GT5 simulation (driving physics)

  • Thread starter Thread starter signmc
  • 78 comments
  • 14,596 views
Low speed physics suck in the same, a lot of racers who review the game always push the cars and say its pretty damn good. Why Cant PD make a game with low speed and high speed physics good?

I don't know may be the audience console it's for kid... But it's crap. A lot of old gt fan gonna play forza for sure (i'm not a fanboy)... I buy a ps3 for GT but on the next gen i think i'm gonna buy a xbox. I hope the dlc will be huge but i'm dreaming about it...
 
gt audience are for kids?

do you know the current average age for GT fans? they are not kids mate. go buy your xbox and your forza. no one really cares
 
vandaliser
gt audience are for kids?

do you know the current average age for GT fans? they are not kids mate. go buy your xbox and your forza. no one really cares

What's the age then?
 
I always thought it would be cool if you crash really hard, you have to restart career.
 
gt audience are for kids?

do you know the current average age for GT fans? they are not kids mate. go buy your xbox and your forza. no one really cares

Oh a kid :)... GT best sim ever (happy), now go to the bed or drive your x1...

50/50 i think adult/kid. By the way you can compare pes and fifa with gt and forza (sad but true). You can cut on corner, no penality, no competition. Seriously this game is old mode designed...
 
Sorry, Forza isn't much better, and I didn't get the feeling I was sharing physics with a PC sim when I played Forza 3... for all of six weeks or so.

Forza has many good points, but showing up GT's physics... sorry, it's apples and oranges. And of course opinions and opinions. But just go to a PC sim forum and try saying that Forza's physics are as good as theirs and see how warm a welcome you get. Maybe FW4 will do the trick, but Turn 10 and their fans have hyped that train ever since the first game...
 
Sorry, Forza isn't much better, and I didn't get the feeling I was sharing physics with a PC sim when I played Forza 3... for all of six weeks or so.

Forza has many good points, but showing up GT's physics... sorry, it's apples and oranges. And of course opinions and opinions. But just go to a PC sim forum and try saying that Forza's physics are as good as theirs and see how warm a welcome you get. Maybe FW4 will do the trick, but Turn 10 and their fans have hyped that train ever since the first game...
Hopefully with the simulation steering that's implemented in FM4 that removes the retarded steering assists. It will actually make it great, but that's another thread.

GT5 to me has good physics. It has faults, but every game has them. Most of the faults I've noticed is at low speeds and the clutch is another big one for me. It seems PD just can't do low speeds correctly. Overall tho it feels fine and I like it a lot actually.

Sure it doesn't live up to the PC sims, but just think about what the PC sims offer besides physics. I've tried rFactor and was not impressed at all with it. I haven't tried iRacing since I don't care for pure race cars. Live for Speed tho is great and the best PC sim I've played.
 
I don't like when ppl say Forza is better than GT5 at this...
Forza is better than GT5 in these categories...

or when
Forza has real physics...


If that were true, then wouldn't Rutledge Wood have dominated Tanner Foust at Infineon in the reverse sense of David Coulthard?


My point is that it is pointless to compare a pinwheel to a ceiling fan to the wind to see which is more powerful. Overhyping one tiny advantage to prove that with all of the disadvantages of the same product (Forza) is better than the other whole product (GT5 and PC Racing Simulators) only makes the former look even worse than it does as a whole.

PC Sims are better than GT5, which is in the same respect, better than an overhyped imitator of the original that started the whole genre to begin with.

These have one common factor that is portrayed differently from the next product.
 
It may not be the BEST out there, but I think we can agree that it's the best you can get on a console...
Also, there's no iracingplanet, netkarplanet, rfactorplanet, or gtr2planet. :p
 
Last edited:
GT5 physics are real enough I think, because at the same time they are fun and acessible to everybody with a minimum of skill.
I don't know why so many people from this site want IRacing physics (or whatever) for Gran Turismo. Go play IRacing instead or drive your real car if you have one :p

Exactly!

GT makes you enjoy the cars. It's not their goal to make it 100% sim (at least the game is so damn big so they need to do a LOTS of other things too), but they want to replicate character of the car and driving atmosphere. I will take GT over any PC sim any day - because it's massive game with ability to teach you about cars and how it feels. At least I never compare GT to PC sims. Entirely different, from outside and inside.

