Forza 4 vs GT5 physics (read the first post before contributing)

[Coenraad]

Considering most ppl play with a normal controller i think it is quite viable to compare the games with those controllers as well, and not just racing wheels.

 

[another_jakhole]

Considering most ppl play with a normal controller i think it is quite viable to compare the games with those controllers as well, and not just racing wheels.

Wwelllll,

Forza 4 vs GT5 physics


One example is that it's easier to correct a (virtual) moving vehicle's oversteer, or when it's leading into a spinout, with a controller than it is with a steering wheel. Unless you drive in real life with a controller, there's no telling how realistic it would be to drive with one in comparison to a steering wheel. I think we can all agree that simulations are made NOT for controllers that can also be used for first-person shooters.

 

[Exorcet]

Unless you drive in real life with a controller, there's no telling how realistic it would be to drive with one in comparison to a steering wheel.

Well if that's the case close the thread, because USB wheels are useless too.

I think we can all agree that simulations are made NOT for controllers that can also be used for first-person shooters.

GT and Forza are made for controllers. Simulators in general are not made for anything, they're meant to be realistic, so whatever controls you're using doesn't change anything.

 

[sydwayzracing]

after playing fm4, fh and gt5 IMO, here are the things i like about the simulators (note that i call them simulators not games) 1. GT5 has more quantity of vehicles. 2. forza has better interiors. 3. forza has customizable paint and decals. 4. gt5 has a betterphysics engine for handling. 5. forza has got torque steer (that thing that makes your front tires or rear tires kick to the side during a hard launch) 6. forza has the ability to do drivetrain, asperation and engine swaps (without having to get into the programing of the vehicles aka hacking) 7. gt5 is free to play online!!! 8. gt5 has a better online comradery. 9. forza has better online servers. 10. forza has better engine sounds (blow-off valves, turbo and supercharger whine). those are my observations. now IMO i feel that GT5/GT6 is a more realistic simulator in the aspect of actual driving performance/acurate laptimes than forza. i can not knock one or the other tho, they both have there strong points and weak points.

thanks

ken

 

[Scaff]

Well if that's the case close the thread, because USB wheels are useless too.

GT and Forza are made for controllers. Simulators in general are not made for anything, they're meant to be realistic, so whatever controls you're using doesn't change anything.

Exactly.

I still don't understand the insistence that as soon as you start using a wheel then its closer to the real thing by a much larger factor, its not and its still a fair way away from reality.

Its akin to arguing that a Guitar Hero controller is better than a DS3 because its just like the real thing. Yes it is better in some ways than a controller, but its still a long way behind the real thing.

after playing fm4, fh and gt5 IMO, here are the things i like about the simulators (note that i call them simulators not games) 1. GT5 has more quantity of vehicles. 2. forza has better interiors. 3. forza has customizable paint and decals. 4. gt5 has a betterphysics engine for handling. 5. forza has got torque steer (that thing that makes your front tires or rear tires kick to the side during a hard launch) 6. forza has the ability to do drivetrain, asperation and engine swaps (without having to get into the programing of the vehicles aka hacking) 7. gt5 is free to play online!!! 8. gt5 has a better online comradery. 9. forza has better online servers. 10. forza has better engine sounds (blow-off valves, turbo and supercharger whine). those are my observations. now IMO i feel that GT5/GT6 is a more realistic simulator in the aspect of actual driving performance/acurate laptimes than forza. i can not knock one or the other tho, they both have there strong points and weak points.

thanks

ken

Just wanted to pick up on a few points here. You don't really attempt to explain why you believe the physics engine is better in GT5 for handling, other than mentioning laptimes, which are utterly irreverent.

The second point is that when you post you need to follow the AUP, which includes:

You will not use “textspeak” (“r”, “u”, “plz”, etc.) in your messages. Decent grammar is expected at all times, including proper usage of capital letters.

 

[Lock2Lock]

I still don't understand the insistence that as soon as you start using a wheel then its closer to the real thing by a much larger factor, its not and its still a fair way away from reality.

