Forza 5 physics vs GT6 аnd other sims

[HAL20XX]

The vast majority play with a controller, so opinion of the games is based of their feedback playing with a controller.

So GT is better set up for controller then F5 ?

Best Irony I see is people arguing the owner of a specific car that F5 version is more realistic then GT6 one. Though they have never driven it.

Is you real life car more realistic in GT6 or F5 ?

You would have a leg to stand on if the FM5 version of the supra exhibited any of the behaviors you claim it does. I'm inclined to think it has more to do with your driving style.

 

[MKVSupra]

You would have a leg to stand on if the FM5 version of the supra exhibited any of the behaviors you claim it does. I'm inclined to think it has more to do with your driving style.

Maybe it is how I drive, and interesting idea.

 

[MKVSupra]

I disagree. Forza has analogue control while GT has digital one. If anything, FM control allows you more precise input with the right amount of throttle or break. It a very important aspect of racing. Now if you were playing with a racing wheel, we would both have a different type of argument. I played both GT5 and FM5 with a wheel. I don't have a PS3 anymore so I cannot play GT6

In F5 you have to screw with the controller to make it better, whats the best set up ? deadzones are an issue.

I prefer PS controller, could be years of using it going back to PS1 and Gt1.

 

[Symtex]

It's hard to argue with someone who doesn't acknowledge fundamental and basic principle like digital vs analogue control. I give up

 

[HAL20XX]

Maybe it is how I drive, and interesting idea.

I definitely wouldn't rule it out. I remember when I went from FM3 to GT5 to FM4 and each time it took quite a bit of time to adjust to each. The controllers themselves are different enough to cause a lot of the issues you may be seeing.

 

[MKVSupra]

It's hard to argue with someone who doesn't acknowledge fundamental and basic principle like digital vs analogue control. I give up

I acknowledge the difference, one just work better for me. Sue me.

That's how I feel arguing about the Supra with people who have never driven one.

I definitely wouldn't rule it out. I remember when I went from FM3 to GT5 to FM4 and each time it took quite a bit of time to adjust to each. The controllers themselves are different enough to cause a lot of the issues you may be seeing.

Honestly its a struggle jumping between the games, then there's the grip of the tires they are quite apart. I'm not sure which are the most comparable between the two.

 

[McLaren]

GT6 Supra characteristic very close to the real thing, similar grip and handling so easy for me to drive like the real thing.
F5 supra is like muscle car on leaf springs squirrely as hell it literally feel more like a 70s vett then a Supra, way to much a handful for a precision sports car she is.

Specific enough ? F5 does a piss poor job of simulating the Supras characteristics, may look pretty liek it but sure does not drive like it.

I can chalk it up to the fact PD has better access to this specific ride, but it is what it is. Maybe other cars are better in F5, id test the Lex IS in both but F5 lacks that content.

The problem taking your word for it is that you claim your car grips like hell, & doesn't want to break lose, even in the wet. You then tried to prove this by posting slalom times done by professionals. Slalom times are going to be modulating the throttle as naturally, letting the rear kick the lose is the last thing you want. That doesn't mean your car can't do it because I know full well it can with 300+ power at the crank; you just haven't pushed the throttle enough to do so.

Your comments that it handles like boat & shouldn't are not far off. It should handle like a heavy car because back when it was made, it was a heavy car at 3,400lbs. The NSX was sub 3,000lbs., the GT-R ranged from 3,100 to 3,400lbs. in its 3 generations, & the RX-7 came in at under 3,000lbs. as well. I think the only other "big" Japanese sports car that weighed more was the GTO. On most circuits, the Supra was almost always slower than the Honda, Nissan, & Mazda by 2-4 seconds. They are all at 1:06 on Tsukuba, but the Supra came in at .75 whilst the other 3 came in at .35-.37leaving about 10 cars in between them. At Sugo, it was equal with the RX-7, but fell seconds behind everyone else because of its weight.

This same engineering conscientiousness was applied to the car's heft, down 124 pounds from the previous Supra sumo. The sushi-and-soda diet was expensive, admits Tsuzuki. It required 950 meetings in which engineers sedulously hacked at cellulite. To shed lard, adjustable shocks were forsaken. A telescoping steering wheel was canned. Dual exhaust tips, which looked ultracool but didn't add horsepower, got deep-sixed, saving 30 pounds. Aluminum hood, roof, and bumper supports helped, as did a plastic fuel tank. To save a few pounds, hollow anti-roll bars were fitted. To save a few grams, hollow-fiber carpet was installed, and hollow-head bolts were specified wherever they weren't grasping an item more substantial than, say, an engine.

The only performance aspect the Supra did have over other cars was its acceleration numbers, bar the GT-R, which isn't all that surprising since like the GT-R, it had more than most of the competition.

