Can we actually call GT5 a simulator?

[mikeonthebike]

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

Yeah it came out bad and I apologize. You did attack me as well. I should have just said are you still using a controller and how does that give you a honest basis of whether GT5 is a simulator or not.

 

[mikeonthebike]

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.

Great post. Love the way you explained the pivoting on a needle I totally agree. I feel like that is how everything else feels. PD knows how to make the vehicle (bikes too TT) travel through the course and not the course travel through the vehicle.

 

[CSLACR]

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).

They do have different levels of grip for different cars. Absolutely.
They just don't have all the right cars with the "grip benefits" and they don't have the proper variance between some cars.

A Ferrari 458 very clearly has more grip then an '02 Z06, on the same tires, for example. Whether or not each car has the right amount is where PD screws the entire lineup of cars up.
This is a very significant factor in what cars are the fastest at equal specs in the game.

I think you've just shown us PD's tire model, honestly.

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).

I think you've just shown us PD's tire model, honestly.

 

[WedgeX]

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

Well I think the problem is that GT5 is claiming to be the 'real driving' simulator - but driving is typically done on roads and not race tracks .... this to me is uber stupid ... I had to do a driving test on a Police driving simulator a few years ago - and was marked by an instructor... Didn't see any race tracks in that one though. Drove in a suburb, a bit in the city and a snowy country road ... no race tracks though.

but seriously? is GT5 a simulator ... yea sure but only when it comes to controlling a car, in every other aspect its Not - but the physics and comparable to iRacing at least in the car handling ... if iRacing was a ten I'd give GT5 an 8/10 for physics ... there are only Laguna, Spa and Suzuka in both games - Laguna is terrible but the other 2 tracks are pretty close to iRacing - and if you drive in both games on those tracks with say the mustang (or perhaps an mx5) and tune it similar your going to find it very close in how your imputing throttle and steering to get the same results.

.....as far as driving phsyics yes it simulates that - but what makes something a simulation goes beyond that - simulation like flight sims for the military or civilian pilots aren't games, they're not made to be fun or indulge the user....

Richard Burns Rally is a perfect example of a simulation (it might be a bit out dated) but that's a simulation calling itself a game.... GT5 is a game calling itself a simulation. Where GT5 goes wrong is everything except the physics - like crashing, failing to teach or instill any necessity of safe driving on a race track and the like.

Everyone is arguing over tuning and down-force but for me what gt5 gets' more wrong than anything else is crash impacts.... the crash impacts are the most realistic in iRacing so far that I've seen... GT5 just doesn't really make any sense and the consequences of crashing, unsafe driving and stupidity are seriously not evident in GT5 ..... as a simulator they shouldn't really be putting invisible walls on the sides of tracks, restricting what tires you can use on certain cars, or toning down crash impacts and damage.....

 

[Exorcet]

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

PD takes new players into consideration with SRF and driving assists of various kinds. And there are a 1000 ways to make GT more realistic without making it more difficult.

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?

That sounds a lot like GT, in that every time I see someone play an in-store demo, they can't drive. This is even if they look old enough to have a license. We also get looks Q&A posts on this forum asking for driving help. Are you saying that just about anyone should be able to hop in to GT5 and get driving?

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.

Well, they fixed it first off. Secondly, what was wrong compared to GT? Was grip just a static number, or was GTR attempting to simulated something beyond the GT model, but simply failed at first?

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.

Are you saying that tire wear at the end of life was unrealistic? This just sounds like a simple solution to a situation that does not require in depth simulation (ie no need to model tires that are literally falling apart).

Also, LFS has a tire wear speed setting if I'm not mistaken. Maybe it was set too high.

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?

Completely irrelevant to simulation.

How real is something you make up from a conglomeration of data to create a car on paper in order to avoid expensive licensing?

As real as the physics are in game.

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?

I have no idea what this means. From a physics standpoint, there is nothing wrong with that. It is identical. This is one of those things I lump in with feel as being meaningless nonsense.

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?

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.

This has nothing to do with simulation/realism. You're basically just saying you like more features over more realism.

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.

You might not be looking hard enough. I guess something like this would depend on what people know and how experienced they are with cars. Aero flaws standout to me like a billboard, because aerodynamics is what I do.

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.

