Gran Turismo Sport: General Discussion

[Imari]

I'll also add that at least 90% of the "true sims" people refer to when putting down Forza and GT games, are based on the exact same 11 year old game engine. At least PD and T10 write their own engines.

Which really has nothing to do with it. Should we stop using internal combustion engines because they're all based on the same 150 year old design?

isiMotor does just fine, and for smaller devs who don't have the resources and funds of a first party studio it's a good choice, and seems to do as well or better as far as simulation goes. That's really the point. It's not what you use, it's the result that you get, and isiMotor (used well) can give good results.

I don't see that it's a positive to write your own stuff when something off the shelf can give better results (and probably for cheaper). I've been saying for some time that Polyphony should simply license the Assetto Corsa engine or something and then spend their resources working their magic with graphics and input filtering. They'd have a much better game if they spent all their time working on the areas where they are truly masters of their craft, and just bought in other stuff as needed.

Like I said, you can argue which sim does better or worse than other sims in whatever way you please, but it's just stupid to make up so many sub-genres for sims, based solely on your completely subjective, and wholly uneducated opinion on which is more realistic.

I'd be careful with that. While there's a lot of subjective discussion that goes on about realism in games and sims, it's also possible to identify objective areas in which sims perform better or worse.

For example, Gran Turismo 5 and 6 have significant problems in the way that they respond to tuning. While one might be able to tune a car to respond well at a certain set of values, they generally won't respond correctly over a wider range. That's a case where Gran Turismo is objectively less realistic than sims that do respond more correctly.

@LeGeNd-1 why do you put NFS, Driveclub and The Crew as semi arcade ?

They are all seems to be in arcade category to me.

Think about the differences between a game like Ridge Racer and a game like Driveclub. From the perspective of a sim, they're both "not sims". But viewed individually, there are some definite differences to how they approach physics.

 

[LeGeNd-1]

See this is just ridiculous. Putting so many labels on games, for no reason other than your own personal opinion on which is more realistic. Again, most of what you call a true simulation is based on the same 11 year old engine. I also seriously doubt you have the relevant data or racing expertise to be able to accurately judge which of those games belong in which of those imaginary categories you've made up.

Based on your post, you also consider Gran Turismo 1 and 2 to be on the same level of realism as all of Codies games from the last two gens (bar Dirt rally), NFS Shift, and SLRE, and more realistic than Driveclub. Absolutely absurd.

Also, the input method used by the player, and their skill level, has absolutely nothing to do with whether a racing game is a simulator or not.

Like I said, you can argue which sim does better or worse than other sims in whatever way you please, but it's just stupid to make up so many sub-genres for sims, based solely on your completely subjective, and wholly uneducated opinion on which is more realistic.

It is an opinion, but an educated one. 18 years of experience playing every single racing game that has ever came out, watching motorsports, basic understanding of automotive physics and of course my fair share of high speed driving (though not racing speed, I must admit). I think I can be quite confident that I know what I'm talking about.

It's not trivial labelling on games. Those games just happen to fall along a line from 0 to 100 on the realism scale, and I just placed them there based on what I feel when driving. You and others are welcome to swap some around, but I doubt you would put NFS higher than GT, right?

I stand by GT1/2 being simcade. As I said, even in the same category, there are games which are more sim than others. GT1/2 would be nearer the arcade end of the spectrum than Codemasters & Shifts' offerings. There's a degree of overlap too: GT2's Simulation tyres are arguably more realistic than the whole of GRID 2. The reason I put GT1/2 above DC, is because GT is a circuit racer, and offers numerical tuning parameters. It's not just the pure physics that determines where a game falls on that line. It's the whole package and overall philosophy behind it.

Input method doesn't influence the game itself, but it certainly will affect how accurately you perceive it. The skill of the player also. If you drive at 80% GT6 is pretty real, but look at the top GT Academy times pushing 101% and the physics starts to break down.

So, you're welcome to think my method is stupid It's just a rough classification I have built up in my mind over 18 years, and something I wanted to share. If it helps people classify their games, great! If you disagree, then I have no problems as well. I mean I still have fun playing Trackmania as I do Assetto Corsa 👍

@LeGeNd-1 why do you put NFS, Driveclub and The Crew as semi arcade ?

They are all seems to be in arcade category to me.

They are arcade, but just not as arcade as the games above them. The Semi Sim label is just that, a label. You can call them Not-As-Arcade for all I care

Clarifying my categorisation above:
Fantasy - vehicles only very loosely behave like cars, with weapons, boost pads, jumps, etc
Arcade - cars drive like cars, but drifting is still faster, have weapons, etc
Semi Arcade - pretty much like normal cars, but still very forgiving physics
Simcade - forgiving physics, but in a proper circuit racing environment, basic tuning parameters
Semi Sim - less forgiving physics, circuit racing, tuning, but just lacks the last 10% demanding nature of more accurate sims
Simulation - the most cutting edge physics based on that period's technology basically, less compromise, one crash and you're done, one misshift and you blow the engine
Real Life - IMO, no game is there yet

 

[Imari]

It's not trivial labelling on games. Those games just happen to fall along a line from 0 to 100 on the realism scale, and I just placed them there based on what I feel when driving. You and others are welcome to swap some around, but I doubt you would put NFS higher than GT, right?

