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

[Exorcet]

Actually the aids are part of the input. So is the controller filtering of the controls. SRF is a change in the physics.

 

[erosas87]

hi to all.. im new to GT5, i always played forza games, i recently bought a PS3 and a copy Of Gt5 XL edition, and i well surprised on gt5 enviroment, graphics and so on... but the physics seems to be unrealistic in some cases e.g when u crash a car in front of u on a tight corner after a hard braking... hmmm it feels like bumper cars or something, or when u crash your with a barrier its the same feels SO arcade... i know gt5 and FM4 ARE NOT raicng sim, (for that its Iracing, or rFactor...) I also triend my momo logitech with gt5 and i have to say that itsnot good as original microsoft racing wheel and fm4 maybe because my wheel is not fully supported on this platform, I think Gt5 its most like atradition a legacy... i used to play gt and gt2 all night on my childhood, thats why i wanted to return to GT.

 

[Johnnypenso]

hi to all.. im new to GT5, i always played forza games, i recently bought a PS3 and a copy Of Gt5 XL edition, and i well surprised on gt5 enviroment, graphics and so on... but the physics seems to be unrealistic in some cases e.g when u crash a car in front of u on a tight corner after a hard braking... hmmm it feels like bumper cars or something, or when u crash your with a barrier its the same feels SO arcade... i know gt5 and FM4 ARE NOT raicng sim, (for that its Iracing, or rFactor...) I also triend my momo logitech with gt5 and i have to say that itsnot good as original microsoft racing wheel and fm4 maybe because my wheel is not fully supported on this platform, I think Gt5 its most like atradition a legacy... i used to play gt and gt2 all night on my childhood, thats why i wanted to return to GT.

FYI, the Acceptable Use Policy https://www.gtplanet.net/aup/ states that "decent grammar is expected at all times, including proper usage of capital letters."

 

[ryzno]

hi to all.. im new to GT5, i always played forza games, i recently bought a PS3 and a copy Of Gt5 XL edition, and i well surprised on gt5 enviroment, graphics and so on... but the physics seems to be unrealistic in some cases e.g when u crash a car in front of u on a tight corner after a hard braking... hmmm it feels like bumper cars or something, or when u crash your with a barrier its the same feels SO arcade... i know gt5 and FM4 ARE NOT raicng sim, (for that its Iracing, or rFactor...) I also triend my momo logitech with gt5 and i have to say that itsnot good as original microsoft racing wheel and fm4 maybe because my wheel is not fully supported on this platform, I think Gt5 its most like atradition a legacy... i used to play gt and gt2 all night on my childhood, thats why i wanted to return to GT.

Says every person that comes from Forza, at the end of a games life.
I also dont think a Microsoft wheel is the best choise for gt5.
Then the comment about unrealistic accidents in turns. Next time your on the highway tap the car next to you on their inside corner and watch them spin like a top if they dont know how to drive. If you want real, stop playing a game and buy a saturday night racer.
Also hitting barrires in turns means your to fast in, so slow down so you can make the turn, sounds pretty real to me, not at full throttle like other games.

 

[Scaff]

Says every person that comes from Forza, at the end of a games life.

Really? All of them?

I also dont think a Microsoft wheel is the best choise for gt5.

Its not.

Then the comment about unrealistic accidents in turns. Next time your on the highway tap the car next to you on their inside corner and watch them spin like a top if they dont know how to drive. If you want real, stop playing a game and buy a saturday night racer.
Also hitting barrires in turns means your to fast in, so slow down so you can make the turn, sounds pretty real to me, not at full throttle like other games.

I think you miss the point being made, which is not to do with is driving, but to do with how GT5 reacts when you hit another car. Which does have issues with it, now as for his driving, are you saying you have never hit another car or been hit with one at all when playing a driving title?

I doubt it.

 

[ryzno]

Really? All of them?

I think you miss the point being made, which is not to do with is driving, but to do with how GT5 reacts when you hit another car. Which does have issues with it, now as for his driving, are you saying you have never hit another car or been hit with one at all when playing a driving title?

I doubt it.

One day I'll figure out how to separate quotes like that...

Ok, I did over exaggerate a little.


I can see where you are going. But you have to also think about possible damage that can/would occur, at the point of impact and then the damage from the aftermath of the accident.

Besides the games physics flaws. If he is even running damage on, he will never get the full effects of a accident. Right off the top a suspension will never completely fail. There are many flaws in the physics in GT5.
Also, the way the game is, I dont think the game was made for accident/damage. Its more around the experience of driving.

They just took it to a whole different level. I bet if they released this game as a "Real Driving Simulator" with no adjustments etc.. And more realistic physics. GT probably wouldnt have survived past the PS1.

Can you only think of the man hours it would take to make every part that we add on, or the infinite other tuning aspects of each car.(not to mention unrealistic drag trans. setups.) No game will ever be real/perfect.

Way off topic thought o_O Look at the simulators kids have now in school. Lagging computers with extremely poor physics. Believe it or not I learned to drive from the GT series as a kid, and I think it helps with observation and prediction of other drivers. ryzcology 001

Anyways back on topic... I cant begin to tell you the number of times I have been plowed into(waiting to stage for 1/4) and some beep will plow into me and send me like a hockey puck. I call it the "Ice Effect".

 

[Deadpool]

Just played Forza 4 again, and I still don't get how anyone can find the handling physics realistic. There is way way too much slip and it's too easy to control.

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.

In regards to the controls/judging physics, I can't disagree more.

Yes, the physics engine stays the same regardless of input. BUT the input used can determine how much information you recieve. Now, I'm not referring to FFB here, but the minute adjustments a wheel provides which you will NEVER get with a controller.

Things like throttle input with pedals, or very tiny steering inputs, you can't experience these with a controller. With a controller you can test many things in the physics engine, BUT it is limited in how much you can test/feel (not FFB) vs a wheel.

Think of it this way. We take two identical cars in real life, but we setup one with a controller rather than a wheel. Now I want you to do a test and give me impressions/notes on the dynamic handling traits of the vehicle. With the controller you will be able to give me the basic traits, but nowhere near as detailed as you will with the steering wheel.

 

[Scaff]

Just played Forza 4 again, and I still don't get how anyone can find the handling physics realistic.

Because it models more areas of physics correctly than GT5 does

There is way way too much slip........

In comparison to what?

......and it's too easy to control.

Difficult =/= Realistic

 

[Deadpool]

Because it models more areas of physics correctly than GT5 does

Yes and no. Some areas F4 is better and others GT.

In comparison to what?

In comparison to real life. The amount of slip the tires get, is not realistic. Especially with race tires, you don't get these slip angles let alone as effortlessly as you do in F4. Street tires give you the gradual increase in slip angle along with lots of room to correct, you don't have that with race tires.

This might help clarify. It's not that I don't agree with the physics regarding how the car initiates the slip angle, that part is fine, it's how it responds after that point. It's as if (and T10 alluded to this) the game then inputs nannies to help you keep the slip angle and simplify the correction process, probably overriding the physics engine to allow for a "fun experience".

Difficult =/= Realistic

I didn't say that difficult equals realistic. I said it's too easy to control in F4, and this was in reference to real life.

And in real life correcting a car at 10/10 at speed, it tends to be tricky, this is not the case at all with F4. GT isn't perfect either, it's a bit too aggressive with the oversteer in some cases, primarily lower speed, but high speed is pretty good.

 

[Scaff]

Yes and no. Some areas F4 is better and others GT.

And overall FM4 models more areas better that GT5, the fact that GT5 doesn't even model tyre deformation and still uses simple grip multipliers for tyres are enough to put it behind FM4 (and don't get me started on just how wrong the physics engine works for RR).

In comparison to real life. The amount of slip the tires get, is not realistic. Especially with race tires, you don't get these slip angles let alone as effortlessly as you do in F4. Street tires give you the gradual increase in slip angle along with lots of room to correct, you don't have that with race tires.

This might help clarify. It's not that I don't agree with the physics regarding how the car initiates the slip angle, that part is fine, it's how it responds after that point. It's as if (and T10 alluded to this) the game then inputs nannies to help you keep the slip angle and simplify the correction process, probably overriding the physics engine to allow for a "fun experience".

Neither gets slip 100% right, however the progression in GT5 is pretty much digital, with self-aligning torque not appearing in the model and once the slip limit is exceeded its far from realistic in regard to to difficultly in recovery.

I didn't say that difficult equals realistic. I said it's too easy to control in F4, and this was in reference to real life.

And in real life correcting a car at 10/10 at speed, it tends to be tricky, this is not the case at all with F4. GT isn't perfect either, it's a bit too aggressive with the oversteer in some cases, primarily lower speed, but high speed is pretty good.

