Corsa
Premium
- 2,104
- United States
Did not.
Do you imagine they'll charge us $5 a track, and $3 a car?
I hope were not getting ready to jump into Iracing or Rfactor money, car/track packs is the way to go.
Gran Turismo Sport - Master Track List
- Thread starter Samus
- 646 comments
- 190,062 views
Did not.
Do you imagine they'll charge us $5 a track, and $3 a car?
I hope were not getting ready to jump into Iracing or Rfactor money, car/track packs is the way to go.
I'm very disappointed of GTS. Even the real tracks (5) are less detailed than the ones provided by PC2 (maybe only Willow Springs overall is better in GTS). PD has not so much excuses for that weak GT.
Played the GTS beta and I didn't find any beaty on this GT iteration. Even graphics is better on other games (too catonish on GTS and with very low quality textures on some far track details).
Fiction tracks such as Dragon Trail and the ovals (I played on the GTS beta) and Tokyo (I watched on Internet) are horrible in my opinion.
Played the GTS beta and I didn't find any beaty on this GT iteration. Even graphics is better on other games (too catonish on GTS and with very low quality textures on some far track details).
Fiction tracks such as Dragon Trail and the ovals (I played on the GTS beta) and Tokyo (I watched on Internet) are horrible in my opinion.
I think this is part of what has happened.
GT was getting out Gran Turismo'd by other titles and so they decided to "burn it to the ground" as said in one of the trailers.
- 189
- Bellingham
I'm beginning to thing the delays had nothing to do with development and everything to do with fear of getting caught wrrng-footed by Sony with, originally, a PS5, or more recently possibly that the VR thingie would skyrocket. The change from GT7 to GTS has always been a standing ready-to-use excuse that "really, this isn't the next GT, it's something else." Yeah, something else alright.
So the horrible short-comings may, after all this time, be a result of not enough time at the last minute to put together the kind of release GT customers are used to. They couldn't keep a full fledged GT game ready to go and constantly updated to their or the market standard, they're crowded by a new PCars release and so many more alternatives, and the long wait giving many the feeling that GT is just past it's day and cashing it's check for as much as it can grab (DLCs figure here too).
Without severely downgrading the prestige of the franchise in people's minds, or the rank it's given to newbies to race games when they inquire around, they're going to have to do something like announce a set number of free updates with content described by a given date. And I don't expect them to do that.
I'm seriously thinking that pre-order is not the way to go. Looking at the past, all those pre-order goodies didn't really amount to much once real game-play got going. Maybe better to wait and see what's really going to be in the box (or download) before buying it.
And re the 17. Remember also that half of them are Dirt or NASCAR or some fantasy. The whole list of iconic world tracks is barely represented at all. And XX1's post describing a few of the new tracks further discourages.
What's sad is that the people who automatically buy (that PD is banking on and is unfortunately probably going to get away with) are the very loyal patrons of the series who are most going to be disappointed with what they get and any post-release cons to rip them off further.
- 15,529
- Cairo, Egypt
- GTP_SEMS
- 3,264
- Salt Lake City,
Sounds just like Monaco! There are different stages of FIA track grades though. I don't know if Monaco is a grade 1 (F1 standard). Then you have Singapore and Baku with walls right up against the track. Street circuits, but so are the Tokyo tracks. Perhaps they'll have grades too and things like lmp1 and faster can't run on them. Or maybe not. It's still a video game with the FIA sanctioning but for other reasons than just Tilke-style tracks?
hhmm not so much good. See background trees (PS2 textures!) on Nordschleife (or 2D trees in the final part of the track) , rock textures and monocrhomatic fluoresnt trees on Dragon Trail etc etc... The fact that PD is not able to implement in 2017 decent details such as trees (they often use 2D trees as in GT5-6 probably to not affect performance), grass and foliage in general was quite evident to my eyes during the GTS beta.
Tokyo seems to me not wide for a fair fighting.
In my opinion GT is on an descending phase from GT6. GTS lacks in terms of contents and features (so the core of a racing game) and overal also in terms of graphics (compared to some competitors). Quite useless they implemented a livery editor or a super advanced photo mode. Those are secondary features nice to have when the primary features were provided!
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,038
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
If Monaco was submitted as a track for approval today it wouldn't stand a chance as a grade 1 (required for F1), it gets a pass on historic basis and because of the inclusion of run-off escape roads.
