Forza 5 physics vs GT6 аnd other sims

[FuzzyFassbender]

What's this with GT oil changes? I have never paid any attention to oil changes or car washing, do these have a significant affect on a cars performance? If so, maybe I am missing out IRL, haven't been listening to the oil service centers with their 3k mile recomendations but if I am missing that extra HP I may have to reconsider

 

[SlipZtrEm]

GT requires oil changes from the moment you buy a car; it's HP is usually a bit under the listed dealership amount once you bring it home, but the oil change will knock it to a few over. After about 150-ish miles, the oil goes bad and you start losing HP, requiring a new round.

REALISM.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

GT requires oil changes from the moment you buy a car; it's HP is usually a bit under the listed dealership amount once you bring it home, but the oil change will knock it to a few over. After about 150-ish miles, the oil goes bad and you start losing HP, requiring a new round.

REALISM.

That is not true, it's not necessary, the oil is in good condition

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Go find a new car in GT, take note of it's HP and PP ratings in the dealership. Buy it, then check those again in the garage. Now, go do an oil change and check them again.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Go find a new car in GT, take note of it's HP and PP ratings in the dealership. Buy it, then check those again in the garage. Now, go do an oil change and check them again.

I know this long ago, but here is the catch, I only change oil when I want to build replica/tunes ( sometimes with replica this is not necessary ) and when it's dirty. Bought new, the oil is green, and in certain situation, NOT changing the oil after buying is beneficial - for instance in the S2000 Hot Lap seasonal currently running as it has PP limit.

It depends on the situation, when I run time trial ( test drive or arcade ), I prefer to have stock power with no oil change - closer to real spec. When it goes dirty ( power drop ), then I will change the oil, usually after 300 km.

 

[andy0a]

Go find a new car in GT, take note of it's HP and PP ratings in the dealership. Buy it, then check those again in the garage. Now, go do an oil change and check them again.

That is true and to add on with that, the values change. Someone mentioned that when you buy a car, the values displayed in the garage is much much higher than the showroom values, and that is without an oil change. An example provided was the S2000 GT1 Turbo which was rated at about 300ish hp but when you bought it and checked the values it was 500hp listed, it must be some sort of advanced VTEC...

 

[SlyNine]

It should be difficult to drive a car over 200 mph the first time you ever are in it. Or in my friends case the first time you everplayed a racing sim. He sat down at my setup for iracing and had trouble in the mx5 but came over to forza 5 and ran pretty well in the fastest car on the game.

I'm just saying. It's really, really easy. The game makes way to many corrections for you.

I am using a controller though. Maybe it's different with a wheel. With a controller though it's entirely to easy and you feel like the game is driving for you most of the time.


I didn't say I was awsome. I'm just saying you can go fast way to fast with little to no practice.

I have no idea how guys get those really fast times. I play a good bit of sims and usually know how close I am to the world times. I'm usually anot 1.5-3 of on iracing and I cAnt get within 15 on this game. I'm bit sure how it works. I don't ever have enough car to catch those times.

I let it go. It's a good game. I just don't think it's really in the sim category anymore. I would call it a hybrid sim/ arcade racer. With rewind , how easy it is to just pick up and drive any car and 2 lap career races I just can't consider it much of a racing sim. Like I said earlier, I think they've done a good job catering to the masses and finding a decent balance between sim and arcade.

Phone is going crazy
I didn't mean to triple post.

Well that's odd. Because my grandma couldn't drive in Forza for anything w/ all assists on. But sat here on my Iracing sim and she was doing laps no problem...


That's the problem with these kinda of arguments (like the one you made). It's completely impossible to prove otherwise, and anyone that has seen someone who is playing a racing sim for the first time, play forza with no assists, knows that you are full of poop.

I can say whatever I like. I stand by the fact that if you are playing a racing sim with a joystick, you have made it in an arcade game, regardless of what you are playing. iRacing included. But so many people compare GT6 with a wheel vs FM5 with a controller, its retarded.

I guess flying 3d RC heli's is arcade.