With a wheel FM4 recover is not 'easy', its simply not as absurdly difficult as GT is. What FM4 does get far more accurately is that dependent on drivetrain and situation some will be easier to recover that others, a distinction that is almost lost in GT5.

 

[Deadpool]

And overall FM4 models more areas better that GT5, the fact that GT5 doesn't even model tyre deformation and still uses simple grip multipliers for tyres are enough to put it behind FM4 (and don't get me started on just how wrong the physics engine works for RR).

The tire deformation def goes to F4, BUT the fact that F4 has added a form of nanny destroys all the work they did. What's the use of a good physics engine if you then dumb it down for the general public.

Neither gets slip 100% right, however the progression in GT5 is pretty much digital, with self-aligning torque not appearing in the model and once the slip limit is exceeded its far from realistic in regard to to difficultly in recovery.

No it's not. I've got lost of seat time with many different track cars running slicks, and frankly Forza is a joke in how they replicate the slip limit/progression of race tires. GT5 does this a lot lot better.

I can see you ignored my point about the clear driver aid that F4 is using to counter the physics engine. IMO had they not done this, their physics engine would win due to other advantages. BUT because of it, it destroys all the hard work they did.

The same goes for understeer, GT5 exaggerates it, but it's still closer to real life than F4 due to nannies. They dumbed down a solid physics engine. You simply don't get punished in F4 for mistakes like you would in real life.

With a wheel FM4 recover is not 'easy', its simply not as absurdly difficult as GT is. What FM4 does get far more accurately is that dependent on drivetrain and situation some will be easier to recover that others, a distinction that is almost lost in GT5.

With a wheel it is VERY easy to save in F4, sorry but I can save pretty much everything without breaking a sweat. I don't even have to be very quick with my corrections to save, which brings us back to the very clear driver nannies that have been put in place for casual gamers.

With GT5, using a wheel, I find the high speed corrections much more accurate with race tires. There is very little room for error and you have to react quickly........just like in a real car.

If real life was as easy to save as in F4, my co-driver wouldn't have stuck our 800hp Porsche into the wall at the top of Eau Rouge. As soon as it rotated it was gone......nothing at all like F4.

And in GT5 I easily notice the difference between chassis and layout. IMO F4 exaggerates this.

 

[mustafur]

Forza would be a really good game if they modeled grip correctly, the way it is now is horrific.

Adding slicks to a car barely improves grip which i know for a fact is BS and AWD has faaaaaaaar too much advantage off the line which only highlights my point on the lack of grip and thats the reason AWD gets such a take off advantage.

 

[Lock2Lock]

@Scaff

I know we have discussed this many times regarding the overall feeling of the wheel and I agree with him on that. This is one of the things that I tried to point out before with my previous discussions.

My experience in Forza with the wheel was about the same, it did feel easy to recover from slides.

Now I don't have the real life experience with cars like he is saying he has, but I do have some (I wouldn't say track but other) experience with multiple drive trains. Some thing just feels off on Forza.

However, like you said Forza does model a lot of areas correctly.
One thing I might add, PD's setup for modeling slip angle on some cars might be off more than others because of the way they chose to do so. What I mean by this is their rather simple difference in tire grip style (as in Type V and Type C tires) that are set to the cars by default

 

[Scaff]

The tire deformation def goes to F4, BUT the fact that F4 has added a form of nanny destroys all the work they did. What's the use of a good physics engine if you then dumb it down for the general public.

Control methods on both titles are an issue, but I would rather take a good physics engine with a small number of aids than one that is very basic in three key areas and a minimal aids.

No it's not. I've got lost of seat time with many different track cars running slicks, and frankly Forza is a joke in how they replicate the slip limit/progression of race tires. GT5 does this a lot lot better.

I can see you ignored my point about the clear driver aid that F4 is using to counter the physics engine. IMO had they not done this, their physics engine would win due to other advantages. BUT because of it, it destroys all the hard work they did.

I've not ignored the point at all, I just don't consider it to be as big an issue as you do.

In regard to real world experience vs GT5/FM4 I would have to disagree (and I have plenty of my own), however subjective opinion is just that. In terms of what is modelled by both engines I don't personally think its even close.

The same goes for understeer, GT5 exaggerates it, but it's still closer to real life than F4 due to nannies. They dumbed down a solid physics engine. You simply don't get punished in F4 for mistakes like you would in real life.

Totally and utterly disagree, GT5 has understeer that doesn't model the reduction in self aligning torque via the steering (which makes its on-set virtually digital) and once the slip limit is passed recovery from understeer is totally unrealistic. Not to mention the complete lack of lift-off oversteer should you wish to correct for that it in FWD cars.

With a wheel it is VERY easy to save in F4, sorry but I can save pretty much everything without breaking a sweat. I don't even have to be very quick with my corrections to save, which brings us back to the very clear driver nannies that have been put in place for casual gamers.

With GT5, using a wheel, I find the high speed corrections much more accurate with race tires. There is very little room for error and you have to react quickly........just like in a real car.

Again our subjective opinions will have to differ on this, but I've never had anything like the trouble I do in GT recovering from small yaw angle oversteer as you get in GT5.

If real life was as easy to save as in F4, my co-driver wouldn't have stuck our 800hp Porsche into the wall at the top of Eau Rouge. As soon as it rotated it was gone......nothing at all like F4.

And in GT5 I easily notice the difference between chassis and layout. IMO F4 exaggerates this.

Again we will have to disagree, particularly in regard to RR models, the lower torque ones in particular do not act as they should in GT5 at all (something that even PD have acknowledged and demo'd with the Alpine video - understeering on a steady throttle increase rather the always on oversteer GT5 has).

 

[Deadpool]

Control methods on both titles are an issue, but I would rather take a good physics engine with a small number of aids than one that is very basic in three key areas and a minimal aids.

I would rather have my core areas done well and not have aids destroy a otherwise solid physics engine. F4 has more "inputs" for the physics engine to use, but what's the point if you go and disregard the inputs and assist with under/oversteer?

I've not ignored the point at all, I just don't consider it to be as big an issue as you do.

Not responding is ignoring.

The aids are a HUGE issue. We are talking about which game "simulates" the real world cars more realistically. By employing aids to help with under/oversteer F4 destroyed what would have been a good sim. Yes GT5 doesn't have as in depth of a physics engine, BUT it doesn't use aids to dumb it down, and in the end it ends up being a more realistic simulation.

Remove the aids and F4 would be the better sim due to the tire and suspension model.

In regard to real world experience vs GT5/FM4 I would have to disagree (and I have plenty of my own), however subjective opinion is just that. In terms of what is modelled by both engines I don't personally think its even close.

Then you clearly don't have experience with slicks because they do NOT have a progressive slip angle like F4. This is all easily proven with a quick google search regarding slicks. The racing world disagrees with you, it's not subjective at all.

Totally and utterly disagree, GT5 has understeer that doesn't model the reduction in self aligning torque via the steering (which makes its on-set virtually digital) and once the slip limit is passed recovery from understeer is totally unrealistic. Not to mention the complete lack of lift-off oversteer should you wish to correct for that it in FWD cars.

I'm not saying GT5 is realistic with understeer, but that F4's "aids" remove a lot of understeer that should be there. Because of this GT5 is more "realistic" in what happens when you go in too hot. In F4 you don't get punished for this mistake.

In regards to FWD, some have LTO in GT5, but like in real life not all FWD cars allow LTO. Manufacturers usually setup the suspension/chassis to NOT have LTO.

Again our subjective opinions will have to differ on this, but I've never had anything like the trouble I do in GT recovering from small yaw angle oversteer as you get in GT5.

I don't have any trouble correcting small yaw angle oversteer in GT5, but I'm also quick to catch it and can anticipate it. But I can't be leisurely about it like I can in F4.

One thing I notice, is the cars in F4 have the same reaction to slip angle at low speed as they do high speed, slow and progressive. This is not realistic and a clear example of the aids at work.

Again we will have to disagree, particularly in regard to RR models, the lower torque ones in particular do not act as they should in GT5 at all (something that even PD have acknowledged and demo'd with the Alpine video - understeering on a steady throttle increase rather the always on oversteer GT5 has).

Which video?

I could also handpick cars from F4 that act nothing like the real world cars, and T10's response to this is hilarious. They input the specs into the system and if the car handles like crap (unlike its real world counterpart) their response is "the system doesn't lie"........sorry but if it's not handling like the real car then you've obviously messed something up.

The bottom line is there are aids helping you in F4, and it destroys the "realism/simulation". Think of it this way, if the F1 teams were to alter their simulations to counter/ignore every bad input the drivers did.......it would no longer be a realistic simulation. The physics involved would be fine, but the way it compensates for inputs would be a big problem.

