FWIW - GT5 lap times compared to 2 other console sims

[tigermilk]

Three games, two cars, one track. The track is Laguna Seca. The cars are a Mini Cooper and Dodge Viper SRT/10. The games are GT5 on the PS3, FM3 on the 360, and Race Pro on the 360. All played with no assists, though most of my testing was done with ABS=1 in GT5 (I did the Viper both at 0 and 1 and was about a second slower). Driving with controllers, no wheels. I attempted to get the setups as close to each other as possible. It was a little tough since Race Pro just gives you a car. You can't customize it, though the setups are quite deep.

Car #1

Race Pro Dodge Viper SRT/10 - 600 hp, 1552 kg, brakes 61/39 front/rear, roll bars at 50%/10% front/rear, camber -1.4/-1.2, toe -.2/.2, and differential at 60/40. Driving Seca in this thing was a terror. It was REALLY tough getting a clean lap in. Eventually I was getting some good sectors pieced together and rolled in at 1:39.531 for a hot lap. Driving difficulty was a 10/10.

Forza Motorsport 3 '03 SRT - had to add a sports differential, exhaust, filter, pistons, increased displacement, valves, and street camshaft to get the horsepower to match closer to Race Pro. Used stock tires. Ended up with a 601 hp, 1528 kg Viper, so a little lighter than Race Pro. At best you'd expect about 1552/1528-1=1.6% faster lap times. So target would be ~1:38. The car was blazing at 1:32.134 for my best lap. Driving difficulty was a 7/10.

GT5 '06 SRT/10 - had to add racing filter, LSD, ECU tuning, stage 1 engine, sports exhaust, window weight reduction, and full suspension. With stock tires (sports hard), the car came in at 604 hp and 1555 kg. Theoretically it should be pulling in lap times just a tad faster than Race Pro, say 1:38.60. With ABS on 1 I pulled a 1:36.749. With ABS at 0 I did 1:37.969. Driving difficulty was a 6/10.

Verdict? Well who knows. One thing we can say is that a SRT10 ACR was run at Laguna Seca in 2009 and set a lap time of 1:33.915. Details at http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...tures-lap-record-at-laguna-seca-72949852.html, and the car had 600 hp and weighed 3400 lbs or so. Can't find good weight data on that particular run. The car had a wing, and none of my trials did. So FM3 was closest to a "real" time, but GT5 and Race Pro had similar performance, though Race Pro was much more demanding to drive.


Car #2

Race Pro Mini Cooper - 210 hp, 1080 kg, brakes 60/40, springs fairly stiff, camber -3.5/-3, and toe at -.25/.5. The car did have a rear wing, and I was pulling consistent laps with the fastest time of 1:45.704. Driving difficulty was 2/10.

FM3 Cooper - I had to implement a weight reduction to get it down to 1138 kg and it rolled out with 208 hp. So it should be faster than Race Pro. No rear wing was used. It was, but not by much at 1:45.503. Driving difficulty was 3/10.

GT5 '07 Mini S - Rolled out at 206 hp and 1089 kg. GT5 won't let you buy aero parts for this car, so it was run with stock body. Time was 1:50.281 and driving difficulty was 4/10.

Verdict? A stock Mini Cooper S pulled a 1:51.98 (http://www.motortrend.com/features/laguna_lap/112_0902_2008_mini_cooper_s_laguna_lap/index.html). That car was 175 hp and about 1200 kg. Scaling that 1:52 down for those lighter and higher power cars on the consoles yields some 30% higher power/weight ratio. So you'd expect the GT5 time to be much faster than the 1:50. FM3 and Race Pro had very similar times.

Overall verdict? Who knows which game is most accurate. It seems to be hit or miss just with 2 different cars. Granted there's no way to dial in exactly the same setup, and you can't quantify the effects of FM3 and Race Pro with their advanced tire models. But all games provided enough challenge to be worth the drive. For grins I did run a one-make race in GT5 with the Viper in both a stock and upgraded version. In both cases the AI was just pathetic. I was gaining a couple of seconds per lap on the AI. Both Race Pro and FM3, in my opinion, have much more compelling AI. They aren't push-overs.

