Gran Turismo 6 general Physics Discussion(as well as video)

Discussion in 'Gran Turismo 6' started by TorqueHappenS08, May 17, 2013.

  1. Griffith500

    Griffith500

    Messages:
    8,631
    I meant that as they tune all the components, regardless of what those components are, which, according to the origami metaphor, can only be done as you go along (because of the interactivity, unless you're like some distributed systems wizard), they have a strong focus on creating a cohesive feel in the actual interactive part of driving. You do that by including the player in your analysis of the feedback loop that constitutes the game in motion: (filtered!) input -> all outputs considered together -> input again, regardless of the supposed realism of the underpinnings, and the player in question. That feedback step is critical, because it's all the game is to us.

    There are other practical things you can do, such as ensuring your team has real-world experience to call upon, no matter how limited, but that's useless if the team doesn't get to use it in shaping the game.

    It's a design decision, really, and that kind of mechanical cohesion is a characteristic all of PD's games share. And no, it's not something only PD's games exhibit, obviously. Blade of Darkness, Super Meat Boy and Wipeout are probably three of many good examples of mechanically cohesive, feelsome games, at least for my tastes, that just sprung into my head. None of them are particularly realistic, by design; I think it's significantly harder to achieve great feel and absolute realism together, though, and bad feel overall can obscure any realism in the parts anyway.


    A semi-recent-by-PD's-standards, stand-out example is Tourist Trophy; it's effectively GT4's physics on two wheels, and inherits all the lovely foibles of that game, so the "accuracy" is often perceptually "wrong". Crucially, they started with GT4, and worked forwards to get TT; what does that say about the physical underpinnings of GT4? That it is suitably general, i.e. physically informed, such that it wasn't too hard to adapt the formulation of the specific collection of simplifications etc. to two wheels (which Akihiko Tan did). If it was all empirical, reverse-engineered with no physical foundation, it would be like doing all of the chassis dynamics work up to GT4 again in less than two years on a skeleton crew.

    Despite the inaccuracies, for most of the time, the feel of the game is spot-on, the way it communicates the natural flow and rhythm of each bike, and the limits of adhesion in all axes (which you should stay within for minimal GT4-tyre-model weirdness), all informing your control inputs, giving a natural "riding style" not too far removed from reality (much like the original GT did over "arcade" racers of the time), is like no other game I can remember. If PD can also add realism to that, in the way they have for GT since that time, well...


    If PD suddenly decide to use someone else's parts, that hard-earned cohesion is immediately compromised and will take effort to regain, probably best by (re)building everything around that new part. But you inherit the systemic design that created that part in the first place, and that system might not do what you want it to do, unless you change the part itself.

    This describes iRacing's troubles with third-party sound engines, because its sound, physics and graphics engines evolved on their own paths aside from the majority of mainstream games, such that tools made for mainstream games are not immediately compatible. I think it's safe to say that GT has evolved on its own path, too, for better or for worse.
     
    tka_tha, SnakeOfBacon and Tenacious D like this.
  2. Ridox2JZGTE

    Ridox2JZGTE

    Messages:
    11,660
    PD should hire Yu Suzuki to aid in game design, particularly physics :)
     
  3. MadFlavour

    MadFlavour (Banned)

    Messages:
    2,701
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    I think that the general physics are a bit exaggerated, for driving anyways. The steering wheel in game is a lot heavier than it actually is in Real life and the Torque steer is a little of for front wheel drive cars.

    Rear wheel drive seems to have a perfect simulation of wheel movement, for drifting rather than racing. You have the same movement from the wheel that you would expect from a car in real life.

    AWD/4WD is a mix of both really depending on how you have the car setup.

    In terms of accuracy I'd give it a 9/10 in the wheel physics department, you can't really get a real driving experience from a video game unless you shell out a ton of money and buy or build one of those sophisticated chairs that simulates the G forces acting on you.

    Little representation of the accuracy of the wheel movement/ffb.

    GT:

    IRL:
     
  4. OdeFinn

    OdeFinn

    Messages:
    2,643
    Location:
    Finland
    @MadFlavour, don't get your point? SimCarDriver goes on smooth and RealCarDriver uses aggressive methods, how to compare those?
     
