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

[Vaxxtx]

Sorry but if you played Forza games as you say then you wouldn't be caught lieing about them on numerous occasions, now would you?

And the quality hasn't gone down with each iteration. It's gone up with more cars, tracks and features. And I've owned every Forza and GT game to date, sans Prologue.

I always friend requested people that talked about how bad a game Shift2 was. My findings were most people didnt own it, and the few that had it played to about 1-5%. Of course this was on the PS3, and just sending the request gave you access to their games.

Point is, most diehard fans of just one game can talk about how bad another game is, without even touching it, if it rivals, or infringes on their favorite game.

 

[cuco33]

I always friend requested people that talked about how bad a game Shift2 was. My findings were most people didnt own it, and the few that had it played to about 1-5%. Of course this was on the PS3, and just sending the request gave you access to their games.

Point is, most diehard fans of just one game can talk about how bad another game is, without even touching it, if it rivals, or infringes on their favorite game.

True, but I wouldn't take that as the only fact. There's people with multiple accounts. I have 3 PS3 accounts and use 2 on a regular basis. Likewise I have 2 360 accounts but only 1 is on LIVE Gold.

 

[Akira AC]

Start being serious, and you'll find people will take you seriously.

Funny, read this I you will probably understand why my opinion has taken many bias during this discussion, I tried to be serious but people didn't seem to care.

So which is it, those are more valuable, or collecting data from one amateur racer is? I'll remind you that you said this:

Which, again, by that logic makes Kaz' input and experiences near-useless. I bring up Röhrl because he's not an F1 driver - so I guess he has way less experience, and wouldn't be of much use.

Another interesting bit, going slightly off-topic, as it's about Shift2:
Click this link right here

The team had quite a few pros pop into make suggestions based on personal "feel". Shift2's physics have been slammed by various parties. It's certainly not out of line to think that a drivers opinions could very well be inconclusive, as they're opinions, not facts. Using hard numbers for things like the Pirelli data for tires in FM4 means much less chance of bias or preference making their way into the engine. Look at GT4's utterly terrible FF launches, where nearly every front-driver couldn't get close to it's stated 0-60mph times.

...and only Kaz, again an occasional racer, could provide this data?

Actually yes, you see there is a difference between Sebastian Vettel/Walter Röhrl and KY, and it is technical knowledge, I find hard to believe that Vettel for example knows how the light projection on a game works, how the light effects works, how the memory limitations and game engine works. KY knowns these things and he can provide direct information to the technical for further development of the game, areas in which Sebastian Vettel for example cant help.

Apart from that, PD had Red Bull partnership which is similar to the Pirelli/T10 partnership, apart from that I'm not so sure if they collected data but PD also participated in the development of the GT-R(which was mass produced) and the Citroen GT(which was produce as a prototype with different characteristics showcased in the game), I believe that PD should have learned something from such experiences.

I've yet to see any proofs of T10's game engine being limited compared to GT's. This isn't about rallying/nascar/F1, either, I mean strictly the game engine, and what sorts of parameters it's calculating. Forza already has a much more detailed tire model, but until we got solid figures from both companies about what exactly is simulated and what isn't, there's no way of knowing one way or the other.

Depends, if you take some of the GT5 features in consideration is evident that the GT5 game engine also features calculations like grip for different surfaces thanks to the introduction of Rally, and that is something that FM3 engine(probably FM4 as well) cannot claim.

That's well and good that they take data from track-days (though it's still unknown exactly how much that effects the games, which was my point), but colour me unsurprised that a member of PD says a car he bought in real-life felt "identical" to the game. Nevermind that GT4's physics were, well, lacking.

I agree, GT4 physics were lacking but the track data was there since 2005(maybe prior to that) which makes PD more experienced at recollecting and processing this data.

Don't get me wrong, it's very disappointing that we won't see the time-of-day changes in FM4, or weather, because they are done well in GT5 (well, ToD, yes, weather is still iffy in my opinion). But GT suffers a lot of hiccups if you run at say Le Sarthe with T/W Change on, so part of me understands T10's reluctance. I'd rather the entire game be to one uniform standard of quality than have the dips and peaks GT5 has.