This makes it seem like you're putting apparent reality over actual reality, ie you want a game that makes you think you're a race driver, not necessarily a game that makes you a race driver. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

A Ferrari 458 very clearly has more grip then an '02 Z06

I'll have to go test that (though you happened to pick two cars I drive often, and I don't feel much difference between them in terms of grip). The one area where grip does seem to differ is under acceleration. Cornering not so much, minus the idea of grip multipliers.

 

[Strittan]

Well I think the problem is that GT5 is claiming to be the 'real driving' simulator - but driving is typically done on roads and not race tracks .... this to me is uber stupid

Are you not driving a car when you're on a race track? If PD called it the 'real racing' simulator it would appear it's based mainly around racing cars, which it isn't.

Why get annoyed by a slogan in the first place? It's just a slogan for crying out loud, and it's been there since the first game.

 

[Tenacious D]

.....as far as driving phsyics yes it simulates that - but what makes something a simulation goes beyond that - simulation like flight sims for the military or civilian pilots aren't games, they're not made to be fun or indulge the user....

Why you decided to throw that in there confuses me. So no racing game is a simulator?

I know that you iRacing fans are quite hardcore and devout about your game, but there are a few problems with it.

The cost of entry is exceptionally high, and buy everything in it with real money, and then you have to pay rent. Quite a bit of money, and frankly for those of us with lives and bills, that's just a bit too steep for what little you get.

The whole point of iRacing is to pretend to be a pro racecar driver in some sort of fantasy league, in which you work - and pay - your butt off in order to see your position move up a spot in a points board every race or so. Hopefully.

And while I would very much like to see more simulation in Gran Turismo - heck, in GT6 I'd love to see an entire sim racing Mode with gobs of leagues to race in for seasons, I think you're wrong in slamming GT5 blanketly. Collisions do indeed have consequences. Not mechanical damage, yet, but when I wreck, I lose position and time like crazy. So I spend quite a bit of attention to my racing line and my competitors so I don't wreck. And having spent a stint in the GTRs, I never really enjoyed pitting. It was an annoying interruption and a hassle to pit properly, and I'm quite content to hand off to GT5 for that.

But to say that there are no good races to be found in GT5, you've completely ignored an entire section to this site devoted to setting up races. Yes, they have to be scheduled, and yes, often you need to be on a friend's list. But how is that any different from any other game? I had quite a blast last saturday in a 30 lap tear around Spa with six other people here hosted by dhandes. It was clean, competitive, gentlemanly... and dominated by a mod with a BMW race car. But honestly, I didn't care that I ended up in the middle of the winner's list. The racing was a delight, a back pain aside.

Sure, as a sim goes, you can point out a lot of things GT5 leaves off. I'm going to hopefully have some voting points available at some time to chase down some of those simmy posts in the Feedback Board. Why don't you do that too, and make your wishes known, as it seems that PD is keeping close tabs on Jordan's feedback system.

 

[jtv90069]

Can we actually call GT5 a simulator?
maybe a better question would be,
Does GT5 adequately simulate driving a car on a track?
for me, yes, definitely.

 

[tinram]

Well I think the problem is that GT5 is claiming to be the 'real driving' simulator - but driving is typically done on roads and not race tracks .... this to me is uber stupid

If you are not driving the car on track, you'd be in the pits the whole race. Now that would be uber ....

 

[Raven_WET01]

Can we actually call GT5 a simulator?
maybe a better question would be,
Does GT5 adequately simulate driving a car on a track?
for me, yes, definitely.

No. Again, I'm questioning if that's the only criteria for being a sim, not if parts of it are realistic. It's generally agreed upon that stock cars are extremely realistic in this game.

 

[kilttraeger]

No. Again, I'm questioning if that's the only criteria for being a sim, not if parts of it are realistic. It's generally agreed upon that stock cars are extremely realistic in this game.

Hmmm.. no, you're not.

1st concern you raised was on the suspension tuning / setup.

The chassis/suspension aspect has had me tearing my hair out since day one. There is no way to tell your vehicle's actual ride height or drop, and there's no way the spring rates are accurate.

2nd concern:

The second issue is the power achieved from upgrades. You can somehow get 40hp from bolting a cone filter onto a stock naturally aspirated engine

Your own conclusion then is:

At this point, it's readily apparent that modifications are simply not accurate or well-simulated.

