FM Vs GT - Discussion Thread (read the first post before you post)

[Luminis]

Nah. The problem is not "segregation" per se. There will always be cars that receive more attention than others, special partnership cars, cover cars, you name it. The problem is when this segregation has an impact on the basic gameplay of the game (lack of cockpit view, less tuning options).

[...]

And in the case of GT5, this problem is aggravated by the fact that the standards are basically GT4 direct ports.

The standard/premium thing wasn't even whaat I was on about... It's part of the whole matter, sure. The problem I have with the additional eye candy is that it takes up a lot of resources - the modelling, the improved lighting, additional locations, you get the idea. I just have the feeling that there's a lot of time and effort "wasted" in racing games for stuff that doesn't affect racing in the slightest. This, of course, is something that's all over the place in GT5, with museum cards, horns and the whole Pokemon-esque sub theme, but still.

I feel like developers are losing a bit of their focus with stuff like that. It's cool to have AutoVista, and I actually believe T10 when they claim that that helped drastically in improving the game's lighting engine. But stuff like that definitely isn't what I'll be buying the game for, and I can't help it - I will start to think "Well, what could they have down if they didn't bother with AutoVista?" Especially if I encounter things in the game that should've been sorted out, but aren't.

Funny that. Here we are saying how Forza 4 should be a step ahead (which looks promising) releasing less than a year after GT5, and yet GT5 is compared to Forza 3 fairly evenly, even though GT5 came out a year later, hmmmm.

You'D better get used to it

 

[HBK]

About this whole... 'Multi' physics thing of GT5. I believe I have covered this before in another thread.

Now, I believe that Gumpert locked the driver's seat of the Apollo in one place, so that no one could spoil the weight distribution of the car by altering the seating position and therefore the longitudinal position of the rather hefty lump of meat piloting it. I like that. It's a like it or lump it situation. I mean sure, you can alter the pedals and steering wheel position... Sort of like turning the aids on or off in Forza. But you can never alter the makeup of the car to change the basic seating position itself. It is the same for everyone, a constant reality. This is Forza. It's physics engine may not be entirely accurate, but it is alive and reactive, you can see a readout of what is going on, see the tires flex, monitor heat and wear... Softer compounds heat up more quickly but are prone to overheating and accelerated wear, you can watch suspension deflection occur and cambers change... You create your own situations on the fly, via action and reaction in the game world. For the most part the engine handles it well, rollovers, collisions, suspension bottoming out, it's all handled properly (whether it's realistic or not is a different matter).

Then take GT5, where you are left to figure it out for yourself, but with everything helpfully labelled. GT5 has no set physics model, nothing works actively beneath the surface. You chose a basic set of parameters that feel right for you, then the game hashes it into a make believe realm, where everything is very odd and statistically explainable. Like every rank of tire incrementally increasing lateral grip by 0.6g, or a Mini Cooper having the same grip rating as a Corvette ZR1 on the same tires. It might 'feel' right, but that is because you have set it yourself. It is an illusion, nothing more, nothing happens to the car in real time. It is stagnant. Nothing is truely monitored or active, no tire wear means no real monitoring of friction on the road and therefore a guesstimate of what should happen at best. When anything happens out of the ordinary we see the pre programmed script no longer fit the action. This is why the cars roll over like they are in treacle, wobble when they spin, like an unbalanced top. It is also why fitting a carbon prop shaft or lighter clutch makes no discernable difference to the overall weight of the car. Because it does not matter to the game.

I guess that this works for some people. The subconscious is easily pleased and comforted by seeing and feeling what it expects, and the conscious is easily fooled by what the subconscious has quietly set up. What I am driving at is I believe that GT5 in physics is a master stroke of mental subversion, an armchair that swallows you whole and fits to your shape. You should never speak of realism regarding any game, however anyone that thinks GT5 is anyway more complicated or realistic than Forza is clearly having a laugh.

Stop reading my mind. Now.

Funny that. Here we are saying how Forza 4 should be a step ahead (which looks promising) releasing less than a year after GT5, and yet GT5 is compared to Forza 3 fairly evenly, even though GT5 came out a year later, hmmmm.

Well, Forza 4 isn't out yet, and GT5 was supposed to be released *before* Forza 3

The standard/premium thing wasn't even whaat I was on about... It's part of the whole matter, sure. The problem I have with the additional eye candy is that it takes up a lot of resources - the modelling, the improved lighting, additional locations, you get the idea. I just have the feeling that there's a lot of time and effort "wasted" in racing games for stuff that doesn't affect racing in the slightest. This, of course, is something that's all over the place in GT5, with museum cards, horns and the whole Pokemon-esque sub theme, but still.

I feel like developers are losing a bit of their focus with stuff like that. It's cool to have AutoVista, and I actually believe T10 when they claim that that helped drastically in improving the game's lighting engine. But stuff like that definitely isn't what I'll be buying the game for, and I can't help it - I will start to think "Well, what could they have down if they didn't bother with AutoVista?" Especially if I encounter things in the game that should've been sorted out, but aren't.

Yeah, I understand what you mean. I's just ... How should I put it ...

Eye candy is nice. It's optional, but it's nice.

And just like "Dan" said in multiple presentations, those games are huge. Everyone think what they like should be the focus of the developer. Ask those virtual photo artists if they'd like more focus on racing than on car porn ...

And it's not just a matter of having a large audience. I mean, sure it is, but this is because car porn or not, those games still cost millions to develop. And if you want to expand these games, you have to sell a lot of them.

I understand the concern about "catering down", "wasted details", and so forth. Heck, I even share them myself. You just can't say "focus on what matters most", because actually, most of what constitutes these games are "what matters most". Even photomode showrooms.

 

[amar212]

About this whole... 'Multi' physics thing of GT5. I believe I have covered this before in another thread.

Personally, the feel of physics feels completely opposite to me.