Its akin to arguing that a Guitar Hero controller is better than a DS3 because its just like the real thing. Yes it is better in some ways than a controller, but its still a long way behind the real thing.

Well if the wheel is that far from reality in your eyes Scaff, then the controller is way further away.

Like I have said before (when I actually compared GT5's actual physics), the physics engine is flawed when it comes in with the controller.

Just the fact that the game prevents you from turning your wheels all of the way over on a controller puts the DS3 in the most unrealistic bracket.

Honesty though, even your little "torque steer test", which to this day I do not call that "torque steer". Reason I don't, a RWD car doesn't have torque steer because the drive wheels are the opposite as the wheels that steer. Never have I heard of one mechanic or person besides here say it was torque steer (not saying you are wrong on every thing you said, just the term used to describe it).

Anyway, that test (whatever you want to call it), when you take off the line with a lot of wheel spin, say in a higher gear than 1st (so it doesn't just red line over and over), while on a wheel you feel the weight shift. If you hold the steering wheel perfectly center when this happens, the car will spin like in the FM4 video with the Cobra.

Which in all reality, the LSD, and transmission would play a bigger part in this than suspension would.


Just saying.

But don't get me wrong, you are correct on a lot of things Scaff (which most times I agree with you). This discussion about wheel vs controller however, and which one is more realistic, I probably will never agree with you. In my eyes and from seeing first hand the flaws with the DS3, I will never consider it being realistic/being able to determine physics in any way.

 

[Zer0]

I still don't understand the insistence that as soon as you start using a wheel then its closer to the real thing by a much larger factor, its not and its still a fair way away from reality.

Because in the context of the discussión that little gap between the type of controller would make a difference. If the only option was the real thing then no one would be discussing what game is more realistic as no game gets close to the real experience, even if a game played with a linear force feeback wheel and less assisted than a gamepad was much more close to that experience.

 

[Wolfe]

Confused.

Your facts are based on a short play period in GT5 Spec 1?

You wouldn't even know unless I had qualified my statements about things that may have changed, as I did. Is there a problem with being honest?

It's because of users like Scaff that I'm confident most of my observations are still up-to-date. If the things I noticed from my playtime had changed, he wouldn't still be complaining about them. I trust his judgment -- he's a professional driver, after all. It's not like I casually played the game, either; I scrutinized its handling, looking for strengths/faults like I do every simulator. Some problems were obvious almost immediately, such as the RWD launch thing. Scaff mentioned the continued existence of that problem in the GT Academy demo a mere day or two after it launched -- it doesn't require a lot of seat time.

More confused.

Your words/facts are meant for a FM4 played with a controller on normal (assisted) steering? you played the rented GT5 also with a controller?

It's apples to apples, isn't it? And it doesn't involve FFB or that "feeling" nonsense that has nothing to do vehicle behavior. Force feedback isn't physics. It only complements the game's innate behavior.

Also, there's nothing about Normal steering in FM4 that makes it any more assisted than any other typical console game, GT5 included. The way the front wheels twitch in GT5 is only a visual effect, otherwise the game would be utterly unplayable for the common gamer. I've played sims that offer true unassisted joystick control, and it's messy.

Just the fact that the game prevents you from turning your wheels all of the way over on a controller puts the DS3 in the most unrealistic bracket.

That would be relevant if we were complaining about a lack of understeer (hardly the case), or other problems that could be explained by insufficient steering lock, I guess. It's not difficult to relate the way DS3 steering works to actual steering; you did precisely that in making this comment. All you have to do is keep that in mind when analyzing how the car reacts to your inputs. I always do.

Which in all reality, the LSD, and transmission would play a bigger part in [the RWD burnout test] than suspension would.

It could be purely physics-related, as opposed to something to do with a specific component on the car. There's no reason to assume GT5 accounts for fundamental kinetics (yaw/pitch/roll/etc.) perfectly.

In my eyes and from seeing first hand the flaws with the DS3, I will never consider it being realistic/being able to determine physics in any way.

Could you please answer this, then -- when you're playing with a DS3, what exactly determines the behavior of the car in the game?