It really depends how you're judging it.

If you're simply judging based on the accuracy of the physical simulation, I'm pretty sure that some of the more modern Need for Speeds are better simulations than early Gran Turismos.

But myself, I judge it on the intention of the developers. A simulation is made to be the most accurate representation of reality than the developer can manage, given the constraints of hardware, budget and whatever else. Gran Turismo, Forza and all the rest for the most part do their best to be accurate, whether they actually achieve it or not.

Games like NfS and Driveclub want enough accuracy to make it feel real to the player, but they will intentionally include non-realistic physics if it makes it more fun.

Games like Burnout or Ridge Racer simply go for whatever is most fun, with no real consideration for real world physics at all (other than perhaps sik dr1fts y0).


There are definitely groups of games that have similar design goals, and I think your original post summarised those fairly nicely. It's useful to be able to categorise groups of games that approach the physics "problem" with similar mindsets. Forza and GT are fundamentally very similar, they want to be as accurate as they can but ultimately they will sacrifice a little bit for playability. iRacing and AC will probably never sacrifice anything for playability, their motto is more along the lines of "tough 🤬, learn to drive better".

I think if you're judging purely by output then it's a constantly shifting scale as you try and judge older games by modern standards. Whereas if you judge by what was intended then GPL will always be a simulator, even when the latest NfS is technically a more accurate sim. And that feels more right to me. GPL will always be a sim, even 50 or 100 years from now.

 

[LeGeNd-1]

It really depends how you're judging it.

If you're simply judging based on the accuracy of the physical simulation, I'm pretty sure that some of the more modern Need for Speeds are better simulations than early Gran Turismos.

But myself, I judge it on the intention of the developers. A simulation is made to be the most accurate representation of reality than the developer can manage, given the constraints of hardware, budget and whatever else. Gran Turismo, Forza and all the rest for the most part do their best to be accurate, whether they actually achieve it or not.

Games like NfS and Driveclub want enough accuracy to make it feel real to the player, but they will intentionally include non-realistic physics if it makes it more fun.

Games like Burnout or Ridge Racer simply go for whatever is most fun, with no real consideration for real world physics at all (other than perhaps sik dr1fts y0).


There are definitely groups of games that have similar design goals, and I think your original post summarised those fairly nicely. It's useful to be able to categorise groups of games that approach the physics "problem" with similar mindsets. Forza and GT are fundamentally very similar, they want to be as accurate as they can but ultimately they will sacrifice a little bit for playability. iRacing and AC will probably never sacrifice anything for playability, their motto is more along the lines of "tough 🤬, learn to drive better".

I think if you're judging purely by output then it's a constantly shifting scale as you try and judge older games by modern standards. Whereas if you judge by what was intended then GPL will always be a simulator, even when the latest NfS is technically a more accurate sim. And that feels more right to me. GPL will always be a sim, even 50 or 100 years from now.

Yeah, as I said here...

It's not just the pure physics that determines where a game falls on that line. It's the whole package and overall philosophy behind it.

...it's more about the overall design of the game, and the direction that the developer wants to take the game, back in the period it was conceived.

BTW, I don't think even Shift 1 is as good as GPL. Maybe it has more parameters in the engine and then "dumbed down", but in terms of FFB, brakes lockup, and suspension modelling GPL is still marginally better than GT6. GPL's big problem is tyre modelling (a bit brick like, kinda like GT actually), physics breaks down at extreme slip angles and it has a little bit of central pivot feel. Shift 1 was a complete mess from what I remember (that my brain haven't erased from self preservation ). Because of this I also didn't bother with Shift 2, so I don't know if that's much better.

Anyway, enough with the philosophy talk. Back to GTS people

 

[VXR]

I've no doubt that this title will sell well thanks to its branding, but I also think it'll be like PCars where many copies are traded in soon after when Joe Soap realises there's very little to do in his spare hour of gaming and they missed the 17:00 hours race online.

What a crud idea that is, having set race times when it's the meat and potatoes of the game.

Gran Turismo Sport - the real scheduling simulator.

 

[LeGeNd-1]

^Not to mention when Joe Bloggs keeps getting penalised for not driving properly, crashing, or going off track, even if it isn't their fault in the first place. Let's face it, being clean and fast in a sim is not something 99% of the population can do.

I would think the races are repeated several times a day no? Maybe every hour, like iRacing? Only the weekend finals are a one off. If it's really once a day though then more from PD.

