Capucchino tuner.

I don't remember what that car drove like in GT5P, but downforce and Race tires could make quite a difference.

this is something I've noted about Forza, is that some people just can't completely get comfy with its version of reality. Some flat out hate it. And I sincerely doubt that you can give a technical or scientific explanation for this almost schizophrenic difference between fans and dislikers, why some can almost bolt themselves into their cars, and some can hardly find the door handles.

I'm not at all interested in biology, so no I can't give you lengthy and detail explanation. But I would bet that someone with a proper education come could up with some experiments to determine why people react how they do.

I can also guess that in some cases, bias may come into play. Consciously or not, someone biased to one game may not take the other seriously and perhaps go as far as automatically dismissing any differences between the games as favoring their preferred software. Additionally, if someone jumps into GT and drives like a pro, but struggles in Forza, Forza could possibly still be the better choice if in real life, said driver struggles.

Another guess would be quality of the controls, as I mentioned above. It's the same thing that people experience when going from wheel to controller and vice versa in GT (though I'd bet there's some exaggeration involved in this too). I actually remember disliking FM3's slow reaction to controller steering inputs. It was worse than GT5 before the update that allowed adjusting controller sensitivity.

If people are experiencing different outcomes, something is causing it. People may call it "feel", they may claim it can't be measured, but it's more likely that they just can't identify the real cause themselves.

So what scientific explanation do you have for the problems?

I didn't claim to have explanations for everything, but I refuse to assume that some unmeasurable subjective "force" is at core of the issue. It'll take heavy convincing to sway me.

 

[Tenacious D]

The fact that he changed cars hurts the comparison already. FM3 had undefeatable wheel assist, and completely wrong tire grip like I mentioned before.

Assists make things easier, not harder. Grippier tires make cars handle better, and you can abuse their potential more. I think we're entering an area where things are said with no real purpose or basis other than to kick up a cloud of dust.

 

[Exorcet]

Assists make things easier, not harder. Grippier tires make cars handle better, and you can abuse their potential more. I think we're entering an area where things are said with no real purpose or basis other than to kick up a cloud of dust.

I'm not lieing when I say that Arcade mode was harder for me to use than Simulation mode in GT5P. Though it wasn't like I used it often. Why? Because I'm used to cars acting like cars, not physics rebels.

Grippier tires make driving easier, when you stay within their limits. I honestly don't know how he'd have so much trouble driving a Miata in FM3, but if it's because he just couldn't get adjusted to the level of grip and kept undriving or overdriving the car, then that's what happened. The GT5 car could have been kept more stable through downforce, and perhaps he liked the snappier driving offered by the race tires (assuming he drove it stock and it came with race tires?) and he also might have benefited from the g meter.

 

[Tenacious D]

He drove completely by feel, much as we all do. Something wasn't making sense to him inForza, no matter what view he used. He laughed and remarked, "I know I look like an idiot, but something is messed up with this."

For whatever reason, Forza is one of those games you either get or you don't, and there doesn't seem to be much middle ground. I'd love to connect with it as I do with my other games, because the ability to livery up and race mod every car, as well as paint over the race car liveries, is simply unmatched, save for PC sims with a good art program. But the graphics poop all over PC sims. Maybe with a few hundred hours under my belt, F4 will become more intuitive, but I have my doubts.

rFactor 2 has a good chance of becoming the physics king, but it depends on what kind of game it is whether or not I buy it. If it's basically another PC sim like GTR, which looks to be the case, I may eventually get it, and possibly Shift 3 at some point, maybe S2. But Gran Turismo and Forza have spoiled me on two points: Forza's car modding and livery editor, and GT's sense of car ownership and immersion. Cars in Forza 4 do feel livelier, but in both a good and bad way to me, and if I can't connect with a car properly in F4, all the physics advantages in the world essentially don't exist.

You may feel as if you're beating your head against a wall discussing this with me, but you have to understand that some people don't connect with Forza and don't like Forza's version of reality, while being able to handle cars more intuitively in GT5, rFactor, GTR or whatever. And it has nothing to do with bias. Bias is when someone gets behind the wheel, races the same way they do in other games, and says, "Well..... I still think my game of choice is better. Here and there."

All of these games are different and feel different. Get some things right, mess some things up, including all the highly accurate PC sims, and why there are board arguments over which game is better. And why they will never end, because the individual connection between the gamer and a car has more to do with feel, flavor and emotion than any technical details.

