Can we actually call GT5 a simulator?

[Exorcet]

It's about how the game is designed, and has nothing to do with your "this car vs that car" argument.

Yes, he's talking about the grip multipliers I've mentioned a couple of times before.

I haven't tried to confirm them (besides Slip's Z example, try the GT3 Team Oreca Viper, magic traction) but given that they were around in the old game, it wouldn't surprise to me to find them their. It does come close to the 1D tire model I mentioned a few posts ago, but in that case I actually meant that if they hard coded in values (which would not be preferable) they would do it on a car by car basis, not a "class" basis.

Anyway, on the 458 vs C5, I noticed that the 458 comes with stock downforce. In fact is has the same as the Viper ACR. I could go try the NSX and Skyline though, or maybe even ACR and 458.

Serious question for the people who say it's a sim... What exactly simulates this simulation and which is correct, online or offline?

i play mostly online, though I don't see a huge difference between physics. My tunes work for both on and off (out of frustration though, I am a bit of a halfhearted tuner).

The Supra being so under-powered in full-tune compared to real-life is unfortunate, but in real-life you can do just about anything to anything, so the line will be drawn somewhere. I like to think PD typically has rough ideas of "classes" in mind, pegging a group of cars upgrades to roughly similar levels, but who knows why they choose the ceilings they do for each car.

Well the thing about classes is why have them in the first place? We have PP which in theory makes most things even, but even if we did not allowing a Miata to become Ferrari fast would only increase variety in "supercar" races.

 

[bugsbunny]

man I have tried r factor and i racing , they are all non sense compared to GT5 but im talking about online physics and with tyre wear and fuel load

sure the lap times are faster and the cars are a bit faster but the physics are by far really the real driving simulator , next to reality but that goes for the physics before 2.0 came , I'm not so sure about the physics when 2.0 came.

the physics before 2.0 were much better although 2.0 made no ABS better , still I would want to see the physics before 2.0 back.

In terms of cold tires , I would say GT5's is unrealistic , it just doesn't feel like it has cold tires.

Brakes should have temperature , most racing cars use carbon brakes and they don't work that well at the start until it reaches its performing temperature.

I see most people use 100% 100% brakes all the time and that's not realistic because in reality even carbon brakes would overheat or just go over its temperature which already reduces stopping power.

the physics before 2.0 was really nice around the racing tracks , I could feel the details of the track and the car like bumps of the track and tarmac types meaning differentiation in grip in the same track like nurburgring gp , physics before 2.0 was really the best.

 

[bugsbunny]

man I have tried r factor and i racing , they are all non sense compared to GT5 but im talking about online physics and with tyre wear and fuel load , sure the lap times are realistic but the physics feel like a piece of wood.

the physics before 2.0 were much better although 2.0 made no ABS better , still I would want to see the physics before 2.0 back. They should put the physics in 1.9 and under back and just work on the fuel load difference in performance.

In terms of cold tires , I would say GT5's is unrealistic , it just doesn't feel like it has cold tires.

Brakes should have temperature , most racing cars use carbon brakes and they don't work that well at the start until it reaches its performing temperature.

I see most people use 100% 100% brakes all the time and that's not realistic because in reality even carbon brakes would overheat or just go over its temperature which already reduces stopping power.

the physics before 2.0 was really nice around the racing tracks , I could feel the details of the track and the car like bumps of the track and tarmac types meaning differentiation in grip in the same track like nurburgring gp , physics before 2.0 was really the best.

 

[jtv90069]

There are generally two classes of physics engines: real-time and high-precision. High-precision physics engines require more processing power to calculate very precise physics and are usually used by scientists and computer animated movies. Real-time physics engines—as used in video games and other forms of interactive computing—use simplified calculations and decreased accuracy to compute in time for the game to respond at an appropriate rate for gameplay.

