Your post went a bit mad on the quotes side of things, so I edited it to sort it out for you.
I don't know if maybe you're just not trying to push, but the weight transfer is definitely there. The rear end slides out constantly in turns, when you hit the curbing, it throws the car to the side, it definitely shows weight transfer and traction loss at speed.
It doesn't matter that they try and model load transfer at all (and its basic at best), the fact that the cars rotate around a single fixed point with no regard for the yaw rotation at the tyres is totally and utterly wrong. The physics of car dynamics do not work in the manner the GRiD does.
What I have to say amazes me about your view on this, is that even the developers and publishers don't describe GRiD as being a sim. Its aimed at the arcade racer market, sorry but the physics in GRiD are not realistic.
A game can model load transfer all it wants, if it then does not use that to determine the cars COG and relate that to its impact on yaw points and roll and heave centres then it pointless. The reason why CM use this is simply because it makes cars very predictable for the driver, but it doesn't make it realistic.
Have you played the game on the harder difficulty settings? The harder the setting, the more it forces you to drive a much more steady line, like you would in GT. It also changes the way the car handles through the turns, and how the AI reacts to your movements. In the easier levels, you can just whip the car around anywhere you want to, and I agree that it's far from accurate. But if you're in extreme or ninja mode, you'd see quite a difference in the lines you must take and what the car does throughout the track.
Yes I have played it on the higher difficulty levels and while that does help slightly it does not remove the core problems with the physics engine at all.
GRiD does not punish you (regardless of the difficulty level) for over-driving the car, it simply plays with the grip limits without changing the flawed fixed rotation problem.
But again, you're talking about a variety of different cars from stock to formula. Of course there will be a noticeable change between the two. What I'm saying is that if you took an LMP1 car from GT and one from Grid, they feel exactly the same.
No that's not what I am saying at all, I am saying categorically that LMP1 cars in GRiD at GT4 do not drive the same at all.
It also worth noting (and this can easily be found on various threads around here) that I do not consider GT4's physics engine to be the greatest in teh world either. GT5
makes significant improvements on it, yet GT4 is still a better physics engine (in terms of realism) than GRiD.
It's more realistic to me in the sense that they don't make the same moves every time in every corner. They spin out, crash, put debris on the track that you have to avoid, etc. Sometimes they'll race you clean, other times they won't. Instead of being a robot like the AI in GT, there are variables you have to watch out for. While it's not great, and it can get aggravating, it's not nearly as bad as GT penalizing you for contact whether you instigated the impact or not. Though I've read that PD might be changing that so we'll see how that goes.
AI has always been a major flaw of the GT series, that would be plain daft for anyone to deny, and yes the AI in GRiD do make mistakes. That makes it more entertaining without a doubt and adds an extra element to things, but the manner in which they drive (which is rarely clean) is not realistic.
I am again however talking with reference to previous versions of the series, which had far better AI. Every previous version of the series (TOCA and Race Driver) had AI that was both clean while being aggressive and challenging. GRiD took that and just increased the aggression, Demolition Derby is the only race type the AI is realistic in.
I'll have to get those at some point when I have some extra cash.
And once you have you will see my point in regard to the AI in GRiD, hell pick up a copy of Race Driver 3 for the PS2, that's got far more realistic AI than either GT or GRiD (and despite also using fixed point rotation on the physics is better done that GRiD).
No, I'm not saying they handle the same way, or their speeds/times are comparable. But what I'm saying is that you can use the same marks in almost every corner to start braking, turning, accelerating, etc, regardless of the car you're in.
You are aware that racing lines on a track do not vary wildly from car to car?
Yes the distances you brake from will vary (but actual tyre compound and speed will determine that as much, if not more than the car itself). The same is true to a degree of clipping, apex and throttle application points.
The silly degree of freedom that GRiD allows you is not realistic at all.
And that's where I have to ask the question... Has anyone in here actually driven a race car? If not, how could you possibly know what the handling and physics of one feels like. It's easy for us to liken the physics engine of GT to our personal vehicles or others we've driving in the past because they're just every day cars. But to actually claim that the physics of a Toyota Minolta are accurate simply because the physics of a Honda Accord are is preposterous. The fact of the matter is that if you want an easy win with Grid, go to the easier modes and whip the car around all you like. Get into the harder modes and you'll notice a huge difference in the physics of the cars, especially since you're forced to drive a more realistic line.