I'm not talking about dynamic lighting, I'm talking about simple mapping for a night race, T10 prof that they can do night racing mapping, however they drop that down not because of the complexity or system limitations, but because of simple logistics limitations(which is not the case of GT5), you should know that mapping the light from an statics source isn't as processing consuming as a full dynamic cycle, PGR series demonstrated that night racing on the 360 was possible with fixed lights(and they demonstrated that it can maintain the framerate high), T10 could have done this but they didn't.

The same happens with the city tracks, they know that fixing shadows for a great amount of objects is complicated but they demonstrated themselves that this can be done by showcasing the NY city track, but then they are dropping those complex tracks to be replaced with more simple ones in which they can use less objects and simple background images to cheapen the production process.

My point with all of this is that PD cares more about actual development and innovation than cheap production techniques as T10 seems to do, great example of this are the cockpits in both games(and if you compare cockpits from FM3 to other games like Test Drive Unlimited you will see my point), other example is the track listing and the amount of features, is not a big deal now but these features will have a significant difference in the future because having develop already a game engine that is capable of doing this gives them background to further development in content(which is clearly the area in which GT5 lacks, in the car listing to be more precise), while Forza will have to deal with its limitations compared to the competence regardless of its stability.

 

[Jamezinho]

I don't really understand why so much importance is placed on the respective developers track day/racing experience. It's not a pre-requisite for producing a good racing simulation in my opinion.

Personal experience of the subject matter doesn't seem to be of any consequence in other game genres. The teams behind PES and FIFA don't have any experience of playing professional football, and I assume this is the case for most sports titles like Madden, NBA 2K, etc.......the devs have never played the sport at any high level. The people behind COD and Battlefield most likely have no military experience.

What most developers do, though, is consult professionals and experts to help fill in the blanks in their knowledge. Turn 10 have done this by consulting racing drivers and, in the case of FM4, Pirelli. Dan is there to project manage and ensure that his team create a product that is the best it can be.

Driving the Nurburgring 24hr race doesn't really help him achieve that goal as far as I can see. The whole track experience issue is moot in my opinion.

 

[Da-Bomber]

PGR was at 30 fps though.

 

[Spagetti69]

My point with all of this is that PD cares more about actual development and innovation than cheap production techniques as T10 seems to do,

Back of the net.

Another screamer from Akira.

 

[Vaxxtx]

Dang...how did those World War 1 and 2 flight sims ever get made?

IL-2 must have sucked bad, because I can say for CERTAIN that nobody on that dev team flew a BF-109 and shot down a B-17. It is odd...

 

[KreepaEvox]

That dude does nothing but lie... A one on one race with a Ferrari and a GT 40? WTF? Another one of his BIG EXPERIENCE with FM is stating that FM3's car/track packs were 800 points( 10 dollars ) when all DLC was priced at 400 points( 5 bucks), sans the VIP pack which was indeed 800 points... and there have been 3 times already they have been on sale, at half price. let's not even count the ultimate edition which brings the game plus all DLC sans the last car pack for half price. So money hungry accusations get u nowhere again.

It's funny how he also used the have GT has rally to even imply that all terrains in GT5 are even close to feel anything like different surfaces. This guy is a joke, face it dude, GT is not the only premium console simulator out there

 

[Terronium-12]

Actually yes, you see there is a difference between Sebastian Vettel/Walter Röhrl and KY, and it is technical knowledge, I find hard to believe that Vettel for example knows how the light projection on a game works, how the light effects works, how the memory limitations and game engine works. KY knowns these things and he can provide direct information to the technical for further development of the game, areas in which Sebastian Vettel for example cant help.

None of which was the point you made when you originally said:

Taking part in endurance races provides information about the car and how it drives in different conditions, proving information on how the environment looks from inside the car while the time change takes place is also a critical part, because thanks to that there are time changes. Knowing how the car feels during weather changes and the different level of grip that might exist is also a critical part of GT5, without that there would not be weather changes either.

Something which Vettel has exceptional experience in compared to the once a year feat Kazunori engages in. And furthermore, that claim about different levels of grip in different conditions doesn't really hold much water considering, again, soft compound tires have more grip on a wet track (and I'm not talking about a damp track with a dry line) than inters or full wets. How does that work?