In most computer games, speed of simulation, as well as so-called “gameplay” (simplified, it can be explained as “how fun the game is to play&#8221, is more important than accuracy of simulation. This leads to designs for physics engines that produce results in real-time but that replicate real world physics only for simple cases and typically with some approximation. More often than not, the simulation is geared towards providing a "perceptually correct" approximation rather than a real simulation.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_engine

rFactor

Runs Best With
- Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 processor
- 2048 MB RAM
- Geforce 7900 GT or Radeon X1900 GT
- 256 MB video RAM

PS3 has 256 MB of system RAM and 256 MB video RAM

I do realise that the operating systems account for a large difference in necessary RAM but the PS3 is very limited. I was also searching for the min spec for rFactor PRO and could not find them but likely need much more than rFactor to run with highly realistic physics.

GT5 is not perfect, or even close in some cases but it is offering a hell of a lot on a small system. GT? on the next Playstation will be closer to offering ultimate realism but likely will still compromise highly in areas to offer everything we get in GT5 plus more.

I still believe that GT5 is a simulator as I believed GT1 was a simulator way back in 1997.

 

[CSLACR]

I think CSLACR's point is that there is an unidentifiable "grip" variable for every car, irrespective of the tires equipped. This was the case in GT3: The Z Concept had a higher "grip" number associated with its chassis than any other road car. This was easy to find since we had a program back then to build hybrids - hybriding in that sense isn't possible in GT5, so it's much harder to find concrete proof of such a variable, if it still exists.

On the topic at hand in the OP, the problem with the upgrade system; it does need to be overhauled. A good example: in real life, if I had a clean '70 Galant GTO MR and wanted to put some modern track day rubber on, I could. I could also do the same for a '95 Cappuccino, with the same tire size, and should expect those tires to be capable of generating equal amounts of grip on either car. Obviously, in practice, the different suspension designs would make the handling itself very different; that's recognizable, I'm only talking about the outright limits of the tires themselves.

But, in GT5, I can equip Sport Softs on both cars and if they are roughly similarly powered/weighted, the newer car will handle far better. The older one will struggle to find purchase; I have a '65 Alfa GTA in the game that is a monster to control, despite a dialed-in suspension and RS tires. The vague tire upgrade system is the main problem here; it just seems to add a percentage to the car's original grip limits, much like equipping items in an RPG. You can rarely make an older car grip more than a newer car.

The different compounds should come with their own respective base values; then, additionally, tire size would have to affect that. That way, dropping my stock tires on either the Cappy or the Galant for a set of SS tires would bring both up to the same amount of available tire grip, instead of, say, 140% of the original amount (just tossing a number out as an example). I hope that makes sense.

The Supra being so under-powered in full-tune compared to real-life is unfortunate, but in real-life you can do just about anything to anything, so the line will be drawn somewhere. I like to think PD typically has rough ideas of "classes" in mind, pegging a group of cars upgrades to roughly similar levels, but who knows why they choose the ceilings they do for each car.

This is pretty much my point in it's entirety.
And I'm positive it's just like it was in GT3, the only ones I question, (but don't doubt) are the premium cars.

Yes, he's talking about the grip multipliers I've mentioned a couple of times before.

I haven't tried to confirm them (besides Slip's Z example, try the GT3 Team Oreca Viper, magic traction) but given that they were around in the old game, it wouldn't surprise to me to find them their. It does come close to the 1D tire model I mentioned a few posts ago, but in that case I actually meant that if they hard coded in values (which would not be preferable) they would do it on a car by car basis, not a "class" basis.

Anyway, on the 458 vs C5, I noticed that the 458 comes with stock downforce. In fact is has the same as the Viper ACR. I could go try the NSX and Skyline though, or maybe even ACR and 458.

Firstly, I'd really like to know the criteria for factory downforce by PD, tbh. How different cars got there marks is beyond me.
I haven't tested an incredible amount of different cars for this, because it's been in GT as long as I can remember, I'm 99% sure since the beginning, some cars just have a lot more grip then others.