 

[Strittan]

As a former iRacing user I feel quite confident saying yes, GT5 is a simulator, although not as realistic or as hardcore as iRacing.

 

[kimi123]

Yes you call it best sim on consoles. There is always room for improvement and making it more realistic

 

[peter_vod69]

I'd call it Susan. But then, I'm forever struggling to come up with names for games. It took me ages to come up with "Rutger" for my copy of Fight Night Round 4, and Henrietta, for Far Cry 2.

 

[Raven_WET01]

What right do you have to tell me what I have to do before I post???

Like... actually read and understand the original post before contributing to the discussion? The problem isn't that I'm telling some people to do it, the problem is that I've had to tell some people to do it.

I'll say it again. "It's common knowledge that race tires in gt5 are completely unrealistic". You took a car that does not currently exist in GT5, then took it's times from the top gear test track IN REAL LIFE and then you did a completely unrealistic comparison of a COMPLETELY different car on race tires on the top gear test track in GT5 and ran faster or comparable time to the Ariel Atom and now you feel that GT5 is not a simulator because of your comparison.

Here, I will quote just one of the comments I wanted everyone to read:

Discussion on page 1:

They cannot make a slow car fast no matter how good they are. Tires are super complex, so it's no surprise that PD's model isn't hyper realistic, but making grip a simple constant is going too far.

This is why I mentioned that people need to read Exorcet's comments. I wasn't on to explain the reasoning behind the test. I'm questioning this game as an overall simulator because the modifications (used in almost every single race) are not well simulated.

You are the one that posted the thread as a question combined with your comparison. What do you expect? You asked a question and you don't like the answer or disagree so that makes me a fanboy??? That's pretty lame. Tell me, are you still using X BUTTON for throttle?
I've read through your posts here on GTPlanet and see how much you dislike GT5 so much and how your attitude is always negative toward PD and gt5. Nobody is forcing you to play it.

I'll stop I guess so you can get back to those x1 top speed runs.

I didn't like your answer, that is true. Here's why: you failed to recognize the reasoning behind the test and simply speculated about the purpose of tire grip levels. Towards the end you stated that it is a good simulator for stock vehicles (exactly as mentioned in my original post) and stated they didn't claim to be a complete racing simulator. You state that it's a simulator, but because you failed to understand the other side of the argument I don't really consider it a valid/informed answer. The term "fanboy" was used to describe those who browse through any questioning of the game or PD with the predisposition of Kaz doing no wrong, even when it's nothing accusatory. This was meant to be a discussion gathering opinions on how much simulation needs to occur before it's considered one overall.

As for the rest of that paragraph...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ad+hominem

 

[sikbeta]

@OP

Hmmm... you never thought that it may not be as realistic as you want because of the HW limitations of the PS3? granted I'll take any GT game over anything in a heartbit, I like the way it is, not so much complicated and boring as some PC racing games, not crazy stuff like some arcade racers like ridge racer, it's just a perfect Driving/Racing Sim, IMO though

 

[Exorcet]

@OP

Hmmm... you never thought that it may not be as realistic as you want because of the HW limitations of the PS3? granted I'll take any GT game over anything in a heartbit, I like the way it is, not so much complicated and boring as some PC racing games, not crazy stuff like some arcade racers like ridge racer, it's just a perfect Driving/Racing Sim, IMO though

Fixing downforce would take changing a single variable in all likelihood. And the PS3 doesn't seem to struggle with the weak draft setting.

I see a lot of evidence pointing to PD purposefully making the game less realistic for no real reason at all.

And it has nothing to do with bias. Bias is when someone gets behind the wheel, races the same way they do in other games, and says, "Well..... I still think my game of choice is better. Here and there."

Bias would also be when someone goes into a game with a previously created expectation, whether they know it or not, and then see all evidence as pointing to back themselves up. Bias doesn't have to be a conscious thing.

because the individual connection between the gamer and a car has more to do with feel, flavor and emotion than any technical details.

If that's what you think fair enough. To me, things like that just separate games from sims. The sims are as technical as possible, the games let impurities in. Driving a car is a completely objective thing. It's you in a vehicle that's being moved by its own power and grip, and what you get out of it is your mind's reaction to the experience. I won't argue that no one today can completely go through the real life "code" line by line, but that doesn't mean that code isn't there.