Apart from that, PD had Red Bull partnership which is similar to the Pirelli/T10 partnership, apart from that I'm not so sure if they collected data

Their "partnership" went no further than the X1 and having Vettel speak about the X1.

Depends, if you take some of the GT5 features in consideration is evident that the GT5 game engine also features calculations like grip for different surfaces thanks to the introduction of Rally, and that is something that FM3 engine(probably FM4 as well) cannot claim.

This would be a fine point if it weren't for one of the flaws mentioned above, and for the prudent fact that dirt tires simply DO NOT grip the way they do in the game as they do in real life. And, just for the sake of correction, in FM3 there's a distinct different between actual tarmac grip, runoff area grip (more slippery), and gravel trap grip (granted, it's insta-stop (which by itself is solely meant to prevent track cutting) but there's a difference between all of 'em. The only difference FM lacks is that of snow and ice.

I agree, GT4 physics were lacking but the track data was there since 2005(maybe prior to that) which makes PD more experienced at recollecting and processing this data.

Not entirely sure what you mean by this, but all I'm gonna say is look up Laguna Seca, most notably Turn 8 and then compare the depth of that turn to 4 and 5, GT4 and 5 that is

I'm not talking about dynamic lighting, I'm talking about simple mapping for a night race, T10 prof that they can do night racing mapping, however they drop that down not because of the complexity or system limitations, but because of simple logistics limitations(which is not the case of GT5), you should know that mapping the light from an statics source isn't as processing consuming as a full dynamic cycle, PGR series demonstrated that night racing on the 360 was possible with fixed lights(and they demonstrated that it can maintain the framerate high), T10 could have done this but they didn't.

I can see this is quickly becoming a misinformed point of criticism: one, GT5 sacrificed everything Turn 10 say they didn't want to sacrifice for the sake of the game, it even sacrifices a stable framerate before weather comes into being it's own factor. Two, PGR also sacrificed those same resources. Finally, Turn 10 didn't do it because, again, they didn't want to resort to having to cap the game below a continuous (something GT5 can in no way, shape, or form claim) 60 fps.

The same happens with the city tracks, they know that fixing shadows for a great amount of objects is complicated but they demonstrated themselves that this can be done by showcasing the NY city track, but then they are dropping those complex tracks to be replaced with more simple ones in which they can use less objects and simple background images to cheapen the production process.

That's...that's not the reason they dropped the NYC track at all.

Oh, and if you want to talk about cut tracks for whatever reason...I'd advise you to check on the multiple tracks cut from GT5...one of which. introduced in GT PSP, was cut long before it even made it into the final game (if it were to at all, that is). Most of which were PD's own creations.

My point with all of this is that PD cares more about actual development and innovation than cheap production techniques as T10 seems to do,

Really? Really?

Is that why instead of a palette system you have "chips" that you have to collect, and then spend your own credits on something you've obtained which you can then only use once? Is that why B-Spec, for all intents and purposes, has a much more in-depth (well...more difficult and longer races) career mode compared to A-Spec? Is that why there's a myriad of competitive events lacking, even in comparison to the GT3? Is that why the gear ratio graph still has no prevalent purpose other than to show you how something doesn't work? I could go on...but I'm quite sure you've gotten the point.

great example of this are the cockpits in both games(and if you compare cockpits from FM3 to other games like Test Drive Unlimited you will see my point), other example is the track listing and the amount of features, is not a big deal now but these features will have a significant difference in the future because having develop already a game engine that is capable of doing this gives them background to further development in content(which is clearly the area in which GT5 lacks, in the car listing to be more precise), while Forza will have to deal with its limitations compared to the competence regardless of its stability.

This...I won't even bother with this.

 

[VXR]

The GT-R thing really has little bearing on how a Gran Turismo game pans out, considering PD designed a GUI for a computer that was built to relay data to said device and one that wasn't even left out of Forza. It's irrelevant.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Funny, read this I you will probably understand why my opinion has taken many bias during this discussion, I tried to be serious but people didn't seem to care.

...so you've resorted to flame-baiting because you didn't get the unanimous response of agreement you desired? If you expect everyone to agree with you, you're going to be very disappointed. Some people see it your way, others don't. This is how the world works.