However I really hope for physics improvements for the GT6. Game is already super-massive but if it will be more realistic its better. :)
 
The benchmark for realism will always be pushed forward, and how to measure realism will always be changing. As long as a video game is a representation of reality and not the actual reality, there will always be room for improvements.

It's like painting a picture, no matter how detailed you paint a tree, you can never paint it in all the detail that the real tree has. If you look close enough you will always see that it's made up of strokes of paint. And then, when the art of painting is at its peak in terms of level of detail (obsession with painting every grain of sand in a picture), some guys will say that a high level of detail does not make a picture realistic, realism is all about the impressions and emotions that the reality gives the beholder.

I don't know what is a good measurement of realism, some say that realism is defined by having three temperature areas of the tires, some say that it's defined by accurate damage models, some say that it's all about force feedback.

All I know is that of all console racing game I have played, it is the game that that allows me to control the most precisely and the game that gives me most feedback on what is happening with the car while I race. And those factors makes the game at least give an immersion of being realistic, as it creates the necessary frames for my imagination to believe that I am actually there. And if I believe in it, then the "make believe" will fill in the gaps that aren't there. That is what happens when you look at a painting and thinks that it looks real and when you're playing a game and thinks that it feels real.

And if you don't believe in the tire physics, if you don't believe in the damage models, if you don't believe in the force feedback, then your imagination will have a harder time filling in the gaps and as a result you are less likely to feel like it is the reality. This will always be the case with any simulator, if it doesn't feel real to you then you will not think it is realistic.
 
Exactly!

GT makes you enjoy the cars. It's not their goal to make it 100% sim (at least the game is so damn big so they need to do a LOTS of other things too), but they want to replicate character of the car and driving atmosphere. I will take GT over any PC sim any day - because it's massive game with ability to teach you about cars and how it feels. At least I never compare GT to PC sims. Entirely different, from outside and inside.

However I really hope for physics improvements for the GT6. Game is already super-massive but if it will be more realistic its better. :)

Lol BS its not their goal, their frigging slogan is the real driving simulator. Ofcourse its their goal. 👍 They just need to do more real world comparison testing and figure out a way to implement it in the physics. But they have a lot of other things to focus on besides physcis as well, I'm sure they are doing their best in all aspects.

If it were up to me I would prioritize physics as #1 goal goal for GT series. IF they can nail that, with the ton of other things gt5 has then every other racing sim will be nothing compared it.
 
The benchmark for realism will always be pushed forward, and how to measure realism will always be changing. As long as a video game is a representation of reality and not the actual reality, there will always be room for improvements.

It's like painting a picture, no matter how detailed you paint a tree, you can never paint it in all the detail that the real tree has. If you look close enough you will always see that it's made up of strokes of paint. And then, when the art of painting is at its peak in terms of level of detail (obsession with painting every grain of sand in a picture), some guys will say that a high level of detail does not make a picture realistic, realism is all about the impressions and emotions that the reality gives the beholder.

I don't know what is a good measurement of realism, some say that realism is defined by having three temperature areas of the tires, some say that it's defined by accurate damage models, some say that it's all about force feedback.

All I know is that of all console racing game I have played, it is the game that that allows me to control the most precisely and the game that gives me most feedback on what is happening with the car while I race. And those factors makes the game at least give an immersion of being realistic, as it creates the necessary frames for my imagination to believe that I am actually there. And if I believe in it, then the "make believe" will fill in the gaps that aren't there. That is what happens when you look at a painting and thinks that it looks real and when you're playing a game and thinks that it feels real.

And if you don't believe in the tire physics, if you don't believe in the damage models, if you don't believe in the force feedback, then your imagination will have a harder time filling in the gaps and as a result you are less likely to feel like it is the reality. This will always be the case with any simulator, if it doesn't feel real to you then you will not think it is realistic.

Spot on there with everything you said, and well said and observed.

The one thing you are unsure about, IMO the measure of realism is how life like the game responds to input it receives within the environment it is. It should match real life as closely as possible.
 