I'm sure there's a bit of that, but if you try holding the stick full over on GT5/6, it garners noticeable understeer when you do this, and the front will just start to plow. It definitely does not plow in FM5, even if @ 10/10's you might be a tiny bit faster with more precise movements. With a wheel on both games, you can feel when you've turned the wheel to far and lose grip, but its certainly more noticeable in FM5. I also suspect a bit of stability control with the joystick in FM5, as it seems a bit too easy to get a car into a perfect drift, where with the wheel I am having to use a lot more throttle control.

Again, I understand the decision Turn10 made - to make it accessible to driving fans who either don't have the the space, or want to bother with setting up a wheel, and allow them to be competitive, but concessions have certainly been made to the controller user; it's very, very obvious when switching from a wheel to gamepad and vice versa.

Sorry, but it definitely does plow with a stick on Forza. It doesn't do it on all turns I'll admit. I wish it did because sometimes I could get more turn then it will allow.

Not sure about hidden aid. Not sure how to test for that. I am unable to mimic the exact inputs with a controller and wheel.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I know this long ago, but here is the catch, I only change oil when I want to build replica/tunes ( sometimes with replica this is not necessary ) and when it's dirty. Bought new, the oil is green, and in certain situation, NOT changing the oil after buying is beneficial - for instance in the S2000 Hot Lap seasonal currently running as it has PP limit.

It doesn't matter if you personally decide not to do it when buying cars, or if it's sometimes beneficial (like that seasonal): the fact remains that engine specs in the dealer are almost always higher than what they are once you buy the car, and then too high once you change the oil. What's so hard about just leaving the power levels the same after purchase, and making the oil change required only after the original stuff gets dirty?

 

[HAL20XX]

It doesn't matter if you personally decide not to do it when buying cars, or if it's sometimes beneficial (like that seasonal): the fact remains that engine specs in the dealer are almost always higher than what they are once you buy the car, and then too high once you change the oil. What's so hard about just leaving the power levels the same after purchase, and making the oil change required only after the original stuff gets dirty?

From my understanding, they're aiming to replicate "published numbers" against "actual numbers". It likely stems from the no longer in place "gentleman's agreement" in Japan, which stated no car would exceed 276 hp. Everyone would publish these numbers but the engine itself would actually produce more (much more in some cases).

Then again, PD is lazy with specs. It annoys me to no end when I see "---" in place of weight, power, or drivetrain (even vehicle dimensions in many cases). If they don't know it, how can they model it in the game?

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

It doesn't matter if you personally decide not to do it when buying cars, or if it's sometimes beneficial (like that seasonal): the fact remains that engine specs in the dealer are almost always higher than what they are once you buy the car, and then too high once you change the oil. What's so hard about just leaving the power levels the same after purchase, and making the oil change required only after the original stuff gets dirty?

Beats me, because PD

 

[thechosenwonton]

I guess flying 3d RC heli's is arcade.

Sorry, but it definitely does plow with a stick on Forza. It doesn't do it on all turns I'll admit. I wish it did because sometimes I could get more turn then it will allow.

Not sure about hidden aid. Not sure how to test for that. I am unable to mimic the exact inputs with a controller and wheel.

1. Pretty sure you fly helicopters (real ones) with a joystick. Your analogy would be akin to playing a flight simulator with a keyboard only - yes, you've made it into a bit of an arcade game - but flight sims are different, there is a lot more procedure than with driving sims - you just want to go fast in a driving sim, and being able to feel what the car and tires are doing is a huge part of it. If you owned McLaren's official F1 simulator, but played it with a wireless joystick from across the room, there's no point in it for me.

2. Here's a test that I'll try - go into a corner quickly with the controller, and drive like your normally would - at the apex, hit photo mode, and take a picture. Do another lap, and on the same corner put it on full lock, and take another picture and see if the front wheels are at a much greater angle. I have not tested this so am interested if that actually looks normal, or if the wheel angles are almost the same.

 

[SlyNine]

1. Pretty sure you fly helicopters (real ones) with a joystick. Your analogy would be akin to playing a flight simulator with a keyboard only - yes, you've made it into a bit of an arcade game - but flight sims are different, there is a lot more procedure than with driving sims - you just want to go fast in a driving sim, and being able to feel what the car and tires are doing is a huge part of it. If you owned McLaren's official F1 simulator, but played it with a wireless joystick from across the room, there's no point in it for me.