Actually yes, you see there is a difference between Sebastian Vettel/Walter Röhrl and KY, and it is technical knowledge, I find hard to believe that Vettel for example knows how the light projection on a game works, how the light effects works, how the memory limitations and game engine works. KY knowns these things and he can provide direct information to the technical for further development of the game, areas in which Sebastian Vettel for example cant help.

So we've now progressed to the point where Kaz can provide information on accurate light rendering in a game... based on his driving experience?

He definitely doesn't need to be racing to do that. I'll echo the sentiment found earlier in the thread: while certainly impressive, I feel Kaz' on-the-side racing career hurts GT more than it helps. It's a great marketing tool, but that's about it, as getting professionals involved makes way more sense than the game's producer.

Apart from that, PD had Red Bull partnership which is similar to the Pirelli/T10 partnership,

Similar how? Other than Red Bull and Pirelli both being real life companies, of course.

apart from that I'm not so sure if they collected data but PD also participated in the development of the GT-R(which was mass produced)

They helped produce the telemetry system in the centre console.

and the Citroen GT(which was produce as a prototype with different characteristics showcased in the game),

PD helped design the exterior and interior.

I believe that PD should have learned something from such experiences.

I do too... but again, the Red Bull connection hasn't been fleshed out (though I seriously doubt it extends as deeply as the Pirelli tire model in FM4, or else we would've heard more about it in GT5). The telemetry system's display might've provided a little bit of relevant info, but the CbyGT? It had a fantasy drivetrain...

Depends, if you take some of the GT5 features in consideration is evident that the GT5 game engine also features calculations like grip for different surfaces thanks to the introduction of Rally, and that is something that FM3 engine(probably FM4 as well) cannot claim.

Dirt? Yep, FM3 has that. Concrete? FM3 has that too.

I agree, GT4 physics were lacking but the track data was there since 2005(maybe prior to that) which makes PD more experienced at recollecting and processing this data.

Well yes, PD does have more experience collecting track data, time-wise. Not really hard since T10 hasn't existed as long.

I'm not talking about dynamic lighting, I'm talking about simple mapping for a night race, T10 prof that they can do night racing mapping, however they drop that down not because of the complexity or system limitations, but because of simple logistics limitations(which is not the case of GT5), you should know that mapping the light from an statics source isn't as processing consuming as a full dynamic cycle, PGR series demonstrated that night racing on the 360 was possible with fixed lights(and they demonstrated that it can maintain the framerate high), T10 could have done this but they didn't.

Yep. And it's disappointing. I'd like to see night tracks, just like how GT has always had the SSR tracks. But T10 doesn't seem too interested in them. A shame, but the majority of racing happens in daylight anyways.

The same happens with the city tracks, they know that fixing shadows for a great amount of objects is complicated but they demonstrated themselves that this can be done by showcasing the NY city track, but then they are dropping those complex tracks to be replaced with more simple ones in which they can use less objects and simple background images to cheapen the production process.

Much like PD's massaging of Laguna Seca's surroundings? Both games are guilty of this to a degree, as are most games in general. Doesn't make it any less good for us, regardless of who does it.

My point with all of this is that PD cares more about actual development and innovation than cheap production techniques as T10 seems to do

I'm not sure if you're serious or not; actual development and innovations? How most of the patches we've received in a year have just been bug patches? Or just adding in things that should've been there from release (like the proper racing customizable transmissions, or the PP scale)? What about horns, and outfits, and museum cards, and paint chips? Sure, I suppose technically, they're innovations, alright...

Cheap production techniques might also cover bringing over 800 cars from a last-generation game, where even the newest ones are over 5 years old (some being 10), and not doing any significant changes to them. Or doubling cars by making up imaginary ones thanks to engine swaps (there was never a Lexus GS300 with a turbo, as just one example). It's these exact sorts of statements that make it exceedingly clear you have no interest in actually comparing both games on any remotely even playing field. Both games have their share of innovations, and both, their unfortunate shortcuts.

 

[Jamezinho]

The same happens with the city tracks, they know that fixing shadows for a great amount of objects is complicated but they demonstrated themselves that this can be done by showcasing the NY city track, but then they are dropping those complex tracks to be replaced with more simple ones in which they can use less objects and simple background images to cheapen the production process.

The New York circuit was probably dropped because it's not very good.

Also, using your logic, the Le Mans Bugatti circuit would never have been dropped because it's as simple as it gets in terms of trackside objects and scenery.