 

[Scaff]

Well if the wheel is that far from reality in your eyes Scaff, then the controller is way further away.

Which I said and I was not making a point contrary to that.

Like I have said before (when I actually compared GT5's actual physics), the physics engine is flawed when it comes in with the controller.

No, the input method has buffers in it that can have an effect on the results of the physics engine, the engine itself is no different.

Just the fact that the game prevents you from turning your wheels all of the way over on a controller puts the DS3 in the most unrealistic bracket.

I don't disagree, but that doesn't then automatically make using a wheel an exact replica of reality in terms of input. Now that was the point I was making.

Honesty though, even your little "torque steer test", which to this day I do not call that "torque steer". Reason I don't, a RWD car doesn't have torque steer because the drive wheels are the opposite as the wheels that steer. Never have I heard of one mechanic or person besides here say it was torque steer (not saying you are wrong on every thing you said, just the term used to describe it).

Guess I should just go and slap down the people I've spent the last two decades or so working with in the motor industry.

Torque steer is not limited to the driven wheels. You are however right that the name is an aside.

Anyway, that test (whatever you want to call it), when you take off the line with a lot of wheel spin, say in a higher gear than 1st (so it doesn't just red line over and over), while on a wheel you feel the weight shift. If you hold the steering wheel perfectly center when this happens, the car will spin like in the FM4 video with the Cobra.

Care to back that up, as I have never had it occur in any GT title (and that's using controllers and a range of wheels, be sure your not mistaking it for FFB. That aside the DS3 input buffers would not have an effect on this, as such a controller is a perfectly valid input method for this test, particularly as it removes FFB.

Which in all reality, the LSD, and transmission would play a bigger part in this than suspension would.

Which if you bothered to read any of the explanations of torque steer I have posted you would see I have mentioned repeatedly (and you forgot tyre dimensions and both lateral and longitudinal weight distribution).

Just saying.

But don't get me wrong, you are correct on a lot of things Scaff (which most times I agree with you). This discussion about wheel vs controller however, and which one is more realistic, I probably will never agree with you. In my eyes and from seeing first hand the flaws with the DS3, I will never consider it being realistic/being able to determine physics in any way.

So you disagree that while the DS3 is less realistic that a wheel, a wheel is still not a 100% realistic control method when compared to the real thing?

Because in the context of the discussion that little gap between the type of controller would make a difference. If the only option was the real thing then no one would be discussing what game is more realistic as no game gets close to the real experience, even if a game played with a linear force feedback wheel and less assisted than a gamepad was much more close to that experience.

The control method doesn't alter the physics engine at all, and input buffers can be accounted for an factored into experimentation. Its also worth noting that almost every test I have carried out has used both input methods to account for this, while your testing has been almost entirely limited to one title.

 

[Wolfe]

No, the input method has buffers in it that can have an effect on the results of the physics engine, the engine itself is no different.

...The control method doesn't alter the physics engine at all, and input buffers can be accounted for an factored into experimentation.

Indeed. The bottom line is, regardless of what kind of controller you use, the car still understeers*, it still oversteers, it still spins its wheels, it still shifts weight around, it still does all the things that define the handling and vehicle dynamics produced by the physics engine. The input may be different, but the output is always the same.

It goes back to the point I made before Zer0 went digging through my post history -- the purpose of this thread isn't about how it feels to play the game, but what the cars actually do. I don't expect a simulator to feel like I'm actually driving a car when I use a controller. I expect the in-game vehicle to behave like an actual car, or as close as possible. When you're evaluating that, you're evaluating something entirely within the software, and it has nothing to do with the hardware used to provide input.

* - Even if the steering is filtered, you're still limited by the amount of speed you can carry through a corner, and you can still spin the front wheels in a FWD or AWD car.

 

[Coenraad]

Indeed. The bottom line is, regardless of what kind of controller you use, the car still understeers*, it still oversteers, it still spins its wheels, it still shifts weight around, it still does all the things that define the handling and vehicle dynamics produced by the physics engine. The input may be different, but the output is always the same.