Lol BS its not their goal, their frigging slogan is the real driving simulator. Ofcourse its their goal. 👍
No mate, they goal is to sell, sell and...sell (that's what a slogan is for, to promote) while delivering the best experience they can to everybody who likes cars, not only people with expensive wheels that compose maybe not more than 10% of people that bought the game. If they want to put super realistic physics they arleady ahve done it. However, the amount of cars would reduce dramatically (I guess). Only PD knows exacly what the game is suppose to represent, but we can put something on the table 👍.
This is what I think after playing GT since 2005 (GT4), a game that makes us experience the feel of hundreds of cars that make us enjoy :) Sure I guess the said tyre model could be better or the damage model (I'm looking at you GRID) or tuning options, but is more than required to keep the game acessible to everybody who plays it. It's not like those games that are between arcade and simulation that sometimes screw it up trying to do but (S***t) it's a game which is simulation oriented but is so god damn well made that everybody enjoys it. Of course improvement is required, but the formula will keep the same (I guess).
...
:)
 
I do have to say that while PC sims have better physics, they're very dry, clinical games as far as the whole feel and essence of the game. Other games have better car sounds overall, but those are... well, other games.

But if I want to take a sports car around the Nordschleife on street tires and have a believable experience, or any track, with driver views that suit me, right now I only have one option. And as I said before, only one game has the feel, essence and spirit which captivates me. I don't torture test the physics, drift or do crazy stunts in any game, I just drive and race. And GT5 is close enough to reality that any differences aren't much notice when scenery is whipping past and a smile is on my face.
 
GT5 physics are far from being "close enough", and there's no need to "torture test" them to see that: just a wheel and some real life driving experience and technical knowledge. There's still a long way to go in many areas and personally I find that justifying those (often blatant) flaws and inaccuracies with PD trying to not make the game too difficult for the general audience is both demoralizing and defeatist for something that is intended to be a general purpose (ie not focusing on certain car types or racing speeds) car simulator.

But yes, I agree that overall there's no other choice on the market offering the same experience (except Forza, but I'm not going to buy a new wheel and a new console just for that). Unfortunately.
 
GT5 physics are far from being "close enough", and there's no need to "torture test" them to see that: just a wheel and some real life driving experience and technical knowledge. There's still a long way to go in many areas and personally I find that justifying those (often blatant) flaws and inaccuracies with PD trying to not make the game too difficult for the general audience is both demoralizing and defeatist for something that is intended to be a general purpose (ie not focusing on certain car types or racing speeds) car simulator.

But yes, I agree that overall there's no other choice on the market offering the same experience (except Forza, but I'm not going to buy a new wheel and a new console just for that). Unfortunately.

I agree. And anyway, they can easily make the game general audience friendly by leaving the default setting to the dumbed down physics and having a simulation setting for the real deal. That way, the 90% or whatever who find realism too hard can play amongst each other and the rest who want what the point of a car simulator should be in the first place, realism, can have it.

But saying that the reason the game should purposely not have beyond a certain level of realistic physics because it will be too hard for the general audience is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Lol BS its not their goal, their frigging slogan is the real driving simulator. Ofcourse its their goal. 👍 They just need to do more real world comparison testing and figure out a way to implement it in the physics. But they have a lot of other things to focus on besides physcis as well, I'm sure they are doing their best in all aspects.

If it were up to me I would prioritize physics as #1 goal goal for GT series. IF they can nail that, with the ton of other things gt5 has then every other racing sim will be nothing compared it.

But it's not their number one priority! If it was - GT will be more like PC sim. It's a game, so it supposed to be fun. Not to mention that they need to sell it.
 
Let's put it simply... GT games are an excellent middle man. They are a great compromise, appealing to a multitude of ages and talent levels. A jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none type bloke.

If GT5 was a person, he'd be a good friend... he'd be better than you at most things but he wouldn't rub your nose in it. Some things you'd be better at, or someone else you knew... but he'd take it on the chin and try and do better next time... and with a smile too. Occasionally he'd bugger it up and laugh at himself, then try again. Almost everyone would like him, even your mum.

I said almost everyone... :)

And with that, I'm going to take this opportunity to plug the GTPlanet WRS again...