My point with all of this is that PD cares more about actual development and innovation than cheap production techniques as T10 seems to do, great example of this are the cockpits in both games(and if you compare cockpits from FM3 to other games like Test Drive Unlimited you will see my point), other example is the track listing and the amount of features, is not a big deal now but these features will have a significant difference in the future because having develop already a game engine that is capable of doing this gives them background to further development in content(which is clearly the area in which GT5 lacks, in the car listing to be more precise), while Forza will have to deal with its limitations compared to the competence regardless of its stability.

This is just not true. At all.

Your claim that Turn10 use cheap production techniques is completely groundless, let alone untrue. I prefer to judge a game on the finished product and FM3 is a smooth, polished, accomplished product. GT5 is a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none type of game. A project that was far too ambitious from the outset. There is no point trying to implement features that current console tech cannot handle. Turn 10 are aware of this, hence their decision not to proceed with features like weather and night racing. This tells me that Turn 10 care about the quality of the final product. I have no doubt Turn 10 will address these features when console tech is good and ready.

PD care about playing the numbers game and boasting about features, which in reality are less than impressive.

Also, for what it's worth Forza 3's track list is far superior to GT5's. It has many more real world tracks to chose from.

 

[KreepaEvox]

I like how you bring up the car duplication, if forza where to use that, many cars have 3, some 4 engine swaps... now count all those... without even bringing up the fact that many AWFULLY TALENTED FM3 painters could replicate DOWN TO SPEC, many tuner versions of cars, effectively CREATING new cars... IF we go by GT's book. U have to see the masterpieces this people replicate, and often times, create racing liveries from imagination... Things that are SADLY, and I truly mean it, not possible on GT. The same way some experiences that are in GT are absent from Forza.

It's even sad that the only diferences in the cars online are the colors, for standards, and rims colors, the seldom flare kit or race mod and colors for premiums. Every race in Forza is like a damn carnival, so many different creations and visual approaches, just like IRL

 

[Spagetti69]

Seems as though the Laguna Seca track is not up to PD Nurb standards. the corkscrew is wrong.

King spotted it. Well done to him.

* waits for King to attack me *

 

[ItsHim]

The majority of the people who run in the 24 Hours of Nurburgring are people who only race on occasion, or better known as amateurs. Why? Because that's what the race is targeted towards. You're even more clueless if you actually believe anywhere near half of the 800 people who participate are even close to professional drivers..

The VLN is part grassroots, however you'll need both a racing licence and time on the Ring to qualify for the 24 hours plus night racing experience to be allowed racing in the small hours as well. 10.000 € probably buy you seat-time, but insurance alone should be a small fortune.

It's fair game people point out members of T10 do have some first hand experience though. News to me but I'm always happy to learn something.

 

[VXR]

Being able to create your own racing team livery and take it online against other people is the very essence of racing, from bottom to top. That alone makes Forza the better 'racing' sim.

 

[JDMKING13]

Being able to create your own racing team livery and take it online against other people is the very essence of racing, from bottom to top. That alone makes Forza the better 'racing' sim.

It gives a better experience but doesn't make it a better racing sim, but the liveries are a great feature. 👍

 

[Luminis]

Ah, one addition to my ignore list, and this thread seems 50% more intelligent all of a sudden 👍

Anyways, after seeing the video of Laguna Seca (to get away from the race experiecen debate, which seemed pointless in the first place), I gotta say, it seems like T10 have finally proven that they can put some pretty accurate tracks into the game. It actually feels a bit like the whole Nordschleife thing, just reversed - but unintentional (and less extreme, though).

I'm fully expecting some people to claim that GT5's rendition is more sccurate because, well, it's GT5.

 

[Akira AC]

...so you've resorted to flame-baiting because you didn't get the unanimous response of agreement you desired? If you expect everyone to agree with you, you're going to be very disappointed. Some people see it your way, others don't. This is how the world works.

Dang...how did those World War 1 and 2 flight sims ever get made?

IL-2 must have sucked bad, because I can say for CERTAIN that nobody on that dev team flew a BF-109 and shot down a B-17. It is odd...