Worth noticing is that I play both series only on the wheels and to be honest the actual feel of the physics is really on the GT side.

On the other side, I fully agree with many of points you've raised, good and thoughtful post there regarding how some processes in GT5 should be made more visible to the endplayers 👍

 

[Scaff]

About this whole... 'Multi' physics thing of GT5. I believe I have covered this before in another thread.

Now, I believe that Gumpert locked the driver's seat of the Apollo in one place, so that no one could spoil the weight distribution of the car by altering the seating position and therefore the longitudinal position of the rather hefty lump of meat piloting it. I like that. It's a like it or lump it situation. I mean sure, you can alter the pedals and steering wheel position... Sort of like turning the aids on or off in Forza. But you can never alter the makeup of the car to change the basic seating position itself. It is the same for everyone, a constant reality. This is Forza. It's physics engine may not be entirely accurate, but it is alive and reactive, you can see a readout of what is going on, see the tires flex, monitor heat and wear... Softer compounds heat up more quickly but are prone to overheating and accelerated wear, you can watch suspension deflection occur and cambers change... You create your own situations on the fly, via action and reaction in the game world. For the most part the engine handles it well, rollovers, collisions, suspension bottoming out, it's all handled properly (whether it's realistic or not is a different matter).

Then take GT5, where you are left to figure it out for yourself, but with everything helpfully labelled. GT5 has no set physics model, nothing works actively beneath the surface. You chose a basic set of parameters that feel right for you, then the game hashes it into a make believe realm, where everything is very odd and statistically explainable. Like every rank of tire incrementally increasing lateral grip by 0.6g, or a Mini Cooper having the same grip rating as a Corvette ZR1 on the same tires. It might 'feel' right, but that is because you have set it yourself. It is an illusion, nothing more, nothing happens to the car in real time. It is stagnant. Nothing is truely monitored or active, no tire wear means no real monitoring of friction on the road and therefore a guesstimate of what should happen at best. When anything happens out of the ordinary we see the pre programmed script no longer fit the action. This is why the cars roll over like they are in treacle, wobble when they spin, like an unbalanced top. It is also why fitting a carbon prop shaft or lighter clutch makes no discernable difference to the overall weight of the car. Because it does not matter to the game.

I guess that this works for some people. The subconscious is easily pleased and comforted by seeing and feeling what it expects, and the conscious is easily fooled by what the subconscious has quietly set up. What I am driving at is I believe that GT5 in physics is a master stroke of mental subversion, an armchair that swallows you whole and fits to your shape. You should never speak of realism regarding any game, however anyone that thinks GT5 is anyway more complicated or realistic than Forza is clearly having a laugh. I own both consoles, have both games, most versions of both actually and I've never gotten on with the driving portion of GT. It feels stone dead to me.

Now correct me if I'm wrong here but you seem to be saying that because FM gives you a real time set of telemetry then its got a better physics engine, that it works in real time and that GT just 'fakes' it?

That seems to be a rather big leap on both counts.

Let me take just one example....

"Nothing is truely monitored or active, no tire wear means no real monitoring of friction on the road and therefore a guesstimate of what should happen at best."

...and ask a few questions (as these come very close to factual statements).

• How do you know nothing is truely monitored or active?
• How you manage to link no tire wear to no monitoring of friction on the road? One does not automatically equal the other.
• How do either of the above prove that its a guesstimate at best?

Simply because you see a 'real time' read out doesn't automatically mean that the numbers are being calculated accurately in the back ground, nor does an absence of a 'real time' read out suddenly mean the physics are faked.

Keep in mind that I am not claiming one is better than the other here, but what I am saying is that you seem to be passing a lot of as proven that is simply speculation and conjecture.


Scaff

 

[H3avyM3tal]

I feel like developers are losing a bit of their focus with stuff like that. It's cool to have AutoVista, and I actually believe T10 when they claim that that helped drastically in improving the game's lighting engine. But stuff like that definitely isn't what I'll be buying the game for, and I can't help it - I will start to think "Well, what could they have down if they didn't bother with AutoVista?" Especially if I encounter things in the game that should've been sorted out, but aren't.

You should understand that a racing game is just that. Gone are the days where all you did was just pick a car and drive around. Like every other genre, developers look for ways to make the whole experience more emersive (how the hell do you spell this word?!) for the player. I don't think you could've been truly happy with Forza or GT if all you ever did was pick a car from a list, pick a course and drive.

Sure those classic games are great, but I think you can appreciate all the extra features that comes with racing games today.

And just like with my other post, this is my humble opinion.

 

[GumShoe]

Now correct me if I'm wrong here but you seem to be saying that because FM gives you a real time set of telemetry then its got a better physics engine, that it works in real time and that GT just 'fakes' it?

That seems to be a rather big leap on both counts.

Let me take just one example....

"Nothing is truely monitored or active, no tire wear means no real monitoring of friction on the road and therefore a guesstimate of what should happen at best."

...and ask a few questions (as these come very close to factual statements).

• How do you know nothing is truely monitored or active?
• How you manage to link no tire wear to no monitoring of friction on the road? One does not automatically equal the other.
• How do either of the above prove that its a guesstimate at best?

Simply because you see a 'real time' read out doesn't automatically mean that the numbers are being calculated accurately in the back ground, nor does an absence of a 'real time' read out suddenly mean the physics are faked.

Keep in mind that I am not claiming one is better than the other here, but what I am saying is that you seem to be passing a lot of as proven that is simply speculation and conjecture.


Scaff

Doesn't this "Like every rank of tire incrementally increasing lateral grip by 0.6g, or a Mini Cooper having the same grip rating as a Corvette ZR1 on the same tires" Source
say something is inherently wrong? That tyres are a strict set of parameters split into nine 'grip' levels?

 

[HBK]

That seems to be a rather big leap on both counts.

Actually, yes, that is purely speculation, because we will never know unless we look at the actual code.