 

[Wolfe]

Nice comparo and contribution. 👍 I like how you included a "driving difficulty" score.

One thing to remember is that the cars aren't the only thing being compared. The accuracy of the tracks plays into it, too -- it's one thing to get a track looking right. It's an entirely different matter to make sure the track is scaled right in comparison to the cars. For example, I personally felt Gran Turismo 4's Nürburgring was too "small," and that its size contributed the universally-quick laptimes everyone saw compared to the real thing (more than the "fear factor"). I'd need more time with the 'Ring in GT5 to have any opinion there, but you get my point.

Any thoughts on that aspect, from your test?

 

[tigermilk]

One thing to remember is that the cars aren't the only thing being compared. The accuracy of the tracks plays into it, too -- it's one thing to get a track looking right. It's an entirely different matter to make sure the track is scaled right in comparison to the cars. For example, I personally felt Gran Turismo 4's Nürburgring was too "small," and that its size contributed the universally-quick laptimes everyone saw compared to the real thing (more than the "fear factor"). I'd need more time with the 'Ring in GT5 to have any opinion there, but you get my point.

Any thoughts on that aspect, from your test?

Can't really comment on that too much. I can say that FM3 to me provides the best Seca experience - the corkscrew is an absolute beast in that one, whereas in GT5 it seems a bit more tame. Plus there's some great sun glare on the stretch before the final corner which gives a hint of realism to the track. I certainly had to take several laps to get my braking points re-established with each game. Some corners were a breeze in one game whereas others would be tougher. For example, the hairpins were a lot easier to navigate in GT3 than the others, but I found the high speed turns to be a little more difficult to hit correctly in GT3 than the others.

One thing that can be concretely stated - the graphics in Race Pro pale in comparison to the other titles, but overall it's a better driving (and racing) model. It's a shame Simbin dropped the ball on other aspects of the game and left several bugs in it.

 

[FanBoy08]

Why didn't you just use the Dodge Viper ACR in the game to compare it to the Laguna Seca Time?

 

[crox]

Biggest wild card would then be the driver, not sim.

 

[tigermilk]

Why didn't you just use the Dodge Viper ACR in the game to compare it to the Laguna Seca Time?

OK. That will be for tomorrow.

 

[HBR-Roadhog]

Can't really comment on that too much. I can say that FM3 to me provides the best Seca experience - the corkscrew is an absolute beast in that one, whereas in GT5 it seems a bit more tame. Plus there's some great sun glare on the stretch before the final corner which gives a hint of realism to the track. I certainly had to take several laps to get my braking points re-established with each game. Some corners were a breeze in one game whereas others would be tougher. For example, the hairpins were a lot easier to navigate in GT3 than the others, but I found the high speed turns to be a little more difficult to hit correctly in GT3 than the others.

.

Sun that never moves and always hurts my eyes. That's not realism that is just annoyance though not nearly as bad as Sedona.

 

[tigermilk]

Updated with some more Viper data

Race Pro Viper GTS-R with 655 hp and 1130 kg - 1:27.987 with a driving difficulty of 6/10 or so

FM3 - tried to match up the specs of the ACR as much as possible and got to 661 hp and 1250 kg. Was able to get 1:26.747 with a driving difficulty of 4/10. I also took the Team Viper GTS-R out which has 623 hp and 1352 kg. It was just a tad slower at 1:27.467.

GT5 - Used the '08 SRT10 ACR and got it to 653 hp and 1257 kg, so it should be comparable to FM3. First run was with sports hard tires, which are the default for this car. Driving difficulty was a 9/10 or more. Just absolutely no grip or braking ability. I could only muster a 1:36.378. On a whim I bought some racing softs and took 10 seconds off, to 1:26.328. Then some sports softs for a 1:30.895. Driving difficulty once the softs were on went to about a 3/10.

Now a '10 ACR did 1:33.92 for real (http://www.fastestlaps.com/tracks/laguna_seca.html) but was only 608 hp and heavy at 1536 kg. Given that time, I'd say all 3 games did a good job as long as you have decent tires. The hard tires just slide unrealistically even at low speeds.