I think the Advan Clarion vs. Calsonic is a very good example, so nobody throws chassis talk in the mix. It's also possibly the most extreme example. An equal example is the Eneos SC430 vs a Denso Dunlop Sard SC430.

As for two premium non-racing cars for a perfect example, I'm really not sure enough to quote any two. I think the "downforce" some come with is honestly just a new term made by PD to display the "grip" enhancements some cars have. Aero settings in the game work from a standstill, so I don't find it unlikely that PD finally made a visible figure for some of the discrepancies.

Either way, whether PD puts labels on them or not, they're still unavoidable and drastic differences in stock cars known in real life to be competitive.

It's still all about getting the grip from PD for a car's in-game success.

 

[Ammothief41]

or is a stock vehicle simulator good enough to earn the title of "The Real Driving Simulator?"

I love GT5. It's a hell of a fun game to play. Forza is pretty sweet too. Unless you can smell the rubber burning and feel the g's pulling you away from a corner, it don't have a hope in hell of being the real thing.

 

[TurboProp]

GT5 is a VERY GOOD GAME I play almost everyday for a few minutes but it is not a simulator. I don't care if you have 3 screens, a wall of speakers, a racing seat and the best wheel on the market, it is not a simulator. You just have an accessorized driving game. You cannot simulate the g forces, bumps, sights and sounds and the joy and frustration of driving in real life. If you drive/race anything like you do in GT5 in real life, you will lose your license, destroy your ride and kill someone and yourself.

 

[peter_vod69]

If you drive/race anything like you do in GT5 in real life, you will lose your license, destroy your ride and kill someone and yourself.

Rubbish! I've done trackdays in my cars and driven them very hard (to the point of getting black flagged on a track day for "drifting", in an EVO!) and I haven't been killed even once, I haven't had a speeding ticket since 2003, and apart from the flat tyre this morning my "ride" is fine!

 

[Duck]

I tested about 60 cars in game, and laptimes was very close to predicted values, despite of any default grip value
Cars that diverged from predicted (with a custom algorythm) values were mostly historical cars:
- Elan
- C1 Corvette (also for its Powerglide gear)
- Toyota 2000
- Ginetta
No way 50 years-old suspension scheme can work like new cars. Even upgrades cannot modify suspension scheme; you can just fit new coils and shocks.

Exceptions:
- MX5 '89 (very weak engine)
- Volvo 240 (new suspensions? )
- Prius (engine parameters)

All other 49 cars are going well. These include some historical too:
- Bluebird 1600 ('69)
- Duetto
- Golf I
- S800

I agree that tyre upgrade just add a % to grip. But I think this is correct. If you add some Advan to a Lancer, and do the same with a Panda, there is no way the Panda grips like the Mitsubishi. Better: if you do the same with an Impreza and a Lancer, where one car is only a bit faster than the other, you should find the same after tyre upgrade, UNLESS one car improves its balancement with that kind of tuning.

Don't forget tyres have different dimensions from car to car (wheel size, but mostly tyre width). And it's true for tyre upgrade too. You can't fit a Sport Medium (or an Advan, if you like it) coming from a Lancer to a Panda.

More: GPL was (is...) one of the best simulators of all times. About tyre grip, it is said that Jackie Stewart thinks these cars gripped better in real life than in game. A tester who had the luck to drive a '67 Cooper with original tyres confirmed it too.

I also consider GT series as simulators, since the very first one I played (GT2). Physics engine is simple compared to advanced products like iracing and rfactor, due to PS3 processing power and RAM, but parameters are set up with simulation in mind, and time laps are comparable with real life (not considering track dust, ideal line rubber, kerbs cutting, fear....).

 

[sinbad]

GT5 is a VERY GOOD GAME I play almost everyday for a few minutes but it is not a simulator. I don't care if you have 3 screens, a wall of speakers, a racing seat and the best wheel on the market, it is not a simulator. You just have an accessorized driving game. You cannot simulate the g forces, bumps, sights and sounds and the joy and frustration of driving in real life. If you drive/race anything like you do in GT5 in real life, you will lose your license, destroy your ride and kill someone and yourself.