Not the best maybe but how much fun? 👍

 
Ask Jeremy clarkson. He might be able to answer the question

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article552096.ece

Gran Turismo 4
Pass the joystick, sonny, this is the future of driving
Jeremy Clarkson

Five weeks. That’s how long it is since my back exploded and I was banned from driving. I’ve never gone so long without climbing behind the wheel so, to keep my hand in, I’ve booted the boy-child off his PlayStation and now spend my evenings playing something called Gran Turismo 4.

We’re always being told by the makers of these computer driving games that they’re virtually indistinguishable from the real thing. In fact the maker of Gran Turismo goes further, saying that the programmers drove all the 700 cars featured in the game so they could bring real-world handling characteristics and power delivery to your living room. Yeah, right.

I’ve played these Grand Turismo games before and so I know the form. You start with a handful of loose change that you spend buying a crummy car, which you then use in races to win more money. The better you get, the more you win, until eventually you have enough to fit it with better tyres or a turbo.

That means you can go faster and win bigger races with more prize money until, eventually, you have enough to buy a better car. And so it goes on.

Now this is all very noble, teaching children they can’t have something for nothing and that if they want a BMW M5 they’re damn well going to have to put the hours in.

But the reality is rather different. What happens is that you invest about three weeks winning a new car, and after that a new game comes out in which you can shoot James Bond in the face. So you forget all about your new car and play that instead.

My children spend most of their time playing a game called Grand Theft Auto which, so far as I can tell, involves driving around a city knocking over as many people as possible. And then, when the police come, stealing another car.

So Sony is on to a winner. It can make all sorts of bold claims about how its Gran Turismo cars are the same as the real thing because no one will ever be able to prove it wrong. Those who earn enough digital money to buy the computer cars will have no time left for earning the real spondulicks. So they won’t have a proper car to compare with the interpretation on the PlayStation.

I got round this by cheating. I called Sony and asked it to send me a game chip already loaded with the 700 computer cars. And I am in a position to test out its claims because, unlike most people, I really have driven almost all of them in real life.

There are mistakes. The BMW M3 CSL, for instance, brakes much better on the road than it does on the screen. And there’s no way a Peugeot 106 could outdrag a Fiat Punto off the line. But other than this, I’m struggling: they’ve even managed to accurately reflect the differences between a Mercedes SL 600 and the Mercedes SL 55, which is hard enough to do in real life.

There’s more, too. If you take a banked curve in the Bentley Le Mans car flat out, you’ll be fine. If you back off, even a little bit, you lose the aerodynamic grip and end up spinning.

That’s how it is. This game would only be more real if a big spike shot out of the screen and skewered your head every time you crashed. In fact that’s the only real drawback: that you can hit the barriers hard without ever damaging you or your car. Maybe they’re saving that for GT5. Perhaps it’ll be called Death or Glory.

Whatever, you could definitely use GT4 as a device for trying out your next car, especially if you’re thinking of buying a Viper. That’s just as undriveable in the game as it is on the M6.


But the best thing about the game is the inclusion, for the first time, of the Nürburgring. Last year I spent a couple of days trying to get round this fearsome 13-mile track in a Jaguar diesel in less than 10 minutes. In the game I shaved two minutes off that time by using an Aston Martin DB9. And I didn’t have to spend a night in a bierkeller, singing to oompah music.

The track really is devastatingly accurate, even down to the graffiti that has been painted by motor racing fans on the tarmac over the years. Maybe some of the bumps are missing, and there’s one braking point that is completely wrong, but if you’re planning on going to the Ring this summer, get the game first. You’ll save yourself a fortune and stand a much smaller chance of being killed to death.

I’ve looked into how the Japanese boffins manage to recreate real life so accurately and it seems patience is the key. They do drive every car to make sure its torque, grip and aerodynamic properties are accurately replicated. And they photograph each one up to 500 times to make sure it looks exactly right. They even film them on tracks, using the Top Gear camera crews. And you need a lot of patience for that, trust me.

So when you “drive” the car, it leans and dives and squats just like the real thing. Even the shadows look real. So real that BMW uses the GT game for testing out new ideas on cars before giving them to test drivers.

