Sceptic^
Oh and I'm sorry, as close to "gaming perfection" as you can getin the time space allowed is....maybe more defining than my last post.
PD had dealt with a lot of uneaded issues that where rather lrage time wasters yes. For example: Online Play.
Everyone wanted this so much, so they really pushed to make it happen. However if its not possible then its not possible period.
PD needs to just forget it, and keep moving to make up for time lost, and to alos forget all the nagging and bitching everyone doing over it. Those nagges need to get over it to. You can only do your best and aim for perfection yes, but knowing your going to miss you go as close as you can. Like what PD had to do by cutting there losses with missed features in GT4. Simple as that.
WOULDN'T YOU AGREE.
There's more wrong with GT4 than a lack of "unneeded" features like online play. As you said, no game is perfect, but GT4 is unacceptably far off the mark, especially with the delays before its release.
Aside from Photomode, B-spec (both features many would consider less important than online play), and a boatload of cars and tracks, there's little GT4 did to improve upon the series. As I said before, the graphics are a baby step forward (admittedly they're probably given too much processing time anyhow), the engine sounds are just as bad as they were in GT3 (
and still have yet to improve), and there are enough half-developed ideas strewn about to make you wonder if PD employees all have ADHD.
Worse yet for a game that calls itself "the real driving simulator," not only are the physics no better than GT3, they're actually worse in some respects. And contrary to popular belief, GT3 wasn't particularly realistic.
I suppose the physics don't really matter though, because the console consumer market has already proven that it doesn't want a
real simulator by shooting down Enthusia. Both GT5 and Forza 2 could handle like 10-year-old budget racing titles and they'd sell millions all the same. And everyone would be gushing about how they're so realistic "because they're so hard to play."
Forza 2 physics engine is based around steering compensation. The X360 wheel only has about 250deegrees lock-to-lock? And road cars usually have about 720deegrees, so something in the code is compensating...
Sorry to burst your bubble, but no one bases a physics engine around steering compensation, no matter how dumb you think Turn10 is. Steering compensation is just a bit of programming that acts as a mediator between the player's control input and the game. It has nothing to do with the physics, because it provides the steering angle value that is
sent to the physics engine.
Also, 720 degrees is quite short for a road car. I would know -- I drive a car that does 1440. The average is right around the Driving Force Pro and G25's 900 degrees, but there are other cars that have more.
If you play Forza 2, you are basically driving road cars with less steering lock then even F1 cars! So the road cars are a lot more nervous then they should be. You will never learn true driving like this.
So much for the Forza 2 team's bull**** talk about total realism...
How is Turn10 responsible for the fact that there aren't any DFP/G25-caliber wheels for the 360?
Also, unless you've played the game yourself, I'm sure the cars in Forza 2 aren't nervous. That's what the steering compensation is for -- to provide some center reduction (less sensitivity near center and more sensitivity on the left/right extremes) to make things more controllable. Besides, if you play with a controller (like me) the whole steering lock-to-lock point is moot, and you still get to play with the same exact physics engine.