After a rather questionable comparison between real-life performance of an Ariel Atom and the virtual performance of an TVR on racing slicks, you then formulate the following question:

Realistically, does PD need to overhaul the upgrade system to ensure that this game can actually be called a simulator by all groups, or is a stock vehicle simulator good enough to earn the title of "The Real Driving Simulator?"

Disregarding the fact that this slogan is pure marketing, I would say it does a good job at simulating both stock and tuned car performance.
As for 'by all groups' - that's simply impossible. PD can not cater to everybody's taste. Can it be improved upon? Yes. As it did throughout the past months.

On a mere side note - a simulation can only approximate real life events, not replicate them. The smaller the margin between those two, the better.

Finally - looking at your signature, I am wondering if anybody could ever convince you that GT5 is a good simulator:

"Over five years development, released roughly a year ago, 14 updates, still not complete... "

 

[mikeonthebike]

Hmmm.. no, you're not.

1st concern you raised was on the suspension tuning / setup.


2nd concern:


Your own conclusion then is:


After a rather questionable comparison between real-life performance of an Ariel Atom and the virtual performance of an TVR on racing slicks, you then formulate the following question:



Disregarding the fact that this slogan is pure marketing, I would say it does a good job at simulating both stock and tuned car performance.
As for 'by all groups' - that's simply impossible. PD can not cater to everybody's taste. Can it be improved upon? Yes. As it did throughout the past months.

On a mere side note - a simulation can only approximate real life events, not replicate them. The smaller the margin between those two, the better.

Finally - looking at your signature, I am wondering if anybody could ever convince you that GT5 is a good simulator:

"Over five years development, released roughly a year ago, 14 updates, still not complete... "

Great post. And he has yet to answer if he's still using a controller or a wheel. I have seen posts in August or September referring to using a controller still. No four wheel motorsports sim/game will be a simulator without a wheel.

 

[Exorcet]

Great post. And he has yet to answer if he's still using a controller or a wheel. I have seen posts in August or September referring to using a controller still. Nothing will be a simulator without a wheel.

I could hook up a controller to my car, it wouldn't make driving it any less real.

 

[mikeonthebike]

I could hook up a controller to my car, it wouldn't make driving it any less real.

Maybe you could hook up a controller to your real car, wouldn't make driving it less real but it would make driving it accurately VERY hard, and I'm pretty sure there is no power steering pump/rack and pinion combo that would be even close to as fast as what gt5 does with a controller in the way it goes from neutral (strait) tires to full lock in a split second. or full lock to lock like you see the tires flopping with the ds3.

When using a controller in GT5 it's fun and all (I used one for about 5 months) but it is nothing compared to the feedback you get from a wheel. If you hit a large bump in a corner of the track (lets say the left hand turn after the corkscrew in laguna seca or all over nordschleife) with a controller you may know the car is sliding and lost traction in the front but you just can't feel it.

If you do the same thing with a wheel you will literally feel the bump and feel the lose of traction as the suspension reacts to bump and feel the lightness in the wheel as the tires leave the ground and feel the jerk in the wheel when they make contact with the tarmac again if you don't have the tires turned right.

Another example is in real driving and with driving in GT5 there is many points where you turn slightly right before left and left before right to preload the suspension and get your weight on the outside tires and that is something that is really near impossible to pull off clean and maintain traction with a controller.

 

[Exorcet]

I know exactly what playing GT5 with a wheel is like. The point is, whatever control method is used has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. No matter how you control the cars, the each car gets the same grip from each class of tire, drag from aero parts practically doesn't exist, and suspension tuning menu still doesn't make sense.

 

[mikeonthebike]

I'm done with this thread. it's not a discussion. it's 2 members that want to try to bash their views into anybody willing to bite.

 

[Exorcet]

Then are you truly convinced that using a steering wheel instead of a controller has any effect on inaccuracies that may exist in the tuning system and impacts whether or not tuning accuracy is important in determining if something is a simulator or not?

I'll just go ahead and say that those things are unrelated.

 

[peter_vod69]

Then are you truly convinced that using a steering wheel instead of a controller has any effect on inaccuracies that may exist in the tuning system and impacts whether or not tuning accuracy is important in determining if something is a simulator or not?

I'll just go ahead and say that those things are unrelated.

Do you own any of the cars in GT5?