2. Here's a test that I'll try - go into a corner quickly with the controller, and drive like your normally would - at the apex, hit photo mode, and take a picture. Do another lap, and on the same corner put it on full lock, and take another picture and see if the front wheels are at a much greater angle. I have not tested this so am interested if that actually looks normal, or if the wheel angles are almost the same.

RC Helicopters ( they are real and obey all the laws of physics big ones do) are much more agile than full sized ones, and if you've never seen what peoples thumbs are capable of here is a taste. There is no trick. The gyro in the helicopter helps with the heli's attitude, that just means it keeps the helicopters body in the same orientation (not position) until inputs are made. But for assists that's it. The amount of control just to keep one in the air is not easy, and a first time flier would almost certainly crash one of these, even if he was just trying to hover.

I have no doubt the game uses speed sensitive steering for the controller. It does limit the range of steering, no doubt. But you can still over steer and push.

 

[Exorcet]

1. Pretty sure you fly helicopters (real ones) with a joystick. Your analogy would be akin to playing a flight simulator with a keyboard only - yes, you've made it into a bit of an arcade game

How? Nothing important has changed. The plane is going to react to your keyboard controls accurately. It's still a simulator. Racing simulators on controllers are still simulators.

If you owned McLaren's official F1 simulator, but played it with a wireless joystick from across the room, there's no point in it for me.

Using the controls found in the real car would certainly make it better for driver training in the particular car, but would do absolutely nothing to the physics and realism. Controls are input and the input is completely separate from the simulation.

2. Here's a test that I'll try - go into a corner quickly with the controller, and drive like your normally would - at the apex, hit photo mode, and take a picture. Do another lap, and on the same corner put it on full lock, and take another picture and see if the front wheels are at a much greater angle. I have not tested this so am interested if that actually looks normal, or if the wheel angles are almost the same.

There are certainly steering assists in Forza and GT, but none of them to my knowledge change the physics.

 

[thechosenwonton]

How? Nothing important has changed. The plane is going to react to your keyboard controls accurately. It's still a simulator. Racing simulators on controllers are still simulators.


Using the controls found in the real car would certainly make it better for driver training in the particular car, but would do absolutely nothing to the physics and realism. Controls are input and the input is completely separate from the simulation.


There are certainly steering assists in Forza and GT, but none of them to my knowledge change the physics.

1. Not to me. Even more so with driving simulators, there are very little processes to perform; even on the most detailed driving sim its seldome more than warm it up, and go fast.

2. No, completely incorrect. Controls and input are directly correlated to simulation, as it is all over the world in military trainers for vehicles, tanks, APC's, helicopters, and aeroplanes. Simulation is linked closer to the control method than any other aspect really. Physics are key in a driving sim, but a close second is the user interface (depending on what the simulation is, the control medium can be far more important). Physics can be drawn on a piece of paper with 100% accuracy. That piece of paper is now not somehow "a simulation" - there is a medium through which the created physics must go through to convey realism, and that includes all of the hardware.

3. I never suggested a change of physics - that is an example of what I was talking about; had nothing to do with physics, just assists for control users.

 

[Exorcet]

2. No, completely incorrect. Controls and input are directly correlated to simulation, as it is all over the world in military trainers for vehicles, tanks, APC's, helicopters, and aeroplanes. Simulation is linked closer to the control method than any other aspect really.

The control method is totally separate from the physics. The physics only takes in input. It doesn't care where it comes from. In the examples you mentioned, the controls are more important because the focus is on learning that one particular vehicle that is being modeled. Sims released as games to the public typically don't do this, they have many vehicles.

Physics are key in a driving sim, but a close second is the user interface (depending on what the simulation is, the control medium can be far more important). Physics can be drawn on a piece of paper with 100% accuracy. That piece of paper is now not somehow "a simulation" - there is a medium through which the created physics must go through to convey realism, and that includes all of the hardware.

Of course the paper is not a simulation. It's equations on paper. A simulator must actually give you output from input. Paper doesn't do that.

Controls are important to consider, however the idea that a sim becomes "arcade" with a change of controls is rather ludicrous. The controls shouldn't have a bearing on whether it's a sim or not. If you want to argue that some controls can be so far off that there is no point in simulating the vehicle, controllers are not a problem. A hand held controller gives you most of what you get in a wheel. Especially if that wheel is a generic controller that matches the controls of 0% of the cars in the sim anyway. The steering aid built into them doesn't do much, anyone that knows how driving works probably isn't going to be steering the car to absurd angles because you quickly find out that the car stops steering if you do.