Another thing I notice, I have a few F4 friends and a few GT5 friends. When the F4 friends play GT5 they are constantly making big mistakes/spinning etc due to the bad habits they got from F4........and when we go to a real track they make the same mistakes while the GT5 guys are much quicker/consistent in real life. It's not a coincidence. The real world doesn't help you out on the track, it doesn't compensate for your mistakes or spoon feed you.

 

[Scaff]

I would rather have my core areas done well and not have aids destroy a otherwise solid physics engine. F4 has more "inputs" for the physics engine to use, but what's the point if you go and disregard the inputs and assist with under/oversteer?

What's the point of having no aids if the core engine doesn't simulate things correctly? That works both ways.

Lets also be clear here, both title use aids depending on the input method used.

Not responding is ignoring.

You mean just as you then 'ignored' at least one specific point I raised. You know, people.....glass houses.....

The aids are a HUGE issue. We are talking about which game "simulates" the real world cars more realistically. By employing aids to help with under/oversteer F4 destroyed what would have been a good sim. Yes GT5 doesn't have as in depth of a physics engine, BUT it doesn't use aids to dumb it down, and in the end it ends up being a more realistic simulation.

In your opinion.

Remove the aids and F4 would be the better sim due to the tire and suspension model.

And in my opinion its a better sim despite the aids.

Then you clearly don't have experience with slicks because they do NOT have a progressive slip angle like F4. This is all easily proven with a quick google search regarding slicks. The racing world disagrees with you, it's not subjective at all.

Quite wrong in regard to experience I'm afraid. Also in regard to slicks not having a progressive slip angle either, it may not be as progressive as a road tyre, but its still not digital, and just as with road tyres it will vary from compound to compound, size to size, brand to brand, etc. (and odd that you should mention it given that between the two - race tyres in GT are actually more progressive than road tyres)

I'm not saying GT5 is realistic with understeer, but that F4's "aids" remove a lot of understeer that should be there. Because of this GT5 is more "realistic" in what happens when you go in too hot. In F4 you don't get punished for this mistake.

GT5 punishes you too hard and FM4 doesn't punish you enough, that I would agree, however for my money FM is still the closer of the two, particularly when it comes to recovering from the understeer.

In regards to FWD, some have LTO in GT5, but like in real life not all FWD cars allow LTO. Manufacturers usually setup the suspension/chassis to NOT have LTO.

Could you let me know exactly which ones in GT5 have lift-off oversteer, because cars that I know categorically have it (and I have plenty of experience with) simply do not demonstrate it at all.

I don't have any trouble correcting small yaw angle oversteer in GT5, but I'm also quick to catch it and can anticipate it. But I can't be leisurely about it like I can in F4.

And yet cars that should be nice and leasurly in reality to catch are still snappy when correcting.

One thing I notice, is the cars inF4 have the reaction to slip angle at low speed as they do high speed, slow and progressive. This is not realistic and a clear example of the aids at work.

All of them?

Which video?

The GT6 launch video that showcased the new physics.

I could also handpick cars from F4 that act nothing like the real world cars, and T10's response to this is hilarious. They input the specs into the system and if the car handles like crap (unlike its real world counterpart) their response is "the system doesn't lie"........sorry but if it's not handling like the real car then you've obviously messed something up.

Dp you have a link for that? Oh and I'm not handpicking a car.

In reality in a RR car on a constant radius if you keep applying the throttle gradually without reducing lock what should the balance be? Understeer or Oversteer?

The bottom line is there are aids helping you in F4, and it destroys the "realism/simulation". Think of it this way, if the F1 teams were to alter their simulations to counter/ignore every bad input the drivers did.......it would no longer be a realistic simulation. The physics involved would be fine, but the way it compensates for inputs would be a big problem.

And if the physics were wrong in the first place it would not matter how many aids were removed/reduced either. Its a question of which set of compromises works best, for you its GT's and for me its FM's (funnily enough I'm running neither right now).

Another thing I notice, I have a few F4 friends and a few GT5 friends. When the F4 friends play GT5 they are constantly making big mistakes/spinning etc due to the bad habits they got from F4........and when we go to a real track they make the same mistakes while the GT5 guys are much quicker/consistent in real life. It's not a coincidence. The real world doesn't help you out on the track, it doesn't compensate for your mistakes or spoon feed you.

Good for them. Personally in the years of using sims as a training tool for track drivers I found all of them to be highly flawed for anything but the basics.


BTW - You never did explain how a Mini Cooper and a Corvette had the same CoG.....

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...fore-contributing.226995/page-28#post-7001361

 

[Deadpool]

What's the point of having no aids if the core engine doesn't simulate things correctly? That works both ways.

The core engine simulates most things correctly/close actually. It lacks a few inputs F4 has, but it doesn't have the bogus aids. One is far worse than the other in terms of simulation IMO.

Lets also be clear here, both title use aids depending on the input method used.

Let's be clear I'm talking about wheels, and the aids I'm referring to are a arcadish "help" being applied to the physics of F4 in terms of understeer and oversteer, and it renders all the rest of its nice features a moot point.

You mean just as you then 'ignored' at least one specific point I raised. You know, people.....glass houses.....

Care to share which point I "ignored". You can't call someone out and then neglect to be specific.

In your opinion.

In reality the effect on oversteer is not really a opinion.

And in my opinion its a better sim despite the aids.

So let me get this straight. You find it a better sim because of the tire model/suspension model etc.........all of which are supposed to improve the physics engines application of car dynamics/oversteer/understeer...........which is then neutered and rendered pointless because the designers applied a arcade handicap to it.

I hope you see how flawed this logic is.

Quite wrong in regard to experience I'm afraid. Also in regard to slicks not having a progressive slip angle either, it may not be as progressive as a road tyre, but its still not digital, and just as with road tyres it will vary from compound to compound, size to size, brand to brand, etc.

Not as progressive as a road tire? That's a ridiculous statement, they are not even in the same galaxy in terms of being progressive.

And in F4 it's progressive like a road tire, this is not realistic. You try to skirt the issue with comments like it not being digital as in GT5. I've already said its a little too aggressive in GT5, but it's still miles better than the fake progressive tire in Forza. This all comes back to the arcade handicap in F4, this is the root of the problem.

GT5 punishes you too hard and FM4 doesn't punish you enough, that I would agree, however for my money FM is still the closer of the two, particularly when it comes to recovering from the understeer.

With oversteer I think a balance between the two is needed, but leaning further to the GT5 side.

With understeer I will agree that recovery is closer with F4, but that it is too difficult to initiate understeer in the first place. Again it's a balance of the two.

Could you let me know exactly which ones in GT5 have lift-off oversteer, because cars that I know categorically have it (and I have plenty of experience with) simply do not demonstrate it at all.

I honestly rarely drive FWD, not my preference. I've noticed it on older civics, Type R. I've driven these in real life, limited time though as I really hate FWD haha.

And yet cars that should be nice and leasurly in reality to catch are still snappy when correcting.

Depends, at high speed nothing should be "leisurely". But at low speed I agree, I actually find F4's low speed oversteer dynamics to be better for most, it's the high speed I have a issue with.

Granted with both games having 600+ cars, there will be cars that behave wrong.

All of them?

Yes, I've found it to act a bit like a constant.

The GT6 launch video that showcased the new physics.

I'll go check it out again, haven't driven that car or seen the clip so I can't comment till I do.

I'm not handpicking a car.

Agree to disagree.

In reality in a RR car on a constant radius if you keep applying the throttle gradually without reducing lock what should the balance be? Understeer or Oversteer?

Depends on the variables, how you entered the corner etc.

But I'm going to assume you mean starting at a slow speed in a constant radius turn and gradually adding throttle. Pretty much all cars should be neutral until they reach the limit of the tires at which point it switches to either understeer or oversteer. Doing a constant circle in a high HP car you usually are neutral followed by oversteer eventually.

But my question is why would you have lock applied in this scenario? Can you clarify the test.

And if the physics were wrong in the first place it would not matter how many aids were removed/reduced either. Its a question of which set of compromises works best, for you its GT's and for me its FM's (funnily enough I'm running neither right now).

It's not so much as the physics being wrong or right. As there is no "right" apart from reality. With GT5 you have a good physics engine without aids, and with F4 you have a better engine due to more variables being accounted for, but they then apply a bit of arcade handicap.

Id rather have fewer variables and no aids, and you prefer the aids. IMO it's a contradiction but I digress.

Good for them. Personally in the years of using sims as a training tool for track drivers I found all of them to be highly flawed for anything but the basics.

I agree with that. The best thing they can be used for is learning a track, apart from that only the basics and maybe keeping you "fresh" between track time.

The point of my comment was correlation though.

 

[Scaff]

The core engine simulates most things correctly/close actually. It lacks a few inputs F4 has, but it doesn't have the bogus aids. One is far worse than the other in terms of simulation IMO.