Of course, like just about every car firm in the world, it took BMW about five seconds to realise that PlayStation reaches a part of the market that television advertising cannot. The PlayStation generation. As a result, just about all of them bend over backwards to help the makers of the game in any way possible.

Except Ferrari.

According to the maker of the game, “some car makers want more money to be featured than all the rest of the car makers put together”. Sadly, his mobile went dead before I could confirm it was indeed the Eyeties. Technology, eh? So I rang a Ferrari spokesman who explained that his company was fantastically litigious and protective of the cars, the racers and even the noises they make. And that they already have a deal with EA Games. Well, that’s complete and utter madness, because as a result my nine-year-old is growing up wanting a Honda NSX.

He’s worked out that if you want to win races this is by far the best car to use. If I didn’t know better, and there were no laws of libel, I’d suggest that maybe Honda had indeed bunged Sony a few quid to give a few more digital horsepower.

Whatever, my boy cannot be unique. All over the world there are other kids who know the fastest car in the world is Honda’s V6 supercar. And that’s what they’ll buy when they grow up.

Except they won’t, because last month Honda announced that after a 15-year production run the NSX is about to die.

It was never the prettiest car in the world. It’s rather as though someone described a Ferrari to someone over the phone. And unlike its Italian rivals it was not a passionate car. But it was hugely technical. The noise of the engine. The feel of that all aluminium backbone. It felt digital rather than analogue.

It was also exceptionally good value for money but, sadly, in the whole of its life Rowan Atkinson was the only person to buy one, and now it’s gone to that V-tech scrapyard in the sky amid news that Honda is already working on a V10-powered replacement.

I have an idea for this new toy, an idea that will be in keeping with the technicality of its predecessor. Instead of giving it a cumbersome steering wheel and 20th-century pedals, neither of which is needed when you have electronic braking and electronic power steering, why not simply fit it with a PlayStation controller? I’m not joking. We know it works and, at the very least, the car could be left or right-hand drive depending on whoever had the handset. I’ve seen the future. And it’s in your sitting room.
Explore Jeremy Clarkson

Putting aside the fact vandaliser has gotten his GT installments confused here, this thread is GT5 simulation (driving physics),
I feel somewhat vindicated in that contrary to many members opinion, I thought GT4 physics were not that far off from a realism standpoint.
Not perfect by any means, but much better than most were willing to give credit to.

I'm really curious as to how JC would rate GT5 physics as compared to GT4.
At any rate, on to the real thread topic:

The benchmark for realism will always be pushed forward, and how to measure realism will always be changing. As long as a video game is a representation of reality and not the actual reality, there will always be room for improvements.

It's like painting a picture, no matter how detailed you paint a tree, you can never paint it in all the detail that the real tree has. If you look close enough you will always see that it's made up of strokes of paint. And then, when the art of painting is at its peak in terms of level of detail (obsession with painting every grain of sand in a picture), some guys will say that a high level of detail does not make a picture realistic, realism is all about the impressions and emotions that the reality gives the beholder.

I don't know what is a good measurement of realism, some say that realism is defined by having three temperature areas of the tires, some say that it's defined by accurate damage models, some say that it's all about force feedback.

All I know is that of all console racing game I have played, it is the game that that allows me to control the most precisely and the game that gives me most feedback on what is happening with the car while I race. And those factors makes the game at least give an immersion of being realistic, as it creates the necessary frames for my imagination to believe that I am actually there. And if I believe in it, then the "make believe" will fill in the gaps that aren't there. That is what happens when you look at a painting and thinks that it looks real and when you're playing a game and thinks that it feels real.

And if you don't believe in the tire physics, if you don't believe in the damage models, if you don't believe in the force feedback, then your imagination will have a harder time filling in the gaps and as a result you are less likely to feel like it is the reality. This will always be the case with any simulator, if it doesn't feel real to you then you will not think it is realistic.

Very insightful commentary.

For me, even though I've tried to flesh out the GT5 driving physics that some declare are soooooooooooo
great and such an improvement, I just don't get that impression, even in the far superior 60fps HD graphic enviroment.

While I can agree they are pretty good, and in some ways I think it is better, there always seems to be something a little off somewhere.

For some reason I don't get that impression with GT4 or FM3.