3. I never suggested a change of physics - that is an example of what I was talking about; had nothing to do with physics, just assists for control users.

Right, and on account of physics consistency, I'd say there's no reason to label a controller experience an arcade one. You're driving the same cars as the wheel user and are subject to the same limits.

 

[thechosenwonton]

The control method is totally separate from the physics. The physics only takes in input. It doesn't care where it comes from. In the examples you mentioned, the controls are more important because the focus is on learning that one particular vehicle that is being modeled. Sims released as games to the public typically don't do this, they have many vehicles.


Of course the paper is not a simulation. It's equations on paper. A simulator must actually give you output from input. Paper doesn't do that.

Controls are important to consider, however the idea that a sim becomes "arcade" with a change of controls is rather ludicrous. The controls shouldn't have a bearing on whether it's a sim or not. If you want to argue that some controls can be so far off that there is no point in simulating the vehicle, controllers are not a problem. A hand held controller gives you most of what you get in a wheel. Especially if that wheel is a generic controller that matches the controls of 0% of the cars in the sim anyway. The steering aid built into them doesn't do much, anyone that knows how driving works probably isn't going to be steering the car to absurd angles because you quickly find out that the car stops steering if you do.


Right, and on account of physics consistency, I'd say there's no reason to label a controller experience an arcade one. You're driving the same cars as the wheel user and are subject to the same limits.

To me, it becomes an arcade game, regardless of the "physics" involved. If you have ridiculous game play and its just pointless then a wheel isn't going to turn burnout 2 into an a sim, its just a driving game. In the same way you would not be able to take off in a helicopter if you had learned to play on a keyboard, a driving sim where you learn to be really, really good at using the joystick will help you very little when you go to the track (a lot about apex and lines, and hopefully weight transfer, so I still think it could be useful).

Also, you are making an argument I never made - physics is physics. I never said anything about physics differences w/ wheel vs controller - again, assists are not a different physics model, in the same way that ABS or TCS is - its the same model, it just does certain things for you. It's moot anyway, until you play with a wheel. But my argument is sound, and the control interface you use (ALL cars are basically ALL the same interface for the most part, of course there are exceptions but its all steering wheel, gas, brake) is part of what makes it a sim.

 

[Exorcet]

If you have ridiculous game play and its just pointless then a wheel isn't going to turn burnout 2 into an a sim, its just a driving game.

That's because Burnout has no sim physics at all.

In the same way you would not be able to take off in a helicopter if you had learned to play on a keyboard

If you learned how to fly a perfected simulated helicopter on a keyboard, it stands to reason that you could fly a real helicopter with a keyboard. If we're talking about a modern jet, a keyboard is probably good enough to let you wrap your head around the basic controls when it comes to just flying. If the physics are right, you're learning the physics.

Now a controller is a lot closer to a wheel than a keyboard is, so there is even less of an issue there.

a driving sim where you learn to be really, really good at using the joystick will help you very little when you go to the track (a lot about apex and lines, and hopefully weight transfer, so I still think it could be useful).

I kind of see this as an oxymoron. You're learning the most important things, but somehow you're not prepared for the track? A generic wheel controller is going to tell you exactly what to expect when you put a Viper into a slide. Driving with one in a hypothetical perfect sim could allow you to learn to where to expect a slide and how to recover, but not necessarily what feedback you're going to get. The wheel user is in the same boat as the controller user.

Also, you are making an argument I never made - physics is physics. I never said anything about physics differences w/ wheel vs controller

And I'm saying you said that. So I'm not making up any argument. On account of physics being physics, which we both agree on, I say that the controller = arcade game statement is flimsy.

- again, assists are not a different physics model, in the same way that ABS or TCS is - its the same model, it just does certain things for you. It's moot anyway, until you play with a wheel. But my argument is sound, and the control interface you use (ALL cars are basically ALL the same interface for the most part, of course there are exceptions but its all steering wheel, gas, brake) is part of what makes it a sim.