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

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

Bingo. Evidence has shown the hardcore sims (like Game Stock Car) doesn't sell well to the masses which is why Richard Burn Rally was the last hardcore rally game while we had three Dirt releases since then. This is the reason Forza 4 World Tour was dumb down with hardly any improvements made to the AI(just more stupid/aggressive). This is why the "rewind" feature is so common in console titles while missing in PC sims.
Instead of the "rewind" feature in GT5 we have very grippe soft racing tires. While Gt5 and Forza 4 are simulators they are not trying to be hardcore ones.

 

[Spagetti69]

While Gt5 and Forza 4 are simulators they are not trying to be hardcore ones.

Fully agree with that statement.
To be honest they need to be accessible to the masses to justify the money spent on developing them.

If you want the latest car models top end visuals and such they want to see as much money coming back in.

Nothing wrong in that as long as options are in place to tailor your needs.

 

[peter_vod69]

I notice that Exorcet hasn't replied to my question, so I'll expand on my point. I own a car in GT5, and my previous car is in GT5 too (Evo 7 and previously, Supra SZ-R). Both of these vehicles feel "right", they accurately convey the vehicle behaviour and characteristics when driven hard on a track, and that is where GT5 shines. If they can get those two right, it suggests to me that the modelling of vehicle dynamics in general should be on the money. Grip levels of a generic tyre set, well that's one thing, but I guess the solution is to choose the tyre which most closely tallies with what is on the car (which in my case would be comfort soft/comfort medium at the moment). Kazunori himself has said that he checks cars every so often against their real world counterparts to make sure they feel right, and he's competed several times at the Nurb 24hr, so forgive me, but I'd trust him over a couple of forum malcontents.

 

[Raven_WET01]

Hmmm.. no, you're not.

I'm not questioning if being a stock car sim is enough for it to be called a simulator?

Realistically, does PD need to overhaul the upgrade system to ensure that this game can actually be called a simulator by all groups, or is a stock vehicle simulator good enough to earn the title of "The Real Driving Simulator?"

Next.

Disregarding the fact that this slogan is pure marketing,

...except for the fact that it's classified as a simulation-style, not an arcade-style racing game...

...I would say it does a good job at simulating both stock and tuned car performance.

Even after all of the information presented on tire grip abilities alone? I didn't even think it was that far off before making this thread, but I guess I learned from the facts provided.

As for 'by all groups' - that's simply impossible. PD can not cater to everybody's taste. Can it be improved upon? Yes. As it did throughout the past months.

I can't help but feel this is a deliberate misinterpretation. Nobody expects everyone single person to have every feature they want in the game. 'All groups' is referring to the people who favor simulation of stock cars and the people who also favor simulation of modified cars. I'm clearly asking if a stock car simulator is enough to be categorized as a simulator when the majority of racing isn't done with stock vehicles.

On a mere side note - a simulation can only approximate real life events, not replicate them. The smaller the margin between those two, the better.

I agree with that completely. In this instance, you can't have an exact replica of what happens in a race car while sitting on the couch with a wheel on your lap, nor can you account for every variable, specific conditions, etc.

Finally - looking at your signature, I am wondering if anybody could ever convince you that GT5 is a good simulator:

"Over five years development, released roughly a year ago, 14 updates, still not complete... "

There are countless threads discussing things that need to be fixed/implemented. That was meant to be lighthearted, but I know what I'm dealing with here. I'll clarify:
As a game there is little reason to believe it is a finished product. PD continuing with updates and bug fixes a year after release is solid evidence of that. To repeat again, I am convinced this is a near-perfect stock car simulator.

No four wheel motorsports sim/game will be a simulator without a wheel.

I've driven on several simulators over the years with different wheels, in full cockpits, with different controllers, and used a few different configurations on the DS3. As mentioned, not relevant to physics. Do I own a wheel? No, because this college student can't justify the cost at this point in his life.

 

[kimi123]

I know exactly what playing GT5 with a wheel is like. The point is, whatever control method is used has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. No matter how you control the cars, the each car gets the same grip from each class of tire, drag from aero parts practically doesn't exist, and suspension tuning menu still doesn't make sense.

Contorller is a big factor in sims. One guy was mocking Forza4 by playing with arcade sticks and posted in youtube. Why do you think F1 teams, manufacture develop very expensive simulators for?




Also I am not sure what is wrong with GT5 tires. I think they need to have more advanced setups though it is not necessary because there is nothing known as perfect setup and will make a huge disparity in community with some players. Although adding something like Shift2, Forza real time tire telemetry will be cool





But none of those game feel sim they are more like sim + arcade meant to be played with a controller which constitute 98% of users for those games.