But after so many years, I have come to the conclusion that GT (up until now, v5 included) uses a very simplistic model (in terms of algorithm complexity), whether Forza (only played 2 and 3) uses a much more advanced model (again, in terms of algorithm complexity).

Ok, here is a little lesson about that field we call "computer simulation".

Everything is algorithms. In a sense, everything is just math. The basic purpose of any computer simulation is just the same as any mathematical function: given a set of inputs (what you state), you obtain a set of outputs (what you simulate).

Now, when speaking of "physics engines" we speak of simulations that aim to simulate a set of "real world" physical rules. Such simulations can be iterative (some of the outputs are the inputs of the next iteration). This is the case of video gaming simulation.

When developing such engines, there are no "set in stone" way of doing things. You just have to do with what you have, which is 1/ what you know of the real world and its rules, 2/ what processing power is available. Point 2 is obviously much more important when speaking of real time simulation.

Those points are important because this is why a simulation will never be perfect. Ever. Even if we would have the processing power to simulate every atom of the car, the road, the air, whatever, we would still not have a perfect simulation, as even our most advanced knowledge in quantum mechanics is most likely flawed (such is the way of science, we will NEVER know the "truth", but I digress).

Then, you have to decide of an implementation of your physics engine. As I said, even a somewhat complex problem such as simulating the behavior of a car can be summarized as a mathematical function that produces a set of outputs (position and orientation of the car, relative position and rotation of wheels, and whatever you may want to reproduce "physically"), given a set of inputs (driving wheel, accelerator, and brake status, at the very least, and of course the previous sate of the car).

At this stage, we have to keep in mind that we can not compute everything, not even every component of the car (pistons, brake fluid, you name it). So, to compute simulation results so that they seem realistic, you have to decide at what point you will have to resort to mathematical approximations.

I'll explain.

Two of the possible ways of doing things are:
1/ "I will build a huge mathematical function that matches as closely as possible the known real life values representing the behavior of the car".
2/ "I will apply what I know of physical rules (friction, solid state physics, etc.) to determine how basic components will interact with each other in this virtual car I'm kinda building, and then I will build small mathematical functions that matches as closely as possible the known real life values representing the behavior of the components".

As you can see, it is in the end a matter of determining at which level of detail you will stop applying "physical rules" and start using "mathematical approximations". Because you *will* have to use them.

This being explained, I will state that I firmly believe Gran Turismo 5 use a simplistic physics engine with general behavior approximations, and Forza 3 use a more complex physics engine with smaller components approximation.

But there is one thing one shall never forget in all this: There is no "best" way of doing things. Because realism is a lie. Realism is the realm of the mind. All there is is accuracy. And accuracy is only measured as precisely as the density of real life values we do have. Not to mention accuracy itself can be measured in a number of ways.

So yes, any global mathematical function built so that it reproduces exactly known real life values will do just that, reproduce known real life values, and therefore will be very "accurate" going by the data we possess. Yet it's all the "in-between" that's important. Because fitting some real-life values does not mean the function will be "accurate" in all situations. At all.

Of course, using a more advanced algorithm which does not manage to reproduce known real life values will at least not be very "accurate" on those values. And of course it does not mean it will be globally more "accurate" either. Yet, it can still be more "accurate" globally. Because if we don't have corresponding real life values, we just don't know.

But then again, this lesson excluded, whatever is done under the hood of GT and Forza is still pure speculation.

I just thought I would share this with you guys. And in before some trivial questions, yes, I do work in the field of scientific simulation (the actual subject is boring stuff I won't talk about).

Note: I shall add that we cannot know what the physics engine really computes unless the graphics engine is true 1:1 to this physics engine. And there is no way of knowing if this is the case in either GT or Forza.

 

[Hotspitta]

Then take GT5, where you are left to figure it out for yourself, but with everything helpfully labelled. GT5 has no set physics model, nothing works actively beneath the surface. You chose a basic set of parameters that feel right for you, then the game hashes it into a make believe realm, where everything is very odd and statistically explainable. Like every rank of tire incrementally increasing lateral grip by 0.6g, or a Mini Cooper having the same grip rating as a Corvette ZR1 on the same tires. It might 'feel' right, but that is because you have set it yourself. It is an illusion, nothing more, nothing happens to the car in real time. It is stagnant. Nothing is truely monitored or active, no tire wear means no real monitoring of friction on the road and therefore a guesstimate of what should happen at best. When anything happens out of the ordinary we see the pre programmed script no longer fit the action. This is why the cars roll over like they are in treacle, wobble when they spin, like an unbalanced top. It is also why fitting a carbon prop shaft or lighter clutch makes no discernable difference to the overall weight of the car. Because it does not matter to the game. however anyone that thinks GT5 is anyway more complicated or realistic than Forza is clearly having a laugh. I own both consoles, have both games, most versions of both actually and I've never gotten on with the driving portion of GT. It feels stone dead to me.

Funny, I feel completely and totally opposite.

Just because you don't have cool little 'graphical readouts' of what the physics engine is doing, doesn't mean that it isn't working hard beneath the surface. GT5 is the second most realistic feeling engine I've ever felt in a game, next to iracing. I've heard netkar pro is also good, but I've never tried it. I'm sorry, but Forza uses an absolutely archaic physics engine (still feels identical to FM1) It feels sloppy, not particularly realistic, and not really fun. The cars area all way too easy to handle on the limit, and the limits are very quickly reached.

This is what the guys of InsideSimRacing said about FM3 Physics. They also rated FM2 better than GT5P.

"This drives like a REAL car"

Go too the 19:30 mark.


.👍 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VID_ndJJ3pI&feature=player_detailpage#t=1096s

 

[Scaff]

Doesn't this "Like every rank of tire incrementally increasing lateral grip by 0.6g, or a Mini Cooper having the same grip rating as a Corvette ZR1 on the same tires" Source
say something is inherently wrong? That tyres are a strict set of parameters split into nine 'grip' levels?