 

[jm79]

There's getting to be a lot of TL;DR posts on here

Also, this has probably been posted, but this Eurogamer article is a little harsh, but fair, and seems to embrace the eccentricity of Kaz and GT pretty well. It's a decent improvement on the previous EG article at least.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-05-25-gran-turismo-sport-is-a-fascinating-antiquity

(Not sure about his 'hardening bubble' metaphor though )

 

[nasanu]

Forza and GT are fundamentally very similar, they want to be as accurate as they can but ultimately they will sacrifice a little bit for playability. iRacing and AC will probably never sacrifice anything for playability, their motto is more along the lines of "tough 🤬, learn to drive better".

This is wrong though, if you are talking about the physics anyway. Driving cars is easy, 90 year olds do it and many sims are harder than reality (because if they aren't harder than real the PC community calls them arcade and unrealistic). Games like GT dont need to scale back on reality, they need to focus in on it.

While on the topic, sims aren't sims because they are realistic, its actually the unrealistic parts that make a simulation. We have real life to simulate real life and nothing does that better. We invented sims to do what we can't do in real life and thus they are by design unrealistic. For example we cant crash at 400/kmph and survive in real life, but we can in a sim and that doesn't make it arcade, that is what sims are for, doing what reality cant.

What I am getting at is that people call games like GT arcade because of the lack of damage. By this reasoning when an F1 team tests their new front wing in a sim they are testing in an unrealistic arcade game because there is no damage in their sims.

 

[Mike_grpA]

I'd be careful with that. While there's a lot of subjective discussion that goes on about realism in games and sims, it's also possible to identify objective areas in which sims perform better or worse.

For example, Gran Turismo 5 and 6 have significant problems in the way that they respond to tuning. While one might be able to tune a car to respond well at a certain set of values, they generally won't respond correctly over a wider range. That's a case where Gran Turismo is objectively less realistic than sims that do respond more correctly.

You're right that GT5 and 6 don't simulate the way a car responds to set up changes very well, but that is also true of Pcars and AC, two games he, and others, often label as true sims, while labeling GT simcade.

He's already contradicted himself as to what he considers a simulation anyway:

Simulation - the most cutting edge physics based on that period's technology basically, no compromise, one crash and you're done, one misshift and you blow the engine

So there's been no compromises in AC or Pcars? One crash and you're done in those games? One missed shift and you blow the engine in Dirt Rally?

I also never said ISImotor was a bad engine, I merely pointed out how it's interesting that the majority of games sim snobs refer to as real sims are powered by it. There are things that ISImotor didn't do so well, just as there are things Kunos' engine doesn't do well, just as there are things Madness doesn't do well, just as there are things any sim engine doesn't do well. Does that make them not a simulator? Absolutely not. Just as GT and Forza games are simulators. Doesn't mean they're all good simulators, but simulators they are.

I said it a couple of times, you can argue what each sim does/doesn't simulate well, but it's stupid to make up so many sub-genres based on your opinion of what each does/doesn't do well.

 

[GTEFGHA]

I've no doubt that this title will sell well thanks to its branding, but I also think it'll be like PCars where many copies are traded in soon after when Joe Soap realises there's very little to do in his spare hour of gaming and they missed the 17:00 hours race online.

What a crud idea that is, having set race times when it's the meat and potatoes of the game.

Gran Turismo Sport - the real scheduling simulator.

That is really bad, I would have to buy the game and then I would be forced to buy PS+ in order to actually play the game... And on top of that races already have set times, ugh

 

[Mike_grpA]

That is really bad, I would have to buy the game and then I would be forced to buy PS+ in order to actually play the game... And on top of that races already have set times, ugh

It was this exact thing that turned me off iRacing. Anybody with a life is going to end up missing tons of races. That's what I like about offline racing games, I can pick it up and play it when I have some time. I'm not going to organise my life around what is essentially a toy.

 

[Aphelion]

It was this exact thing that turned me off iRacing. Anybody with a life is going to end up missing tons of races. That's what I like about offline racing games, I can pick it up and play it when I have some time. I'm not going to organise my life around what is essentially a toy.

Well the thing is, a main campaign is barely going to last a couple of weeks of pick up and play. I personally spend most of my time in time trials, just enjoying the car around a track by myself, trying my best to beat my own times. That's just me though, but ive never felt enjoyment in racing against AI.

 

[GTEFGHA]

I'm not going to organise my life around what is essentially a toy.

^Exactly that, this makes it reserved for only the most dedicated people out there. I think many people who have jobs and school and ther things will miss out on action. But we'll have to wait and see how that plays out, still kinda too early to tell.

 

[Mike_grpA]

zQUOTE="Mike_grpA, post: 11389648, member: 265272"]It was this exact thing that turned me off iRacing. Anybody with a life is going to end up missing tons of races. That's what I like about offline racing games, I can pick it up and play it when I have some time. I'm not going to organise my life around what is essentially a toy.