 

[jtv90069]

No. Again, I'm questioning if that's the only criteria for being a sim, not if parts of it are realistic. It's generally agreed upon that stock cars are extremely realistic in this game.

yes i believe so. the generic tyres and modifications are necessary, to accurately model the hundreds of real world tyres and mods for each car would be massively time consuming and expensive. so using a simplified generic approach (which it has done since the first) is fine.

If you take one of Red Bull Racing's Simulators and add generic modifications and some unrealistic aids (SRF) does this stop it from being a simulator?

 

[Raven_WET01]

yes i believe so. the generic tyres and modifications are necessary, to accurately model the hundreds of real world tyres and mods for each car would be massively time consuming and expensive. so using a simplified generic approach (which it has done since the first) is fine.

If you take one of Red Bull Racing's Simulators and add generic modifications and some unrealistic aids (SRF) does this stop it from being a simulator?

This is what I'm looking for.
To answer your question, if it's emulating something that's unrealistic, in my opinion it's not simulating. I'm sure there's a better way of formatting that sentence, but can't think of it lol

 

[jtv90069]

This is what I'm looking for.
To answer your question, if it's emulating something that's unrealistic, in my opinion it's not simulating. I'm sure there's a better way of formatting that sentence, but can't think of it lol

If you remove the skid recovery force and active steering aids then everything else is based on real life.
While the mods are generalized they are still based on real world modification levels, some cars may not be able to achieve the same level of power that can be attained in the game and others are the opposite.
I've read that the Racing Soft tyres have way to much grip, but i do not know, they could be based on the old (late 80's early 90's) qualifying style F1 tyres that really did seem to have a large gap between them and the race tyres they used (i know they used qualifying engines as well).
GT5 is not completely accurate, yet i believe it still deserves to be called a simulator that has accessibility options for those at an entry or casual level, after all it is a console game.

 

[Tenacious D]

I meant to respond to this, but life won't give me endless free time, for whatever reason.

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.

So how do you explain how people argue endlessly over which sim is more accurate, when all claim theirs is, but clearly no two sims are quite the same? I think this is an indication that I'm right. Otherwise, most people would migrate to the game which is most accurate,

there is something (Forza 4 is) 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?

That sounds a lot like GT, in that every time I see someone play an in-store demo, they can't drive. This is even if they look old enough to have a license. We also get looks Q&A posts on this forum asking for driving help. Are you saying that just about anyone should be able to hop in to GT5 and get driving?

Not quite the same thing at all. Many gamers have a period of adjustment when they buy a new game, where they get used to the rules of what the game universe demands and improve. Yes, many newbs will flounder around with any game they try at a store, whether it's a racer or a shooter or whatever.

This is entirely different with a game people are familiar with, such as a racing sim. I couldn't drive each new GT game after GT2 the same way I did in the previous one. I had to adjust to the improvements. But I could drive and race competently. But every one of my friends had a pretty long schooling period with each Forza I got, whether they were fans primarily of GT or some sim, and F4 seems to be the longest. They're impressed but not sold, and struggled about like I still do. For whatever reason, physics, 3D, probably every single factor, Forza is very different for us, and they aren't sold on it as better overall than any game.

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.

Well, they fixed it first off. Secondly, what was wrong compared to GT? Was grip just a static number, or was GTR attempting to simulated something beyond the GT model, but simply failed at first?

The point is that they were so proud of aspects which no one knew were wrong until it was tested by fans. You know, the kind of people you usually scoff at when they get on a board and make a bold statement like "SImbin messed up the tire model." I'd think "so what?" too, but I'd read what they had to say, then responses, and if everyone would agree with them, I'd laugh at all the experts who missed something which I'd think was obvious.

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.

Are you saying that tire wear at the end of life was unrealistic? This just sounds like a simple solution to a situation that does not require in depth simulation (ie no need to model tires that are literally falling apart).

Also, LFS has a tire wear speed setting if I'm not mistaken. Maybe it was set too high.

No, it at least was a problem with the tire model which caused quite a board riot for some time at the LFS boards. A bunch of people were hollering for the team - three guys, mind you - to go back to the previous model which overall was better, or so they said. Because "useful life" means racing life. You can milk tires only so far before your competitors begin passing you up, and a change should happen before that. With that model of theirs, at some point you'd abruptly find yourself with no tires at all.

