GT Sport beta physics discussion - Read the First Post Before Replying

  • Thread starter z06fun
  • 1,164 comments
  • 104,285 views
Could we get back to.. I don't know, maybe the physics of this game?

Because there is a new Video, extended Porsche Gameplay which fits exactly into the Bumps discussion that happened a few pages ago:



At 1:03 minutes, that's when they enter the Karussell on the Nordschleife. That is again waaaaaaay to smooth. Nothing happens with the car. That part of the track has horrible bumps, we even didn't dare to drive there with our racing bicycles. How could that happen? I don't remember it to be so smooth in GT5/6. Especially on this track, Kaz should know better.

Yep, this was how this whole thing started. Oneloops defending the ultra smooth surfaces of GTS tracks by commenting that AC and PCars where too bumpy. Videos of real life were posted to show AC and PCars were much more realistic than GTS and then we got the last couple of pages.

The tracks in GTS are far too smooth and do not match reality. And just for Oneloops that's an objective fact when compared to reality rather than a subjective opinion.
 
Yep, this was how this whole thing started. Oneloops defending the ultra smooth surfaces of GTS tracks by commenting that AC and PCars where too bumpy. Videos of real life were posted to show AC and PCars were much more realistic than GTS and then we got the last couple of pages.

The tracks in GTS are far too smooth and do not match reality. And just for Oneloops that's an objective fact when compared to reality rather than a subjective opinion.

Yes I have followed that discussion (more or less), I just wanted to go back to discussing physics instead of subjective vs objective or facts vs. opinions (which is not the same!).

One more thing to add to this: The track in AC cannot be too bumpy because it is laser scanned with all bumps.
 
Yes I have followed that discussion (more or less), I just wanted to go back to discussing physics instead of subjective vs objective or facts vs. opinions (which is not the same!).

One more thing to add to this: The track in AC cannot be too bumpy because it is laser scanned with all bumps.
And the track surface is such an important part of racing. Everyone who follows motorsport knows about the bump at Monaco for example. The surface of a track gives it it's character, including the super smooth surfaces of more modern tracks. GTS really should include these surface undulations.
 
I've already explained why many times in detail to Scaff and others in the past. I'm not going to write it again.

Nobody can prove that a simulator feels more realistic than other. A sim is always a subjective experience, like a movie, they are both a simulation of reality.
Really now? Not even the man who was responsible for a car's development?
 
Which PD's iteration was supposed to be as well, no?

Tbh, I don't know how the tracks in GTS were scanned/implemented. But from experience and from what you can read online, AC nails it with the bumps pretty much.

And the track surface is such an important part of racing. Everyone who follows motorsport knows about the bump at Monaco for example. The surface of a track gives it it's character, including the super smooth surfaces of more modern tracks. GTS really should include these surface undulations.

Exactly. Just like the bump at the end of the Nürburgring start/finish straight. It is actually used as braking indicator in different classes.
 
@McLaren Not doubting him but that's marketing talk.

Remember Seb Loeb praising GT5's dirt physics?
Chris specifically says at the beginning that he was not impressed with the initial build of the car in-game. They developed the car specifically around his word.

Marketing talk or not is beside the point; oneloops statement is false. You absolutely can prove 1 simulator is more realistic than another. @Scaff has displayed multiple times over the years, usually referencing GT's simplistic tire model as a major key to why the game can't quite stand up to other sims (majority PC) that unsurprisingly, run more advanced tire models.
 
Chris specifically says at the beginning that he was not impressed with the initial build of the car in-game. They developed the car specifically around his word.

Marketing talk or not is beside the point; oneloops statement is false. You absolutely can prove 1 simulator is more realistic than another. @Scaff has displayed multiple times over the years, usually referencing GT's simplistic tire model as a major key to why the game can't quite stand up to other sims (majority PC) that unsurprisingly, run more advanced tire models.

No question about it. If you raced in real life you're well aware of the shortcomings.
 
Really now? Not even the man who was responsible for a car's development?


It feels like that to him, it could be in order to promote the pcars2 sales, you can agree his opinion or another one's opinion.

Maybe if he tries the same car in AC he could find a more accurate simulation in some areas and less in anothers than in Pcars2.
 
@McLaren Not doubting him but that's marketing talk.

Remember Seb Loeb praising GT5's dirt physics?
720S.jpg
 
Yep, this was how this whole thing started. Oneloops defending the ultra smooth surfaces of GTS tracks by commenting that AC and PCars where too bumpy. Videos of real life were posted to show AC and PCars were much more realistic than GTS and then we got the last couple of pages.

The tracks in GTS are far too smooth and do not match reality. And just for Oneloops that's an objective fact when compared to reality rather than a subjective opinion.


You got me wrong. I said AC recreation of bumps is more realistic than the flat gts brands hatch, and it would be good for gts to get that AC level of bumps recreation.

Other different thing is how AC physics manage the car reaction over the bumps and that is where I don't agree with AC and with some people here.
 
Can't agree about the Ring about not being bumpy or bumpy enough. Thats the only track PD got right with the bumps and it feels the best outta all games I play on my controller.
 
The vast majority of us probably drive our cars to work or school everyday. So most of us are aware of the shortcomings from that alone. Every sim is an approximation of reality. Some are just better approximations.
I was just today thinking, if simulators would simulate street car steeringwheel forces accurately we would be bored out of our minds and steerinwheel with rubberbands instead of ffb motors would be sufficient. :lol:

Like that sound guy said - they have to somehow compensate things like gforces for immersion.
 
It feels like that to him, it could be in order to promote the pcars2 sales, you can agree his opinion or another one's opinion.