I don't recall raising an issue with that part of it, so don't really understand why your throwing it at me, nor did I even say that the post was wrong!

What I did say is that its speculation/conjecture (and I didn't say anything is wrong with speculating) and should be presented as such.

I also raised an issue with some rather poor (in my opinion) speculation in the post, mainly the "no tire wear means no real monitoring of friction on the road " comment. As that's a piece of reasoning that does not automatically flow. In a simulation it is perfectly possiable to monitor friction without then translating it into tyre wear, so an absence of tyre wear does not automatically mean that friction is not being monitored. Yet that is exactly what have been presented (and presented as fact).

In a nutshell I don't have an issue with a lot of what was posted, but I do have an issue with how it has been presented and the factual status some of it has been awarded.


Scaff

 

[Spagetti69]

Absence of tire wear, which game are we talking of here?

 

[GumShoe]

I don't recall raising an issue with that part of it, so don't really understand why your throwing it at me, nor did I even say that the post was wrong!

What I did say is that its speculation/conjecture (and I didn't say anything is wrong with speculating) and should be presented as such.

I also raised an issue with some rather poor (in my opinion) speculation in the post, mainly the "no tire wear means no real monitoring of friction on the road " comment. As that's a piece of reasoning that does not automatically flow. In a simulation it is perfectly possiable to monitor friction without then translating it into tyre wear, so an absence of tyre wear does not automatically mean that friction is not being monitored. Yet that is exactly what have been presented (and presented as fact).

In a nutshell I don't have an issue with a lot of what was posted, but I do have an issue with how it has been presented and the factual status some of it has been awarded.


Scaff

Ah sorry about that, I got the wrong intention out of your post.

 

[Daverytimes]

About this whole... 'Multi' physics thing of GT5. I believe I have covered this before in another thread.

Now, I believe that Gumpert locked the driver's seat of the Apollo in one place, so that no one could spoil the weight distribution of the car by altering the seating position and therefore the longitudinal position of the rather hefty lump of meat piloting it. I like that. It's a like it or lump it situation. I mean sure, you can alter the pedals and steering wheel position... Sort of like turning the aids on or off in Forza. But you can never alter the makeup of the car to change the basic seating position itself. It is the same for everyone, a constant reality. This is Forza. It's physics engine may not be entirely accurate, but it is alive and reactive, you can see a readout of what is going on, see the tires flex, monitor heat and wear... Softer compounds heat up more quickly but are prone to overheating and accelerated wear, you can watch suspension deflection occur and cambers change... You create your own situations on the fly, via action and reaction in the game world. For the most part the engine handles it well, rollovers, collisions, suspension bottoming out, it's all handled properly (whether it's realistic or not is a different matter).

Then take GT5, where you are left to figure it out for yourself, but with everything helpfully labelled. GT5 has no set physics model, nothing works actively beneath the surface. You chose a basic set of parameters that feel right for you, then the game hashes it into a make believe realm, where everything is very odd and statistically explainable. Like every rank of tire incrementally increasing lateral grip by 0.6g, or a Mini Cooper having the same grip rating as a Corvette ZR1 on the same tires. It might 'feel' right, but that is because you have set it yourself. It is an illusion, nothing more, nothing happens to the car in real time. It is stagnant. Nothing is truely monitored or active, no tire wear means no real monitoring of friction on the road and therefore a guesstimate of what should happen at best. When anything happens out of the ordinary we see the pre programmed script no longer fit the action. This is why the cars roll over like they are in treacle, wobble when they spin, like an unbalanced top. It is also why fitting a carbon prop shaft or lighter clutch makes no discernable difference to the overall weight of the car. Because it does not matter to the game.

I guess that this works for some people. The subconscious is easily pleased and comforted by seeing and feeling what it expects, and the conscious is easily fooled by what the subconscious has quietly set up. What I am driving at is I believe that GT5 in physics is a master stroke of mental subversion, an armchair that swallows you whole and fits to your shape. You should never speak of realism regarding any game, however anyone that thinks GT5 is anyway more complicated or realistic than Forza is clearly having a laugh. I own both consoles, have both games, most versions of both actually and I've never gotten on with the driving portion of GT. It feels stone dead to me.

Your post makes little sense and i will tell you why. Forza simulates all the things you mentioned yet fails to get the feel right, GT5 on the other simulates a very limited amount of things yet it gets the feel right. When i play either forza or GT i don't play them to stare at a telementry, i play those games to get a feel of what the actual thing is like. Now if all the necessary parameters are being simulated then the feel should be spot on, but is it? No. GT5 tackles physics simulation in the most ingenious way possible, rather than trying simulate everything it simply gives you a set of options that can give you the same results without all the bells and whistles. Whether you think it's static or not does not deter from the fact that it FEELS better than the opposition, and that's why we play Racing Sims (for the FEEL)

DAVE

 

[430_Riviera]

Now correct me if I'm wrong here but you seem to be saying that because FM gives you a real time set of telemetry then its got a better physics engine, that it works in real time and that GT just 'fakes' it?

That seems to be a rather big leap on both counts.

Let me take just one example....

"Nothing is truely monitored or active, no tire wear means no real monitoring of friction on the road and therefore a guesstimate of what should happen at best."

...and ask a few questions (as these come very close to factual statements).

• How do you know nothing is truely monitored or active?
• How you manage to link no tire wear to no monitoring of friction on the road? One does not automatically equal the other.
• How do either of the above prove that its a guesstimate at best?

Simply because you see a 'real time' read out doesn't automatically mean that the numbers are being calculated accurately in the back ground, nor does an absence of a 'real time' read out suddenly mean the physics are faked.

Keep in mind that I am not claiming one is better than the other here, but what I am saying is that you seem to be passing a lot of as proven that is simply speculation and conjecture.