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?

I have no idea what this means. From a physics standpoint, there is nothing wrong with that. It is identical. This is one of those things I lump in with feel as being meaningless nonsense.

You HAVE to know what this means. This is the method used for arcade racers for years, pivoting a car around on a central point rather than using the four point contact of the wheels on the road (with cars) to determine turning friction dynamics.

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.

This makes it seem like you're putting apparent reality over actual reality, ie you want a game that makes you think you're a race driver, not necessarily a game that makes you a race driver. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

You're missing the point. In the original GTR tire model, I had no way to judge if the model was right or wrong. Only those with a racing/technical background competent enough to pour through all the data could. The number of people who could do that here are very few. Perhaps you are. But frankly I don't care. The way the cars drove after the patch were a little different, but not glaringly so. No one as far as I know had to adjust their racing technique to accommodate it.

In Gran Turismo, the point is being able to collect cars. To tinker with them and enjoy them. Surprisingly, the accuracy of the physics model is very high this time. It's so high that it resembles the FEEL of PC sims. People with the same cars in real life as in the game report that their GT cars behave very similar to the way their cars do on the road or track. I'll make this statement again:

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?

Could GT5 be better? Sure, but so can every other racer, even iRacing. I'd like some of the aspects of Forza 4 spliced in to every racer too, even though overall I have problems with it.

People can say that one thing or another is completely wrong, but when we can take a car and have a similar experience on a course as a real driver in a real car with very similar lap times, I consider this simulation good enough. If you can judge whether or not GT5 is a simulator, then so can I, so can the rest of us. The consensus is that it is, and pretty closely to real world performance.

 

[avens]

I know exactly what playing GT5 with a wheel is like. The point is, whatever control method is used has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. No matter how you control the cars, the each car gets the same grip from each class of tire, drag from aero parts practically doesn't exist, and suspension tuning menu still doesn't make sense.

there are hidden assists when using the DS3 controller.
This has been documented thoroughly, and it does make a big difference (less than in the forza series but still).

also, if you want to experience how the game should be played, turn abs off. It has some hidden assists as well.

When you do these 2 things, which are getting a decent wheel and turning abs off (since it affects both braking and handling for some reason), come back again.
It's not the same game at all, but I agree that it isn't in the same level as simbin games or rfactor (haven't tried iracing, which btw is the only true commercially available racing simulator)

 

[Exorcet]

I don't have time right now to reply to everything, so

So how do you explain how people argue endlessly over which sim is more accurate, when all claim theirs is, but clearly no two sims are quite the same? I think this is an indication that I'm right. Otherwise, most people would migrate to the game which is most accurate,

Some people are mistaken when it comes to what's real and what's not. Also, a sim that is more realistic overall can be less realistic in certain areas. And of course, bias like I said before. You might not be biased, but I'm sure you can find people on this forum who are.

Not quite the same thing at all. Many gamers have a period of adjustment when they buy a new game, where they get used to the rules of what the game universe demands and improve. Yes, many newbs will flounder around with any game they try at a store, whether it's a racer or a shooter or whatever.

It goes beyond adjusting. I could probably find a few examples in the Q&A forum, maybe later. I know a few of my PSN friends couldn't/can't do all that well without arcade physics/SRF, even after playing for a long while.

The point is that they were so proud of aspects which no one knew were wrong until it was tested by fans. You know, the kind of people you usually scoff at when they get on a board and make a bold statement like "SImbin messed up the tire model." I'd think "so what?" too, but I'd read what they had to say, then responses, and if everyone would agree with them, I'd laugh at all the experts who missed something which I'd think was obvious.

*I moved the below quote up here*

You're missing the point. In the original GTR tire model, I had no way to judge if the model was right or wrong. Only those with a racing/technical background competent enough to pour through all the data could. The number of people who could do that here are very few. Perhaps you are. But frankly I don't care. The way the cars drove after the patch were a little different, but not glaringly so. No one as far as I know had to adjust their racing technique to accommodate it.

I don't scoff at people for critiquing a game, I do call them out when I think they're wrong or being unfair though.

If the difference between the two models wasn't big, and it was a subtle thing, then maybe it's not that surprising that it went undetected. Without trying both it's hard to see what really happened.