No the core engine doesn't simulate most things correctly at all, it misses out quite significant areas, in particular the tyre model has significant flaws in it (one of which is radically different cars having the same lat-g on the same compound - a point you still have not fully addressed a year and a half on) as does the suspension model (damper modelling in particular).

Let's be clear I'm talking about wheels, and the aids I'm referring to are a arcadish "help" being applied to the physics of F4 in terms of understeer and oversteer, and it renders all the rest of its nice features a moot point.

While FM4 may have aids its a stretch indeed to say they render the physics engine moot.

Care to share which point I "ignored". You can't call someone out and then neglect to be specific.

The entire point about RR cars and a question you still have left un-answered for a year and a half.

In reality the effect on oversteer is not really a opinion.

What? I was talking about the package as a whole, as was the part of your post I quoted!

So let me get this straight. You find it a better sim because of the tire model/suspension model etc.........all of which are supposed to improve the physics engines application of car dynamics/oversteer/understeer...........which is then neutered and rendered pointless because the designers applied a arcade handicap to it.

I hope you see how flawed this logic is.

I will say again.....While FM4 may have aids its a stretch indeed to say they render the physics engine moot.

Not as progressive as a road tire? That's a ridiculous statement, they are not even in the same galaxy in terms of being progressive.

Your going to need to explain then, as your statement here doesn't make any sense

And in F4 it's progressive like a road tire, this is not realistic. You try to skirt the issue with comments like it not being digital as in GT5. I've already said its a little too aggressive in GT5, but it's still miles better than the fake progressive tire in Forza. This all comes back to the arcade handicap in F4, this is the root of the problem.

I'm not skirting around any issue, but I do notice that you didn't address the point on slicks being more progressive in GT than road (comfort tyres), its not a little to agressive in GT - when viewed across the board its far too aggressive.

With oversteer I think a balance between the two is needed, but leaning further to the GT5 side.

With understeer I will agree that recovery is closer with F4, but that it is too difficult to initiate understeer in the first place. Again it's a balance of the two.

I honestly rarely drive FWD, not my preference. I've noticed it on older civics, Type R. I've driven these in real life, limited time though as I really hate FWD haha.

So you passed comment without any great degree of experience on them!

FWD cars in GT do not exhibit lift off oversteer like they should, you mention manufacturers engineering this out, but one I worked for (and is represented in GT5) engineered in into its cars and that doesn't get recreated accurately at all.

Depends, at high speed nothing should be "leisurely". But at low speed I agree, I actually find F4's low speed oversteer dynamics to be better for most, it's the high speed I have a issue with.

Granted with both games having 600+ cars, there will be cars that behave wrong.

Agreed in terms of high speed, but GT will try and do it at moderate speeds as well.

Yes, I've found it to act a bit like a constant.

OK, you seem to have a rather different experience to me.

Agree to disagree.

I discussed a point about an entire drive-trains worth of cars (RR), using a single example to illustrate a point I made about all of them is not cherry picking a single model!

Depends on the variables, how you entered the corner etc.

But I'm going to assume you mean starting at a slow speed in a constant radius turn and gradually adding throttle. Pretty much all cars should be neutral until they reach the limit of the tires at which point it switches to either understeer or oversteer. Doing a constant circle in a high HP car you usually are neutral followed by oversteer eventually.

But my question is why would you have lock applied in this scenario? Can you clarify the test.

Why would such a simple and basic example of RR vehicle dynamics need more clarification?

Static balance of a RR is at least 60% rear 40% front (many have a much greater rear bias), almost all have more rubber at the rear than the front.

Under gradual acceleration around a constant radius the load will shift to the rear outside (which would already be the load and roll centre), as acceleration continues the degree of load to that area will increase. Only one handling balance will result from this. Understeer.

In GT5 it never does, I have tested every RR in the title and not a single one of them exhibits understeer under these circumstances (yet even Porsche go to great lengths to get drivers at the Porsche Driving School to understand this nature balance).

RR cars want to understeer during and out of a corner on a gradual throttle, oversteer will occur only if you have the torque to power over (and in a RR you will need a significant amount of it) or you lift off. However those two areas are not what I am talking about.

It's not so much as the physics being wrong or right. As there is no "right" apart from reality.

I agree 100%

With GT5 you have a good physics engine without aids, and with F4 you have a better engine due to more variables being accounted for, but they then apply a bit of arcade handicap.

Id rather have fewer variables and no aids, and you prefer the aids. IMO it's a contradiction but I digress.

Which I would agree with if GT5 did have a solid physics engine, but it doesn't. The flaws it has are quite significant.

The point of my comment was correlation though.

Pick a sim and I will provide you with quotes of pro-drivers/instructors saying its great/rubbish, at best its anecdotal, at worse its paid marketing.

 

[Wolfe]

@Deadpool --
I agree that FM4 is both excessively prone to power-oversteer, and easier to handle than reality (in part because other forms of oversteer are underrepresented, IMO), but why dismiss the facets of handling that are simulated in FM4 and aren't simulated in GT5, or the behaviors that are represented more accurately in FM4 than GT5, simply because the latter is more willing to punish mistakes? Perhaps FM4 was designed with a handicap that keeps you from getting into too much trouble -- I get the same feeling myself -- but even if that's the case, the end result of your inputs is still more faithful to reality than you get from GT5.

Neither game comes close to being the most accurate simulator around, so between the two I don't think FM4's meddling holds it back. I do find FM4's docile and rock-steady handling somewhat unappealing, but for me GT5's shortcomings in oversteer and weight transfer and tire behavior are even less acceptable.

 

[Deadpool]

No the core engine doesn't simulate most things correctly at all, it misses out quite significant areas, in particular the tyre model has significant flaws in it (one of which is radically different cars having the same lat-g on the same compound - a point you still have not fully addressed a year and a half on) as does the suspension model (damper modelling in particular).

Disagree, it get's most of the basics and fundamentals correct. And I address the "year and a half on" below, aka I never saw it because I got bored of the discussion

But let's comment on the lat-g while were here. This is based on the assumption that the g meter on GT5 is accurate or precise, something we don't know. The other problem is skidpad numbers are not always indicative of maximum lateral g's that can be achieved on a track, this is because it's a very one dimensional test. There are many cases where one car pulls higher g's on the skidpad but lower peak g's on the track.

Another thing to note, there is a case of the law of diminishing returns with the skidpad. You will also find a lot of similar performance cars on similar tires pulling the same #'s despite very different drivetrains, tire width etc. I remember we were speaking about the Mini vs Vette. Did some digging and found a few things, a scca article with a Mini Cooper S on Hoosier A6's pulling as high as 1.057
http://www.yellowstonescca.com/pages/tips.htm

I haven't been able to find numbers for the C6 Z06 running slicks, but based on similar chassis (race/lightened) it could be somewhere around 1.13+. But we still return to the problem of how accurate the g meter is on GT5 let alone how it doesn't give a recorded system. It should also be noted, that when the gtplanet member did this test, he noted that there were cars that performed significantly worse on the same tire as others. So perhaps even more testing needs to be done to rule out anomalies.

While FM4 may have aids its a stretch indeed to say they render the physics engine moot.

When those aids lean more to a arcade style of oversteer it does.

The entire point about RR cars and a question you still have left un-answered for a year and a half.

lol wow....... you can't be serious. Like I was supposed to understand you were rehashing something from over a year ago.

I hate to break your heart, but I never even read your response or any of the other posts after that. Some of us get busy with work or bored with debates on forums. So I didn't "ignore" your post, I never even read it lol. Apples to oranges.

Seriously though, you need to be clearer in your posts because nobody would have understood where you were going with that.

What? I was talking about the package as a whole, as was the part of your post I quoted!

Again, if you are going to make a blanket statement like that in regards to a full paragraph you should only quote the part which you are referring too.

I will say again.....While FM4 may have aids its a stretch indeed to say they render the physics engine moot.

The aids completely contradict and work against the physics engine........ IMO this makes all the hard work rather pointless. Like using a prime dry aged steak, then cooking it well done and topping it with steak sauce....... what's the point.

Your going to need to explain then, as your statement here doesn't make any sense

Your comment regarding a slick tire made it sound like the difference between it's progression and the progression of a road tire was not as large as I said it was. Which was ridiculous. All tires have a progressive slip, BUT the difference between the amount of progression for a road tire vs a slick is miles, they shouldnt even be put in the same paragraph. The slip progression of a slick tire is minuscule vs a street tire. I then followed it up with my comment on how in F4 the slick tires have a progressive slip similar to a road tire, and that is a problem.

I'm not skirting around any issue, but I do notice that you didn't address the point on slicks being more progressive in GT than road (comfort tyres), its not a little to agressive in GT - when viewed across the board its far too aggressive.

I was posting while working and missed that. But I will respond to it now, and I completely disagree as that couldn't be further from the truth. The road tires have a larger progression of slip vs the race tires in GT, that is a fact.