Having participated in the first two rounds of the GT academy I am convinced the physics are more tuned to a wheel and pedals than the DS3.
Possibly this has something to do with it.
Or maybe its just transitioning from GT4 and FM3.
I don't know.
JMO.
 
WOW nice driving there "V" it makes me shake my head a think to my self "I have to drive that fast to beat you?" man do I have to pick my game up, oh great vid by the way.... :lol:
 
All those ''cool'' realistic features suck 🤬.

The best way to ruin a game is -mechanical- damage. Let alone restarting career or part failures.

Don't give me a stupid iFactor Forza Speed Lifeshift ripoff. I want a simple simulator. Those last one (except for Forza and Shift) are made for people with 63 hands and the pushing force of a retarted monkey with a broken polse. I don't want to go everywhere side ways pushing the up button (!) very rapidly. Gran Turismo is the best because it's simple and easy to excess. And Shift and Forza followed it (special mention to them)
 
Thanks Lefty 👍 I had fun making it - all from WRS replays (except the spin in the 69 Camaro)

I want a simple simulator.

What?

Those last one (except for Forza and Shift) are made for people with 63 hands and the pushing force of a retarted monkey with a broken polse.

What?

I don't want to go everywhere side ways pushing the up button (!) very rapidly. Gran Turismo is the best because it's simple and easy to excess. And Shift and Forza followed it (special mention to them)

What?

Shift is an arcade game. Exciting maybe but an arcade game. Simulators are just that - they simulate a real environment. When you can drive a real racing car with an analogue controller maybe your "point" will be a valid one.
 
But saying that the reason the game should purposely not have beyond a certain level of realistic physics because it will be too hard for the general audience is ridiculous.

Exactly.

Don't give me a stupid iFactor Forza Speed Lifeshift ripoff. I want a simple simulator. Those last one (except for Forza and Shift) are made for people with 63 hands and the pushing force of a retarted monkey with a broken polse. I don't want to go everywhere side ways pushing the up button (!) very rapidly. Gran Turismo is the best because it's simple and easy to excess. And Shift and Forza followed it (special mention to them)

Driving a car isn't exactly hard. The first time I jumped into a car and took it to a track, it felt a lot easier than GT5 in quite a few ways. Granted, it was on slicks, I probably wasn't pushing it that much even if I thought it was, and it was much lighter than the average car (it was FSAE). But the point is, GT5 isn't easy because of dumbed down physics. Nor will it become substantially more difficult with better physics. I'd say that at this point, the difficulty will stay about level. It takes some time getting used to it if you're totally new, it's fairly easy to get good quickly, but it's hard to get 100% out of your car.

I honestly find arcade games more difficult because they just don't make [physics] sense. I have to completely relearn how to drive when realism goes out the window.
 
You gots to be kidding almost every car in gt5 suffers from massive understeer. The physics in gt4 is way better for example the FGT in gt4 drives way better than in GT5. Ferrari f2007 is a joke with 900 degrees of steering angle. You ever played F12010 by codemaster you only have to turn the wheel 180 degree to fully lock left or right in GT5 seems they took shortcuts in program the game because its 900 degree of rotation of every single car no matter what type. Its so retarded driving around monaco and having to turn the wheel 2 full turns just to make the hairpin
 
I haven't tried the F2007, but on the Formula GT over a certain steering angle front wheels won't turn anymore, even by applying full steering lock. However there's no steering wheel feedback that can be felt for this.
 
I'm not going to go in depth on this topic but the physics are okay in GT5 but fail to represent a true simulator's physics IMO.
 
GT5 has good points and bad points.

Weight transfer is okay, but there is a real lack of lift off oversteer, which makes fwd cars much more dull to drive than they ought to be.

It's good, but it has a "safe" feeling to it, particularly on the brakes and on corner entry.
 
I get plenty of lift off oversteer. I don't drive FFs unless I'm forced to so I can't speak for them, but in everything else it does it almost every time. Whether it's 100% accurate to real life, I don't know, but it certainly does it.



And GT4 was IMO much worse as far as every car understeering horribly. Every corner entry was a wrestling match with the front wheels in that game. Much better turn in with every car I've driven in GT5.
 
Back