No, it at least was a problem with the tire model which caused quite a board riot for some time at the LFS boards. A bunch of people were hollering for the team - three guys, mind you - to go back to the previous model which overall was better, or so they said. Because "useful life" means racing life. You can milk tires only so far before your competitors begin passing you up, and a change should happen before that. With that model of theirs, at some point you'd abruptly find yourself with no tires at all.

That does sound a bit strange.

You HAVE to know what this means. This is the method used for arcade racers for years, pivoting a car around on a central point rather than using the four point contact of the wheels on the road (with cars) to determine turning friction dynamics.

This is my fault. I meant the "Earth moving under the car", not the pin pivot. It's the same as the car moving on a still Earth from a physics point of view.

In Gran Turismo, the point is being able to collect cars. To tinker with them and enjoy them. Surprisingly, the accuracy of the physics model is very high this time. It's so high that it resembles the FEEL of PC sims. People with the same cars in real life as in the game report that their GT cars behave very similar to the way their cars do on the road or track. I'll make this statement again:

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?

Could GT5 be better? Sure, but so can every other racer, even iRacing. I'd like some of the aspects of Forza 4 spliced in to every racer too, even though overall I have problems with it.

People can say that one thing or another is completely wrong, but when we can take a car and have a similar experience on a course as a real driver in a real car with very similar lap times, I consider this simulation good enough. If you can judge whether or not GT5 is a simulator, then so can I, so can the rest of us. The consensus is that it is, and pretty closely to real world performance.

Just to remind everyone, I do really enjoy GT, and my answer to this thread was yes it's a sim. I think the point of GT is up to the player to decide. As for what's a sim and what's not, having flaws is not the issue - that is expected. The question is, how big are those flaws? GT seems to have a lot of inaccuracies that serve no purpose, like the aero model.

there are hidden assists when using the DS3 controller.
This has been documented thoroughly, and it does make a big difference (less than in the forza series but still).

also, if you want to experience how the game should be played, turn abs off. It has some hidden assists as well.

When you do these 2 things, which are getting a decent wheel and turning abs off (since it affects both braking and handling for some reason), come back again.
It's not the same game at all, but I agree that it isn't in the same level as simbin games or rfactor (haven't tried iracing, which btw is the only true commercially available racing simulator)

The way the game should be played is up to the player. I know about the controller assists. I've played with wheel minus ABS. Really though, it doesn't matter much how you play, as long as you avoid physics changing SRF and maybe ASM. You can still get strange suspension reactions with ABS and TCS turned up, among other things.

 

[avens]

The way the game should be played is up to the player. I know about the controller assists. I've played with wheel minus ABS. Really though, it doesn't matter much how you play, as long as you avoid physics changing SRF and maybe ASM. You can still get strange suspension reactions with ABS and TCS turned up, among other things.

in your previous posts you said the opposite.
A wheel does make a difference because of DS3's hidden assists, just like ABS does. I know it shouldn't be made like that but whatever.
This is why I wrote that is the way the game should be played if you are testing if it is a simulator, otherwise you'll be playing the arcade version of it. The same happens in the forza series, but to a further extent.

Also I just read your first post and you used RS tyres. The "real life street car tyre model" is comfort:mediums.
Moreover, when testing cars IRL it isn't allowed to use slick tyres; at most semi-slicks like michelin pilot sports cup, and the actual car will be shipped with way worse tyres than those.
What I mean with this is that if you want to test a car in GT5, you should use the stock tyres, or even better if you downgrade a bit (sports:hard to comfort:soft) like in GT5's offline competitions, or just comfort:mediums.

ofc those 2 things won't change the game's flaws, which are more like not taking into account several real life factors, but still. Since you haven't done both you haven't tried the game yet.


and finally, gt5 is a game after all. Console games don't focus on realism nor in competition so they sell better, as it was already explained in this thread.
GT5's formula is to have hidden assists and grippier tyres, which isn't the best of ideas and should be improved in GT6. Forza3 and 4 turn into whole different games when using a wheel and removing every assist besides abs.
Some PC racing games aren't videogames but simulators really. Ofc they won't reach the level of detail of a racing team's simulator, which cost dozens of millions of dollars, but they do focus on the "hardcore guys" instead of having fun, providing a decent experience if you spend some cash in accessories (wheel, stand, buttkicker, etc). This is why they are used by professional race drivers, and also the reason they don't sell well which makes them expensive.