It goes back to the point I made before Zer0 went digging through my post history -- the purpose of this thread isn't about how it feels to play the game, but what the cars actually do. I don't expect a simulator to feel like I'm actually driving a car when I use a controller. I expect the in-game vehicle to behave like an actual car, or as close as possible. When you're evaluating that, you're evaluating something entirely within the software, and it has nothing to do with the hardware used to provide input.

* - Even if the steering is filtered, you're still limited by the amount of speed you can carry through a corner, and you can still spin the front wheels in a FWD or AWD car.

You hit the nail right on the head there.

 

[Zer0]

The control method doesn't alter the physics engine at all, and input buffers can be accounted for an factored into experimentation. Its also worth noting that almost every test I have carried out has used both input methods to account for this, while your testing has been almost entirely limited to one title.

Both GT and Forza have quite clear input buffers with a controller, and its possible to use it in both to utterly fool the physics engine.

Just get a car doing donuts with full lock and then let go of the control stick, the steering of the car (and tyres) will centre but the car will still be doing donuts.

The buffer effectively 'ignores' the rapid return to centre of the steering from an 'engine' point of view but returns it from a visual point of view.

Usually the gamepad controls being the more popular are coded with assists and buffers to ease the gameplay. More noticeable in some games than others and FM4 is not an exception.



In the other side 900º steering wheel controls are the least assisted and the best option to experience a game as a simulator.

Yes they are, however they are minimal for both GT5 and FM4 and I agree that a good wheel is a better option (but is still not without its own issues - assist or not),

Confused again.

 

[Scaff]

Confused again.

I'm not sure what you are confused about at all.

Steering inputs have buffers that can confuse the physics engines, but they don't change the physics engine.

Neither GT or FM have different physics engines based upon the input method used.

Its a rather simple concept to grasp.

Of course it would have helped if you had actually bothered to read all of my reply, which also includes...

No, the input method has buffers in it that can have an effect on the results of the physics engine, the engine itself is no different.

...which you didn't bother to include in your selected extract. Quote-mining is not a trait we value here at GT Planet.

 

[Zer0]

I'm not sure what you are confused about at all.

Steering inputs have buffers that can confuse the physics engines, but they don't change the physics engine.

Neither GT or FM have different physics engines based upon the input method used.

Its a rather simple concept to grasp.

I think that no one is discussing that but the posibility that the input method used could alter the actual physics engine, same as will do any other optional driving assist in the game. So, the better use of an 900º steering wheel for test and compare the flaws and virtues between games.

 

[Tweetman_277]

I've played Forza 4 a bit with friends (i will not pretend to be an expert) but it always lacked the feeling of weight movement that GT5 did quite well. It is a fairly subtle feeling but one that is very important to the way I drive on GT5 so i noticed the lack of it, especially in recent times after starting driving my own little car in real life.

In F4, it is the ease with which cars of all sorts of heights and weights and rigidities react to a movement. I had a spin in the Porsche Cayenne and I know it's a very well set up car for fast driving, lacking ludicrous levels of roll like many big cars in real life, but it's ability to change direction and turn without a loss of control through excessive weight movement felt, to me, on par with many far smaller, lighter and focused race machines in the game.

While GT5 does suffer similarly to some extent (especially with some of the standard cars) it does offer far more of this sensation to the player.

 

[Scaff]

I think that no one is discussing that but the posibility that the input method used could alter the actual physics engine, same as will do any other optional driving assist in the game. So, the better use of an 900º steering wheel for test and compare the flaws and virtues between games.

The point I was responding to was....

Like I have said before (when I actually compared GT5's actual physics), the physics engine is flawed when it comes in with the controller.

...which L2L will have to clarify, but does come across as input method changes the physics engine (and you yourself have implied in your post above), which is simply not true.

As such my posts on the matter have been quite consistent, you also seem to be ignoring the fact that the tests I have carried out have always been on both systems and predominantly using both controller and wheel.