Scaff

How do we know whether God exists or not? There is no hard evidence, in fact there is much evidence to the contrary. The concept is based on an inherent belief or faith and is down to the individual. No one is right or wrong as there is no answer, only opinion. If we are ever allowed to see what is going on underneath the skin of GT5, would you want to? Would you be disappointed? GT5 is religion, Forza is science. Forza openly displays it's workings, GT5 actively hides it's own.

GT5. A game were nothing is given away, leavings thousands of players floundering about saying 'It feels right' but can never quite pinpoint why... For roughly 50% of the time anyway, so long as the car is in contact with the ground and nothing too interesting is happening like contact with another car. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that GT5 does have a faked physics model, (as you say, I'm not saying this is wrong or a bad thing in any way, millions of fans can't be wrong. Well, assuming no fanboyism blinkers) such as the examples I listed previously. (Thankyou to GUMSHOE for finding the thread, it was late and I was tired). Forza definitely does not, as the real time data is there to see. Also I mechanic with a team that runs a motorbike (I live with the rider), and yes we use 'feel' to do a lot of setup, but overall the telemetry tells the rider where his 'feel' is incorrect

I will reiterate, as I believe the rambling supposition of my previous post may have been lost during my meandering from point to point; I believe that GT5, and all the GT games previous, have had a scripted physics model. A highly polished one that will focus on one particular thing, driving. They have always had dodgy reactions to anything out of the ordinary that happens. Seen as the actual driving physics model is pretty much ok, I'm reckoning (love that word) that the physics model in GT5 is just that... A driving model. It doesn't control collision detection, roll over, action in flight... An extension of that is the mods I talked about. GT doesn't model them as it does not need to, they are irrelevant to it's script. Disturbingly, this extends to the brakes as well as small changes to the weight of the car and also tire wear. All this adds up to what I described I feel when I play GT5, which is a dead feeling, very basic but quite good driving model with inherent flaws caused by a lack of reactive ability. Sterile does not cover it.

Reactive ability is something Forza does not lack. I have far more respect for a game that is a true sandbox in both design, structure and action than a game that is a 2 dimensional drawing on an etchasketch in comparison.

Scaff, I'm sorry if I presented my previous post in a factual manner when it was opinion, however I did offer evidence to back up my insinuation that actually GT does not actively model it's physics in that the weight of the car, braking performance and other effects such as tire wear are not taken into account. If they are, then the game is broken as several things do not add up with regards to the physics model itself. Regardless I still maintain Forza has a far superior and more complex physics model as it takes just about everything into account.

 

[Bogie 19th]

Your post makes little sense and i will tell you why. Forza simulates all the things you mentioned yet fails to get the feel right, GT5 on the other simulates a very limited amount of things yet it gets the feel right. When i play either forza or GT i don't play them to stare at a telementry, i play those games to get a feel of what the actual thing is like. Now if all the necessary parameters are being simulated then the feel should be spot on, but is it? No. GT5 tackles physics simulation in the most ingenious way possible, rather than trying simulate everything it simply gives you a set of options that can give you the same results without all the bells and whistles. Whether you think it's static or not does not deter from the fact that it FEELS better than the opposition, and that's why we play Racing Sims (for the FEEL)

DAVE

Exactly, and yet different sims feel different to different people. What feels right for you might feel wrong for others.

 

[Scaff]

How do we know whether God exists or not? There is no hard evidence, in fact there is much evidence to the contrary. The concept is based on an inherent belief or faith and is down to the individual. No one is right or wrong as there is no answer, only opinion. If we are ever allowed to see what is going on underneath the skin of GT5, would you want to? Would you be disappointed? GT5 is religion, Forza is science. Forza openly displays it's workings, GT5 actively hides it's own.

Unless we have access to the source code for Forza (which we do not) then we can't say that Forza openly displays its workings at all.

Simply because we get some numbers shown to us as an output does not mean that they can be trusted at all, we still do not know what the source data is or the calculations used to then manage them.

As for Forza being science, no sorry I can't agree with that at all, a much better analogy would be:

GT = Creationism, Forza = Intelligent Design and only the real word is science.

Scaff, I'm sorry if I presented my previous post in a factual manner when it was opinion, however I did offer evidence to back up my insinuation that actually GT does not actively model it's physics in that the weight of the car, braking performance and other effects such as tire wear are not taken into account. If they are, then the game is broken as several things do not add up with regards to the physics model itself.

The evidence is by the authors own admission open to interpretation and contains a margin for error, and without also subjecting Forza to the exact same tests of only base interest when looking at a comparison.

You are once again however assuming that I disagree with your basic statements, when I have clearly not done so.

Regardless I still maintain Forza has a far superior and more complex physics model as it takes just about everything into account.

I've taught vehicle dynamics within the motor industry and can assure you that Forza does not even come close to taking everything into account. At a manufacturer level to run full physics simulations takes a mainframe and a considerable run time.

The base data held may be comprehensive but I would be very surprised if the calculations manage to come even close to taking into account every possible variable. Tyre to track surface modeling alone would be more than a PS3 and 360 combined would be able to handle, and that wouldn't be in real time and would be for a single tyre type.

Forza and GT both make a lot of assumptions and generalisations when it comes to the physics engine, they have no option but to do that simply because of the limitations of the platforms they are. As such both do some things well and other things poorly and neither could (in my opinion) be held up as significantly superior to the other in terms of the physics.


Scaff

 

[Zer0]

GT5 has no set physics model, nothing works actively beneath the surface.

GT4 demo in 2004



I have never understood the urge of some people to see a screen full of numbers and variables to trust the inners of a simulation, and the worst it's that some use that to justify the realism or quality of the physics over other games. Would be fun a hud with a working all at once 300 calculations in real time, and I'm speaking of GT4, who knows how much advanced is the GT5 engine.

I guess real cars are scripted too.