 

[FuzzyFassbender]

I acknowledge the difference, one just work better for me. Sue me.

That's how I feel arguing about the Supra with people who have never driven one.



Honestly its a struggle jumping between the games, then there's the grip of the tires they are quite apart. I'm not sure which are the most comparable between the two.

I finally found the time to take the Supra on Laguna Seca in FM5 for myself. I thought it drove very well, then again I had just finished driving the 662 HP Shelby GT500 which is quite a handful. With only a few laps I timed at around 1:49 (I am not that good with a controller), if it handled any better it wouldn't add up - lapping close to the Laguna Seca track record for a 300+ Supra. I used traction control and anti-lock brakes as those are standard equipment. To me it drove nothing like a boat - I don't understand how/why anyone would claim that unless there was motivation to do so.
I still don't have the Supra in GT6 but in general cars are a little easier to drive than in FM5, at least with a controller, a little more finesse is required when driving hard in FM.

BTW, so far I like GT6 more than 5 but the area's that bothered "me" the most (sounds, single file starts, lack of visual/physical collision consequences, AI, have not been changed much but I need to give it a little more time. I am sure there will be some things I will enjoy (tracks not in FM5 is a plus).

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

I disagree. Forza has analogue control while GT has digital one. If anything, FM control allows you more precise input with the right amount of throttle or break. It a very important aspect of racing. Now if you were playing with a racing wheel, we would both have a different type of argument. I played both GT5 and FM5 with a wheel. I don't have a PS3 anymore so I cannot play GT6

That bolded part is so wrong. If it has digital, when I gas or brake it will register 100% in an instant ... no, this won't be possible :



I used cross for gas and square for brake, R2 as secondary brake ( left foot ) and left analog for steering, R1/L1 gear shift.


Seems like you never use stick to play GT on PS3 The face buttons are pressure sensitive as well as the rear shoulder buttons ( L2 and R2 ). Some games do not use this feature on all buttons ( FPS games ) With the DS3, the drawback is the face buttons ( circle, cross, square and triangle are too sensitive IMO - the pressure required to 100% input is too low )

If wanted precision input for GT, get older stick from PS2, that would make things a lot more fun, very accurate gas and brake using face buttons ( no need for R2 or L2 or analog stick ), I can use racing brakes and high brake balance in GT6 without any issue. The reason is simple, it needs 3 times more pressure ( press deeper ) on the face buttons to reach 100% input, this way I can brake or gas at 10% to 100% accurately.

I finally found the time to take the Supra on Laguna Seca in FM5 for myself. I thought it drove very well, then again I had just finished driving the 662 HP Shelby GT500 which is quite a handful. With only a few laps I timed at around 1:49 (I am not that good with a controller), if it handled any better it wouldn't add up - lapping close to the Laguna Seca track record for a 300+ Supra. I used traction control and anti-lock brakes as those are standard equipment. To me it drove nothing like a boat - I don't understand how/why anyone would claim that unless there was motivation to do so.
I still don't have the Supra in GT6 but in general cars are a little easier to drive than in FM5, at least with a controller, a little more finesse is required when driving hard in FM.

BTW, so far I like GT6 more than 5 but the area's that bothered "me" the most (sounds, single file starts, lack of visual/physical collision consequences, AI, have not been changed much but I need to give it a little more time. I am sure there will be some things I will enjoy (tracks not in FM5 is a plus).

Don's use traction control, I don't think the real Supra use it when setting the lap time at Laguna, and the lap is in 1:45s range. I have 1:47s in GT6 with comfort medium, 325HP stock, no ABS or other aids. I suggest you to collect some credits and buy the Supra in GT6, do not change oil, leave it as is, fit comfort medium, run it at Laguna, let me know how it compares to FM5 Make sure to set grip to real in course settings and use only ABS or not if you are up to it

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Oh, great. We're back to comparing lap times.

 

[Imari]

Oh, great. We're back to comparing lap times.

Two random Supras, on randomly different tyres, on random days at the track, would in real life probably show greater variation than the two games.

I agree with you, lap times mean stuff all.

 

[FuzzyFassbender]

Two random Supras, on randomly different tyres, on random days at the track, would in real life probably show greater variation than the two games.

I agree with you, lap times mean stuff all.

Not comparing Supras, just relative track times in their respective games. If a game tries to shoot for some relativity, laps times should at least be somewhat close to reality.

 

[Minty]

So following the whole "track times as the benchmark for realism" logic, would that then mean a game suddenly becomes more realistic if a faster time is set in real life?

 

[Imari]

If a game tries to shoot for some relativity, laps times should at least be somewhat close to reality.

Except when it's "couch potato with a gamepad" vs. "professional race driver in a real car".

If anything, close lap times in that situation should be a complete giveaway that something is amiss. And that's without getting into the whole tyres not the same/RL conditions are variable/track is rubbered in/track is dirty/car condition/whatever else. Even amongst professional drivers with identical machinery there can be substantial gaps in lap time.

