GT6 Top Speeds Are Not Realistic, Please Fix PD!

[BWX]

I thought the same thing.
However, I prefer no messing with the sense of speed or with the speed itself



What I think PD needs is a proper competitor on the Playstation. They need a competitor that makes them drop 2/3 of the cars (they just can't manage the huge amount of cars), makes them really think about the physics of the other 400 and makes them really think about the gaming/racing aspects.
I don't know how the physics of pCars are, but looking at the feature list (and graphics and sound) I think it is going to obliterate GT7 unless PD steps up their game. pCars seems to have everything to please the whole GT community, with the exception of a huge car list…

I think a lot of people are going to be disappointment with some aspects of pCars, especially when it comes to realism.. So many are saying "just wait for pCars", etc., etc..


For instance at 9:00 in this interview you can see where they will gladly fudge numbers on tracks such as Nurburgring Nordschleife to make the road "steeper" in places because the actual data doesn't feel "steep enough" in the game.. and in other tracks that they come out with that aren't laser scanned. edit Forgot to say they even mention GT5 there!

If they'll do that with track data, they'll do it in other areas.



At 12:18, the guy (Andy Tudor) gets all defensive when the interviewer asks him about car physics and modeling.


I just wouldn't get your hopes up too much for pCars. I sold back my $50 donation to them.. The physics were terrible anyways. Nice screenshot generator though.

 

[iLex]

I think a lot of people are going to be disappointment with some aspects of pCars, especially when it comes to realism.. So many are saying "just wait for pCars", etc., etc..


For instance at 9:00 in this interview you can see where they will gladly fudge numbers on tracks such as Nurburgring Nordschleife to make the road "steeper" in places because the actual data doesn't feel "steep enough" in the game.. and in other tracks that they come out with that aren't laser scanned. **edit** Forgot to say they even mention GT5 there!

If they'll do that with track data, they'll do it in other areas. Realism purists will not like that. That attitude kill "simulation" aspects of these types of racing games.



At 12:18, the guy (Andy Tudor) gets all pissy and acts like a jerk when the interviewer asks him about car physics and modeling. Defensive much? Hmm, I wonder why he's getting so defensive about car physics and modeling?


I just wouldn't get your hopes up too much for pCars. I sold back my $50 donation to them.. The physics were terrible anyways. Nice screenshot generator though. I wonder if their physics will be anywhere near as good as even GT6's broken and bugged physics, which is good other that these bugs and things that just aren't there at all yet.. Don't even get me started on force feedback.. Well, I guess this thread isn't about pCars, so I'll leave it at that. I could go on though.

Oh, too bad. As I said, I didn't know anything about the modeling in pCars… Was fearing this a bit.
Well, let's just hope it tickles Kaz enough to fundamentally change some things about Gran Turismo.

 

[BWX]

Oh, too bad. As I said, I didn't know anything about the modeling in pCars… Was fearing this a bit.
Well, let's just hope it tickles Kaz enough to fundamentally change some things about Gran Turismo.

We can hope.

 

[jimipitbull]

If that's the case then I wish that those who complained about little sense of speed had kept their opinions to themselves. Slow cars move slowly, fast cars move fast, but if this is 'the real driving simulator' than the speeds should match those of the cars in real life, period.

If on the other hand PD wants to turn this into 'the real arcade simulator' then it's the beginning of the downfall of the title. I want nothing to do with the game if they are moving away from realism just because some seem to think that realistic isn't exciting enough.

There is a disclaimer that appears every time you load GT6. "Cars included in this game may be different from the actual cars in shapes, colors and performance."

GT has always existed in the middle ground between game and sim. To me, GT6 physics feel more realistic than GT5,4,3,2,1, which indicates the series is moving closer to sim.

Anyways, what does a real F40 feel like when it's approaching 200mph - does it feel like you are going faster than that?

 

[Swagger897]

I did use the diameter to calculate the circumference:


I don't really understand what you meant about surface areas. The A.Cd of a car take all the car into account if you are telling tires should have independent aerodynamic models.

Ahh okay. I thought you were just using an interior point on the wheel, and not the outer surface... Carry on.

 

[LVracerGT]

There is a disclaimer that appears every time you load GT6. "Cars included in this game may be different from the actual cars in shapes, colors and performance."

GT has always existed in the middle ground between game and sim. To me, GT6 physics feel more realistic than GT5,4,3,2,1, which indicates the series is moving closer to sim.

Anyways, what does a real F40 feel like when it's approaching 200mph - does it feel like you are going faster than that?

GT advertises itself as "The Real Driving Simulator" It's always supposed to have been a simulator in terms of physics. PD even advertised a completely new aerodynamic model for GT6. It seems that they forgot to incorporate drag and how it becomes more difficult to overcome air resistance the faster you go. Just another example of how unfinished GT6 is, BETA rather than polished at release as it should have been.

I guess I don't pay enough attention to the game loading as I've never noticed the disclaimer you mentioned. But I would bet they added that in there to cover their back ends for how bad the game is in it's current state.