This is what the guys of InsideSimRacing said about FM3 Physics. They also rated FM2 better than GT5P.

"This drives like a REAL car"

Go too the 19:30 mark.


.👍 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VID_ndJJ3pI&feature=player_detailpage#t=1096s

They also said:

Darin: Let's compare it to an iRacing or Netcar Pro or even an Arca Sim, all three of those have great physics, even rFactor, all of those have great physics. I'll tell you right now, put those through this weighted scale, this is going to score right with them.

And later that GT5 has the better physics on console even giving it a lower score than FM3 physics.. so figure how credible are their facts and scores.

 

[HBK]

I have never understood the urge of some people to see a screen full of numbers and variables to trust the inners of a simulation, and the worst it's that some use that to justify the realism or quality of the physics over other games.

I dunno, maybe because of Occam's razor ?

 

[erahk64]

They also said:

Darin: Let's compare it to an iRacing or Netcar Pro or even an Arca Sim, all three of those have great physics, even rFactor, all of those have great physics. I'll tell you right now, put those through this weighted scale, this is going to score right with them.

And later that GT5 has the better physics on console even giving it a lower score than FM3 physics.. so figure how credible are their facts and scores.

They said later that they scored Forza 3 too high.
In the latest reviews, including GT5, they play the sims for a longer period before doing final review.

 

[Evian]

Never liked rally mode on GT4 , the gravity sensation was somewhat false ...


GT5 was nice score in ISM , the only that was low grade was in damage model, skins and cars customization.

 

[Luminis]

Yeah, I understand what you mean. I's just ... How should I put it ...

Eye candy is nice. It's optional, but it's nice.

And just like "Dan" said in multiple presentations, those games are huge. Everyone think what they like should be the focus of the developer. Ask those virtual photo artists if they'd like more focus on racing than on car porn ...

And it's not just a matter of having a large audience. I mean, sure it is, but this is because car porn or not, those games still cost millions to develop. And if you want to expand these games, you have to sell a lot of them.

I understand the concern about "catering down", "wasted details", and so forth. Heck, I even share them myself. You just can't say "focus on what matters most", because actually, most of what constitutes these games are "what matters most". Even photomode showrooms.

You should understand that a racing game is just that. Gone are the days where all you did was just pick a car and drive around. Like every other genre, developers look for ways to make the whole experience more emersive (how the hell do you spell this word?!) for the player. I don't think you could've been truly happy with Forza or GT if all you ever did was pick a car from a list, pick a course and drive.

Sure those classic games are great, but I think you can appreciate all the extra features that comes with racing games today.

And just like with my other post, this is my humble opinion.

I think I wasn't makign myself clear enough, I'll just try again

I'm not opposed to photo modes or the like, not at all. I like that it gives a certain diversity to the game. In fact, I quite like to take a break from the racing from time to time myself. It's in no way about excluding those from the games, I think we can all agree that it's a good thing to have them, overall.

What irks me is a different thing, but closely releated to the photo modes of those games - the quality of the cars that are used there. I'd be perfectly fine with PD and T10 incorporating those eye candy modes if they were contend to use what the consoles can handle while racing. But, instead of doing so, they're going for models that are too much for the hardware they're using. Which means that those modes don't show you what the game will look like in motion - they're just over the top. And the time and resources that goes to modeling the cars to a higher detail than what can be used in the main portion of the game, that's irritating to me. They're pouring so much effort into modeling the cars that I have to wonder whether it would've been better for a game as a whole to not do so.

Forza 4 is the better example here, I think. The AutoVista models are insanely detailed, way beyond what can be seen while you're out on the track. Wouldn't it have been better to just use what the game can actually handle while racing and spend the time on creating more cars and tracks to be used to race?

Well, I wouldn't want to answer that for the general public, of course, I'm just of the opinion that it's shifting the focus to somewhere I'd rather not have it, and that's on creating eye candy which is basically useless in 95% of the game. It just seems like a waste to me to go to such lengths for only 5% of the game.

 

[ItsHim]

I'm referring here to FM2 only, because that's where I have some decent experience.

All those juicy telemetry readouts meant nothing at all when tuning a car to get onto the LB, and this is probably true for FM3 also, because to my knowledge both physics engines share the same basis.

And that's all about there is in Forza: compete and make it to the top spot.

I spent many useless and frustrating hours trying to level tyre heat, just to come up with a setup that was inferior to the LB tunes. On the other hand, just judging from the telemetry, many of the tunes shouldn't have worked. But they did.

The "best" feature was the performance gauge, which would tell you how many Gs a car could pull. Totally and utterly useless. The only read-out that was somewhat helpful was the stopping distance.

So, comparing Forza (2) with GT in that respect is a futile exercise. Telemetry never made me faster. What did were copying the strange, counter-intuitive and "wrong" settings concerning dampers, spring rates and ARBs.

What the insidesim guys did with Forza was getting a bit too hyped maybe be getting an early review copy of the game. They didn't even scratch the tuning depth of the game, and that's really one of the selling points of Forza: you can fiddle all day long with the settings. Which are, by the way, not comprehensively documented and other than with GT, trial and error won't get you very far.

Anyway, no, considering all, just because Forza throws some flashy readouts at you, it doesn't mean anything, really.

 

[HadOne2Many]

They said later that they scored Forza 3 too high.
In the latest reviews, including GT5, they play the sims for a longer period before doing final review.

Which was most likely a direct result of the "outcry" from iRacing fans who were upset that a "console arcade game" scored so well in comparision to their precious holy grail of a sim. And this was also the point in which they lost all credibilty in my eyes for bending to popular opinion. Don't get me wrong I couldn't care less about how they scored FM3, but to completely restructure your rating scale because of public opinion stinks of bias and unprofessionalism.