Now, if you are trying to refer to placing the worst comfort tires on a fast car and then compare that reaction to the race tires, it actually hurts your point. Why? In real life, if I take say a M3, and slap on the worst possible tire, and then go into a corner at speeds I would attempt with slicks, it is going to spin like a top. In GT5 if I take that same M3 and slap on comfort hards, it will slide with ease at low speed and is relatively easy to control at slower speeds........ if I try to enter a turn at high speed like with race softs, it wont end well. Now let's put the race softs on the M3, it has pretty much no oversteer at low-med speeds unless I do something really stupid, and when it does lose grip it is much quicker to snap and lose all traction. This is how it works in the real world.

Far too aggressive? No not at all. Then again when I read comments like that it's usually from people using a controller, use a wheel and you will find it's much closer to reality than the simplified oversteer in F4. I still think it's a little too aggressive, but not by much.

So you passed comment without any great degree of experience on them!

Nice assumption, but no. I commented on the ones I know. There are 1000+ cars, neither of us have tested every car in the game and their real life counterparts, don't be silly.

FWD cars in GT do not exhibit lift off oversteer like they should, you mention manufacturers engineering this out, but one I worked for (and is represented in GT5) engineered in into its cars and that doesn't get recreated accurately at all.

The FWD cars that I have driven in real life and in GT5 had similar amount of LTO actually, and some not at all. And you are cherry picking a car out of 1000, they can't all be right, just as there are cars in F4 that have issues. I found the handling of the STi/Mustang GT/M3/RX8 and many more to be unrealistic in F4, some have them had a lot more oversteer than the real car or didn't react properly to inputs.

Agreed in terms of high speed, but GT will try and do it at moderate speeds as well.

That's where I find it a bit too aggressive, but it depends on the tire. Trying to drift a race slick can be snappy. It's better with the road/sport tires but still a bit too aggressive.

OK, you seem to have a rather different experience to me.

Sounds like it.

I discussed a point about an entire drive-trains worth of cars (RR), using a single example to illustrate a point I made about all of them is not cherry picking a single model!

It came off like it as there was only one example.

Also, is this the video you were referring to?
https://www.gtplanet.net/gran-turismo-6-revealed-trailer-screenshots-first-details/

If so, you can't really get much information from it, especially not within the context of your test. Without the data on steering input etc, it's not much to go on. I haven't driven the Alpina, so I'll try and grab one to test for myself. But the other RR cars I've driven have been pretty good.

Why would such a simple and basic example of RR vehicle dynamics need more clarification?

I misread your post and thought you were referring to opposite lock, that's where the confusion was.

Static balance of a RR is at least 60% rear 40% front (many have a much greater rear bias), almost all have more rubber at the rear than the front.

Under gradual acceleration around a constant radius the load will shift to the rear outside (which would already be the load and roll centre), as acceleration continues the degree of load to that area will increase. Only one handling balance will result from this. Understeer.

You do realize that this applies to FWD/FR/RR and is not just RR?

In GT5 it never does, I have tested every RR in the title and not a single one of them exhibits understeer under these circumstances (yet even Porsche go to great lengths to get drivers at the Porsche Driving School to understand this nature balance).

RR cars want to understeer during and out of a corner on a gradual throttle, oversteer will occur only if you have the torque to power over (and in a RR you will need a significant amount of it) or you lift off. However those two areas are not what I am talking about.[/quote]

What tires did you test with? On race softs I have this happen all the time with RR Porsches

Which I would agree with if GT5 did have a solid physics engine, but it doesn't. The flaws it has are quite significant.

Disagree.

Pick a sim and I will provide you with quotes of pro-drivers/instructors saying its great/rubbish, at best its anecdotal, at worse its paid marketing.

Again, you missed the point. Reading comprehension > you

 

[Exorcet]

Things like throttle input with pedals, or very tiny steering inputs, you can't experience these with a controller. With a controller you can test many things in the physics engine, BUT it is limited in how much you can test/feel (not FFB) vs a wheel.

But what would you be testing if you were comparing the game to reality?

Output vs Input.

How else would you test? Of course the wheel has advantages over the controller and should let you do more or be more precise. This will effect the gameplay too. However, when you're driving a car with a controller, you should not expect a good simulator to output a car that's behaving as if it's being driven with a wheel (unless you're just that good).

The car should feel clunky with the controller. That's good, and you can use it as an additional physics test.

Think of it this way. We take two identical cars in real life, but we setup one with a controller rather than a wheel. Now I want you to do a test and give me impressions/notes on the dynamic handling traits of the vehicle. With the controller you will be able to give me the basic traits, but nowhere near as detailed as you will with the steering wheel.

So long as I can turn the front wheels at 5 degrees per second for a total angular change of 15 degrees, the car will act exactly the same no matter what is being used to control it. Doing that is going to be easier on a wheel though.

The same goes for more complex input, a car that oversteers when you try to snap the wheels back 15 degrees in the opposite direction will oversteer with either control method.

 

[Scaff]

Disagree, it get's most of the basics and fundamentals correct. And I address the "year and a half on" below, aka I never saw it because I got bored of the discussion

A strong hint. If your attention span doesn't allow you to both reading a post fully, then you would be best waiting to reply until you can.

The post of your I'm replying to and numerous points you raise within it are evidence of how important that is. For a start you haven't even quoted correctly, leaving a large amount of my original post as if its your reply, and you bemoan others for not addressing a single point you raise, but can't actually be bothered to fully read other members posts.

But let's comment on the lat-g while were here. This is based on the assumption that the g meter on GT5 is accurate or precise, something we don't know. The other problem is skidpad numbers are not always indicative of maximum lateral g's that can be achieved on a track, this is because it's a very one dimensional test. There are many cases where one car pulls higher g's on the skidpad but lower peak g's on the track.

Accuracy is an issue without a doubt, however if the methodology employed is consistent (it was) and enough tests are carried out (they were) then the results can certainly be used as indicative.

Skidpan vs track is also a moot point, the physics engine doesn't change between the two and as long as the same is used for all tests it will not render then invalid.

Another thing to note, there is a case of the law of diminishing returns with the skidpad. You will also find a lot of similar performance cars on similar tires pulling the same #'s despite very different drivetrains, tire width etc. I remember we were speaking about the Mini vs Vette. Did some digging and found a few things, a scca article with a Mini Cooper S on Hoosier A6's pulling as high as 1.057
http://www.yellowstonescca.com/pages/tips.htm

I haven't been able to find numbers for the C6 Z06 running slicks, but based on similar chassis (race/lightened) it could be somewhere around 1.13+. But we still return to the problem of how accurate the g meter is on GT5 let alone how it doesn't give a recorded system. It should also be noted, that when the gtplanet member did this test, he noted that there were cars that performed significantly worse on the same tire as others. So perhaps even more testing needs to be done to rule out anomalies.

More testing?

Do you actually think that just these two cars were tested? Sorry, but hundreds were tested by a number of members and the results were consistent and repeatable enough to show two things. The physics engine give a base value for lat-g tyres to each car, changing tyre compound on that car simply increases the lat-g value by a set value (normally +/- 0.2g)


The difference is that in GT5 the two cars have an identical lat-g figure and they are not alone in that regard, it is interesting that you have changed approach on this one, as last time you were arguing that the Vette and the Mini would have the same COG.

When those aids lean more to a arcade style of oversteer it does.

And when the lack of aids allows a basic and flawed tyre and suspenion model to dominate then that's fine is it?

lol wow....... you can't be serious. Like I was supposed to understand you were rehashing something from over a year ago.

I hate to break your heart, but I never even read your response or any of the other posts after that. Some of us get busy with work or bored with debates on forums. So I didn't "ignore" your post, I never even read it lol. Apples to oranges.

First it was two point (one of which you have ignored again) the issue with RR drivetrains and the post from 18 months ago (which I provided a link to). As for not ignoring it because you couldn't be bothered to read it! That's honestly a defence you think is going to work.

If you want to be taken seriously in regard to what your saying then read the posts your replying to, if you don't have time or can't be bothered then don't reply.

Seriously though, you need to be clearer in your posts because nobody would have understood where you were going with that.

I didn't think you read it? As such it could have been in twenty foot high flashing letters and it would have made no difference (aside from which I did mention it and provide a link at the bottom of the post - try reading to the end before you reply next time)

The aids completely contradict and work against the physics engine........ IMO this makes all the hard work rather pointless. Like using a prime dry aged steak, then cooking it well done and topping it with steak sauce....... what's the point.

No they don't.

Your comment regarding a slick tire made it sound like the difference between it's progression and the progression of a road tire was not as large as I said it was. Which was ridiculous. All tires have a progressive slip, BUT the difference between the amount of progression for a road tire vs a slick is miles, they shouldnt even be put in the same paragraph. The slip progression of a slick tire is minuscule vs a street tire. I then followed it up with my comment on how in F4 the slick tires have a progressive slip similar to a road tire, and that is a problem.