A lap time is consequent on far, far, far too many things for any sensible comparison to real life. And if you can't compare the times to real life, it's pointless comparing the games to each other.

I mean, how big a margin would you allow to consider the two games to be close? Two seconds? Five? Ten?

 

[88FoxBodyFan]

I disagree. Forza has analogue control while GT has digital one. If anything, FM control allows you more precise input with the right amount of throttle or break. It a very important aspect of racing. Now if you were playing with a racing wheel, we would both have a different type of argument. I played both GT5 and FM5 with a wheel. I don't have a PS3 anymore so I cannot play GT6

Incorrect. You can use the L2 and R2 buttons on the PS controller for acceleration and braking, they are analog. This is how I play.

 

[Convergent]

I disagree. Forza has analogue control while GT has digital one. If anything, FM control allows you more precise input with the right amount of throttle or break. It a very important aspect of racing. Now if you were playing with a racing wheel, we would both have a different type of argument. I played both GT5 and FM5 with a wheel. I don't have a PS3 anymore so I cannot play GT6

Then how are you suppose compare the pros and cons of each game without GT6...

 

[MKVSupra]

The problem taking your word for it is that you claim your car grips like hell, & doesn't want to break lose, even in the wet. You then tried to prove this by posting slalom times done by professionals. Slalom times are going to be modulating the throttle as naturally, letting the rear kick the lose is the last thing you want. That doesn't mean your car can't do it because I know full well it can with 300+ power at the crank; you just haven't pushed the throttle enough to do so.

Why the hell would I want it to break lose when driving fast ? what are we discussing D1 here. Iv said she does not want to break lose, there is no playful easy to control lose its a grip till she tries to kill you as iv said before. She grips crazy well even in the rain, far better then anything else iv ever driven. Even screwing around in a wet parking lot, she proved difficult. no where near as fun as swinging an IS or 3 serious around.

I posted test numbers cause a forum member asked for it.

Your comments that it handles like boat & shouldn't are not far off. It should handle like a heavy car because back when it was made, it was a heavy car at 3,400lbs. The NSX was sub 3,000lbs., the GT-R ranged from 3,100 to 3,400lbs. in its 3 generations, & the RX-7 came in at under 3,000lbs. as well. I think the only other "big" Japanese sports car that weighed more was the GTO. On most circuits, the Supra was almost always slower than the Honda, Nissan, & Mazda by 2-4 seconds. They are all at 1:06 on Tsukuba, but the Supra came in at .75 whilst the other 3 came in at .35-.37leaving about 10 cars in between them. At Sugo, it was equal with the RX-7, but fell seconds behind everyone else because of its weight.

The only performance aspect the Supra did have over other cars was its acceleration numbers, bar the GT-R, which isn't all that surprising since like the GT-R, it had more than most of the competition.

I said it handles like a 70s muscle car on leaf springs, boat is only part right.

LOL only acceleration, nice lies buddy.

Even the Sub 3000lbs NSX or 2800lbs Rx7 did not best the 3400lbs Supra.

Tested by motor trend better slalom skidpad and breaking then NSX, RX7, 300zx, 3000GT, 911 Turbo 3.6, Vett Zr1, Viper Rt/10, Espirit Turbo.

By the way iv never seem any one claim R34 as light as the Supra. Iv seen owner tested wet weight of 3500 for the Supra and around 2700lbs for the R34 GTR. Even its owner say its a tank, saying spec sheet said 1660kg. Lot of R34 variants though. Early R32 were lightest, lacked some safety beam in doors or somewhere if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Imari]

By the way iv never seem any one claim R34 as light as the Supra. Iv seen owner tested wet weight of 3500 for the Supra and around 2700lbs for the R34 GTR.

Is that 2 supposed to be a 3 or what?

Factory curb weights of an R34 and a Mk 4 Supra are basically identical.

 

[FuzzyFassbender]

Except when it's "couch potato with a gamepad" vs. "professional race driver in a real car".

If anything, close lap times in that situation should be a complete giveaway that something is amiss. And that's without getting into the whole tyres not the same/RL conditions are variable/track is rubbered in/track is dirty/car condition/whatever else. Even amongst professional drivers with identical machinery there can be substantial gaps in lap time.

A lap time is consequent on far, far, far too many things for any sensible comparison to real life. And if you can't compare the times to real life, it's pointless comparing the games to each other.

I mean, how big a margin would you allow to consider the two games to be close? Two seconds? Five? Ten?

Again, not trying to compare two games or two cars from two different games. It's a car in a game to understand claims that in one game the a car is on rails, the other it's a boat. I used a lap time as a "somewhat" relative gauge, to me if it's a boat I wouldn't get close to IRL track time. And, itd interesting to compare handling between games for particular cars - that's part of the fun of "owning" both consoles/games.