 

[BlueShift]

Ahh okay. I thought you were just using an interior point on the wheel, and not the outer surface... Carry on.

I'm doing way more than carrying on, the result will be a surprise included in S.Q.A.T. (which is still in alpha)
I think I may have something cool to present soon, but not yet.

 

[jimipitbull]

.

I guess I don't pay enough attention to the game loading as I've never noticed the disclaimer you mentioned. But I would bet they added that in there to cover their back ends for how bad the game is in it's current state.

Pretty sure the same disclaimer has been used since GT1 or 2.

Here's the 2005 version...

 

[Exorcet]

I guess I don't pay enough attention to the game loading as I've never noticed the disclaimer you mentioned. But I would bet they added that in there to cover their back ends for how bad the game is in it's current state.

It's been there since GT1.

It's there most likely to counter the case where someone crazy does something in the game, then tries it in real life and becomes injured or damages their car in process because the game and reality weren't exactly the same and then tries to sue PD.

They essentially have to put it there so long as simulators remain imperfect and so long as people will sue for any reason.

 

[Swagger897]

It's been there since GT1.

It's there most likely to counter the case where someone crazy does something in the game, then tries it in real life and becomes injured or damages their car in process because the game and reality weren't exactly the same and then tries to sue PD.

They essentially have to put it there so long as simulators remain imperfect and so long as people will sue for any reason.

Same story with GTA...

 

[jlmcmillan1978]

There is a disclaimer that appears every time you load GT6. "Cars included in this game may be different from the actual cars in shapes, colors and performance."

GT has always existed in the middle ground between game and sim. To me, GT6 physics feel more realistic than GT5,4,3,2,1, which indicates the series is moving closer to sim.

Anyways, what does a real F40 feel like when it's approaching 200mph - does it feel like you are going faster than that?

I can't describe what a real F40 feels like at any speed (I wish!! ). What I can see, from in game tests vs car specification facts is that every car in game now will do a higher top speed than it's real world counterpart is capable of. Didn't happen in GT5, come to think of it cars didn't lift up on their noses with their back wheels 2m off the deck under heavy braking either. So where are these 'more realistic' GT6 physics hey? I suppose at least for the first time ever we can roll the car over if we get it really wrong.

 

[jimipitbull]

I can't describe what a real F40 feels like at any speed (I wish!! ). What I can see, from in game tests vs car specification facts is that every car in game now will do a higher top speed than it's real world counterpart is capable of. Didn't happen in GT5, come to think of it cars didn't lift up on their noses with their back wheels 2m off the deck under heavy braking either. So where are these 'more realistic' GT6 physics hey? I suppose at least for the first time ever we can roll the car over if we get it really wrong.

Testing the boundaries of a simulation has no impact on how the physics feel.

 

[YZF]

Today I took Enzo for a spin on my 'test-track' (Fuji GT) and I was shocked at the unrealistic acceleration this car has in GT6.

I remembered the Enzo top speed video i saw some years ago on youtube and made timed comparison:

In real life, Enzo accelerates from 200km to 300km/h in about 15 seconds, while in game (stock) Enzo does that in about 10 seconds!

IRL: 200-320km/h takes about 21sec
GT6 (v1.04): 200-320km/h takes about 13sec !!

So not only top speeds but overall aero (presumably) physics are totally wrong..... for some cars?

 

[andryush]

GT6 cars have simply better quality fuel

I heard somewhere that GT6 has 125hz physics engine, compared to 500hz physics engine in GT5... somebody knows something about that?

 

[Griffith500]

GT6 cars have simply better quality fuel

I heard somewhere that GT6 has 125hz physics engine, compared to 500hz physics engine in GT5... somebody knows something about that?

How are we supposed to test or verify that?

Visually, there appears to be no difference in the responsiveness of a car's pitch when changing gears compared with GT5, and that's with the suspension being sensibly damped now as a result of the new model. There is still artificial damping (time smoothing) coming from a relatively slow physics tick. There's nothing there to suggest it's slower, either.

But the physics engine has bigger problems than that; well they weren't conceived as problems, but times have moved on, and I wouldn't be surprised if PD is mothballing this one.

 

[andryush]

Well, in GT5 cars are more loose, it's easy to loose controll and go sideways, while in gt6 all cars are tamed down when compared to GT5. Maybe it's proof of lower frequency physics/less physics calculations per second in GT6? And since there's less physics per second, aerodynamics got cut also - aero not affecting PP anymore.

 

[Griffith500]

Hmmm, I don't share that appraisal of GT6 compared with GT5. It wouldn't prove anything, either.

 

[YZF]

After updating game to 1.05: Nothing was fixed. Just tried SL55AMG (stock) and sure enough, I reached unrealistic 370km/h on Route X (instead of real world tested ~325km/h)

PD is useless...

 

[YZF]

Patch 1.06: no fixes to broken physics! Unrealistic top speeds still there.

 

[eran0004]

GT advertises itself as "The Real Driving Simulator" It's always supposed to have been a simulator in terms of physics. PD even advertised a completely new aerodynamic model for GT6. It seems that they forgot to incorporate drag and how it becomes more difficult to overcome air resistance the faster you go. Just another example of how unfinished GT6 is, BETA rather than polished at release as it should have been.