That's an inference you made and was not in my original post at all, but I guess that's what happens if you get bored when reading.

I was posting while working and missed that. But I will respond to it now, and I completely disagree as that couldn't be further from the truth. The road tires have a larger progression of slip vs the race tires in GT, that is a fact.

If its a fact you will be able to prove it in a easily testable and repeatable manner then.

Please detail this test.

Now, if you are trying to refer to placing the worst comfort tires on a fast car and then compare that reaction to the race tires, it actually hurts your point. Why? In real life, if I take say a M3, and slap on the worst possible tire, and then go into a corner at speeds I would attempt with slicks, it is going to spin like a top. In GT5 if I take that same M3 and slap on comfort hards, it will slide with ease at low speed and is relatively easy to control at slower speeds........ if I try to enter a turn at high speed like with race softs, it wont end well. Now let's put the race softs on the M3, it has pretty much no oversteer at low-med speeds unless I do something really stupid, and when it does lose grip it is much quicker to snap and lose all traction. This is how it works in the real world.

Not only does your copy of FM4 act differently to mine, but now your copy of GT5 does as well. Comfort hards have almost no progression at all and recovery (particularity from understeer) is practically none existent.

Far too aggressive? No not at all. Then again when I read comments like that it's usually from people using a controller, use a wheel and you will find it's much closer to reality than the simplified oversteer in F4. I still think it's a little too aggressive, but not by much.

I do use a wheel.

Nice assumption, but no. I commented on the ones I know. There are 1000+ cars, neither of us have tested every car in the game and their real life counterparts, don't be silly.

I didn't say either of us have, you however passed comment that FWD cars in GT% do exhibit loft off oversteer to match (roughly) teh real world counterparts, you then go on to say that you hate FWD and haven't actually tested that much on it. Those two statements are at ods with each other and to be blunt the experience of a lot of other people. GT5 does not model lift off oversteer in FWD cars accurately at all, in many, many cars that should exhibit strong (and we are talking 1/2 plus opposite lock) lift off oversteer all you can get them to do is tighten the line a bit.

The FWD cars that I have driven in real life and in GT5 had similar amount of LTO actually, and some not at all. And you are cherry picking a car out of 1000, they can't all be right, just as there are cars in F4 that have issues. I found the handling of the STi/Mustang GT/M3/RX8 and many more to be unrealistic in F4, some have them had a lot more oversteer than the real car or didn't react properly to inputs.

No I have not cherry picked a car at all, once again I have used a specific example to illustrate a wider point, so I would strongly recommended you stop with that inaccurate accusation.

Oh and on your other examples that odd, beacuse I can link to professional drivers and reviewers stating teh exact opposite, but who is cherry picking now?

It came off like it as there was only one example.

Also, is this the video you were referring to?
https://www.gtplanet.net/gran-turismo-6-revealed-trailer-screenshots-first-details/

If so, you can't really get much information from it, especially not within the context of your test. Without the data on steering input etc, it's not much to go on. I haven't driven the Alpina, so I'll try and grab one to test for myself. But the other RR cars I've driven have been pretty good.

No it didn't I clearly stated that it was the RR drivetrain and used a single example to illustrate a wider point. Seriously you need to start reading posts fully, rather than getting bored, before you post.

I misread your post and thought you were referring to opposite lock, that's where the confusion was.

How, given that I didn't mention opposite lock at all?

You do realize that this applies to FWD/FR/RR and is not just RR?

Yes, but its a far more dominant trait in RR drivetrains.

What tires did you test with? On race softs I have this happen all the time with RR Porsches.

All tyres and all RS tyres do is mask the issue. RR cars in GT will oversteer in the above situation, and to be blunt its wrong and indicates further the use of simple grip modifiers for a tyre model along with a strong possibility that the tyre width difference are not being correctly accounted for.

Feel free to dismiss it if you like, but it goes to the root of my issue with GT5, and that remains that not having any aids with a steering wheel is a bit moot if the engine underneath it has fundamental issues.

For me and many others (many with track time and expoerience) the issues with FM4 engine (and it has many) and aids are far less of a problem that the issues that exist within GT5 engine.

I agree 100%



Which I would agree with if GT5 did have a solid physics engine, but it doesn't. The flaws it has are quite significant.



Pick a sim and I will provide you with quotes of pro-drivers/instructors saying its great/rubbish, at best its anecdotal, at worse its paid marketing.

An echo? It is good to see you agree about the flaws in GT5's physics engine however (see what happens when you get bored when posting)

 

[Deadpool]

A strong hint. If your attention span doesn't allow you to both reading a post fully, then you would be best waiting to reply until you can.

I would expect a more mature response from a mod than this. My not responding to your post over a year ago had nothing to do with my attention span, I never even returned to the forum as I was busy with a certain thing called life.

But as usual you jump to assumptions and assume I couldn't read your post fully, but this was not the case. I clearly stated that I never read you or anyone else's comments after that post. Again you fail at reading comprehension.

The post of your I'm replying to and numerous points you raise within it are evidence of how important that is. For a start you haven't even quoted correctly, leaving a large amount of my original post as if its your reply, and you bemoan others for not addressing a single point you raise, but can't actually be bothered to fully read other members posts.

Bemoan others?? I called you out for not addressing a critical point. I could go through and count many times where you or others call someone out for ignoring a question. Quit trying to divert the convo.

Can't bother to fully read others posts?? I think the FACT that I quote entire convos and reply to each specific comment flys directly in the face of your false accusation.

You are full of logical fallacies.

Accuracy is an issue without a doubt, however if the methodology employed is consistent (it was) and enough tests are carried out (they were) then the results can certainly be used as indicative.

If the accuracy and wether or not the physics engine even looks at the same g meter then no the results would not be indicative. The entire test would be worthless in this case. Does the games physics engine use that g meter or is it just a gimmick for people to see. The answer to that determines the validity of the entire test.

Skidpan vs track is also a moot point, the physics engine doesn't change between the two and as long as the same is used for all tests it will not render then invalid.

This is a assumption based on our limited knowledge of the engine.

More testing? Do you actually think that just these two cars were tested? Sorry, but hundreds were tested by a number of members and the results were consistent and repeatable enough to show two things. The physics engine give a base value for lat-g tyres to each car, changing tyre compound on that car simply increases the lat-g value by a set value (normally +/- 0.2g)

I don't recall seeing "hundreds" tested. I may be incorrect but I believe it was under 100 and there were some that didn't match other cars. And regarding the set value, it doesn't bother me too much. Is it perfect no, not at all.

My question, and I have to see if anyone's done a test, would be has a similar test been done for F4?

The difference is that in GT5 the two cars have an identical lat-g figure and they are not alone in that regard, it is interesting that you have changed approach on this one, as last time you were arguing that the Vette and the Mini would have the same COG.

You really need to learn to stop making assumptions and leaping to conclusions. I didn't change my approach, I didn't mention COG because like before I wasn't sure what they were. I also never said they had the same COG so please learn to get your facts straight. I said they might not be that far off from one another.

And when the lack of aids allows a basic and flawed tyre and suspenion model to dominate then that's fine is it?

If the end result is a more realistic representation of how the cars drive/handle? Yes.

Again, what's the point in having a solid tire/suspension model if you contradict it's purpose with aids.

First it was two point (one of which you have ignored again) the issue with RR drivetrains and the post from 18 months ago (which I provided a link to). As for not ignoring it because you couldn't be bothered to read it! That's honestly a defence you think is going to work.

If you want to be taken seriously in regard to what your saying then read the posts your replying to, if you don't have time or can't be bothered then don't reply.

First, it's "defense", for someone so critical of mistakes it's humorous how many spelling mistakes you make. I'm not perfect with mine either, but people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

And it was called being honest. I got bored and haven't posted in this thread or even on this entire forum until now. Sorry not all of us live on this forum 24/7 as you do. I don't preoccupy my life wondering what peoples responses are on a forum.

I've repeatedly shown that I read posts in full and respond in full when I do. So your comment is unfounded and one giant logical fallacy, as usual.

I didn't think you read it? As such it could have been in twenty foot high flashing letters and it would have made no difference (aside from which I did mention it and provide a link at the bottom of the post - try reading to the end before you reply next time)

Here's a hint for you, when you make a edit to a post, you need to consider that the other person has already started their response sand therefore never saw you edit.

You added it after your initial post, clearly because you realized the odds of anyone knowing what your inferring was outlandish.

But now you try to criticize me over your mistake not mine. You just love digging that hole don't you.

This my friends is called a ninja edit. And BTW I fixed my prior post when I saw the mistake, but unlike you I didn't expect your response to reflect my edit

No they don't.