Well the thing is, a main campaign is barely going to last a couple of weeks of pick up and play. I personally spend most of my time in time trials, just enjoying the car around a track by myself, trying my best to beat my own times. That's just me though, but ive never felt enjoyment in racing against AI.[/QUOTE]

Well for me that all depends on the AI. If it was still basically GT6 AI, then I'd agree, they can forget the career mode, but if they can actually make some competent AI, at least on par with average current gen AI, then I'd thoroughly enjoy a career mode. A GT style career mode would actually make a decent change from what my other racing games offer. I've got a realistic sim to hotlap in, and AC, which will be another hotlap sim, is coming to consoles before GTS, so I won't need a third. I think GTS would need a lot more cars and tracks to support a GT style career this gen though, so it's probably a wise decision for them to not implement it. In any case, it doesn't seem to be much of a game for $100.


Edit:

^Exactly that, this makes it reserved for only the most dedicated people out there. I think many people who have jobs and school and ther things will miss out on action. But we'll have to wait and see how that plays out, still kinda too early to tell.

True. I am still interested in finding out just how far they've gone with the online functionality. How they've set it all up will determine whether I end up buying it or not. Let's wait for some more info.

 

[sleeprGT]

So I found a video from that press conference Kaz did this week with portuguese subtitles. I'll try my best to translate and hopefully the translation from japanese to portuguese is accurate. I won't translate all questions since some were already answered on the team VVV video.



GT Sport or GT7?

A: "Originally our focus was the sport mode, ence the name GT Sport, but with all the features we added, we could have called it GT7."

Is this the game you had more pleasure working on since the original GT?

A: "Honestly GT5 and GT6 were very hard for me. They were very stressful productions. That was due to the PS3 hardware which was really difficult to work with. But this time its been really fun making the game. When I'm not sleeping I spend my time on the game. Me and the team spend a good amount of time working on the game, we haven't felt like this since GT1."

Weather Conditions?

A: "Of course we would like to have weather conditions, like rain for example. We already had those on GT5 and GT6. Now we want to expand those possibilities in the racing genre."

B-Spec mode?

A: "Something I want to emphasize in GT Sport is that the game is also pointed at beginners. It's not only for the hardcore players. Obviously the hardcore players will also enjoy the game, but what seems important to me is that beginner players understand that is fun to drive.

In arcade mode when we select the demo option, that is very similar to B-Spec. It's possible to have that mode all the time, but we're not sure if we are going to include it now or later. Our intention is to have that mode for those players that don't have a lot of time to play the game."

Dynamic light system?

A: "This time we won't have dynamic transitions. The graphics quality and dynamic transitions aren't in "conflict" this time. We had dynamic transitions in GT5 and GT6 and that had good and bad points. The game will have several weather conditions and light conditions, but those will be announced at a later date. But during gameplay conditions will not change."

Future updates: free or paid?

A: "Its possible to do both."

Playstation VR?

A: "It will be compatibile with PS VR on launch day."

 

[LeGeNd-1]

This is wrong though, if you are talking about the physics anyway. Driving cars is easy, 90 year olds do it and many sims are harder than reality (because if they aren't harder than real the PC community calls them arcade and unrealistic). Games like GT dont need to scale back on reality, they need to focus in on it.

While on the topic, sims aren't sims because they are realistic, its actually the unrealistic parts that make a simulation. We have real life to simulate real life and nothing does that better. We invented sims to do what we can't do in real life and thus they are by design unrealistic. For example we cant crash at 400/kmph and survive in real life, but we can in a sim and that doesn't make it arcade, that is what sims are for, doing what reality cant.

What I am getting at is that people call games like GT arcade because of the lack of damage. By this reasoning when an F1 team tests their new front wing in a sim they are testing in an unrealistic arcade game because there is no damage in their sims.

Actually there's been a mindset shift with the latest sims. The early sims like GPL are unnecessarily hard, but driving the Lotus 49 in AC it is actually quite easy to pootle along at 80%. It's only if you start pushing for the top times that it becomes hard, but even then FFB has improved markedly since the old days that you never feel anything is unexpected.

The difficulty most layman have adjusting to sims I find is the lack of g-forces. Long time sim racers can compensate by other cues, but for most people they always overdrive the car in sims, because that uncomfortable feeling of high g-loading isn't there.

I agree that sims will never be 100% realistic though. Fear of death is never going to be a factor. Otherwise these companies will be charged for murder

You're right that GT5 and 6 don't simulate the way a car responds to set up changes very well, but that is also true of Pcars and AC, two games he, and others, often label as true sims, while labeling GT simcade.

He's already contradicted himself as to what he considers a simulation anyway:


So there's been no compromises in AC or Pcars? One crash and you're done in those games? One missed shift and you blow the engine in Dirt Rally?

I also never said ISImotor was a bad engine, I merely pointed out how it's interesting that the majority of games sim snobs refer to as real sims are powered by it. There are things that ISImotor didn't do so well, just as there are things Kunos' engine doesn't do well, just as there are things Madness doesn't do well, just as there are things any sim engine doesn't do well. Does that make them not a simulator? Absolutely not. Just as GT and Forza games are simulators. Doesn't mean they're all good simulators, but simulators they are.