I wasn't obviously expecting an unanimous agreement, but I wasn't expecting flamebaiting either for just posting my thoughts on both games, people disagrees and in most cases are right but stuff like this(sample) comes into play I hardly see the discussion going somewhere.

That opinion is not corrected or even pointed out so why should I take such pre consideration while posting.

So we've now progressed to the point where Kaz can provide information on accurate light rendering in a game... based on his driving experience?

Actually no, what he can acknowledge is how the lights and the environment looks from the driver's perspective, this information is actually important when recreating the 24 hours cycles for example.

He definitely doesn't need to be racing to do that. I'll echo the sentiment found earlier in the thread: while certainly impressive, I feel Kaz' on-the-side racing career hurts GT more than it helps. It's a great marketing tool, but that's about it, as getting professionals involved makes way more sense than the game's producer.

I agree but the impact in the gameplay experience(driving, not game as a whole) is significant.

Similar how? Other than Red Bull and Pirelli both being real life companies, of course.

Red Bull Racing is involved in plenty of motorsport disciplines, providing feedback from such disciplines(mentioning again F1 and Rally) will add to each individual experience, Forza just have to deal with one surface and how the tyre works on it, but it doesn't have to deal with the different surface types.

They helped produce the telemetry system in the centre console.

Not sure, but I will believe that.

Dirt? Yep, FM3 has that. Concrete? FM3 has that too.

Tarmac, snow, wet and dirt, 4 different surface conditions, doesn't seem to relevant but a simple change these stats work will require a complete recheck in how the tyre model and grip model works.

Acknowledging the effects of these conditions will have an effect on the game engine and how its scripting works.

Much like PD's massaging of Laguna Seca's surroundings? Both games are guilty of this to a degree, as are most games in general. Doesn't make it any less good for us, regardless of who does it.

True PD also does this, but this is a matter of who do it the most, which in this case is FM, which is not a bad thing but is not a good thing either, a developer can cut corners in order to reduce production time and therefore costs, however such thing should not fill up the entire track listing(refers to the track listing in FM).

I'm not sure if you're serious or not; actual development and innovations? How most of the patches we've received in a year have just been bug patches? Or just adding in things that should've been there from release (like the proper racing customizable transmissions, or the PP scale)? What about horns, and outfits, and museum cards, and paint chips? Sure, I suppose technically, they're innovations, alright...

Cheap production techniques might also cover bringing over 800 cars from a last-generation game, where even the newest ones are over 5 years old (some being 10), and not doing any significant changes to them. Or doubling cars by making up imaginary ones thanks to engine swaps (there was never a Lexus GS300 with a turbo, as just one example). It's these exact sorts of statements that make it exceedingly clear you have no interest in actually comparing both games on any remotely even playing field. Both games have their share of innovations, and both, their unfortunate shortcuts.

Globally speaking, GT5's game engine is more advanced because it can handle more calculation and it can recreate more conditions, I known that it is an unfinished product that had over 5 years in the making just to be released, however the new features should not be ignored all together, apart from that, the GT5 resources were poorly distributed to create the amount of content necessary something that I really do think was a really dumb call from PD.

But producing and building over the same content over and over again doesn't presents any innovation or change, yes you can have the content to a mirror shine quality but it is the same content you have experience before, in the same way you experienced it before, so where is the innovation, the only significant change I've seen in FM in the latest years in the incrementation of the cars on track, the rest are just evolution in the User Interface and the online capabilities, apart from the incrementation in the car listing(which sadly is not as massive or relevant in the case of the track listing).




Having said that, I think I will stop participating in this disscusion, I'm aware I say it before but this time is for real, so I guess that the discussion(trolling or whatever) should stop here. I don't see any point in pointing out GT5 flaws when everyone here does it, is something somewhat redundant. But not accepting criticism for FM3(which is my intention) is also not acceptable in a this discussion either. I don't see how the comparison can take place when stuff from FM4 is posted with no reasoning or point of discussion, and I don't see how the discussion can take place when personal attacks are involved(most certainly when my opinion has changed during the time I have played GT5, only one thing that I have misunderstood is the GT5 engine having wind physics, the rest is information that I stop caring about to corroborate because other people and opinions doesn't seem to care about this either). I tried to follow OP but people who replies doesn't do this either.