I've played Forza 4 a bit with friends (i will not pretend to be an expert) but it always lacked the feeling of weight movement that GT5 did quite well. It is a fairly subtle feeling but one that is very important to the way I drive on GT5 so i noticed the lack of it, especially in recent times after starting driving my own little car in real life.

In F4, it is the ease with which cars of all sorts of heights and weights and rigidities react to a movement. I had a spin in the Porsche Cayenne and I know it's a very well set up car for fast driving, lacking ludicrous levels of roll like many big cars in real life, but it's ability to change direction and turn without a loss of control through excessive weight movement felt, to me, on par with many far smaller, lighter and focused race machines in the game.

While GT5 does suffer similarly to some extent (especially with some of the standard cars) it does offer far more of this sensation to the player.

With over 20 years of driving under my belt I have to say that I feel the exact opposite and GT5s load transfer feels stilted and inaccurate (GT6 does it a hell of a lot better), not to mention that GT still pushes primary ride as FFB through the steering, which may feel great but is inaccurate (as in reality this is what you feel through the 'seat-of-your-pants' and not through the steering. Its also something that causes PD design choice in this area to influence the physics engine in a manner that leads to innacuracies. Namely the wild shaking you get at high-speed (La Sathe is a good example of this), which should not be occurring and is not a physics engine fault but an input method issue (and in this case one in which a controller is a more accurate input than a wheel).

That said, this all relates to 'feel' again, which has been explained has nothing to do with the accuracy of the physics engine (which is the topic of this thread). As an example the Dirt series has great FFB, but I don't think anyone is going to be using that to say it has a sim physics engine (because it doesn't).

 

[Brend]

I've been playing a lot of Forza 4 split-screen with the girlfriend recently as she has got right into her Forza after playing GT at my house. And to be honest, I couldn't really say which has better physics overall.

I feel like I need less effort to play Forza, I can throw the car around as I wish and not be too worried about losing control unless I try daft things on purpose. But with GT, I tend to lose the car in normal racing and it's the opposite, if I try and throw the car...I can't at all. It's very strange. Complete opposites.

In terms of tire modelling, Forza wins hands down because you can feel the difference to tires as soon as they occur, whereas in GT5 in feels like a preset grip level is applied with no dynamics whatsoever, just when you've raced for a certain length of time, the grip goes down a 'level'.

Handling wise I prefer GT, I like the fact I need to have optimum concentration at all times.(Due to under-steer tendencies or not). I understand Forza has more of a 'fun' factor, but I guess years of growing up with GT just give it more of an edge for me. I know for a fact that there is no way Forza 4 could last me just about 3 years like GT5 has. Forza 4, I played constant for about 3 months but then it just didn't keep me interested. I don't think thats all down to the handling as also the game itself - GT has a strange charm that I can't even describe. I'm sure most GT fans know what I'm talking about because all things considered, GT5 wasn't 'great'.

In the end, I feel like Forza feels more modern and perhaps more in tune with racing, but for sheer driving pleasure. I always feel pulled back for GT. That being said, I will get an Xbox One at some point purely for Forza 5. Because 4 was well worth the overall £95 I paid for the console and game. Even if it is purely because it gives me a slight advantage when I race my girlfriend.

 

[Zer0]

The point I was responding to was....



...which L2L will have to clarify, but does come across as input method changes the physics engine (and you yourself have implied in your post above), which is simply not true.

As such my posts on the matter have been quite consistent, you also seem to be ignoring the fact that the tests I have carried out have always been on both systems and predominantly using both controller and wheel.

Well personally in that context I understand that he used "flawed" to mean "assisted" or "altered", not "a different physics engine", that would be assuming too much, but my opinion does not matter really when I was not my discussion. I was just confused by your contradictory reply to my post:

i still don't understand the insistence that as soon as you start using a wheel then its closer to the real thing by a much larger factor, its not and its still a fair way away from reality.

because in the context of the discussión that little gap between the type of controller would make a difference. If the only option was the real thing then no one would be discussing what game is more realistic as no game gets close to the real experience, even if a game played with a linear force feeback wheel and less assisted than a gamepad was much more close to that experience.