  5. MadFlavour

    MadFlavour (Banned)

    Messages:
    2,701
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    The movement of the wheel, the simulation of the ffb is very accurate is what I'm saying.
     
  6. LazyJK

    LazyJK

    Messages:
    12
    I am really sorry Kaz fans, but you just need to accept the fact that what he says is not always true. I do not know what is going on but I cannot see nor feel his passion for cars if I cannot make a 106 GTi drift by abruptly lifting the gas mid-corner or when I do not get full patch notes. There is vital information hidden from us and there is no denying that. There are reasons for this but please spare us the crap and marketing nonsense.
     
  7. super_gt

    super_gt

    Messages:
    4,339
    Location:
    Bulgaria
    You can make 106 GTi to drift in mid-corner as you put front-sports hard and rear-comfort soft tires. :)
     
    poumpoum likes this.
  8. MadFlavour

    MadFlavour (Banned)

    Messages:
    2,701
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    Never go full retard
     
  9. super_gt

    super_gt

    Messages:
    4,339
    Location:
    Bulgaria
  10. super_gt

    super_gt

    Messages:
    4,339
    Location:
    Bulgaria
    Guys you should watch this,this is what I mean when I say this ''beautiful balanced car''
     
  11. unit-one

    unit-one

    Messages:
    3,528
    Location:
    Estonia
    I think GT6 has the best physics in GT series so far. The cars feel alive and even the collision physics with other cars is much much better.
     
    Stephanos82, LeoStrop and perja55 like this.
  12. Rotorist

    Rotorist

    Messages:
    1,225
    Location:
    Greece
    So far and by far... I wish aero model and tire camber get more accurate.
     
  13. NixxxoN

    NixxxoN (Banned)

    Messages:
    2,712
    Location:
    Spain
    I dont know why... but I tried the Miura some days ago and it has became ridiculously good and fast to drive (on corners).
    I think i tried it when the game came out and it wa crap. I think they either modified it or the physics changes made it improve a lot...
     
    Rotorist likes this.
  14. unit-one

    unit-one

    Messages:
    3,528
    Location:
    Estonia
    I think there was a physics update at some point. I'm pretty sure the collision physics weren't as good as they are now too. And the Audi R8 LMS cars are less dangerous to drive too.
     
    Rotorist likes this.
  15. super_gt

    super_gt

    Messages:
    4,339
    Location:
    Bulgaria
    Camber angle front 0.5 rear 1.5 and rear toe angel 0.60 for all road cars by default.
    Until now GT6 physics was simcade after 1.09 update with this default settings is arcade.
    Congratulations for all Shuffle racers with these default settings Shuffle racing will become horrible arcade adventure,if PD decides to return back Shuffle racing.
     
  16. TCSTigersClaw

    TCSTigersClaw

    Messages:
    255
    Location:
    Greece
    Except FF cars :) they have 0.0 camber f/r but 0.60 toe rear
     
    super_gt likes this.
  17. Johnnypenso

    Johnnypenso Premium

    Messages:
    28,465
    Location:
    Canada
    That's the kind of dumb mistake they usually patch with a hotfix...if not then an update...maybe...:lol:
     
    super_gt likes this.
  18. TurismoBad

    TurismoBad

    Messages:
    1,237
    Certain racing cars (Camaro SS Touring Car, HSV-010) on default have 3.5 rear and 1.5 front camber - shouldn't that be the exact opposite ? Front 3.5 and rear 1.5 ?
     
    brrupsz and super_gt like this.
  19. nasanu

    nasanu (Banned)

    Messages:
    1,429
    Location:
    Japan
    Why do so many people think PC sims are doing some amazing amount of calculations? I am sure there isn't a single PC sim out there doing calculations that would trouble the PS3. Physics engines run hundreds of times, sometimes even a thousand times a second they are so cheap. Even you if know nothing about games programming simple logic should tell you this.

    Think about this: People still think games like LFS and netKar pro have great physics. Hell even take rFactor, I bet you would tell people this game is running a far more heavy sim than any GT game right? Yet think about the kind of PC CPUs that were around at the time of those games releases then learn how much more powerful the CELL in the PS3 is. At the time of GT5's release it would have been reasonable to say the exact opposite of what you said, that you can brute force it on the PS3 but would have to scale back your sim for PC.