I said it a couple of times, you can argue what each sim does/doesn't simulate well, but it's stupid to make up so many sub-genres based on your opinion of what each does/doesn't do well.

PCARS and AC's settings does respond realistically most of the time. Compared to GT - camber is broken, ride height is reversed, there's still no consensus on what LSD Initial does, high speed aero is all messed up and you have things like the wheelie trick. I almost never bother with tuning cars in GT myself because you have to learn a new set of principles with every game. Nothing works as it should. In ISImotor sims I can just apply real tuning principles and it's go.

And yes, there is less margin for error in the better sims. I overrevved once in GTR2 and instantly blown the engine. You crash once and you get totalled. Compared to GT where the top drivers bounce the rev limiter like crazy and pinball physics still happen in crashes. That doesn't mean AC/PCARS don't have compromises, just their tolerances are tighter. Being pedantic, I'll remove the "no compromises" in the above statement.

No physics engine is perfect as you said. But some engines are just objectively better, even taking their weaknesses into account. GT and Forza engines just happen to have more weaknesses. Still sims, just less so. You agree by saying they're not all good sims.

As I said again, I'm not making up subgenres. They are all driving games. They happen to fall on a continuous spectrum. The labels are just there for easy comparison. If you don't feel the classification is useful, then just ignore it and enjoy the games separately as you always does 👍

 

[Mike_grpA]

PCARS and AC's settings does respond realistically most of the time. Compared to GT - camber is broken, ride height is reversed, there's still no consensus on what LSD Initial does, high speed aero is all messed up and you have things like the wheelie trick. I almost never bother with tuning cars in GT myself because you have to learn a new set of principles with every game. Nothing works as it should. In ISImotor sims I can just apply real tuning principles and it's go.

And yes, there is less margin for error in the better sims. I overrevved once in GTR2 and instantly blown the engine. You crash once and you get totalled. Compared to GT where the top drivers bounce the rev limiter like crazy and pinball physics still happen in crashes. That doesn't mean AC/PCARS don't have compromises, just their tolerances are tighter. Being pedantic, I'll remove the "no compromises" in the above statement.

No physics engine is perfect as you said. But some engines are just objectively better, even taking their weaknesses into account. GT and Forza engines just happen to have more weaknesses. Still sims, just less so. You agree by saying they're not all good sims.

As I said again, I'm not making up subgenres. They are all driving games. They happen to fall on a continuous spectrum. The labels are just there for easy comparison. If you don't feel the classification is useful, then just ignore it and enjoy the games separately as you always does 👍

Pcars and AC have both had broken camber. Pcars camber has never worked properly, with the "fix" only removing the exploit where 0 camber made the car faster in a straight line. Other than that, camber thrust is unbelievably weak, and camber angles don't affect tyre temps at all. AC's camber is a straight up grip multiplier, the higher you set it, the more grip you get, with no downsides. It also, like Pcars, doesn't affect tyre temps, with max camber showing no difference in temps from inside to outside of the tyre. I haven't seen AC in a while, so I don't know if it's been fixed or not, but looking at the official forum and the ridiculous list of bugs, I doubt it.

I know GT6 had a ton of technical issues with the engine, and I've been very vocal about it in the past, I'm not making any apologies for the game. I'm merely pointing out that those issues don't make the game "not a sim". The way the game is developed, and the intention of the developers, is what differentiates a simulator from a normal racing game. AC and Pcars both have a whole raft of technical issues in their simulations, and AC flat out doesn't simulate as many things as Pcars, but I wouldn't claim AC is less of a sim than Pcars, or not a sim at all, just because it's not perfect.

I consider racing simulators as a sub genre of racing games, and I don't think there needs to be 10 more sub genres to segregate the community and further breed the snobby attitude that makes people with a PC and an ISImotor sim look down on a Forza player, as if the Forza player is a nobody and the PC sim snob is Ayrton Senna.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

This is arcade game with simulation genre :

PCARS and AC's settings does respond realistically most of the time. Compared to GT - camber is broken, ride height is reversed, there's still no consensus on what LSD Initial does, high speed aero is all messed up and you have things like the wheelie trick. I almost never bother with tuning cars in GT myself because you have to learn a new set of principles with every game. Nothing works as it should. In ISImotor sims I can just apply real tuning principles and it's go.

And yes, there is less margin for error in the better sims. I overrevved once in GTR2 and instantly blown the engine. You crash once and you get totalled. Compared to GT where the top drivers bounce the rev limiter like crazy and pinball physics still happen in crashes. That doesn't mean AC/PCARS don't have compromises, just their tolerances are tighter. Being pedantic, I'll remove the "no compromises" in the above statement.

No physics engine is perfect as you said. But some engines are just objectively better, even taking their weaknesses into account. GT and Forza engines just happen to have more weaknesses. Still sims, just less so. You agree by saying they're not all good sims.

As I said again, I'm not making up subgenres. They are all driving games. They happen to fall on a continuous spectrum. The labels are just there for easy comparison. If you don't feel the classification is useful, then just ignore it and enjoy the games separately as you always does 👍

Your definition of arcade is strange IMO, why assigning a name for coin op game to a simulation genre games ? What you classify the F355 Challenge ?