Yes I have, over the years I have driven a number of track and hill climb converted cars (mainly hot-hatches and saloon cars), a few open wheel race cars (Formula Ford and Caterhams), a Clio V6 Trophy (Mk1) and a Radical SR3. I've also driven a number of FWD, RWD and 4WD rally cars, in addition to a number of semi-competition spec Land Rovers.
In addition I have worked in the motor industry for well over a decade, working for manufacturers and third party companies, a good period of that has been spent in training, which has included driver training, vehicle evaluation and vehicle dynamics training. In all its given me a lot of track and proving ground experience, given me access to the majority of UK sold road cars and a very, very good understanding of exactly how a car reacts dynamically. Hell I still have my subscription to Racecar Engineering.
So I do hate to break it to you, because while the limits are of course different, the physics involved in modelling an Accord and a Le Man car, are exactly the same. race cars and road cars do not operate to differing laws of physics.
Almost every competition in this group has been based in Arcade mode. That's why I can't stand to participate in any of them. I like to set up my cars a specific way, and I like to take the time to tweak the hell out of them. So racing in Arcade mode is completely worthless, but that's usually all I find in here.
The set-up and tuning forums tell a very different story, and I have participated in a number of series here that have not used Arcade. All you have to do is step outside the OLR series.
And that's just where I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The only track to really compare the two games is Sarth... I find both sets of cars from either game to handle very similar to one another on the track. In Grid, understeer is as much a problem as GT on that track as well. And I don't know about you, but I'm the jerk that races all of the races in GT in A-spec. I don't have a single B-spec mile on my game and I've gotten 100%. Yes, that's more than 100hrs on endurance races alone.
We will, because GRiD doesn't feel ro react the same as GT4, and is a very long way from GT5
(and not in a good way if you are after a sim).
I'm not saying it's impossible at all. I'm saying that the prices aren't going to be the exact same with every car... Not every car will have the buildable options that GT gives them. However, it's just not practical or even realistic in any way to assume anyone would do such things. I mean, sure, there's someone out there that'll try anything once, but to think that people in the masses will dish out that much money on a Civil is ridiculous. I absolutely guarantee that for the more than $150K worth of parts you can put on a Civic in GT, you can put on one in real life for no more than $20K, even $10K is more likely closer.
So you are criticising the GT series for doing the something that every other racing series available does as well?
Actually they have tried a little, in that not every part is available for every car, nor are the prices exactly the same for the same part on differing cars. This is also a strange thing to pick the GT series up on given that GRiD doesn't even give you that, and TRD2 and 3 (which did) had the exact same issue.
Have you played GTA4 yet? If so, you know the immense amount of memory it takes up on your PS3, you also know the outrageous detail given to every little thing in the game that is far larger and advanced as a program than GT has ever been and will ever be. And RockStar has done this time and time again, and in far less time than it take PD to come out with the next GT. And while I know they're apples and oranges in most senses, they are alike in the sense that they are and have always been the leaders of their genre, the most innovative, and the most interactive by far. And while GTA has fallen short on graphics up until now, it's still been a far more complicated program overall with far more depth and detail given. This new game officially has 113 cars, with at least three variations of all of them, all highly detailed. Add that do up to 100+ other cars on the screen at one point in time, along with buildings surrounding you, lights flashing everywhere, helicopters flying overhead, the radio playing, etc, etc, all while running at full speed in 1080p, and it puts PD to shame with what it comes out with in three times the time it takes Rockstar to come out with the next best installment of GTA. And it just baffles me as to how PD just can't improve to the standards people expect.
Sorry but GTA4 does not run at 1080P (not even close) and it certainly doesn't maintain a steady frame rate at all, both of these are issues that it has been heavily criticised for.
Yes I have played it and its not even close to comparable, a 100% realistic vehicle handling model alone would be more the PS3 could handle, hell a 100% realistic full model damage simulator takes more power than a PS3 could muster. You seem to be massively underestimating just how complex vehicle dynamics are to model.
Regards
Scaff
Basically, 1080P is a progressive-scan picture, where every line is drawn, and 1080i is an "interlaced" picture, where all the odd lines are drawn, then the even lines in each frame. A 1080p is considered "full HD" because it's drawing every line in sequence each frame, so no visual information is left out. The difference is noticable from a short distance (1080i is a little "fuzzy") but lessens the further away you get 👍
Amazing post. 👍