However run off requirements depend on the potential angle of impact, if the angle is low then no run-off is required, the same if the speed is low (and this is to a large degree how Monaco manages to retain a grade for F1, its higherspeed corners now all have escape roads, which act as a run off, the remaining corners are lower speed and/or have a low angle of potential impact.
The hairpin at Dragon Trail has both a high angle of impact and a high closing speed, as such it should have a run off of between 30m to 100m.
Source: http://www.fia.com/file/52924/download?token=NveWYGIe
"The type of installation to be considered is dependent on the available space and the likely impact angle. As a general principle, where the estimated impact angle is low a continuous, smooth, vertical barrier is preferable, and where it is high energy dissipating devices and/or stopping barriers should be used, combined with a run-off area and deceleration system if there is sufficient suitable ground available. It is therefore indispensable to provide for sufficient space at such points in the planning stage. Such areas will be principally situated on the exterior of the corners and may typically have depths from around 30 m to 100 m, according to the approach and cornering speeds expected on the track."
The fantasy tracks in GTS do not meet the FIA requirements for the a range of vehicles, with the hairpin at Dragon Trail being the clearest example.
The FIA track sanctioning is a marketing exercise as far as the fantasy tracks, a good one, but based on the FIA's own regs that is all it is.
cutmeamango
(Banned)
- 672
- Brazil
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,038
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
So links to the FIA regulations were not enough?There isn't a smile that represents my emotion.
And here I was expecting this:
Ok.
The Dragon Trail hairpin has no run off at all, a diagram isn't required to show it doesn't meet FIA track regulations.
Last edited:
Corsa
Premium
- 2,104
- United States
I'll be blunt with the scenery.
I'm here to race you, to try to out tune and defeat you.
I'm here for fast apexes and podium finishes.
I'm here for competition, fun competition.
I'm not here to look at trees and birds, which is why I probably love Assetto Corsa.
These are just my opinions and I mean no harm, but we're here to race correct?
- 2,933
- Austria
- GTP_SnowCrash
Looking at the track list a little more in-depth, I see the following...
- 1 real world track per continent (counting the UK separately
) for a total of 6(!). Looks to me like a marketing decision. (Project manager: Kaz, we don't have enough resources to upgrade all the tracks for PS4. What are we going to do? Kaz: Make only 1 track for each major market and fill the rest with fantasy tracks - problem solved!)
- some variations on these real tracks that are practically unusable for some of the most important car classes (BH Indy, Suzuka East, Willow HTM & SoW). The additional work for these was minimal as the environments were already there for the bigger tracks, so that's an understandable decision and a by-product of the 6 major tracks.
- 2 fictional ovals (also practically unusable for any car class in GTS and guarantees for producing mayhem in online races.
- 3 rally tracks: if rallying is as poor as it was so far in the GT series, it was a waste of time to make tracks and cars for this. I only remember seeing 1 real car for racing on gravel in all of the footage so far (the Pikes Peak Audi). Honda NSX for rallying?? Puh-lease!!
- Dragon Trail: While having quite a good layout, whose idea was it to include a chicane that will reliably destroy someone's race every time (by someone crashing into an already crashed car there) and curbs that are 2 cars wide? Lap times are determined by who cuts them the most - really a great lesson to learn for a game that pretends to educate race drivers.
- 470
- Paradise
- Ship_Monster
Looking at the track list a little more in-depth, I see the following...
The jury is still out on the others for me as I haven't been able to play them in the demo.
- 1 real world track per continent (counting the UK separately
- some variations on these real tracks that are practically unusable for some of the most important car classes (BH Indy, Suzuka East, Willow HTM & SoW). The additional work for these was minimal as the environments were already there for the bigger tracks, so that's an understandable decision and a by-product of the 6 major tracks.
- 2 fictional ovals (also practically unusable for any car class in GTS and guarantees for producing mayhem in online races.
- 3 rally tracks: if rallying is as poor as it was so far in the GT series, it was a waste of time to make tracks and cars for this. I only remember seeing 1 real car for racing on gravel in all of the footage so far (the Pikes Peak Audi). Honda NSX for rallying?? Puh-lease!!
- Dragon Trail: While having quite a good layout, whose idea was it to include a chicane that will reliably destroy someone's race every time (by someone crashing into an already crashed car there) and curbs that are 2 cars wide? Lap times are determined by who cuts them the most - really a great lesson to learn for a game that pretends to educate race drivers.