 

[sikbeta]

Fixing downforce would take changing a single variable in all likelihood. And the PS3 doesn't seem to struggle with the weak draft setting.

I see a lot of evidence pointing to PD purposefully making the game less realistic for no real reason at all.

Maybe that's because they want more people to play it, happens all the time, for example, go to SOCOM forums and see how members there complain about the new games being easier to appeal more gamers, making it more realistic could mean a barrier to newcomers, I'm not an avid driver at all, I like challenges but when I can't win, I don't like to throw the game and never touch it again out of frustration, even more when I have so many games to play, so assists help and I can keep going 👍 it could be far worse for new players, so PD may take that in consideration

 

[Tenacious D]

This was meant to be a discussion gathering opinions on how much simulation needs to occur before it's considered one overall.

It doesn't sound as if you like our answers too much, so mine might not help, but here goes.

The pinnacle of simulation is generally regarded to be the realm of the PC racing sim, and which one is the best is a source of constant disagreement. One of them is most likely the closest to simulating reality, perhaps that's iRacing, perhaps not. But assuming that can be agreed on at some point, are the rest not really sims, because they're messing certain things up? And if a consensus can't be reached by the masses, how good are they at conveying this realism, when some say it's not really there in one game or other?

Let me drag Forza 4 into this, because my posts sometimes sound like I think it's getting half of everything wrong, which I don't mean to say. It's not a bad or wrong simulation. But there is something it's simulating strangely or in an unusual way, compared to other games. Otherwise, anyone could hop in and race halfway competently from the get go, which some people just can't do. How good is a simulator which dangles the ability to connect with the game's universe just out of reach of a certain segment of the gaming public?

So, here's poor Gran Turismo, which some would laugh if called a simulator. You mentioned the racing tire modeling was wrong. So how about the original GTR, which was soundly criticized by a hardcore group of technical elites for having incorrect tire models? And who set about making a patch which seemed to model the tires better. And this of course after being heralded as the most accurate racing sim money could buy, and advocated by a number of racing professionals for its accuracy and realism.

Or how about Live For Speed, which has some amazing physics which mimic real world ballistics and tire properties extremely well? Except that in the build I installed last, the tires essentially melted within a few thousand feet of their useful life, and you couldn't do more than crawl around the track at a few miles per hour.

For that matter, other than one or two cars in the very small roster, LFS consists of fantasy vehicles that don't exist. Or how about rFactor, which I believe has no real cars at all? How real is something you make up from a conglomeration of data to create a car on paper in order to avoid expensive licensing? Or how about how it seems to many of us that the cars in rFactor seem to pivot on a needle, while the world revolves beneath the car, rather than the car moving on the earth?

How good are these games as simulators when certain aspects are found to be flawed? How many flaws are permitted before a game can be considered a simulator? And where does this put GT5? As not even a simulator? Or a simulator with a number of flaws which need work?

My personal feeling is that while everyone who says one thing or another is off is most likely right, the game has progressed to the point that it's simulating the behavior of a car on a track amazingly well. So well that my true racing sims have gathered dust since the release of Prologue, which seems like GT5 0.7 compared to what we have now. Even Prologue, which isn't quite as good as GT5 Spec I, was good enough to make my racing sims feel dry and lifeless in comparison. The sims have a very narrow selection of cars, many are simply different skins, and on a few of them you can't even change to rain tires because there's no weather.

Frankly, I didn't care very much that GTR had the tire model patched by enthusiasts to be more accurate, though I did use it to wave under the noses of PC sim elitists. Likewise, I'm not that concerned that racing tires of different types in Gran Turismo be strictly like one make of tire or another, or that a Stage 1 turbo have a certain range of parameters which line up with someone's choice of an ideal base turbo. If it was realistic or just generally so, I'd never be able to tell the difference when I take either a Toyota Supra MkIII out for a race, my personal ride, or a Super GT NSX, which I'll never be able to race in real life.

And while I'm with the sim crowd that I'd love for all the nitty technical details to be right, and for there to be a mode of play with racing based on real world leagues with league rules, calendars, points and a racing season, we don't have either of those yet. So I make do and have fun with what I have in the meantime. And whether it needs work or is accurate enough - and yes I'd love for even more realism like Live For Speed, Forza 4 and other sims offer, it's still the best racing experience I've ever had. The feel of manhandling a racing machine around turns and past competitors is tangible, immersive, intuitive, realistic, and flat out great. This is precisely the simulation I need.