Of course there is drag in the game, don't be silly. If there weren't any drag the top speed would be limited only by the gearbox. The drag value is simply too low, that's all.

 

[Z1-AV69]

My guess is, they went with the low drag to keep downforce out of the PP equation. Changing downforce on racecars doesn't change PP and the laptimes are very similar too. Downside is how roadcars get way too much topspeed to compensate for their lack of downforce at some PP. A very arcadeish decision if you ask me, bad idea.

 

[YZF]

They managed to get +- correct top speeds for GT5.

Just keep them the same, that's it.

 

[coolboy48]

How do GT6's race cars with high downforce do top speed wise? Especially those with >200 downforce 'points' front and rear.

My current assumption is that PD's simulation simply made downforce = primary component of drag, thus greatly reducing or even nullifying the effect that coefficient of drag, frontal area, body shape, and the rest do, also neglecting lift. Maybe it uses a generic 'base' overall drag value for every car. (A Honda Element as aerodynamic as a C7 Corvette, sounds about right...)

Certain GT6 road cars, perhaps wrongly, have 0 downforce points too, even higher end stuff like the 15th anniversary SRT Viper which are claimed to be 'neutral' or even downforce producers at very high speeds. This, of course, makes GT6's situation even more complicated and erroneous.

GT5 did do 'stock' drag and top speeds acceptably for a majority of road cars when geared accurately (most power curves were decent enough), at the cost of having downforce somehow take effect even when moving off from a standstill and it not impacting drag significantly.

This isn't ideal either compared to 'real' life where it's really on a case by case basis.
E.g. Manufacturers sometimes claim a tweak to reduce lift/ increase downforce also reduces the cd.

('Real' meaning the ideal variables and all that allow cars to meet all their manufacturers' sometimes lofty claims that are occasionally either exceeded or proven untrue. Independent wind tunnel testing for every car is kinda expensive though.)

TL;DR. My opinion based on the thread title is that a minority of cars were, due to aero drag, nerfed or overpowered top speed wise in 5, while all cars are the latter in 6. Downforce values for road cars are fairly arbitrary regardless of game and excess aero lift still isn't an issue. So the new aero model isn't an improvement overall.

 

[YZF]

I have a feeling that all cars, which go faster than 300kph/180mph, have unrealistic top speeds. So it's an aero engine problem overall.

Up to 200kph, acceleration seems accurate, but after that it starts to go off. Meaning it accelerates much faster than it should and either hits rev limiter in top gear or if the ratios are long enough, achieves 30-40mph higher top speed.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I get the feeling that PD are trying to build up the physics layer by layer until the result is representative of real-life. Rather than working backwards from the expected result to a baseline equation.

 

[SavageEvil]

Interesting thread, looks like the assumption is PD isn't calculating power loss from handing off. Now let's get this stuff to the appropriate thread and hope PD can find it among the throngs of other thread in here.

Ok anyone doing any testing on the aero as I feel like there is seriously something up with PD purposely limiting add on wings to 30 levels of downforce which is clearly rubbish. Also since the update I noticed that PD do not allow the rear wing to go higher than the roofline. PD also does not allow front end downforce even on cars that have adjustable front downforce like the '13 Shelby. Are they applying the Bernouilli Principle well the positioning of rear wings seems to imply that they are aware of the principle. All road cars produce lift unless they are specifically designed to produce downforce all road cars will get light in the rear at high speeds and even at the front end because of low pressure air over the hood and high pressure at the roof. I would love to see this explored some more and spoilers as an option for sedans.
The bernoulli principle is why the Prius is shaped like that less negative pressure at the rear since it allows for reattachment of air flow over the car at the rear. I mean PD's vaunted X cars basically utilize this principle to have cars that attempt to keep air moving smoothly over that car and downforce that keeps the car glued to the pavement. Lets have some of that working correctly for all the other cars.

 

[YZF]

So, updated to v. 1.07, and unrealistic top speeds are still there. Cars are doing much much higher top speeds than they should.

My usual test car, SL 55 AMG (and many others as well) does the crazy and totally unrealistic 370kph top speed, full stock, no tune.

Now that's a nonsence PD, what do you say?

 

[PlayerONE7125]

My c7 corvette hits 234 mph!! And the zr1 hits about 10mph more on tge straights than in gt5

 

[jlmcmillan1978]

So, updated to v. 1.07, and unrealistic top speeds are still there. Cars are doing much much higher top speeds than they should.

My usual test car, SL 55 AMG (and many others as well) does the crazy and totally unrealistic 370kph top speed, full stock, no tune.

Now that's a nonsence PD, what do you say?

PD is just not interested in fixing this. I really can't maintain my love of the franchise for much longer, GT6 is such a joke.

 

[YZF]

I can imagine some other issues that might be difficult to fix / understand / recreate, etc.

But this one is so obvious and so basic and yet after 5 months we don't even know if they are aware of it?? And what were those GT6 'testers' doing?