I like that part of DT lol. Having to tune the suspension to be compliant enough to handle them as well as being fast in the rest of the track was great during the beta. Plus, coming from real world racing I can tell you that we did that all the time. If you weren't jumping curbs, you weren't winning.
- 3,264
- Salt Lake City,
I wasn't aware that the fantasy tracks were being made to FIA grade 1. Is that what PD has said they are aiming for? I know and I'm sure you do as well that GT3 cars and lmp cars race on tracks with lower grades than that. So is it possible that it's not a requirement for them to make tracks suitable for f1?
Last edited:
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,038
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
The corner in question would not be given a licence for any grade of FIA track (well apart from Rally Cross).
If you had followed and read the regs I quoted and linked to you would see that the 30m to 100m of run off for that type of corner (high angle of impact and speed) is required regardless of grade.
cutmeamango
(Banned)
- 672
- Brazil
This is getting embarrassing.
"To this end it may be used for initial guidance by course designers and operators."
"The specific requirements made of a course by the FIA inspectors will be based on the study of the circuit drawings by the FIA and the adaptation of the recommendations to each case individually"
"The considerations in this article are intended to be of assistance in the basic conception of circuit projects for submission to the FIA in view of future licensing"
These are not "regulations". There's no equation or measure or method. Nothing directly stated.
"Although when circumstances permit it may be appropriate to provide sufficient obstacle- and spectator-free spaces for the energy of a car leaving the track out of control to be completely expended, it is most frequently necessary or preferable to contain an accident in relative proximity to the trackside, by absorbing the car’s energy and/or providing conditions for the driver to regain control. In order to achieve this, various deceleration systems and energy-dissipating and stopping barriers may be installed to constitute a first line of protection"
"The type of installation to be considered is dependent on the available space and the likely impact angle."
"and where it is high energy dissipating devices and/or stopping barriers should be used, combined with a run-off area and deceleration system if there is sufficient suitable ground available"
"Such areas will be principally situated on the exterior of the corners and may typically have"
---
Again, they are not "regulations". That appendix is an overview of circuit approvals.
---
What we can know:
1) R1-R2 TECPRO (two layers) + ARMCO.
2) High grip asphalt area, longer in the most perpendicular path.
3) Corner is actually at a 90ºish degree angle.
What we don't know:
1) Speed Gr. 1 will approach corner.
2) Possible angles and impact force.
3) Considering all the above: If the solution present is enough.
If you know it's not enough, then I suppose you could provide evidence.
But you can't.
Just like you can't prove this:
"If Monaco was submitted as a track for approval today it wouldn't stand a chance as a grade 1 (required for F1), it gets a pass on historic basis and because of the inclusion of run-off escape roads."
It gets a pass.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,038
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
View attachment 668465
You have blatantly cherry picked from the FIA regulations (and yes they are regulations, a good number of FIA regulations are classed as appedix of the sporting code). It clearly states that it should be used as guidance for submitting a track fro approval. Its then also states that these recommendations are used for the commission to inspect the track and determine if it will be granted a licence and if so which grade.
Commission: in this Appendix, the term “Commission” refers to the Circuits Commission of the FIA.
- Inspection: a visit by delegates of the Commission in order to establish recommendations in accordance with this Appendix, to verify or approve work performed on the basis of such recommendations, or to verify all conditions and services required for the conduct of an international competition.
- Circuit licence: a certificate testifying that a circuit has been inspected by the FIA, stipulating the conditions under which it may be used and the categories of cars and competitions which may be admitted, for entries on the International Sporting Calendar of the FIA.
"The safety focus starts very early in circuit, well before the laying of its first foundation stone.
The drawing of any new circuit wishing to be issued an FIA licence is studied by the FIA down to the finest detail through various simulation processes. There is for instance a very careful assessment of the consistency of the curve trajectory, the deceleration zones and the impact-absorbing trackside protection with the safety levels required by the FIA standards.
Once the circuit is built, a very thorough verification of the safety level of the track is performed by an FIA inspector before an FIA licence can be issued."
http://www.fia.com/circuit-safety
In simple terms the section you have presented as it all being just recommendations, is in reality saying that just because the plan, drawings, etc, in a submission meet the regs it doesn't guarantee you are getting a licence or which grade. The work still has to be inspected and it can still be refused unless further changes are made.
Oh and have driven the track for hours in the beta, yes I do know what the end result of accidents and mistakes on that corner are. Drivers that get the braking wrong will hit the barrier head on (you can get a more severe impact angle than that, and as its preceded by a blind rise through which a great deal of speed is carried its high speed as well.