I and many others disagree.

That's an inference you made and was not in my original post at all, but I guess that's what happens if you get bored when reading.

And another logical fallacy.

Your post made it very easy to infer that conclusion, choose your wording better next time, and it was in your post.

If its a fact you will be able to prove it in a easily testable and repeatable manner then.Please detail this test.

I already gave you one, it's pretty easy to see the difference in progression.

Not only does your copy of FM4 act differently to mine, but now your copy of GT5 does as well. Comfort hards have almost no progression at all and recovery (particularity from understeer) is practically none existent.

If you test at the appropriate speed then you can see the progression. Take a low power RWD car, put comfort hards on and test at low speeds, there is a large progression in slip. Then throw on RS, tons of grip but when you lose grip it's sudden and not as progressive, as a race slick should be.

I do use a wheel

Hey look at that, now were both inferring. I know you use a wheel, my comment was a generalization of what I typically find when people make those comments.

But unlike you I can understand how you would have misunderstood me, I should have worded it differently.

I didn't say either of us have, you however passed comment that FWD cars in GT% do exhibit loft off oversteer to match (roughly) teh real world counterparts, you then go on to say that you hate FWD and haven't actually tested that much on it. Those two statements are at ods with each other and to be blunt the experience of a lot of other people. GT5 does not model lift off oversteer in FWD cars accurately at all, in many, many cars that should exhibit strong (and we are talking 1/2 plus opposite lock) lift off oversteer all you can get them to do is tighten the line a bit.

Another assumption. I never said or inferred that you made such a claim. I was simply making a point.

I said some FWD cars do exhibit LTO, and gave a example of which ones. I also made it clear that I haven't tested all the FWD cars or their real life counterparts.

And my statements are not at odds with one another. I said I've tested a few FWD cars in the game, and the driven the same cars in real life. Of those cars I've tested they had similar LTO. I then followed that by commenting on how I haven't tested many others because I dislike FWD, and that I'm sure there are cars that are wrong, just as in F4. No contradiction found.

No I have not cherry picked a car at all, once again I have used a specific example to illustrate a wider point, so I would strongly recommended you stop with that inaccurate accusation.

For someone who is full of inaccurate accusations I find this amusing. We shall agree to disagree.

Oh and on your other examples that odd, beacuse I can link to professional drivers and reviewers stating teh exact opposite, but who is cherry picking now?

Cherry picking? Learn context. The CONTEXT of the post was that both games have many cars that don't handle like their real world counterparts, and I gave specific examples. Cherry picking would be if I have only one. How bout another, the Porsche 962, not accurate at all.

I can also pull up numerous reviews and drivers comments that would contradict yours. I also have a feeling I know which drivers comments you are referring to, and they were sponsored by T10. But feel free to share links if I'm mistaken in my assumption.

No it didn't I clearly stated that it was the RR drivetrain and used a single example to illustrate a wider point. Seriously you need to start reading posts fully, rather than getting bored, before you post.

The childish responses just keep coming.

IMO that's cherry picking because I don't find that issue with all of the RR. If you had given a few examples that wouldn't have been cherry picking, but only sharing one is.

"All the RWD cars handle wrong in F4.........just look at the RX8" this is cherry picking IMO. So agree to disagree.

How, given that I didn't mention opposite lock at all?

Given all of your comments in this post regarding my lack of "reading" (unfounded), I find this quite hilarious.

You failed at reading again here. I was admitting that I had misread your post and when I saw "lock" I was thinking opposite lock which got me confused. I was admitting to a mistake on my end.

How on earth could you possibly miss that??? What was it you said about glass houses?

Yes, but its a far more dominant trait in RR drivetrains.

It's the dominant trait in all cars. It's more pronounced in RR, but the end result for all layouts is understeer.

All tyres and all RS tyres do is mask the issue. RR cars in GT will oversteer in the above situation, and to be blunt its wrong and indicates further the use of simple grip modifiers for a tyre model along with a strong possibility that the tyre width difference are not being correctly accounted for.

Feel free to dismiss it if you like, but it goes to the root of my issue with GT5, and that remains that not having any aids with a steering wheel is a bit moot if the engine underneath it has fundamental issues.

It might not be masking a problem And I'll give you a real world example. Let's say we have a new GT3, and we put the worst possible tire on it with no grip. It's going to be very difficult if not impossible for the car to not overpower the rear tires and cause oversteer.

It's called going to extremes. If I take any RWD (FR or RR) car with say 300hp and slap donuts (spare tire) on it, it will oversteer on a skid pad before understeer.

Now if say sports softs exhibit this same issue then I would agree with you. I haven't experienced this with any of the race compounds though.

For me and many others (many with track time and expoerience) the issues with FM4 engine (and it has many) and aids are far less of a problem that the issues that exist within GT5 engine.

I can say the same for many of my personal friends who are pro drivers, for us the aids kill it.

An echo? It is good to see you agree about the flaws in GT5's physics engine however (see what happens when you get bored when posting)

This was a very childish response on your part. Your posts overall (to everyone) come off as very condescending. I apologize for the posting mistake, I was at work and made a mistake when posting. But to sit there and rant about it is silly on your part. Should I rant about every spelling error you made in this post, there are TONS, no because I have my own and it would be a logical fallacy for me to try and discredit your points with it.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Take a low power RWD car, put comfort hards on and test at low speeds, there is a large progression in slip. Then throw on RS, tons of grip but when you lose grip it's sudden and not as progressive, as a race slick should be.

The last no tuning TT, GT86 on comfort hards at Autumn Ring was a good example of this, the same tire grade used in PD sponsored competition in Asia, and on their promo visualizer video, which means comfort hard represent the real life counterpart. It was quite progressive IMO, having driven the trio GT86/BRZ/FRS exclusively with comfort hard. Not many people like them with lowest grip tire though.

Here is a video of mine driving 600+HP Turbo GT86 at Madrid - tire is comfort soft, no aids whatsoever ( no ABS/brake assist ). It handled very good IMO, slip progression is also quite good as I was able to tame the car without much drama.


The car was built in 2.14, a hybrid, with custom turbo, engine tuning, custom ratio on stock gearbox, and lowered suspension, no downforce used.

This awesome car took the world by storm, affordable, compact, and bags of fun.
A tuning/testing lap done on a newly built 86 GT Turbo at 600+HP, track is Madrid City, grip real, no ABS, comfort soft as usual, 9/5 BB. Time is at 1:38.569, the car is so much fun to drift around corners. Cockpit cam then track cam
Scion FRS and Subaru BRZ S Turbo are also built at similar spec.

Never tried the GT86 with RS tire, but from my last experience with RS tire very long time ago, I hated it, very snappy and too much grip

 

[Scaff]

OK I have no intention of continuing to make these posts longer and longer so I will address the points I feel are worth discussing further.

Can't bother to fully read others posts?? I think the FACT that I quote entire convos and reply to each specific comment flys directly in the face of your false accusation.

The point was that in the case of my original RR post you didn't, yet in the same reply you called me out for doing the same thing.

If the accuracy and wether or not the physics engine even looks at the same g meter then no the results would not be indicative. The entire test would be worthless in this case. Does the games physics engine use that g meter or is it just a gimmick for people to see. The answer to that determines the validity of the entire test.

As long as the g readings are not being used for comparisons against real world tyre data and only used for comparisons to other values generated within the title then its not a problem.

If the end result is a more realistic representation of how the cars drive/handle? Yes.

Again, what's the point in having a solid tire/suspension model if you contradict it's purpose with aids.

And this is the core of where we disagree, I don't agree that it provides GT with a more realistic representation of how the cars drive/handle.

First, it's "defense", for someone so critical of mistakes it's humorous how many spelling mistakes you make. I'm not perfect with mine either, but people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Not in the country I live in its not, its defence; in exactly the same way for me its tyres, rather than tires.

I already gave you one, it's pretty easy to see the difference in progression.

If you test at the appropriate speed then you can see the progression. Take a low power RWD car, put comfort hards on and test at low speeds, there is a large progression in slip. Then throw on RS, tons of grip but when you lose grip it's sudden and not as progressive, as a race slick should be.

I disagree, I don't find that in GT at all.

Another assumption. I never said or inferred that you made such a claim. I was simply making a point.

I said some FWD cars do exhibit LTO, and gave a example of which ones. I also made it clear that I haven't tested all the FWD cars or their real life counterparts.

And my statements are not at odds with one another. I said I've tested a few FWD cars in the game, and the driven the same cars in real life. Of those cars I've tested they had similar LTO. I then followed that by commenting on how I haven't tested many others because I dislike FWD, and that I'm sure there are cars that are wrong, just as in F4. No contradiction found.

Then the FWD cars you've driven and tested must be the lucky few, as that has certainly not been my finding at all.