I don't think that criticise FM3 and getting flamebait for it is worthy, it truly isn't. I know that very few people is capable of discussing this correctly, however this is outweighed by the people who doesn't seem to care to follow OP or anything, so why bother I wonder?

 

[McLaren]

Now I remember part of the reason I just skip your long paragraphs is because they're just 1 long sentence. Please, use a "." instead of a "," for the sake of anyone trying to understand what kind of argument you're trying to make.

 

[Akira AC]

Now I remember part of the reason I just skip your long paragraphs is because they're just 1 long sentence. Please, use a "." instead of a "," for the sake of anyone trying to understand what kind of argument you're trying to make.

Kind of fixed, but it hardly matters(last post for real real this time).

 

[Minty]

Actually no, what he can acknowledge is how the lights and the environment looks from the driver's perspective, this information is actually important when recreating the 24 hours cycles for example.

That doesn't take racing experience, or driving experience for that matter. I have driven my car at night, into the sunset, in the day time, into the sun rise, in rain, and in snow, just as almost every licensed driver has, with the possible exception of snow. That experience means nothing when it's experience most licensed drivers have. And non-licensed drivers have likely been passengers in cars at some point in their life.

I agree but the impact in the gameplay experience(driving, not game as a whole) is significant.

No, it's not. Putting cold, hard numbers into a game will always yield more accurate results than taking someones word for it, no matter how much experience they have.

Red Bull Racing is involved in plenty of motorsport disciplines, providing feedback from such disciplines(mentioning again F1 and Rally) will add to each individual experience, Forza just have to deal with one surface and how the tyre works on it, but it doesn't have to deal with the different surface types.

Point is, while Red Bull does deal with all of that, there's nothing(As far as I know, I could be wrong) to even suggest they shared any of that information with PD. They just got some promotion from each other. It's just mutually beneficial free advertising.

Tarmac, snow, wet and dirt, 4 different surface conditions, doesn't seem to relevant but a simple change these stats work will require a complete recheck in how the tyre model and grip model works.

It's not a coding issue, it is, for the hundredth time, a quality and power issue. T10 can't do that without sacrificing many other game play aspects(Frame rate, car models, screen tearing, etc.), so they just don't. To claim the engine can't handle it is, frankly, an ignorant assumption.

And yes, GT5 did this, but they did a terrible job with it. When I can still corner at speed with race slicks and lose hardly any time over someone with rain tires, something is wrong. And the game suffers from the things T10 avoided with Forza by not including those features(frame rate drops, screen tearing, etc.). I'd rather not have it at all, then have it implemented poorly.

 

[Spagetti69]

An end of an era.

 

[SFX Frankkkk]

I wasn't obviously expecting an unanimous agreement, but I wasn't expecting flamebaiting either for just posting my thoughts on both games, people disagrees and in most cases are right but stuff like this(sample) comes into play I hardly see the discussion going somewhere.

That opinion is not corrected or even pointed out so why should I take such pre consideration while posting.

LOL no. You've been flamebaiting by posting statements which are clearly not true. When you do post statements, instead of providing proof (which you are suppose to do, according to the OP), you simply insert some silly BS sentence and convince people to believe you. People have corrected you numerous times on numerous occasions and yet you still continue to BS and post false facts, which is why people aren't bothering with you right now. Why don't you go and re-read all the posts you've made in this thread from the very first post if you don't know what I'm talking about? I may not have posted here much but I've watched this thread from day 1 and I have pretty much seen it all.

Actually no, what he can acknowledge is how the lights and the environment looks from the driver's perspective, this information is actually important when recreating the 24 hours cycles for example.

You've just basically reworded what SlipZtrEm said. Congratulations.

Red Bull Racing is involved in plenty of motorsport disciplines, providing feedback from such disciplines(mentioning again F1 and Rally) will add to each individual experience, Forza just have to deal with one surface and how the tyre works on it, but it doesn't have to deal with the different surface types.

Right.. I guess you didn't do enough research on how Turn 10 did their R&D at Pirelli, which is a tyre manufacturer. Red Bull is just a race team based on many disciplines.. I think you'll find that gathering data from one tyre manufacturer (who supplies tyres to all sorts of race teams, including F1) is a tad more accurate than gathering feedback from a racing team.