Given the big time deltas for tires, I decided to run the Mini again with sports and racing softs. The times I was getting were WAY faster - 1:41.97 for sports softs and 1:37.949 for racing softs. Driving difficulty was a 2/10. Minis are zippy, but those times are unrealistic IMO.

 

[RWB1213]

Nice Comparo . . .

Interesting you chose Laguna. I've found a profound difference in the feel of this track between all three of the titles you tested. I've never driven the course in real life, but my impression is that Forza presents a track which is relatively tighter feeling on all but two corners (the back left kink before the uphill to the corkscrew, and the downhill left exiting the corkscrew feel tighter on GT5.)

I'm still trying to forget my experience playing Race Pro.

 

[tigermilk]

Nice Comparo . . .

Interesting you chose Laguna. I've found a profound difference in the feel of this track between all three of the titles you tested. I've never driven the course in real life, but my impression is that Forza presents a track which is relatively tighter feeling on all but two corners (the back left kink before the uphill to the corkscrew, and the downhill left exiting the corkscrew feel tighter on GT5.)

I'm still trying to forget my experience playing Race Pro.

Problem is that Laguna is the only track in all 3. Trust me, I would have preferred another track. While I love the course, it can be a real torture to drive with some cars.

 

[crox]

There is a sim with 100% accurate Laguna Seca. iRacing.

Can use it as reference.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Updated with some more Viper data

Race Pro Viper GTS-R with 655 hp and 1130 kg - 1:27.987 with a driving difficulty of 6/10 or so

FM3 - tried to match up the specs of the ACR as much as possible and got to 661 hp and 1250 kg. Was able to get 1:26.747 with a driving difficulty of 4/10. I also took the Team Viper GTS-R out which has 623 hp and 1352 kg. It was just a tad slower at 1:27.467.

GT5 - Used the '08 SRT10 ACR and got it to 653 hp and 1257 kg, so it should be comparable to FM3. First run was with sports hard tires, which are the default for this car. Driving difficulty was a 9/10 or more. Just absolutely no grip or braking ability. I could only muster a 1:36.378. On a whim I bought some racing softs and took 10 seconds off, to 1:26.328. Then some sports softs for a 1:30.895. Driving difficulty once the softs were on went to about a 3/10.

Now a '10 ACR did 1:33.92 for real (http://www.fastestlaps.com/tracks/laguna_seca.html) but was only 608 hp and heavy at 1536 kg. Given that time, I'd say all 3 games did a good job as long as you have decent tires. The hard tires just slide unrealistically even at low speeds.

Given the big time deltas for tires, I decided to run the Mini again with sports and racing softs. The times I was getting were WAY faster - 1:41.97 for sports softs and 1:37.949 for racing softs. Driving difficulty was a 2/10. Minis are zippy, but those times are unrealistic IMO.

Your original comparison was not really realistic. The ACR has a lot more downforce than the stock one you used, sometimes 10 times as much at speeds around 150mph. As far as I'm aware you never added any downforce extra to the car, if you did your lap times would have been closer.

Also you should compare GT5 time stock for stock cars. Why compare against a modified ACR with extra added downforce IRL. 1:35.12 was the time for the stock ACR by Motor Trend from your link. For the other games you should use a car that is stock and that you can find a real world lap time of, not tune a car and compare it to a time a car that is tuned differently IRL or is even a different car. It is not good to compare apples to oranges and add more variables than needed.

GT5 seems closest of the 3, but if you do tests using stock cars for the other 2 games and same for GT5, we will have a much clearer picture.

Edit: Forget about the last factor, I don't know how good your driving is so that could be a big variable. Don't all three games have R8s? Why not try them stock in all three?

Here is the video:



1:40.8 is the time to match in all three games with the Audi R8 V8 with a stock setup. Push hard in all three and we will see how close all three games are.

 

[RWB1213]

Sun that never moves and always hurts my eyes. That's not realism that is just annoyance though not nearly as bad as Sedona.

How many tracks does the sun move in GT? Better get some shades . . .

<sarc>