It's the dominant trait in all cars. It's more pronounced in RR, but the end result for all layouts is understeer.

It might not be masking a problem And I'll give you a real world example.

Why not give the full range of RR cars in GT5 a go (not that many to do), on a range of tyres, its quite a clear difference.

 

[Deadpool]

The point was that in the case of my original RR post you didn't, yet in the same reply you called me out for doing the same thing.
.

And yet you still miss the point. Your original post was over a year ago, a post I never read. I hadn't posted on this entire forum since then.

And they are not the same thing. My comment was in regards to a current conversation. Your retaliation was for a post over a year ago which I never even saw. Can you not see how ridiculous it is to compare the two???

As long as the g readings are not being used for comparisons against real world tyre data and only used for comparisons to other values generated within the title then its not a problem.

Okay, I think were in agreement here and that there are too many unknowns for us to make a definitive conclusion.

And this is the core of where we disagree, I don't agree that it provides GT with a more realistic representation of how the cars drive/handle.

If the end result had the majority of cars behaving very closely to the real cars, then IMO it does. But we agree to disagree here.

I disagree, I don't find that in GT at all.

Well you're not the norm then, because most I know have it in GT. Another member just posted a example as well.

The reality is that the harder compounds are more progressive and have a lot less "snap" than the race tires.

Then the FWD cars you've driven and tested must be the lucky few, as that has certainly not been my finding at all.

Or maybe you've just had the unlucky ones

But as I said, I'm sure there are many cars that don't behave right, normal standard of deviation considering 1000+ cars.

Maybe I've had lucky ones or you've had unlucky ones, or maybe if we tested every FWD we would find a mix of results. Problem is testing every FWD in the game and in real life.

But it looks like not all FWD cars are wrong in terms of LTO, and they are not all right either.

Why not give the full range of RR cars in GT5 a go (not that many to do), on a range of tyres, its quite a clear difference.

I've used mainly the RUF cars which have good power, and I usually stick to comforts for horsing around and then race tires for racing. With these I don't see a problem being masked. But as I said, I'll try on sports softs and see.

With the other RR most are not premium which means I have to hunt them down in the used lot, something I don't have much free time for.

This has always been a part of GT that I hate......let me buy the car I want whenever I want.

But what would you be testing if you were comparing the game to reality?

Output vs Input.

How else would you test? Of course the wheel has advantages over the controller and should let you do more or be more precise. This will effect the gameplay too. However, when you're driving a car with a controller, you should not expect a good simulator to output a car that's behaving as if it's being driven with a wheel (unless you're just that good).

The car should feel clunky with the controller. That's good, and you can use it as an additional physics test.


So long as I can turn the front wheels at 5 degrees per second for a total angular change of 15 degrees, the car will act exactly the same no matter what is being used to control it. Doing that is going to be easier on a wheel though.

The same goes for more complex input, a car that oversteers when you try to snap the wheels back 15 degrees in the opposite direction will oversteer with either control method.

As I said in my post, a wheel allows for "finer" testing of the handling for both input and output. I also have a real world example showing why a wheel will tell you more (not referring to FFB).

For instance. With controllers you can't really tell that F4 uses aids for over/understeer. Maybe you can, but I couldn't. Either way you definitely can't tell as prominently as you can with a wheel.

 

[Scaff]

And yet you still miss the point. Your original post was over a year ago, a post I never read. I hadn't posted on this entire forum since then.

And they are not the same thing. My comment was in regards to a current conversation. Your retaliation was for a post over a year ago which I never even saw. Can you not see how ridiculous it is to compare the two???

Nope my post about RR was yesterday. The issue with regard to RR went unanswered, you just asked about the video.

Okay, I think were in agreement here and that there are too many unknowns for us to make a definitive conclusion.

Quite agree we can't make a definitive conclusion based on it, but it does indicate a potential issue (and one that ties up with the issue around RR's)

If the end result had the majority of cars behaving very closely to the real cars, then IMO it does. But we agree to disagree here.

That we will.

Well you're not the norm then, because most I know have it in GT. Another member just posted a example as well.

The reality is that the harder compounds are more progressive and have a lot less "snap" than the race tires.

I know of a good few members here who would agree with me (one of whom has also posted).

Or maybe you've just had the unlucky ones

But as I said, I'm sure there are many cars that don't behave right, normal standard of deviation considering 1000+ cars.

Maybe I've had lucky ones or you've had unlucky ones, or maybe if we tested every FWD we would find a mix of results. Problem is testing every FWD in the game and in real life.

But it looks like not all FWD cars are wrong in terms of LTO, and they are not all right either.

I suspect that I may have done quite a bit more testing on FWD (as I don't dislike them and have a lot of track experience with them) and for me the balance in GT5 has lift off oversteer very poorly modelled.

I've used mainly the RUF cars which have good power, and I usually stick to comforts for horsing around and then race tires for racing. With these I don't see a problem being masked. But as I said, I'll try on sports softs and see.

With the other RR most are not premium which means I have to hunt them down in the used lot, something I don't have much free time for.

This has always been a part of GT that I hate......let me buy the car I want whenever I want.

I 100% agree about the used car lot (GT needs to let us 'play' with everything), but it is worth taking a look at.

 

[Deadpool]

Nope my post about RR was yesterday. The issue with regard to RR went unanswered, you just asked about the video.

I did comment on it. I watched the video and then commented on how it was impossible to really determine anything from the video as we didn't have access to the datalog. Without the data, it's speculation only. I also added that I have yet to test that specific car due to GT5's silly used car system, so hopefully I can comment on it soon, I've been checking and haven't seen it yet.

Quite agree we can't make a definitive conclusion based on it, but it does indicate a potential issue (and one that ties up with the issue around RR's)

Agree 100%. If the physics engine is using that g meter to determine grip then it's a issue with so many cars being the same. It would be one thing to have a bunch of similar cars pulling the same G, provided the real cars are all pretty close. But if we have cars that shouldn't be close at all, then that is a issue.

I know of a good few members here who would agree with me (one of whom has also posted).

And the poll shows you have 80% that disagree with you. Of course polls are only as good as the knowledge of the voters, but you can see my point. The two of us could list people we know who disagree, but that doesn't really prove much in either of our cases.

I suspect that I may have done quite a bit more testing on FWD (as I don't dislike them and have a lot of track experience with them) and for me the balance in GT5 has lift off oversteer very poorly modelled.

I don't doubt it. The only times I test FWD are when they are the car chosen for league races, usually that means a season (9 races) in the car and you learn that specific one very well. We had a FWD season and I grabbed maybe 10 FWD cars that I knew in real life were great cars, ended up with the 2001 Type R which won the season. But I don't doubt that there are FWD cars (or any drivetrain) that are wrong, and I would be shocked if there weren't considering how many cars are in the game.

I 100% agree about the used car lot (GT needs to let us 'play' with everything), but it is worth taking a look at.

I have a pipe dream in that they abolish it in GT6....... sadly I doubt they ever will. I was also one of the guys who voted to allow us to transfer our garage from GT5 to GT6, let it be a option. If you dont want to transfer dont, but if your like me and have a busy schedule, having to grind away at the game isn't fun...... I just want to drive.

 

[TheeFrogmanlego]

Hahaha I'm going to report scaff for lazy grammar He wrote teh instead of the / sarcasm.

 

[BlackHawk1722]

I did comment on it. I watched the video and then commented on how it was impossible to really determine anything from the video as we didn't have access to the datalog. Without the data, it's speculation only. I also added that I have yet to test that specific car due to GT5's silly used car system, so hopefully I can comment on it soon, I've been checking and haven't seen it yet.




Agree 100%. If the physics engine is using that g meter to determine grip then it's a issue with so many cars being the same. It would be one thing to have a bunch of similar cars pulling the same G, provided the real cars are all pretty close. But if we have cars that shouldn't be close at all, then that is a issue.




And the poll shows you have 80% that disagree with you. Of course polls are only as good as the knowledge of the voters, but you can see my point. The two of us could list people we know who disagree, but that doesn't really prove much in either of our cases.






I don't doubt it. The only times I test FWD are when they are the car chosen for league races, usually that means a season (9 races) in the car and you learn that specific one very well. We had a FWD season and I grabbed maybe 10 FWD cars that I knew in real life were great cars, ended up with the 2001 Type R which won the season. But I don't doubt that there are FWD cars (or any drivetrain) that are wrong, and I would be shocked if there weren't considering how many cars are in the game.






I have a pipe dream in that they abolish it in GT6....... sadly I doubt they ever will. I was also one of the guys who voted to allow us to transfer our garage from GT5 to GT6, let it be a option. If you dont want to transfer dont, but if your like me and have a busy schedule, having to grind away at the game isn't fun...... I just want to drive.

It is gone! I cant wait to look through the cars!