 

[erahk64]

Which was most likely a direct result of the "outcry" from iRacing fans who were upset that a "console arcade game" scored so well in comparision to their precious holy grail of a sim. And this was also the point in which they lost all credibilty in my eyes for bending to popular opinion. Don't get me wrong I couldn't care less about how they scored FM3, but to completely restructure your rating scale because of public opinion stinks of bias and unprofessionalism.

They also said some of the Top 50 cars that were included early has too high scores after they had reviewed more cars but they don't want to go through all cars again.
People usually get better at doing things when they get more experience.
So I think it's possible that their changed opinion might be that they have more experience now and they had more time to play Forza 3.

 

[PzR Slim]

I think I wasn't makign myself clear enough, I'll just try again

I'm not opposed to photo modes or the like, not at all. I like that it gives a certain diversity to the game. In fact, I quite like to take a break from the racing from time to time myself. It's in no way about excluding those from the games, I think we can all agree that it's a good thing to have them, overall.

What irks me is a different thing, but closely releated to the photo modes of those games - the quality of the cars that are used there. I'd be perfectly fine with PD and T10 incorporating those eye candy modes if they were contend to use what the consoles can handle while racing. But, instead of doing so, they're going for models that are too much for the hardware they're using. Which means that those modes don't show you what the game will look like in motion - they're just over the top. And the time and resources that goes to modeling the cars to a higher detail than what can be used in the main portion of the game, that's irritating to me. They're pouring so much effort into modeling the cars that I have to wonder whether it would've been better for a game as a whole to not do so.

Forza 4 is the better example here, I think. The AutoVista models are insanely detailed, way beyond what can be seen while you're out on the track. Wouldn't it have been better to just use what the game can actually handle while racing and spend the time on creating more cars and tracks to be used to race?

Well, I wouldn't want to answer that for the general public, of course, I'm just of the opinion that it's shifting the focus to somewhere I'd rather not have it, and that's on creating eye candy which is basically useless in 95% of the game. It just seems like a waste to me to go to such lengths for only 5% of the game.

Interesting point, my take on it? I'll use the example of a day at an F1 race. If I was lucky enough to get to go in the garage before the race I'd want to see the car in all it's detail. Have a look in the cockpit, study the steering wheel, really get in close and see how it's all put together. However, come the race that all goes out of the window, I wan't to see the cars doing what they are designed to do, namely, race around at speeds that defy belief. That detail that fascinated me so much in the garage before really doesn't matter any more.

And FM4 will be like that. Autovista will be awesome to be able to see all that detail and explore the cars, but when I hit the track it's about how the car is going to feel and how good an experience it's going to be racing against my mates not what it looks like.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

How do you know that they didn't initially rate the game highly under order/pressure from T10? (or for that matter, the much heavier Microsoft)

I don't think too highly of ISR anyways.

By the way, shift 2 also has telemetry and it is as arcade as a 'sim-racer' (lol?) can get.

 

[James1436]

How do you know that they didn't initially rate the game highly under order/pressure from T10? (or for that matter, the much heavier Microsoft)

I don't think too highly of ISR anyways.

By the way, shift 2 also has telemetry and it is as arcade as a 'sim-racer' (lol?) can get.

Actually, Shift 2's laptimes IMO are more accurate then Gt5's and Forza 3's and no ability to read the telemetry during a replay makes it hard to determine whats actually happening. For all we know Shift 2 might be more advanced then Gt5 and Forza 3

 

[JBturbo]

Whilst no doubt this will be met by numerous rebuttals and insult, I am yet to see what will tempt me away from GT5.

I desperately want this game to be excellent. I currently don't own an Xbox 360, but would buy one in an instant if the game is right.

That said, especially in the graphics sense - GT5 still holds top trumps in my eyes. Of course there are huge faults with GT5 (i.e. if you take some non-premium cars and put them on the poorer tracks then yes, it can look awful). However, if you take GT5's best, i.e. premium cars on the more advanced tracks, I believe that Forza 4 hasn't yet even come close.

In some instances F4's graphics do look a little cleaner, but definitely not more realistic. Also, some of the models appear higher polygon count, but the texturing is woeful in part compared to GT5.

I'm sure this is down to Forza having a different approach to the number of 'premium cars' (i.e. GT focussed on a smaller amount and made most of them phenomenal, wheras F4 will take a larger amount and drop the standard ever so slightly as a result.

Finally, in regards to the tracks, I do find them quite bland and again unrealistic. Is every road surface in the Forza universe polished to a mirror finish?

Now I'm not a 'hardcore user,' in that when I want to drive I pick a good car on a good track and get on with it. The often reported grinding or irritation of standard cars doesn't affect me. With that in mind, I can happily say that the best looks that GT5 has to offer still massively outweigh the best looks F4 has so far offered.

 

[PzR Slim]

Whilst no doubt this will be met by numerous rebuttals and insult, I am yet to see what will tempt me away from GT5.

I desperately want this game to be excellent. I currently don't own an Xbox 360, but would buy one in an instant if the game is right.

That said, especially in the graphics sense - GT5 still holds top trumps in my eyes. Of course there are huge faults with GT5 (i.e. if you take some non-premium cars and put them on the poorer tracks then yes, it can look awful). However, if you take GT5's best, i.e. premium cars on the more advanced tracks, I believe that Forza 4 hasn't yet even come close.

In some instances F4's graphics do look a little cleaner, but definitely not more realistic. Also, some of the models appear higher polygon count, but the texturing is woeful in part compared to GT5.

I'm sure this is down to Forza having a different approach to the number of 'premium cars' (i.e. GT focussed on a smaller amount and made most of them phenomenal, wheras F4 will take a larger amount and drop the standard ever so slightly as a result.

Finally, in regards to the tracks, I do find them quite bland and again unrealistic. Is every road surface in the Forza universe polished to a mirror finish?

Now I'm not a 'hardcore user,' in that when I want to drive I pick a good car on a good track and get on with it. The often reported grinding or irritation of standard cars doesn't affect me. With that in mind, I can happily say that the best looks that GT5 has to offer still massively outweigh the best looks F4 has so far offered.