GT LSD initial is the same as PCars LSD preload, and LFS LSD preload, they are working in similar manner.


Camber, LFS did it right, work as it should, I can dial camber by using temp across tire reading, inside, middle, outside, and then I can see the effect from heat/temp spread more evenly, the cornering grip and more even tire wear. For Pcars and AC, this should explain better than I do :

Pcars and AC have both had broken camber. Pcars camber has never worked properly, with the "fix" only removing the exploit where 0 camber made the car faster in a straight line. Other than that, camber thrust is unbelievably weak, and camber angles don't affect tyre temps at all. AC's camber is a straight up grip multiplier, the higher you set it, the more grip you get, with no downsides. It also, like Pcars, doesn't affect tyre temps, with max camber showing no difference in temps from inside to outside of the tyre. I haven't seen AC in a while, so I don't know if it's been fixed or not, but looking at the official forum and the ridiculous list of bugs, I doubt it.

I know GT6 had a ton of technical issues with the engine, and I've been very vocal about it in the past, I'm not making any apologies for the game. I'm merely pointing out that those issues don't make the game "not a sim". The way the game is developed, and the intention of the developers, is what differentiates a simulator from a normal racing game. AC and Pcars both have a whole raft of technical issues in their simulations, and AC flat out doesn't simulate as many things as Pcars, but I wouldn't claim AC is less of a sim than Pcars, or not a sim at all, just because it's not perfect.

I consider racing simulators as a sub genre of racing games, and I don't think there needs to be 10 more sub genres to segregate the community and further breed the snobby attitude that makes people with a PC and an ISImotor sim look down on a Forza player, as if the Forza player is a nobody and the PC sim snob is Ayrton Senna.

 

[LeGeNd-1]

Pcars and AC have both had broken camber. Pcars camber has never worked properly, with the "fix" only removing the exploit where 0 camber made the car faster in a straight line. Other than that, camber thrust is unbelievably weak, and camber angles don't affect tyre temps at all. AC's camber is a straight up grip multiplier, the higher you set it, the more grip you get, with no downsides. It also, like Pcars, doesn't affect tyre temps, with max camber showing no difference in temps from inside to outside of the tyre. I haven't seen AC in a while, so I don't know if it's been fixed or not, but looking at the official forum and the ridiculous list of bugs, I doubt it.

I know GT6 had a ton of technical issues with the engine, and I've been very vocal about it in the past, I'm not making any apologies for the game. I'm merely pointing out that those issues don't make the game "not a sim". The way the game is developed, and the intention of the developers, is what differentiates a simulator from a normal racing game. AC and Pcars both have a whole raft of technical issues in their simulations, and AC flat out doesn't simulate as many things as Pcars, but I wouldn't claim AC is less of a sim than Pcars, or not a sim at all, just because it's not perfect.

I consider racing simulators as a sub genre of racing games, and I don't think there needs to be 10 more sub genres to segregate the community and further breed the snobby attitude that makes people with a PC and an ISImotor sim look down on a Forza player, as if the Forza player is a nobody and the PC sim snob is Ayrton Senna.

AC's camber is fixed in the latest update. Tyre temps are all working properly now and the devs have even added an official tyre temp app.

I didn't say GT is not a sim. Again these labels are just labels. They can change, they are fluid, and GT will probably move up the ladder in the future. But it is obvious that PD and Turn 10 consciously avoids making GT/FM into gritty punishing sims because that would just be sales suicide. Simple as that.

I agree that AC and PCARS does not have the same level of polish as GT/FM. Kunos and SMS being smaller studios that's quite expected. But you can still judge the pure physics independent of all the bugs (which is mostly AI and feature related).

I personally hate elitism as well. Nothing pisses me off more than a youtube comment saying "GT is arcade and trash", because that is simply not true. There are bad and good drivers in each game. I can have fun in all games on that spectrum. But my peeve is (and I'm sorry if this feels like singling you out) when someone says GT/FM is on the same level as PC sims, because they clearly aren't on the pure driving side. Sorry, but they're just not. Doesn't mean I hate them though. There are things GT/FM does better than PC sims as well. Nothing is perfect and we sim racers are pretty spoilt this generation with the choices available

I think I've said everything I need on this topic, so I'll draw the line here. Now I'm off to do Nurburgring QM in GT6, and then doing some Wangan cruising in AC Over & out.

This is arcade game with simulation genre :

Your definition of arcade is strange IMO, why assigning a name for coin op game to a simulation genre games ?

GT LSD initial is the same as PCars LSD preload, and LFS LSD preload, they are working in similar manner.

Err...my arcade term is purely based on the game's physics and features. I'm aware it can also apply to arcade cabinets (not the term I'm applying here). Based on the handful of times I've driven F355 Challenge, I'll put it in simcade or semi sim. Defo not arcade.