Maybe if he tries the same car in AC he could find a more accurate simulation in some areas and less in anothers than in Pcars2.
It's not really an opinion though, if a chief test driver initially says
First test, I wasn't so impressed. I was impressed with everything but the feel, the performance, the handling of my car in this virtual world....

A month later, I drive the game. And actually, there was massive progress on some of the other McLaren products.... So it gave me loads of confidence that we could get there.
He cites that he had another McLaren engineer & a Pirelli test driver who worked on the real car with him during the final go.

Irrelevant unless you can prove it's marketing talk, and Chris was never initially impressed or that nobody consulted his word.

@IanBell
 
It's not really an opinion though, if a chief test driver initially says

He cites that he had another McLaren engineer & a Pirelli test driver who worked on the real car with him during the final go.


Irrelevant unless you can prove it's marketing talk, and Chris was never initially impressed or that nobody consulted his word.

@IanBell

The same thing was said by Yamauchi and anothers drivers about his participations at Nurburgring 24h and how that nissan Gtr and his recolected telemetry and data were implemented in gt6.

They said that was a very realistic simulation was translated from their suspensions and tyres manufacturers into the game but that's overall and after all a personal opinion how good was in a realistic way well implemented.
 
Last edited:
The same thing was said by Yamauchi and anothers drivers about his participations at Nurburgring 24h and how that nissan Gtr and his recolected telemetry and data were implemented in gt6.

They said that was a very rralistic simulation translated from their suspensions and tyres manufacturers into the game but that's overall and after all a personal opinion.
At what point did Kaz ever show criticism for his game? Key difference besides the fact it's his game. Chris said he wasn't impressed; 1 month later, he still wasn't convinced but had hope based on the improvements since.

The point is you remain wrong in your original claim; you can prove 1 simulator is more realistic than another. The sheer fact people have coined the term "simcade" in relation to other PC sims is sign enough.
 
The same thing was said by Yamauchi and anothers drivers about his participations at Nurburgring 24h and how that nissan Gtr and his recolected telemetry and data were implemented in gt6.

They said that was a very realistic simulation was translated from their suspensions and tyres manufacturers into the game but that's overall and after all a personal opinion how good was in a realistic way well implemented.
And how were the issues with the GT6 (and 5 and 4, etc) physics models discovered and shown to exist?

Objective testing of the physics engine in comparison to reality!

You know the area you keep avoiding acknowledging.
 
At what point did Kaz ever show criticism for his game? Key difference besides the fact it's his game. Chris said he wasn't impressed; 1 month later, he still wasn't convinced but had hope based on the improvements since.

The point is you remain wrong in your original claim; you can prove 1 simulator is more realistic than another. The sheer fact people have coined the term "simcade" in relation to other PC sims is sign enough.

When two sims are good enough it's difficult to say, and some simulation areas are brighter than others comparing several sims.

And how were the issues with the GT6 (and 5 and 4, etc) physics models discovered and shown to exist?

Objective testing of the physics engine in comparison to reality!

You know the area you keep avoiding acknowledging.

And you will get always approximative results because it's a simulation of reality.
 
I am so confused :confused::confused: ( I know try to keep up dumb***) but the goalpost keep moving:irked::irked: and way too many people don't read/listen and are just waiting to talk/type :banghead::banghead: okay all caught up and back on track:lol::lol:
 
And how were the issues with the GT6 (and 5 and 4, etc) physics models discovered and shown to exist?

Objective testing of the physics engine in comparison to reality!

You know the area you keep avoiding acknowledging.
At this point GTS is not good enough, and by quite a bit.

I know, it has to improve.
 
And you will get always approximative results because it's a simulation of reality.
Nope.

The fact that GT5 used a simple grip multiplier for different grades of tyres was proven repeatedly, nothing approximate about it at all.

The fact that no GT title has ever modeled brake fade is not an approximation.

The fact that ride height was screwed up in GT6 was not an approximation.

The fact that AC doesn't model brake fade either is no an approximation.

I can keep going for a very long time on all the utterly objective area of a wide range of sims that do not match reality.

Would you like to continue to insist that sims don't have areas that can be objectively analysed?
 
Nope.

The fact that GT5 used a simple grip multiplier for different grades of tyres was proven repeatedly, nothing approximate about it at all.

The fact that no GT title has ever modeled brake fade is not an approximation.

The fact that ride height was screwed up in GT6 was not an approximation.

Anothers approximations were good enough done for those years for sim users.
 
Anothers approximations were good enough done for those years for sim users.
You don't speak for all sim users, for many, no they were not good enough.

Now stop avoiding the issue, are you actually going to aknowledge that sims can be looked objectively in regard to physics?

Or is the lack of brake fade in any GT actually just a subjective area of how people feel?
 
Or is the lack of brake fade in any GT actually just a subjective area of how people feel?

Hey @Scaff serious question. Has any SIM programmed brake fade well. I could see brake fade for street cars, potentially. But, for race cars it usually isn't an issue because you run the proper brakes for the track you're racing. I never have brake fade issues in the Spec Miata, because I run a hard enough pad and we tend to use the brakes only when we must - corner speed is everything in a Miata.
 
Hey @Scaff serious question. Has any SIM programmed brake fade well. I could see brake fade for street cars, potentially. But, for race cars it usually isn't an issue because you run the proper brakes for the track you're racing. I never have brake fade issues in the Spec Miata, because I run a hard enough pad and we tend to use the brakes only when we must - corner speed is everything in a Miata.
Project Cars does, and reasonably well.

The fastback Mustang is the car I've noticed it most in.
 
Back