    FFB != physics. Sure when you hear any PC sim racer talk about great physics they almost always talk about things they feel with the wheel and simply don't describe the actual physics, but that does not make it right. Smash your wheel with a hammer, it won't change the physics engine so the wheel feel can not be used to judge the physics on.
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2014
    GregOr1971 and poumpoum like this.
  20. FS7

    FS7

    Messages:
    1,117
    Location:
    Brazil
    Did anybody notice any changes in handling after the 1.09 update?
    Redbull Standard car seems to have some steering lag, most cars I tried seem to have a higher tendency to oversteer.
     
  21. Johnnypenso

    Johnnypenso Premium

    Messages:
    28,465
    Location:
    Canada
    Source? How many physics calculations does GT do vs. Project Cars or Forza 4/5 or Assetto Corsa etc.

    Wheel feel can be used to judge physics this is without question. Cars are supposed to react a certain way through pedal and wheel inputs and of course in response to what is happening on track. If the FFB is such that you can feel each of those inputs accurately then you can more accurately gauge the physics engine than you can when the FFB to the wheel is poor. One of the complaints about GT is poor feedback through the wheel in a lot of situations. You run over curbs sometimes and hear lots of rumble but feel nothing through the wheel. The back end begins to break loose on corner entry on some cars and you feel nothing through the wheel, your only clues are visual and auditory.

    So while it's true to say that FFB =/= physics, it's false to say that wheel feel can't be used to judge physics because it certainly can.
     
    super_gt likes this.
  22. RacingManiac

    RacingManiac

    Messages:
    1,367
    If the feel through the input interface feels wrong, even if the underlying physics maybe correct it will still be a horrid sim. The hexapod simulator running off carsim and simulink at work right now suffers from that. The unit is custom built but there are still some disconnect. You know the underlying model is at least accurate, but the driver cannot drive it properly because feed back is off.
     
    Griffith500 likes this.
  23. nasanu

    nasanu (Banned)

    Messages:
    1,429
    Location:
    Japan
    There are numbers about for the update frequency of most sims, GT5 was 1000 times a second according to one Kaz interview early on, most PC sims where 200 to 500. But really I could not be bothered to find links for you. Google it. And no, developers have not released source code so there is no way to how much they are calculating in each loop. But its still a fact that respected sims like rFactor run on CPUs that the PS3's CPU crushes. That makes my case self evident.


    No really it can not. If I am making a racing game I can make the FFB do what ever I like. It can be tied to physics, it does not have to be. But let me ask you something. If I go into Assetto Corsa and stuff up the settings in my wheel profile, does that change the physics of the cars? What if I recompiled the game without FFB or just messed it up? Does that change the physics? NO.


    And what part of that has to do with the physics? Unless you are complaining that the car reacts incorrectly over those ripplestrips then you are only talking about FFB, not physics.


    As above, you can make an arcade game feel great and a great sim feel bad all through how you setup the FFB. Developers can do what ever they want with FFB and there are no guidelines on how to take your custom physics data and turn that into wheel vibrations, pushes, pulls and resistance. Its all made up and every single developer will produce a FFB that feels different even when given the same physics engine to pull the data from.

    Many game's physics get praised or panned based on FFB and its ignorant and wrong.
     
    GregOr1971 likes this.
  24. MustangManiac

    MustangManiac Premium

    Messages:
    2,110
    Location:
    United States
    You obviously don't know much about the cell processor do you? I remember when it was first being developed, in theory it was supposed to be amazing...in theory. As an engineer I can tell you that often there is a big difference between theory and real word applications. The cell was a major flop, it never did measure up to all the expectations. The PS3 was the only major product to use it in its history, there is a reason for that. The same reason why Sony has dropped it for the PS4 and went back to the X86 architecture of the PC.
     
  25. Griffith500

    Griffith500

    Messages:
    8,631
    I don't think you really understood the point I was making. We were talking about "hacks" in the context of physics. Specifically, the way that all forces on cars in GT still seem to go through the wheels only. I consider that to be a legacy issue, and I've said multiple times that I don't think it's necessary on the PS3 anymore.