The problem with GT's LSD Initial is there has been so many debates whether higher or lower number is more lock. There's a huge thread over in the GT6 forums, which I can't be bothered to search right now. It's just not "precise". If it's preload, just call it preload and the effects should be obvious. But it's not.

 

[Mike_grpA]

Camber, LFS did it right, work as it should, I can dial camber by using temp across tire reading, inside, middle, outside, and the I can see the effect from heat/temp spread more evenly, the cornering grip and more even tire wear. For Pcars and AC, this should explain better than I do :

Yeah ISImotor sims are the best when it comes to tuning using real world logic, and the interaction between the geometry and the tyres. This is why ISImotor is the best simulation engine for consumer sims. Lesser sims are still sims, they just aren't as good.

I personally hate elitism as well. Nothing pisses me off more than a youtube comment saying "GT is arcade and trash", because that is simply not true. There are bad and good drivers in each game. I can have fun in all games on that spectrum. But my peeve is (and I'm sorry if this feels like singling you out) when someone says GT/FM is on the same level as PC sims, because they clearly aren't on the pure driving side. Sorry, but they're just not. Doesn't mean I hate them though. There are things GT/FM does better than PC sims as well. Nothing is perfect and we sim racers are pretty spoilt this generation with the choices available

I think I've said everything I need on this topic, so I'll draw the line here. Now I'm off to do Nurburgring QM in GT6, and then doing some Wangan cruising in AC. Peace out!

I think you misunderstood me. I never said, or tried to imply, that GT or FM games were on par with ISImotor sims or even Pcars or AC, I was merely saying that making all these labels just breeds that kind of elitism. As racing fans, and sim fans, we should all be united, not splitting up the community. What I mean by saying GT and FM games are sims just like any other sims is exactly that. They are simulators. Neither are as good as some other simulators, but they are still simulators. Just like AC isn't as good as some other simulators, but it doesn't make it anything other than a simulator. Some sims are better than others, and most do some things well, and other things not very well.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Yeah ISImotor sims are the best when it comes to tuning using real world logic, and the interaction between the geometry and the tyres. This is why ISImotor is the best simulation engine for consumer sims. Lesser sims are still sims, they just aren't as good.

I didn't know LFS uses ISI motor engine. With AC, when it hits console, an easy test for camber to work will be taking a car to oval, and do camber/caster/toe setup for oval racing, anything wrong can be easily felt/seen. A real life oval setup would work, like it did in LFS when I made Porsche GT3 Cup mod setup for oval Positive camber on one side yo !!

 

[Aphelion]

Well for me that all depends on the AI. If it was still basically GT6 AI, then I'd agree, they can forget the career mode, but if they can actually make some competent AI, at least on par with average current gen AI, then I'd thoroughly enjoy a career mode. A GT style career mode would actually make a decent change from what my other racing games offer. I've got a realistic sim to hotlap in, and AC, which will be another hotlap sim, is coming to consoles before GTS, so I won't need a third. I think GTS would need a lot more cars and tracks to support a GT style career this gen though, so it's probably a wise decision for them to not implement it. In any case, it doesn't seem to be much of a game for $100.

Good point, although I actually don't like driving against competent AI either, because to be honest I don't feel fast enough against something like PCars's AI, and it just feels like unless the guy who is kicking my *** on the other end is breathing, it doesn't feel worth it. Of course, this could be nullified with a difficulty slider, but I doubt GTS will have one of those.

By the way, sorry for the quote mess up .

 

[jm79]

How does the Nurb 24hr format work?

When will the punters be playing GTS for the first time?

Curious to see the new build...

 

[Saidur_Ali]

But it is obvious that PD and Turn 10 consciously avoids making GT/FM into gritty punishing sims because that would just be sales suicide. Simple as that.

I think both are trying their best to be as realistic as possible. AC and PCARS are easier to drive than FM6 and GT6 IMO. Real ≠ Difficult as GT SPORT website mentions, you can feel that improvement as to me feels easier to drive than GT6.

 

[Mike_grpA]

I didn't know LFS uses ISI motor engine. With AC, when it hits console, an easy test for camber to work will be taking a car to oval, and do camber/caster/toe setup for oval racing, anything wrong can be easily felt/seen. A real life oval setup would work, like it did in LFS when I made Porsche GT3 Cup mod setup for oval Positive camber on one side yo !!

Sorry, LFS isn't ISImotor based, I was thinking Race07 for some reason . Still ISIMotor sims have the same advantage you're talking about with LFS, in that you can use real world tuning knowledge to good effect, and that includes using the tyre temps to set up the suspension geometry. 👍

Good point, although I actually don't like driving against competent AI either, because to be honest I don't feel fast enough against something like PCars's AI, and I just unless the guy who is kicking my *** on the other end is breathing, it doesn't feel worth it. Of course, this could be nullified with a difficulty slider, but I doubt GTS will have one of those.

By the way, sorry for the quote mess up .