A game is more than looks. And now with FM4 seemingly giving GT5 a run for it's money in that department across all tracks and cars the other things that FM already does better than GT5 and will no doubt improve upon for FM4 should result in a 'no contest' IMO.

 

[Hotspitta]

How do you know that they didn't initially rate the game highly under order/pressure from T10? (or for that matter, the much heavier Microsoft)

I don't think too highly of ISR anyways.

By the way, shift 2 also has telemetry and it is as arcade as a 'sim-racer' (lol?) can get.

Yes but it was a straight exact copy of the FM version. Even the lay-out and graphics are exactly copied from the FM series. That doesn't mean shift can be counted as a sim.

 

[HighSeasHoMastr]

So, after allowing myself a few days to research and to get my argument worked out in my head, I’m finally going to respond to this:

If you want to avoid legal action then yes, and it’s far from twice as wide and given that its technically a fantasy track they could do whatever they want with it.

And were it called 'Fantasy German Track near a castle' then it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference however it’s not, it’s a licensed version of the track and as such should have been as accurate a possible.

So, basically, since PD was unwilling to procure the licence for the official track I’m supposed to be ok with a poor recreation of that track? Let me elaborate: The track is very clearly supposed to be the Monaco GP track. No one disputes that. Now, it is an unlicensed reproduction of that track, so there are things that are not accurate with it; but at the end of the day it is still a digital representation of the Monaco GP track. That means that were it held to the same standard as a licensed version, this would be a poorly modeled track yes? So simply because it is unlicensed it becomes ok to change the track? Even when everyone knows what it is supposed to be?
Let’s look at it from a different angle: Because T10 dared to call their track the Nurburgring, since it is not 100% accurate they are ostracized for “ruining the ‘ring” but since PD weren’t able to officially call their Monaco GP track the Monaco GP track it’s ok that it’s far too wide and that the casino hairpin is too large of a radius? What about Fuji? That’s supposedly the ‘real’ Fuji, and it’s easily twice as wide in parts as the real Fuji. WHy isn’t there an outcry over that? Or Laguna Seca? Or any of the ‘real’ tracks that aren’t 100% accurate? For that matter, why are any cars that have any slight modeling discrepancies not called out in the same way?
It really seems like people are just looking for a reason to call T10 out, when in reality if you hold everything up to the standard that people here apparently want to hold the Ring to then both games are miserable failures.
Why the double standard?

You seem unable or unwilling to see the difference between changes made to an unlicensed track to avoid legal issues and changes made to a licenced track to make it easier when playing on-line.

From the AUP: You will not behave in an abusive and/or hateful manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack any individual or any group.
Now, I don’t feel harrassed by these remarks, but a more sensative man may construe that as a personal sleight. And anyways, it’sn not that I’m unable to see the difference, I just don’t get why PD gets a pass on so much stuff. I guess that people don’t feel like they need to criticise the little things in GT5 when there’s so many big this to criticize, but that shouldn’t mean that they just get a free pass on the little stuff.
And on the note of ‘legal issues’ I can’t find anywhere in copyright law (and I’ve looked) that says you can make a reasonable claim to copyright an object that is easily accessible or usable by any member of the public even if they aren’t paying to do so. Now, what follows is my interpretation of the information that I could find, it is by no means fact, but it is the best I can reason out of the legalese: Basically, they couldn’t copyright the track without forcing everyone who drives those roads to consent to their copyright, because otherwise people are using that copyrighted property without permission, and such large violations without the copyright holder seeking reimbursement would constitute a failure to protect the copyright and thus it would be forfeited for lack of enforcement. At least that’s the best I could get out of what I read... Any copyright attorneys on here that wanna jump in?
Even if somehow the track is copyrighted, I highly doubt that simply widening the track and adding a few barriers would get them around any serious attempt at legal recourse by the copyright holder; it’s clearly the same track.

Oh and just to further illustrate the point, the Nurburgring is also a public road, yet I don't see you applying the same argument to that.
Scaff

EDIT: After some research, it turns out it is! Thanks for bringing that up. However, it is the name "Nurburgring" that is most definitely copyrighted, so to call their track the Nurburgring, they would have to license the name. That is by no means proof that the actual layout is protected by copyright.
Original response: No, it actually isn’t. The Nurburgring is still a closed circuit and part of the racing complex, it is just open to the public to pay to use it any time they want to. It is not a public road, it is a private road that is made available to the paying public. Unless this has changed; but if the track is public road, then why is it in danger of closing? Wouldn’t public works keep the surface maintained and drivable just like a highway? I’m not up on the situation on Germany, but from what I can tell from the Save the Ring movement, the Nordschleife is still privately owned.
But I am still curious why it is in danger of closing if it's a public road?

but what I am saying is that you seem to be passing a lot of as proven that is simply speculation and conjecture.
Scaff

And what are you doing with the Monaco thing? Are you a PD or Principality of Monaco employee?

Anyways, I’m done with that whole argument. There’s no way to resolve it without more information from someone who is qualified to speak on the matter from a legal standpoint, so let’s just let it lie.

I have never understood the urge of some people to see a screen full of numbers and variables to trust the inners of a simulation, and the worst it's that some use that to justify the realism or quality of the physics over other games.

I have never understood the urge of some people to have absolutely no indication that something is being simulated and still believe that it is being simulated, and worse to use it as a justification for how that game is a better sim then other games.
Seriously, if there’s nothing to tell you that something is happening, why would you still believe that it is? At least FM tries to show you what it’s doing. Whether or not that’s actually what’s happening, I can’t say, but no one else can say that GT5 is doing it for sure either. The evidence at least strengthens the argument that FM does, GT just want you to have faith that it does.

Hopefully this post wasn't too rambling or unintelligible...