You seem to miss the meaning of "simulator".
Anything can be simulated. You can simulate a single element of a complex system, or you can simulate the final effect, or a particular sensation, like a g force simulation of a rocket launch for example. Simulator doesn't mean 100% realistic either. The large scale military and commercial flight simulators of the 70s and 80s were very simple and by modern standards not very complex or realistic, but they were certainly simulators. You can't die when you crash in a modern one either btw.

When you judge something claiming to be a simulator, judge how accurate a simulator in various aspects or overall it is, don't just say it isn't one, it makes no sense.

 

[Ammothief41]

Gotta throw this out there, lap times in a game don't have anything to do with realism. And yeah, GT's definitely a simulator. Hell, RC Pro Am is a simulator, maybe not so great a one tho.

 

[TurboProp]

Rubbish! I've done trackdays in my cars and driven them very hard (to the point of getting black flagged on a track day for "drifting", in an EVO!) and I haven't been killed even once, I haven't had a speeding ticket since 2003, and apart from the flat tyre this morning my "ride" is fine!

I'm glad you haven't been "killed even once" LOL. I'm glad you have beat the odds of no ticket or harming yourself or anyone else up to this point but if you continue to drive on the streets at torrid pace, it will catch up with you or "Johnny Law" will (physics is a funny critter in real life). Be careful out there...

 

[vandaliser]

Well jeremy clarkson seem to think Gran turismo is an okay simulator. And i trust his opinion more than internet posters on Gt planet

 

[Ev0d3vil]

Yup the game feels pretty real somehow even when playing with a dual shock 3 controller.......

 

[TurboProp]

You seem to miss the meaning of "simulator".
Anything can be simulated. You can simulate a single element of a complex system, or you can simulate the final effect, or a particular sensation, like a g force simulation of a rocket launch for example. Simulator doesn't mean 100% realistic either. The large scale military and commercial flight simulators of the 70s and 80s were very simple and by modern standards not very complex or realistic, but they were certainly simulators. You can't die when you crash in a modern one either btw.

When you judge something claiming to be a simulator, judge how accurate a simulator in various aspects or overall it is, don't just say it isn't one, it makes no sense.

OK, lets put GT5 on a scale from 1-10 as a simulator (just my humble opinion). I give it a 3 on just being to help a person familiarize themselves with a certain track IF they were going to compete on said track (GT5 has very good graphics and detail). As a game, a 9 it's a lot of fun and I enjoy playing immensely. Now, I was in the USAF for twenty years as a aircraft mechanic (Crew Chief) thru aircraft maintenance manager. One of my jobs was instructor and I was engine run qualified on the C-130 Hercules. We were trained on Singer-Link full motion simulators for engine run proficiency, trouble-shooting and emergency shut down procedures. These were state of the art at the time (1994 wast he last time I qualified), they were very detailed (identical to the actual flight deck), realistic and very expensive (seat-time was at a premium). When we were training in a certain scenario, you would be totally immersed into the situation at hand from the graphics, vibration and sound of the props and motion of the aircraft, we ran and adhered to checklist to make sure we could handle any scenario thrown at us. My point is, I think I know what a simulator looks and feels like (I think). I split my time driving to work everyday between two fast sports cars (a 95 Z28 and a 95 Pontiac Formula) that have aftermarket performance exhaust (Magnaflow), PCM for less ECU tunes and numerous performance bolt-ons, they both have 5.7 liter LT1 engines. One an auto the other a six speed, at no point at playing (PLAYING) GT5 and driving (DRIVING) my cars do I confuse the two. They are nothing alike. Again this is my background, my experience in life (I'm 50 years old) and my humble opinion. If you want to call it it a simulator, go for it....some will disagree with you. Have a nice day.

 

[jtv90069]

Interesting read TurboProp. I do not doubt anything you have written but, Flight Simulators were first used in 1909 and have been developed continuously since.