Haha fair enough man, each to their own. I would prefer to race against real people too, but I have too much on in my life to commit to a schedule of online racing, so that rules out leagues for me, and outside of leagues, it's damn near impossible to find clean racers online.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Err...my arcade term is purely based on the game's physics and features. I'm aware it can also apply to arcade cabinets (not the term I'm applying here). Based on the handful of times I've driven F355 Challenge, I'll put it in simcade or semi sim. Defo not arcade.

The problem with GT's LSD Initial is there has been so many debates whether higher or lower number is more lock. There's a huge thread over in the GT6 forums, which I can't be bothered to search right now. It's just not "precise". If it's preload, just call it preload and the effects should be obvious. But it's not.

You are making up new term with word that already has meaning, which for me confusing . Did you play the Deluxe cabinet ? Was there one in your place ? The Suzuka and Nurburgring track were awesome, Fiorano also not bad, I think it's very rare track being used in racing games.

If you know how LSD preload/initial works in real, you should have no trouble making your own conclusion, also in real life, most Japanese LSD maker used the term initial torque which also means preload in different parts of the world.

 

[queleuleu]

So I found a video from that press conference Kaz did this week with portuguese subtitles. I'll try my best to translate and hopefully the translation from japanese to portuguese is accurate. I won't translate all questions since some were already answered on the team VVV video.



GT Sport or GT7?

A: "Originally our focus was the sport mode, ence the name GT Sport, but with all the features we added, we could have called it GT7."

Is this the game you had more pleasure working on since the original GT?

A: "Honestly GT5 and GT6 were very hard for me. They were very stressful productions. That was due to the PS3 hardware which was really difficult to work with. But this time its been really fun making the game. When I'm not sleeping I spend my time on the game. Me and the team spend a good amount of time working on the game, we haven't felt like this since GT1."

Weather Conditions?

A: "Of course we would like to have weather conditions, like rain for example. We already had those on GT5 and GT6. Now we want to expand those possibilities in the racing genre."

B-Spec mode?

A: "Something I want to emphasize in GT Sport is that the game is also pointed at beginners. It's not only for the hardcore players. Obviously the hardcore players will also enjoy the game, but what seems important to me is that beginner players understand that is fun to drive.

In arcade mode when we select the demo option, that is very similar to B-Spec. It's possible to have that mode all the time, but we're not sure if we are going to include it now or later. Our intention is to have that mode for those players that don't have a lot of time to play the game."

Dynamic light system?

A: "This time we won't have dynamic transitions. The graphics quality and dynamic transitions aren't in "conflict" this time. We had dynamic transitions in GT5 and GT6 and that had good and bad points. The game will have several weather conditions and light conditions, but those will be announced at a later date. But during gameplay conditions will not change."

Future updates: free or paid?

A: "Its possible to do both."

Playstation VR?

A: "It will be compatibile with PS VR on launch day."

Thanks for the translation. So no dynamic weather and TOD... What will be the reason if Gtsport is not the most beautiful racing game? =>because PSVR

 

[Unlimited_PL]

By that same logic, neither is GT. However, both GT and FM deserve the sim designation, because that is their shared target: simulating reality.

Since we have plenty of GT vs FM threads littering the forums, that particular discussion can head to one of those.

Good joke! FM6 is even more arcade'ish than FM5. In fact, DC in hardcore mode, its not too far from FM6 in the physics terms. FM from FM3 is going to more casual racing players. GT Sport its still not 100% in my taste. I was expecting a more professional approach to the topic - FIA licenses. I went in a direction different racing classes GT3 / DTM / Rally etc. in mainly online mode. Plus retained in this magical space which GT has - GT is an interactive encyclopedia of the automotive industry (So I will be mix GT4/GT5/GT6 in arcade mode).

Receipt for a proper race game is simple. They need improve AI/polish graphics - for example where are reflections from windscreen?!/Improve Sounds/Add better mechanical damage and collision system.

PS VR = another marketing bullsh***. We don't need that!

 

[Mike_grpA]

Fiorano also not bad, I think it's very rare track being used in racing games.

Fiorano is actually a really fun track isn't it? Not so great for actual racing with other cars, due to the narrow twisty nature, but awesome fun for just doing hot laps. I loved it in Test Drive Ferrari Racing Legends (despite all of that game's flaws).

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Fiorano is actually a really fun track isn't it? Not so great for actual racing with other cars, due to the narrow twisty nature, but awesome fun for just doing hot laps. I loved it in Test Drive Ferrari Racing Legends (despite all of that game's flaws).

I can't forget how much fun I had, driving with the Deluxe cabinet, the H shifter, heel and toe, hearing the sounds, the metal pedals, the steering, all these in 2001-2002 back in Sydney I won all the track eventually, playing every few days, I may have spent tens of dollars a month Then I alternate playing with Battle Gear, drift fun on touge tracks, it was cool when many people watching how we turn the wheels like pro drifter, when we were not Opposite lock to lock in split seconds made us look mad The Ae86 vs other JDM Battles were always crowded with cheering and applause when the experts playing