The control method doesn't alter the physics engine at all, and input buffers can be accounted for an factored into experimentation.

When you said a month back:

Both GT and Forza have quite clear input buffers with a controller, and its possible to use it in both to utterly fool the physics engine.

And the agreement in the past from you that a wheel is a better option than a gamepad to experience a sim.

 

[Lock2Lock]

The point I was responding to was....

...which L2L will have to clarify, but does come across as input method changes the physics engine (and you yourself have implied in your post above), which is simply not true.

Oh sorry I didn't reply yesterday. Long day at work.

Anyway, yeah I didn't mean that it was a totally different physics engine. When I used the word "flawed", I meant it like Zer0 said...

Well personally in that context I understand that he used "flawed" to mean "assisted" or "altered", not "a different physics engine".

 

[Exorcet]

I was just confused by your contradictory reply to my post

The wheel is a better option because it's closer to the control system used by the car, but it in no way enhances the physics so when it comes to judging physics, controls don't matter.

Oh sorry I didn't reply yesterday. Long day at work.

Anyway, yeah I didn't mean that it was a totally different physics engine. When I used the word "flawed", I meant it like Zer0 said...

I don't think it's very fitting. The physics are exactly the same in either case.

Controller vs wheel is not really much different mechanical steering vs drive by wire.

 

[Zer0]

The wheel is a better option because it's closer to the control system used by the car, but it in no way enhances the physics so when it comes to judging physics, controls don't matter.

A gamepad player?

A quick test. Try to replicate this in GT5, with a gamepad and if you have also with a wheel.

 

[Exorcet]

What would that show, regardless of the outcome?

EDIT to answer that nothing, because the input going into the physics engine would be different in each case. Now if you pick something where the input is the same between wheel and controller, you get the exact same result. That is the important part.

Because realism is not acting like a car in some video. Realism is acting like a car that has been given the inputs sent to the physics engine from the control device. Controls don't matter when it comes to judging physics.

 

[Scaff]

Well personally in that context I understand that he used "flawed" to mean "assisted" or "altered", not "a different physics engine", that would be assuming too much, but my opinion does not matter really when I was not my discussion.

And yet you just had to chip in. Oh and without clarification from the original person both are assumptions, and when you don't quote mine (as you have done again).....

the physics engine is flawed when it comes in with the controller

....it most certainly could be read either way.

I was just confused by your contradictory reply to my post:

What contradiction?

I've been quite consistent with this point and not even remotely contradictory at all, I beginning to question exactly why you are even trying to raise this point as it smacks of an attempt at a cheap shot for the hell of it.

When you said a month back:

Exactly what I said a few posts ago, so no contradiction at all.

Just one more time for you:

• A wheel is better than a pad
• A wheel is not then automatically as good as the real thing or totally accurate
• Issues exist with the input from both
• Neither change the physics engine

I've clearly highlighted issue with both input methods which can cause the physics engine to do 'odd' things, that these can be identified also clearly means they can be accounted for. The example I gave that occurs in both GT and FM of a using a pad while doing donuts and a sudden release of the stick not changing the cars direction is an example of exactly what I am talking about. Doing this doesn't alter or change the physics engine, the input buffer simple sees it as a 'anomaly' and doesn't feed it to the physics engine. As such the physics engine is not changed at all, it simply doesn't get the input.

I'm not sure why you are trying to insist that some kind of contradiction exists here, but it doesn't and given your own track record I would strongly suggest you continue to focus on your own posting rather than pushing a point that doesn't exists, as my patience in that regard is growing very thin.

And the agreement in the past from you that a wheel is a better option than a gamepad to experience a sim.

Please quote me saying anything different!

Oh sorry I didn't reply yesterday. Long day at work.

Anyway, yeah I didn't mean that it was a totally different physics engine. When I used the word "flawed", I meant it like Zer0 said...

And in the context of your whole post its ambiguous, hence the reason why I asked for calcification.

 

[Lock2Lock]

And in the context of your whole post its ambiguous, hence the reason why I asked for calcification.

Understandable man. All good.

 

[Tornado]

Confused.