Sorry if this exercise seems stupid to you, it isn't for me. Just playing games...nothing too serious.

 

[Imari]

Again, not trying to compare two games or two cars from two different games. It's a car in a game to understand claims that in one game the a car is on rails, the other it's a boat. I used a lap time as a "somewhat" relative gauge, to me if it's a boat I wouldn't get close to IRL track time. And, itd interesting to compare handling between games for particular cars - that's part of the fun of "owning" both consoles/games.

Sorry if this exercise seems stupid to you, it isn't for me. Just playing games...nothing too serious.

Except that it's totally possible for one car to have very realistic handling, and the other to be completely boatlike, and they still set the same lap time because of other factors.

You're assuming that everything apart from the handling is equal, and it's just not. Lap times are an awful way to judge handling.

 

[Khyber]

This has got to be the most confusing argument ever.

 

[Tornado]

I have to say that the numbers of people who have actually played GT6 (or used a Playstation device at all in the past 13 years, apparently) and are still dictating that it's obviously inferior physics-wise seem increasingly disproportianate.

 

[SciroccoRich]

The thing I REALLY REALLY hate about FM is the lack of the sense of speed. I'll go at a corner in an M3 or RS4 doing over 100 but for some reason you feel like you're only doing 40. Until the moment you turn in and you just understeer into the wall. You constantly have to look at your speedo rather than go off "feel". GT have always been far superior in that respect.

 

[Terronium-12]

The thing I REALLY REALLY hate about FM is the lack of the sense of speed. I'll go at a corner in an M3 or RS4 doing over 100 but for some reason you feel like you're only doing 40. Until the moment you turn in and you just understeer into the wall. You constantly have to look at your speedo rather than go off "feel". GT have always been far superior in that respect.

Funny, the only car I've ever come across that gives a decent sense of speed are the X-cars and that's largely to do with their ridiculous acceleration and turn in capabilities.

I'd suggest the notion that neither game translates sense of speed very well, but at the very least Forza does make use of vignette/camera trickery.

 

[Kake Bake]

I hate it when I go to drive a boat in Forza and there aren't even any wheels on it.

I mean, it's a car game so where are the wheels?

 

[DirkTheDaring]

I have learned the same thing about FM. I just switched to gt6 from Forza and having skipped gt5 I can say the above is true. I can not count how many times I have had the same issue with the sense of speed in FM and felt I was slow enough for a turn only to understeer. The sense of speed in GT6, at least to me is much easier to gauge when slowing from high speed in to a tight corner.

 

[Imari]

The thing I REALLY REALLY hate about FM is the lack of the sense of speed. I'll go at a corner in an M3 or RS4 doing over 100 but for some reason you feel like you're only doing 40. Until the moment you turn in and you just understeer into the wall. You constantly have to look at your speedo rather than go off "feel". GT have always been far superior in that respect.

The thing is, if you've ever played PC sims and set up a mathematically correct FOV for the distance and size of your monitor, you'll know it feels really slow.

Hell, even in real life if you ignore the NVH stuff going on (or just have a really well insulated car) and just focus on the visual information you're getting, even barrelling along at 200kmph doesn't feel very fast on a wide open track after the first couple of times. 100kmph is actually pretty damn slow. And anything under 50 feels like walking pace.

Which is kind of how it is in the game too. And is why they have to use all sorts of trickery to make it feel like people expect it to feel.

P.S. The other funny thing about having a mathematically correct FOV is that it feels really slow, but once you realise you can use the same perception of corners that you use in the real world it becomes much easier to judge braking points and turn in. It's consistent with the knowledge you already have from years of driving. Otherwise it takes you time to adapt to whatever visual setup the game you have is using.

Where possible, I always set up my games FOV to the same value. It really speeds up the process of learning a new game.

 

[HAL20XX]

My copy of GT6 just arrived and there is no sense of speed.

 

[TokoTurismo]

I actually like the sense of speed in both games, but mostly in Forza (although I usually take off that motion thingy sometimes). When it comes to sense of speed, I choose arcade racers for that over sim racers, but I don't mind if there are some in sim racers though.

Just have a opition like in Forza to turn it off or something like that.

 

[FuzzyFassbender]

The thing I REALLY REALLY hate about FM is the lack of the sense of speed. I'll go at a corner in an M3 or RS4 doing over 100 but for some reason you feel like you're only doing 40. Until the moment you turn in and you just understeer into the wall. You constantly have to look at your speedo rather than go off "feel". GT have always been far superior in that respect.

I am not doubting your assessment, what is funny is I have always felt the opposite - FM to me has the greater sense of speed than GT. This makes me believe we are both wrong and both right - it comes down to familiarity and preferences. As long as we can have fun, the rest doesn't matter much!