Do you think you may get confused in a real plane thinking you were in a flight simulator?

 

[TurboProp]

Interesting read TurboProp. I do not doubt anything you have written but, Flight Simulators were first used in 1909 and have been developed continuously since.

Do you think you may get confused in a real plane thinking you were in a flight simulator?

I did give it a "3" as a simulator . Hopefully GT"X" or another driving/racing platform will evolve into a real simulator at some point in the near future and something we can all afford too. How that will be done is beyond me. Really good toys are very expensive...

Cheers

 

[jtv90069]

I did give it a "3" as a simulator . Hopefully GT"X" or another driving/racing platform will evolve into a real simulator at some point in the near future and something we can all afford too. How that will be done is beyond me. Really good toys are very expensive...

Cheers

I hope the accuracy increases a lot myself. Haven't seen any prices for rFactor PRO software (Redbull Racing's Simulator, only available to race teams etc.) and motion actuated playseat/cockpit is likely to be always expensive (also would take up a decent amount of space in a house). The prices for the software currently available will decrease and become easier to get as it is updated to their future versions as well. GT1 to GT5 has taken 15 odd years to get as good as it has, just imagine what another ten years will do.

 

[noisiaturismo]

Well jeremy clarkson seem to think Gran turismo is an okay simulator. And i trust his opinion more than internet posters on Gt planet

Thats why he thought Gran Turismo is not a good simulator, he chose Forza and his opinion is rubbish. 💡

 

[vandaliser]

Thats why he thought Gran Turismo is not a good simulator, he chose Forza and his opinion is rubbish. 💡

Jezza said Gt is a good simulator when he reviewed GT4.

As for forza well MS paid him to feature him in their game. Got nothing to with chosing forza over GT. More to do with MS money.

But Polyphony does not need to buy off people or exclusivity to make people buy their games.

 

[H20HYBRID_GT]

i play mostly online, though I don't see a huge difference between physics. My tunes work for both on and off (out of frustration though, I am a bit of a halfhearted tuner).

Fair enough, yes I know online tuning is preferable. My question was more like how is that realistic, where does that leave GT5 as a simulation.

 

[Tenacious D]

This is ending up being a very good discussion, and we seem to be more in harmony than disagreement. The last 10% or so that GT5 gets wrong seems to gripe some more than others, and that's to be expected.

Obviously I associate myself more with the remarks by peter_vod69 and Duck who focus on what GT5 does right, because the "mostly right" stuff does feel remarkably like my PC sims, and cars behave very similarly. And I don't have many alternatives. The PC sims have very few cars, perhaps 20 different models at the most, and in liveries for the most part I think are plain or ugly. I feel no sense of belonging to anything, and the whole point of PC sims is to give you a sense of being a pro racecar driver chasing position on a points board. But none of the cars are "mine," and the immersion and engagement for me are lacking. Replays seem particularly boring.

My one other5 hope, Forza 4, would be a fantastic game for me. It has cars and tracks GT5 doesn't, an incredible Livery Editor and modification system allowing me to create endless race cars, a great Storefront and Auction House, and things I can't remember right now. But sadly, I Just. Can't. Connect. With those cars. Taking turns and avoiding cars is a major chore for me, and I constantly roast the tires because I can't hear them until they roar, thanks to the ridiculously LOUD engine sounds. And of course, when they're squealing it's because you're on the verge of losing useful grip. But I will have to say that for the first few days I was coming to terms with F4, I could smell that burned rubber! It was simply amazing. Unfortunately, not for good reasons.

This leaves GT5, and it's far from a Kewpie prize. A game so good that it has me forzaking games with better physics. All you have to do is start a nice long race in Arcade Mode with weather and realistic time of day changes, a Nurburgring 24hr race if you're brave and have the time, and something magical happens that just doesn't with any other racer. Sure, I'd love for GT5 to be better, to have some of Forza 4 and Live For Speed genes grafted in. But... man, this is good enough to keep me racing for years. Until GT6.