Closing speed in a road car (and not a quick one) is 120mph at the 200m braking marker:
And the run off area is very short, and its going to be 90 degree impact angle if you mess up, and in the beta multiple crashes as a rest of the lack of run off were not uncommon at all.
As for no formula or calculations in the regulations? Its littered with them, from maximum grid size, to the track surface radius, maximum gradients (track, run off and verges).
As far as Monaco goes, are you really unaware of the number of changes the track has undergone when its been re-inspected for each years race? Changes were made to the size of run off and barriers at Tabac in 2015 (which shortened the track length), additional curbs were added before this years race. The list goes on for many circuits, however getting an established circuit relicensed is easier than getting a brand new one licenced.
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2013/10/22/christian-epp-tilke-interview/
Name one track built or licenced in the last decade that doesn't meet the regulations.This is getting embarrassing.
"To this end it may be used for initial guidance by course designers and operators."
"The specific requirements made of a course by the FIA inspectors will be based on the study of the circuit drawings by the FIA and the adaptation of the recommendations to each case individually"
"The considerations in this article are intended to be of assistance in the basic conception of circuit projects for submission to the FIA in view of future licensing"
These are not "regulations". There's no equation or measure or method. Nothing directly stated.
"Although when circumstances permit it may be appropriate to provide sufficient obstacle- and spectator-free spaces for the energy of a car leaving the track out of control to be completely expended, it is most frequently necessary or preferable to contain an accident in relative proximity to the trackside, by absorbing the car’s energy and/or providing conditions for the driver to regain control. In order to achieve this, various deceleration systems and energy-dissipating and stopping barriers may be installed to constitute a first line of protection"
"The type of installation to be considered is dependent on the available space and the likely impact angle."
"and where it is high energy dissipating devices and/or stopping barriers should be used, combined with a run-off area and deceleration system if there is sufficient suitable ground available"
"Such areas will be principally situated on the exterior of the corners and may typically have"
---
Again, they are not "regulations". That appendix is an overview of circuit approvals.
---
What we can know:
1) R1-R2 TECPRO (two layers) + ARMCO.
2) High grip asphalt area, longer in the most perpendicular path.
3) Corner is actually at a 90ºish degree angle.
What we don't know:
1) Speed Gr. 1 will approach corner.
2) Possible angles and impact force.
3) Considering all the above: If the solution present is enough.
If you know it's not enough, then I suppose you could provide evidence.
But you can't.
Just like you can't prove this:
"If Monaco was submitted as a track for approval today it wouldn't stand a chance as a grade 1 (required for F1), it gets a pass on historic basis and because of the inclusion of run-off escape roads."
It gets a pass.
You have blatantly cherry picked from the FIA regulations (and yes they are regulations, a good number of FIA regulations are classed as appedix of the sporting code). It clearly states that it should be used as guidance for submitting a track fro approval. Its then also states that these recommendations are used for the commission to inspect the track and determine if it will be granted a licence and if so which grade.
Commission: in this Appendix, the term “Commission” refers to the Circuits Commission of the FIA.
- Inspection: a visit by delegates of the Commission in order to establish recommendations in accordance with this Appendix, to verify or approve work performed on the basis of such recommendations, or to verify all conditions and services required for the conduct of an international competition.
- Circuit licence: a certificate testifying that a circuit has been inspected by the FIA, stipulating the conditions under which it may be used and the categories of cars and competitions which may be admitted, for entries on the International Sporting Calendar of the FIA.
"The safety focus starts very early in circuit, well before the laying of its first foundation stone.
The drawing of any new circuit wishing to be issued an FIA licence is studied by the FIA down to the finest detail through various simulation processes. There is for instance a very careful assessment of the consistency of the curve trajectory, the deceleration zones and the impact-absorbing trackside protection with the safety levels required by the FIA standards.
Once the circuit is built, a very thorough verification of the safety level of the track is performed by an FIA inspector before an FIA licence can be issued."
http://www.fia.com/circuit-safety
In simple terms the section you have presented as it all being just recommendations, is in reality saying that just because the plan, drawings, etc, in a submission meet the regs it doesn't guarantee you are getting a licence or which grade. The work still has to be inspected and it can still be refused unless further changes are made.
Oh and have driven the track for hours in the beta, yes I do know what the end result of accidents and mistakes on that corner are. Drivers that get the braking wrong will hit the barrier head on (you can get a more severe impact angle than that, and as its preceded by a blind rise through which a great deal of speed is carried its high speed as well.