    The PC is the brute-force platform, but that's incidental to the point I was actually making: that the calculations aren't what I call "physically forward". That kind of physics engine, at least in part, has been around in a commercial gaming context since 1999; but it was designed and built to run on multi-core machines at a time when only research and industry had multi-core PCs. Despite it being something of a system-killer at the time, it almost certainly wasn't built with a brute-force mindset (lots of mathematical finesse required), and that is the reason that particular engine has held something of an advantage ever since (it's still going).

    It's just that the vast computational power of computers generally gets harnessed immediately to do things that aren't really that important: like graphics. That extra headroom with each iteration of hardware, which we've enjoyed continual acceleration in over the last 10 years, does tend to mean that such finesse is no longer required: hence brute force. PCs are still the most powerful commercial machines available, ergo they have always been the worst offenders in terms of this kind of "optimisation". They're doing millions upon millions of calculations, but that doesn't mean you couldn't get the same result with much, much fewer. It's just easier to "waste" those cycles, from a development standpoint.

    This is true, but it still constitutes part of the feedback cycle of input -> output -> input (etc.). So, for example, playing the same game with different wheels can lead to notably different experiences, and those differences might not be consistent across different games, with that particular selection of wheels. It's just something to take into account, and people should preferably state in any "appraisal" of the physics what controller they're using (and what settings etc.).
     
  26. Johnnypenso

    Johnnypenso Premium

    Messages:
    28,465
    Location:
    Canada
    You missed the entire context of my post. I'll simplify it for you. I've got a wheel in my hand and I'm stopped on the track. I press the gas pedal and the car goes forward. I press the brake and the car stops. I press the gas, accelerate and change gears and it works. I approach a corner and hit the brakes which I've already confirmed work, then I turn the wheel to the right and it turns. I've just discovered that the wheel, gas, brake and shift paddles all work and simulate what is happening with a real car correct?

    Everything after that is details. Correct a developer can do whatever they like with FFB, but it's also true that some FFB can be more accurate and true to real life than others. Some cars/games are much more intuitive to drive than others. There is a qualitative difference between physics engines and force feedback between various games and some are necessarily more accurate than others, otherwise they'd all be identical. Need for Speed would feel the same as Gran Turismo would feel the same as PCars would feel the same as Ridge Racer. They don't.
     
  27. nasanu

    nasanu (Banned)

    Messages:
    1,429
    Location:
    Japan
    So basically everything is physics to you?

    I'll put it this way:

    Everything after that is details. Correct a developer can do whatever they like with graphics, but it's also true that some graphics can be more accurate and true to real life than others. Some cars/games are much more intuitive to look at than others. There is a qualitative difference between graphics engines in various games and some are necessarily more accurate than others, otherwise they'd all be identical. Need for Speed would look the same as Gran Turismo would look the same as PCars would look the same as Ridge Racer. They don't.

    See that? You are not speaking about physics or FFB at all, what you said can be applied to any aspect of well, anything.

    And your first paragraph.. No idea why you wrote that. Yes inputs produce inputs.... Did you just discover that? They will be the same with or without FFB. In B in FFB stands for BACK, its the opposite to input going in the wrong direction.
     
  28. Tornado

    Tornado

    Messages:
    38,314
    Not to break the strained attempt at a metaphor, but since the argument seems to be you can literally substitute anything, how would some cars be much more intuitive to look at than others?
     
  29. nasanu

    nasanu (Banned)

    Messages:
    1,429
    Location:
    Japan
    The CELL was expensive, that is part of the reason why it did not take off. Another part of that reason was that the programming knowledge base was not there, most programmers found it hard to work with because they only knew x86.

    Computationally CELL was great, blisteringly fast in specific types of calculations. There is a real reason why research projects used clusters of PS3s rather than Intel chips and why projects like Folding@home produced faster fold times on PS3 than the average PC at the time. You might want to actually take a look at what people achieved with CELL once they had some experience before telling people they do know much.


    Meaning they are less abstract, more instantly recognizable as cars.
     
    Mr_Hansen likes this.
  30. sk8er913

    sk8er913

    Messages:
    4,091
    Location:
    United States
    Was really hard to find this thread lol. Its so old. But guys this thread was absolutely brilliant! Cant wait to discuss the physics of GT7 when they finally drop a trailer our way. :)
     
    super_gt likes this.