 

[TonyLomas]

A simulator is just a device to help learning and training. How good or realistic it is isn't really relevant. Even if you don't like the physics, tyres and feedback to a wheel or controller, GT5 can be used to train you on the layout of a track. So that's enough to make it a simulator.

Everything else is about realism and as GT doesn't even pretend to have realistic tyres (They're just a difficultly level) you cannot possibly compare real lap times to in game lap times.

 

[CSLACR]

I'm glad you haven't been "killed even once" LOL. I'm glad you have beat the odds of no ticket or harming yourself or anyone else up to this point but if you continue to drive on the streets at torrid pace, it will catch up with you or "Johnny Law" will (physics is a funny critter in real life). Be careful out there...

Why do you keep talking about trying to drive on the street like you play GT5?
Is there a post I missed where somebody was saying they drove on the street just like they drive in GT5?
Or do you think if GT5 were a better simulator we should drive on the street like we would play this "better simulator"?

 

[TurboProp]

Why do you keep talking about trying to drive on the street like you play GT5?
Is there a post I missed where somebody was saying they drove on the street just like they drive in GT5?
Or do you think if GT5 were a better simulator we should drive on the street like we would play this "better simulator"?

peter_vod69
Rubbish! I've done trackdays in my cars and driven them very hard (to the point of getting black flagged on a track day for "drifting", in an EVO!) and I haven't been killed even once, I haven't had a speeding ticket since 2003, and apart from the flat tyre this morning my "ride" is fine!

This guy said this I didn't. They don't give out speeding tickets at the race track so I presume he was talking about the street....

Now, the game says "REAL DRIVING SIMULATOR ON THE FRONT COVER"...my point was, I don't DRIVE my real car like I play the game AND my real cars are not simulated to a degree of realism I would call it a simulator, they are not the same, one is real, the other virtual. Other than that I don't know WTH you are talking about.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

You seem to miss the meaning of "simulator".
Anything can be simulated. You can simulate a single element of a complex system, or you can simulate the final effect, or a particular sensation, like a g force simulation of a rocket launch for example. Simulator doesn't mean 100% realistic either. The large scale military and commercial flight simulators of the 70s and 80s were very simple and by modern standards not very complex or realistic, but they were certainly simulators. You can't die when you crash in a modern one either btw.

When you judge something claiming to be a simulator, judge how accurate a simulator in various aspects or overall it is, don't just say it isn't one, it makes no sense.

Exactly. All simulators come short to the real thing not matter how you spend on them.
You can spend $100,000 on a simulator and it still won't be like driving on a real track.
P.S As far as tire physics even some from Iracing admits it's very hard to simulate tire physics. It's also very hard for a ffb wheel to simulate the forces of a real steering wheel. So far ffb wheel haven't come close to the real thing.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

man I have tried r factor and i racing , they are all non sense compared to GT5 but im talking about online physics and with tyre wear and fuel load , sure the lap times are realistic but the physics feel like a piece of wood.

the physics before 2.0 were much better although 2.0 made no ABS better , still I would want to see the physics before 2.0 back. They should put the physics in 1.9 and under back and just work on the fuel load difference in performance.

In terms of cold tires , I would say GT5's is unrealistic , it just doesn't feel like it has cold tires.

Brakes should have temperature , most racing cars use carbon brakes and they don't work that well at the start until it reaches its performing temperature.

I see most people use 100% 100% brakes all the time and that's not realistic because in reality even carbon brakes would overheat or just go over its temperature which already reduces stopping power.

the physics before 2.0 was really nice around the racing tracks , I could feel the details of the track and the car like bumps of the track and tarmac types meaning differentiation in grip in the same track like nurburgring gp , physics before 2.0 was really the best.

Troll alert! You've obviously never raced or did a track day event before in a real car, ask any of the actual weekend racers on the website and they stand by iRacing in a million years before a GT or Forza game.