Closing speed in a road car (and not a quick one) is 120mph at the 200m braking marker:
And the run off area is very short, and its going to be 90 degree impact angle if you mess up, and in the beta multiple crashes as a rest of the lack of run off were not uncommon at all.
As for no formula or calculations in the regulations? Its littered with them, from maximum grid size, to the track surface radius, maximum gradients (track, run off and verges).
As far as Monaco goes, are you really unaware of the number of changes the track has undergone when its been re-inspected for each years race? Changes were made to the size of run off and barriers at Tabac in 2015 (which shortened the track length), additional curbs were added before this years race. The list goes on for many circuits, however getting an established circuit relicensed is easier than getting a brand new one licenced.
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2013/10/22/christian-epp-tilke-interview/
Last edited:
- 3,264
- Salt Lake City,
I don't know if you realize, but your tone comes off condescending. I'm able to read and I did as such. Thing is, if you read my comment, I said I wasn't aware GTSport going for grade 1 tracks in the game. I didn't ask if Dragon Trail is an FIA grade 1, 2, 3 etc. I also said is that what the FIA link is? Is that a requirement in GTSport, that each track in game run to their guidelines for grade 1. Hell is that even a requirement at all? Does every track in GTS have to be FIA approved? It was an honest question, not a snide remark.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,038
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
My apologies if it came across in that manner, however the regs are quite clear that its a requirement (as a minimum) for all grades of circuit, not just grade 1. All that would change would be the size required for the run-off area, increasing in line with the speed of the cars and the grade required.
As for the the fantasy tracks, certification has been the aim since the partnership with the FIA was first mentioned.
In PD's own words (and this was back in GT6):
"The track inspection for each was conducted by FIA officials who visited PDI’s development studio in Tokyo, where Gran Turismo 6 track models were accurately compared to FIA standards. Other tracks included in Gran Turismo 6 will be subject to inspection in order to obtain certification by the FIA in the near future. "
Source: http://www.gran-turismo.com/gb/news/00_1153498.html
Is it definitive? No. However its certainly what PD and the FIA have stated as the aim since 2014 and GT6, as such its certainly not unreasonable to think that they would have been designing all the new tracks to meet these same regulations.
- 3,264
- Salt Lake City,
From that statement I took it as tracks that the FIA actually race on. Real world tracks like Silverstone, Suzuka and Spa. I thought that was what he meant about that statement. I don't remember for sure but I thought it had to do with the accuracy of the tracks in question. Now on GTS, I would like to see if the FIA is really dictating how the tracks are designed in game in accordance to their real world guidelines. It kind of seems like that's either not the case or PD is not required to have all tracks be like that.
- 628
- United States
I will not be surprises if FIA is the one dictating what track is getting in the game. Since they want the track is good enough for there safety standards plus it partnership between them look like they serious about this stuff. They treating this if people could get hurt in real life and death safety.
Last edited:
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,038
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
The issue is that its not clear in communication from either PD or the FIA.
Looking at the real world track in GTS we get very mixed results from an FIA circuit licence as well.
Brands Hatch Indy - Grade 2
Brands Hatch GP - Grade 2
Mount Panorama Motor Racing Circuit - Grade 3
Nürburgring GP - Grade 1
Nürburgring N24 - Grade 3
Nürburgring Nordschleife - Grade 3
Suzuka Circuit- Grade 1
Suzuka Circuit East Course - Grade 2
Willow Springs International Raceway: Big Willow - No FIA Grade
Willow Springs International Raceway: Horsethief Mile - No FIA Grade
Willow Springs International Raceway: Streets of Willow - No FIA Grade
Source: https://www.fia.com/file/48098/download?token=Jo8fHaGi
In simple terms the grades are:
Grade 1 - F1 and below
Grade 2 - Purpose build race cars and below (LMP, Silhouette, etc)
Grade 3 - Modified road cars with homolgation (GT3, Touring Cars, etc) and below
Circuits without a grade can't hold FIA sanctioned races even if they could potential make a grade, they would need to submit a detailed request, be inspected, carry out any required changes and may then get a licence and grade.
So if the FIA sponsored races are truly FIA sanctioned in the same way as reality is we should see no races at Willow, and any car group above Gr.3 shouldn't be racing at Bathurst, the 'ring and the 24hr 'ring layout.