True PD also does this, but this is a matter of who do it the most, which in this case is FM, which is not a bad thing but is not a good thing either, a developer can cut corners in order to reduce production time and therefore costs, however such thing should not fill up the entire track listing(refers to the track listing in FM).

Proof that FM "massaged Laguna Seca's surroundings" the most?

Having said that, I think I will stop participating in this disscusion, I'm aware I say it before but this time is for real, so I guess that the discussion(trolling or whatever) should stop here. I don't see any point in pointing out GT5 flaws when everyone here does it, is something somewhat redundant, but not accepting criticism for FM3(which is my intention) is also not acceptable in a this discussion either, I don't see how the comparison can take place when stuff from FM4 is posted with no reasoning or point of discussion

You've been incredibly biased against FM in this discussion and also uncritical towards GT5. Like I (and others) have said, you've posted false statements, haven't been able to prove your theories and well, it's quite clear that you're just here to stir things up and cause trouble. Your so called "criticism" of FM3 either consists of your opinions or invalid facts, which is why people are being critical of what you post. And well, pointing out GT5 flaws is part of your opinion. Who cares if a person has already pointed out a flaw? You could do it too, to back up what they've said. And well, FM4 preview content has already been released by Turn 10 as Forza 4 is only a few weeks from release, so what's the issue of people posting the FM content when the screenshots/information/videos are directly from the developers themselves? Plus you have stated false things about FM4 so people may have wanted to prove you wrong.

I don't see how the discussion can take place when personal attacks are involved(most certainly when my opinion has changed during the time I have played GT5, only one thing that I have misunderstood is the GT5 engine having wind physics, the rest is information that I stop caring about to corroborate because other people and opinions doesn't seem to care about this either), I tried to follow OP but people who replies doesn't do this either.

I don't think that criticise FM3 and getting flamebait for it is worthy, it truly isn't, I know that very few people is capable of discussing this correctly, however this is outweighed by the people who doesn't seem to care to follow OP or anything, so why bother I wonder?

Personal attacks? LOL. Basically Akira, when you go around a debate thread being completely biased and false about one thing, that's bait right there for people to come at you. And they did. In droves. You paid the price. And no, there were times where you did not follow the OP.

Leaving the thread? Oh, please be our guest and let us have a civilised discussion.

 

[Da-Bomber]

So Akira what's your Xbox live GT again?

 

[KreepaEvox]

Lol, putting the ownage aside for a sec, theres a vid on you tube comparing Laguna Seca side by side http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW5lbUZ-1fk&hd=1

 

[Vaxxtx]

Being able to create your own racing team livery and take it online against other people is the very essence of racing, from bottom to top. That alone makes Forza the better 'racing' sim.

This x100000. My favorite part of FM3, even though I am still new to it.

 

[t.o.]

Being able to create your own racing team livery and take it online against other people is the very essence of racing, from bottom to top. That alone makes Forza the better 'racing' sim.

This x100000. My favorite part of FM3, even though I am still new to it.

Here's some liveries me and my teammate did in one our FM3 ALMS series.

 

[bullet360]

That doesn't take racing experience, or driving experience for that matter. I have driven my car at night, into the sunset, in the day time, into the sun rise, in rain, and in snow, just as almost every licensed driver has, with the possible exception of snow. That experience means nothing when it's experience most licensed drivers have. And non-licensed drivers have likely been passengers in cars at some point in their life.

I dont think he was trying to state that it takes racing experiance to drive in sunrise/sunset. I believe he was saying kaz would have a better idea of "how" to implement the dawn-dusk cycle into the nurburgring 24h layout. It is rather nice, when the frames aren't dropping, and when the screen stops tearing, and when the first turn isn't a demolition derby...

 

[Luminis]

I dont think he was trying to state that it takes racing experiance to drive in sunrise/sunset. I believe he was saying kaz would have a better idea of "how" to implement the dawn-dusk cycle into the nurburgring 24h layout. It is rather nice, when the frames aren't dropping, and when the screen stops tearing, and when the first turn isn't a demolition derby...

Wouldn't the implementation of the day and night cycle be mostly a technical question? I mean, the sun doesn't look much different when viewed from a race track or from anywhere else.

Ideas about how to properly implement it would, in my opinion, be more likely to come from someone who's very knowledgable when it comes to coding graphic engines.