Gt physics are very much simcade and not true simulator form. If they weren't then F1 teams, ILMC teams, Super Gt and IRL as well as Nascar would all be using GT during the race season the help their drivers prepare...yet that isn't the case.

You need to spend more time on those games obviously and step away from GT for a while. My only issue with iRacing is price, but I think Rfactor 2 will change all that when released.

 

[bugsbunny]

Troll alert! You've obviously never raced or did a track day event before in a real car, ask any of the actual weekend racers on the website and they stand by iRacing in a million years before a GT or Forza game.


Gt physics are very much simcade and not true simulator form. If they weren't then F1 teams, ILMC teams, Super Gt and IRL as well as Nascar would all be using GT during the race season the help their drivers prepare...yet that isn't the case.

You need to spend more time on those games obviously and step away from GT for a while. My only issue with iRacing is price, but I think Rfactor 2 will change all that when released.

your american , you obviously don't know what the real meaning of troll is.

I have tried iracing specifically in suzuka circuit , the layout of the track is there but the bumps and the tarmac type or the in other terms realistic details are not there and physics wise , its trash I'm afraid. No question for me.

I have tried http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udoydg7vtx0 , that's a real Ferrari simulator in abu dhabi , the physics you can relate to the F10's physics online in GT5 with tire wear and fuel load. The driving position in ferrari world's f1 simulator is just like a real f1 car because the simulator's seat is actually real f1 seat model (carbon fiber tub) although with some base forces simulated , the driving perspective is totally and completely different.

I have tried http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCwH8fQWSFI&feature=related as well and also you could relate to GT5's race car online physics , I'm not sure anymore but the physics before 2.0 came was much better.

actual weekend racer? for sure in america iracing is "#1" I mean everyone from there just to describe a few exactly like you thinks they know everything anyway but nascar doesn't even use it and formula one has their own simulators way more simulated than anything america can give , you can't even compare any kind of detail of iracing to a real team simulator.

GT5 is a real simulator , the older GT's you can call arcade , Vettel or Coulthard themselves can answer you if they even bothered to.

 

[CSLACR]

peter_vod69
Rubbish! I've done trackdays in my cars and driven them very hard (to the point of getting black flagged on a track day for "drifting", in an EVO!) and I haven't been killed even once, I haven't had a speeding ticket since 2003, and apart from the flat tyre this morning my "ride" is fine!

This guy said this I didn't. They don't give out speeding tickets at the race track so I presume he was talking about the street....

Now, the game says "REAL DRIVING SIMULATOR ON THE FRONT COVER"...my point was, I don't DRIVE my real car like I play the game AND my real cars are not simulated to a degree of realism I would call it a simulator, they are not the same, one is real, the other virtual. Other than that I don't know WTH you are talking about.

Probably because you don't even realize he was responding to your off the wall comment:

GT5 is a VERY GOOD GAME I play almost everyday for a few minutes but it is not a simulator. I don't care if you have 3 screens, a wall of speakers, a racing seat and the best wheel on the market, it is not a simulator. You just have an accessorized driving game. You cannot simulate the g forces, bumps, sights and sounds and the joy and frustration of driving in real life. If you drive/race anything like you do in GT5 in real life, you will lose your license, destroy your ride and kill someone and yourself.

Ironic you forgot your own post that started your own conversation about something so irrelevant and not previously mentioned in this thread.

So now I'll ask: Why would you try driving on the street like you play GT5?
You brought it up, so you must think it's questionable in order to feel a need to say it's not a good idea.💡

 

[Imari]

I have tried iracing specifically in suzuka circuit , the layout of the track is there but the bumps and the tarmac type or the in other terms realistic details are not there and physics wise , its trash I'm afraid. No question for me.

I'm sorry, you're saying that the iRacing version of Suzuka is LESS accurate than the GT5 version? You're aware that iRacing makes a point of laser scanning all it's tracks?

If the iRacing and GT5 versions are different, it's the GT5 one that's inaccurate I'm afraid.