Not to mention that any road car that hasn't been homolgated by the FIA should also not be present on an FIA sanctioned grid.
http://www.fia.com/homologations
http://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/toutesvoitures_26.07.2017.pdf
Which off the top of my head would mean no Beetle, Veyron or Alfa 4C (and quite a few others I'm sure)
However, back to the point I was making originally. The FIA accreditation, certification, whatever people want to call it, is to my mind mainly a marketing exercise, and a damn good one at that (after all we are discussing it). However unless the track and cars used for the FIA events are quite seriously limited, it has very little real world equivalence.
..... probably you gave me the most important reason not to buy GTS.... I'm afraid of competing with you! :-).
Obviously I agree with you that trees, foliage etc.. is not the core part of a racing game, in fact they were ironically reported by me as those graphics details (for which PD was famous in the past to put a lot of attention) that seems to be the only argument so much important to be mentioned by a PD fun (and I spent hundreds of hours on GT5-6 and at least 40 hours on GTS beta) because unfortunately there are no other far more important features to discuss on. Even in terms of details GT is behind competitors (and it is so from GT5. FM4 was superior for graphics details; see Digital Foundry comparison).
I would prefer to remember GTS for new driving features and contents instead of for good lighting effect, photo mode and livery editor!
So I'm clear, what's being discussed here are digital graphics in a computer that can be easily moved and adjusted, right?
Fantasy tracks with grade 1 in mind should be easy enough to make, no?
Real world grade 1 tracks should be easy enough to recreate, no?
OR.... is the whole of GT submitting completely to FIA regulation?
Fantasy tracks with grade 1 in mind should be easy enough to make, no?
Real world grade 1 tracks should be easy enough to recreate, no?
OR.... is the whole of GT submitting completely to FIA regulation?
marcvic
Premium
- 881
- USA
- marcvic
Agree, there is definitely a such thing as that 👍 - but I'm not going to question your life choices because of it (look back at what I was initially responding to).
'Supposedly' - why supposedly laser scanned? The real world tracks that I've seen in GTS look to have enough road surfaces IMO. The cars don't visually move around in the cockpit as much as PC2, but I think that the movement from track surfaces in PC2 is a bit too exaggerated. In GTS, there could be slightly more, but I don't want the camera to be moving around as much as in PC2.
As far as FFB is concerned, I've been seeing a bunch of feedback from users saying that they don't get the proper feel until they 'set the car up correctly'.
I agree about AC - if I had to choose one for their representation of bumps, I'd go with that. A case of variety could be made for both, though. GTS looks to have a good variety - all new fantasy tacks (exclusive), Interlagos, Rally, Suzuka. Not to mention the TOD/weather.
I'm a gamer first, and a sim racer second. I'm a car enthusiast, not a motorsport enthusiasts. GTS looks to have one of the best visual representations of real life in a video game (textures, lighting, accuracy of models) - and that really speaks the gamer and car enthusiast in me. Even when I look at GT6, I'm still blown away by it's graphics - same with the weather effects of GT5. I'm playing PC games at their highest level and GTS graphics still blow me away.
Admittedly, I'm a sucker for pretty graphics
But I do think there's more to GTS than a pretty face.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,038
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
The camera movement is adjustable in PCars, and can be switched off, so I don't really see that being an issue with PC2. Nor could I agree that it exaggerated in most setups in PCars.
Regardless of the settings I used on the beta FFB was a long way from how it should be. That said you shouldn't need to tweak the cars set-up to get acceptable FFB, and that's aside from one area of FFB (self aligning torque reduction on understeer) being totally incorrect in the last two beta builds.
The scanned tracks in PCars are as good in my experience as the ones in AC, add in that PC2 has scanned the lot and has a much bigger track roster puts the GTS list to shame.
A low car count I can deal with (AC being a case in point), but a low track count hurts far more.
I would 100% agree in terms of visuals, and the lighting model in particular. GTS is ahead of the rest in those two regards (but not by as much as it has been in the past).I'm a gamer first, and a sim racer second. I'm a car enthusiast, not a motorsport enthusiasts. GTS looks to have one of the best visual representations of real life in a video game (textures, lighting, accuracy of models) - and that really speaks the gamer and car enthusiast in me. Even when I look at GT6, I'm still blown away by it's graphics - same with the weather effects of GT5. I'm playing PC games at their highest level and GTS graphics still blow me away.
Admittedly, I'm a sucker for pretty graphics
However for me it is pretty much just a pretty face.