The controls are important of course. I've spent hundreds so I could fly simulators without a keyboard. The fact is I still have a simulator if the only thing I had was a keyboard, because whatever I apply with the HOTAS (flight stick) applies on the keyboard too. So how could it be an arcade game when I'm applying the same technique?

 

[thechosenwonton]

Thats my entire point, so flimsy is fine if thats your opinion, but I stand by it, you haven't said one single thing to refute that ether. An F1 Simulator has the according controls - you learn nothing by learning on a another interface. You may be able to start a helicopter, but you'll crash and die if you tried to fly one if you haven't learned on actual controls.

 

[Wolfe]

For "simulator" to depend upon the physical device you're using to provide input and receive feedback, especially since you've compared it to professional/military-grade simulators for aircraft and things, you're defining the word as the setup you use to interact with the software. A wheel provides more of a "simulator" experience of driving in this respect, although you're still missing the motion feedback of those expensive hydraulic/pneumatic rigs.

What this fails to address is how playing with a controller makes the software less of a simulator itself (not a "simulator experience" but "simulator software"), or how playing with a controller completely invalidates one's ability to recognize or analyze handling limits or accuracy of phenomena within the software. If the software is the same, the end results are the same. Just like playing with a wheel won't turn Burnout into Forza/GT, playing with a controller won't turn Forza/GT into Burnout.

Having some idea of the physical actions required to handle a car at speed (or a helicopter) is indeed important before heading out onto the track (or helipad). But if you've already spent time learning those actions, it's rather straightforward to utilize what you've learned with a different interface. So you can assess the output of a simulation (the virtual recreation of a vehicle) without having to use the "proper" interface, and you can even practice with it.

 

[UKMikey]

The whole selling point of the first Gran Turismo game was that you could hare around the tracks like previous racing games but the slightest application of racing technique noticeably shortened your lap time. That's something that every GT and Forza has in common regardless of what input you're using and I think it's why people class them as simulators.

 

[SlyNine]

1. Not to me. Even more so with driving simulators, there are very little processes to perform; even on the most detailed driving sim its seldome more than warm it up, and go fast.

2. No, completely incorrect. Controls and input are directly correlated to simulation, as it is all over the world in military trainers for vehicles, tanks, APC's, helicopters, and aeroplanes. Simulation is linked closer to the control method than any other aspect really. Physics are key in a driving sim, but a close second is the user interface (depending on what the simulation is, the control medium can be far more important). Physics can be drawn on a piece of paper with 100% accuracy. That piece of paper is now not somehow "a simulation" - there is a medium through which the created physics must go through to convey realism, and that includes all of the hardware.

3. I never suggested a change of physics - that is an example of what I was talking about; had nothing to do with physics, just assists for control users.

This is turning in to an argument of semantics. Yes to simulate the experience of driving a car the input method is important. But I think when most people look at a simulation, they are linking it to the simulation that's happening within the virtual world, not so much how inputs are being made, but what is the "simulation" doing with those inputs. In that definition it's the physics engine that's most closely related with the term simulation.

The physics on paper makes no sense. you can draw out a formula or equation on a peace of paper, like e=mc2. But I didn't just make physics happen or simulate mass in to energy or energy in to mass.

The bigger problem I have with your argument is it seems to be a moving goal post, at one point you were saying that a controller makes it arcade. which doesn't make sense to me, using a controller you are still trying to find the edge of tire adhesion and no, pushing the stick all the way will not get you close to the peak angle of slip, it will put you well past it in most situations. Not quite as far past as you can go with a wheel, I'll agree with that much.

 

[Tornado]

If the quality of a simulator is so intrinsically linked to the input method, what does that mean when I play games that are slightly less realistic but not obviously so with the same input method?

 

[GBO Possum]

"Forza 5 physics vs GT6 аnd other sims" - I have yet to find any thread in any sim-related forum where the forum members are discussing which sim has the best "physics" being based on non-subjective facts.

Frankly, I have no idea how one would set up measurements to compare the "goodness" of the physics.

As a general rule, the forum members have opinions about the superiority of their preferred sim, but never based on facts.

Am I missing something?

 

[Wolfe]

@GBO Possum -- There's a difference between discussing how it "feels" to drive in a sim, and analyzing what the virtual car actually does when given particular inputs in a variety of situations.