Your facts are based on a short play period in GT5 Spec 1?

I forget. Did you ever actually answer the oft-repeated question (usually in response to some particularly outlandish argument, like using a FM3 video as a stand-in for FM4 as if it wasn't an issue; but sometimes in response to a completely untrue statement passed off as maybe being the case) of whether you've played Forza 4 even once?


I mean, since you want to play the "look through old posts for a smoking gun" game.

 

[Zer0]

What would that show, regardless of the outcome?

EDIT to answer that nothing, because the input going into the physics engine would be different in each case. Now if you pick something where the input is the same between wheel and controller, you get the exact same result. That is the important part.

Because realism is not acting like a car in some video. Realism is acting like a car that has been given the inputs sent to the physics engine from the control device. Controls don't matter when it comes to judging physics.

Again, I can't disagree more.

I forget. Did you ever actually answer the oft-repeated question (usually in response to some particularly outlandish argument, like using a FM3 video as a stand-in for FM4 as if it wasn't an issue; but sometimes in response to a completely untrue statement passed off as maybe being the case) of whether you've played Forza 4 even once?

Still waiting for a reply but things are tense here and dont want to pull those strings.

 

[Exorcet]

Again, I can't disagree more.

There really isn't much room for opinion though. Either the physics change with the controls or they don't. For GT and Forza, they don't.

Driving experience, or feel, or whatever you want to call it will change with the controls, but as long as the physics are constant control input doesn't matter.

Input -> physics -> output

Some controls are limited in their input, but you only need to test an output against an input, not an input against the physics.

 

[Geopan973]

Although it does not feel right, I would like to add my first impressions of Forza 4, limited as they were.
I went yesterday night to buy a kitchen appliance for the wife in a big electronics store and I ended up in the Games department, as usually.
They had an X-box running with Forza on, no employees on sight, so I gave it a shot for thirty minutes or so.
First impression (the one that truly matters to me): I LOVED IT!!!
Although I had a problem to adapt to the different gamepad layout, I turned all the aids I could see and retained only ABS, chose (wrongly in afterthought, I should have chosen a car common with GT5, but I just love the car) a 288 GTO and took it for a try in Laguna Seca and classic Nurburgring.

It never felt anywhere close to the arcade feel of NFS, Grid and similar titles I have played. Of course I am almost certain I played the arcade part of the game, but I doubt that the career mode will be drastically different.

Now to the comparison part of the thread. Naturally I will not vote in the poll, given that a 30' trial will not make me an expert.

But:

I liked the torque-effect-something. In fact, when I "floored" the throttle at the start of the race in the Ring, I somehow managed to get my car looking directly to the opposite direction. Fun AND accurate I believe.

I never encountered the occurrence about which many of the previous posters complained: you can turn the car with a speed of a billion miles and never have to hit the brakes. As a matter of fact the car behaved as I supposed it should do in real life. Too much speed, understeering heavily in entries, too much throttle oversteering smoothly (when I managed to regulate properly the throttle) on exits.

And no, I have not driven a GTO in real life, but I have driven a couple of MR cars (MR2 - MGF) not comparable certainly, but I suppose that the main handling attributes do not change that much.

A funny thing. Normally in GT5 I am driving using the bumper camera. I never felt that need in my brief experience with F4 and I can not pinpoint the reason for it.

I wish I could watch a replay, just for the joy of it, nothing to do with the physics.

All in all, I liked the feeling of "driving" in Forza4, but to be honest did not feel that much different than GT5. Again my opinion is base on FIRST impression only and is not in any way analytical and well founded. But, as I said earlier, first impression IS important to me. I have tried Grid1&2, Shift 1&2 and never got to the point to devote more than a month of play to any of them.

I would be tempted to buy an X-box and the game and I am almost certain that I would spend much more time on it. In fact if things were better financially I would have already done that...



Edit: If the mods believe that the post does not fit to this discussion thread, feel free to remove or delete.

 

[tpark103]

This is such a unrealistic poll

This is real science at work

 

[dr_slump]

Input -> physics -> aids -> output