You can talk about whether a Ruf CTR ought to understeer or oversteer when you add throttle in the middle of a constant-radius corner; test to see if the rear end of a powerful RWD car shifts around when giving it a full-throttle tire-smoking launch (we commonly refer to this as a form of torque steer); consider the ability of a variety of FWD cars to initiate lift-off oversteer, and the degree to which it's possible; observe the way angular momentum plays out when violently rotating the car, as with weight transfer and a "flick", and whether it's realistically possible to "save" the car from the most extreme oversteer situations...there are a variety of tests you can try that compare against actual phenomena and handling manners, not subjective experience.

With a good sense of how the physics play out, you don't even need seat time in the genuine article to determine if its virtual counterpart is approximately accurate. Vehicle behavior is a pretty concrete thing; it's either right or it's wrong. If you're mistaken about something, you can learn from others who may know it firsthand. 👍

Certainly, some members have difficulty distinguishing between "feel" and "what the car does", and on the subject of wheels vs controllers, IMHO the use of a wheel tends to skew one's observations towards "feel", because the added sense of immersion interferes with the objective analysis of vehicle behavior. So I agree with @thechosenwonton in that comparing one game with a wheel vs another game with a controller can be problematic, especially since the implementation of FFB effects can mask physics-level issues.

 

[Imari]

"Forza 5 physics vs GT6 аnd other sims" - I have yet to find any thread in any sim-related forum where the forum members are discussing which sim has the best "physics" being based on non-subjective facts.

Frankly, I have no idea how one would set up measurements to compare the "goodness" of the physics.

As a general rule, the forum members have opinions about the superiority of their preferred sim, but never based on facts.

Am I missing something?

It's pretty hard to get objective facts out of GT6. There's limited to no telemetry available, so really all that's available is subjective feelings and the most gross observable effects (like the endless torque steer discussion).

If we were comparing say, iRacing and rFactor you could export motec data and compare. FM5 and pCARS you could at least pull the telemetry screens up and run them side by side to visually compare differences.

GT6 has nothing, and I suspect intentionally so. By definition, they have to have all the data values being generated by the physics system. Creating a UI to expose them is presumably fairly trivial on the scale of things they could be doing, particularly in the sense of the value that it would add. I can't think of any reason why it would be difficult, and I'd almost guarantee that they have some sort of telemetry readout for bug testing simply because it would simplify identifying physics problems immensely. But they don't make it available to the public.

Tin foil hat says it's because they don't want their physics compared with other sims head to head. GT is the only modern sim game I can think of not to have tyre pressures, so who knows what other shortcuts are being taken that telemetry would expose.

 

[ildd]

Then again, PD is lazy with specs. It annoys me to no end when I see "---" in place of weight, power, or drivetrain (even vehicle dimensions in many cases). If they don't know it, how can they model it in the game?

Most of the cars you are talking about are either concepts or race cars. They have done that since GT3 (and probably gt1 and 2, though I didn't play those 2 so no comment)

It's not that they don't model it, obviously they have to, it's just that you shouldn't know the HP of a concept car that barely exists until after it's yours (put it on dyno). I agree with your point though- I don't see why they don't put the numbers up there.

 

[King1982]

ISR Final review



9.

 

[HAL20XX]

Most of the cars you are talking about are either concepts or race cars. They have done that since GT3 (and probably gt1 and 2, though I didn't play those 2 so no comment)

It's not that they don't model it, obviously they have to, it's just that you shouldn't know the HP of a concept car that barely exists until after it's yours (put it on dyno). I agree with your point though- I don't see why they don't put the numbers up there.

Yeah, I think this is a case where their desire for realism is just a little too much and it makes it annoying.

 

[Tornado]

Though if the realism was that important, you wouldn't be able to drive many of those cars in the first place.


I've suspected for a while that many of the cars have the specs they do so PD can artificially balance them, and since it tends to coincide with the ones where they don't bother showing specs when you buy them (or, worse, the ones where the specs are intentionally wildly incorrect from what they are when you buy them) I'm starting to believe that the two ideas are related as well.

 

[UKMikey]

ISR Final review



9.

"Praigue" LOL. At least his favourable impression of Forza suggests that Darin played the same game that we did.