Inacurate steering simulation with wheel

[RC45]

The reason your lap times are so good is because Gran Turismo physics aren't accurate.

Your actual point being? Perhaps my lap times are so good in the "game" because I figured how to enjoy it - something you apparently cant do because you are spending more time complaining than playing it.

If they where accurate you'd probably suck as much as you do with your real life driving.

Really? And you know exactly what about my real life driving?

I enjoy over analyzing every aspect of racing simulators (and other things in life). I'm also hoping this feedback finds its way to the creators of this wonderful game. Perhaps they'll use it to improve it.

And you some how think you "thought of all these criticisms" of their product and they haven't?

If you don't like it I suggest you go to some other forum and brag about your great racing skills over there.

Is there a reason why this great forum is poluted by so many angry complainers?

This thread is about a laundry list of complaints some people are experiencing.. and others of us aren't and are enjoying the "game" - so why all the anger just because some of us are enjoying the game and don't believe what you are experiencing is a problem?

 

[Tenacious D]

ebart, don't feel like you're the only squeaky wheel.

There have been quite a number of people who have complained that Gran Turismo isn't all that great, or even that it's downright appalling. They hold out either Enthusia, Toca, LFS, GTR, rFactor or some other game as utterly superior. I've had to look at things in relation to my own admittedly hobbyist experience with high performance driving. And okay, GT isn't nailing some aspects of driving physics just right. It's still really close, and close enough that there aren't that many aspects of racing you just can't handle properly.

For that matter, all those other games leave me wanting something too.

I think the main problem with GT, and I think it's the bigger one, is that the grip envelope is a bit too mushy. If the tires, including the N class street tires, lost and regained grip more tangibly and distinctly, I think that would be a big help. Another related issue is the tire squeal. People have unfairly complained about it for years now. So now we have squeals which kind of sound like a pterodactyl. And they don't seem to track the grip envelope and edge of loss as well as GT4's samples did.

It's possible that Kaz and the lads are being pushed around from too many different directions, but who really knows. I do think that some criticism at this stage is a good idea. But don't be indignant if we kind of shrug a bit, because we've heard it all before, for years now.

 

[LANDO]

Have you tried with Professional wheel setting instead of Simulation?

Those settings do not affect to Driving Force Pro. If you see the the options menu in GT HD it clearly says that. Also you can see when you select that option the icon of the DFP lights off.

 

[unv412]

I think all the complaining comes from the fact that GT is the biggest console driving game in history, so we expect alot from them because they seemed to deliver in the past (GT1/2/3 even 4 just on grafix and cars) . I personally loved Enthusia but, I have given up on there being a sequel with more cars better grafix and nicer structue....so all hope left lies with PD. I mean we look at LFS and applaud them for what they did with 3 people devolping that game, but if they ever tackled the scope acheived by PD on there 5th edition and not lived up to the hype.....we'd complain about them too!!!!!

 

[ebart]

It's still really close, and close enough that there aren't that many aspects of racing you just can't handle properly.

This is, however, the first GT for the PS3. The PS2 simply didn't have enough processing power to do real-time simulation calculations. The PS3, however, looks like it has enough power to do so. I agree they don't have to implement every single physics aspect. I do, however, like to see them implementing as much as possible. I think GT5 should at least sport a proper understeering simulation. But that's just my opinion.

For that matter, all those other games leave me wanting something too.

I totally agree. I personally really love the LFS experience. I just think it lacks real production cars. I also don't like the fact that there's so many tuning possibilities. That really makes it hard to compete with people who have enough time to create a good setup. GT5 Prologue looked like it was shaping up to have everything I want in a racing simulator.

I think the main problem with GT, and I think it's the bigger one, is that the grip envelope is a bit too mushy. If the tires, including the N class street tires, lost and regained grip more tangibly and distinctly, I think that would be a big help. Another related issue is the tire squeal. People have unfairly complained about it for years now. So now we have squeals which kind of sound like a pterodactyl. And they don't seem to track the grip envelope and edge of loss as well as GT4's samples did.

Good point. I was thinking in that direction too. Perhaps it's a thing with the tire traction. Although other traction aspects seem to work acceptable.

It's possible that Kaz and the lads are being pushed around from too many different directions, but who really knows. I do think that some criticism at this stage is a good idea. But don't be indignant if we kind of shrug a bit, because we've heard it all before, for years now.

Well, I hope I started the first thread about this subject for GT5. The important thing is that there's still time before they release the final version of GT5. I can only imagine the GT5 team is very interested in feedback from the community at this stage. I think I'd be too if I were to develop such a game. Perhaps it will result in the ultimate driving simulator that everybody loves, setting the new standard!

Of course everyone is free to start threads about how much they love GT5 and how much fun it is. But this is a thread about the steering simulation of GT5.

Those settings do not affect to Driving Force Pro. If you see the the options menu in GT HD it clearly says that. Also you can see when you select that option the icon of the DFP lights off.

I have a Logitech WingMan Formula GP. It should apply to me. But I don't think it's the problem.

 

[Tenacious D]

The important thing is that there's still time before they release the final version of GT5. I can only imagine the GT5 team is very interested in feedback from the community at this stage. I think I'd be too if I were to develop such a game. Perhaps it will result in the ultimate driving simulator that everybody loves, setting the new standard!

They released/are releasing Prologue partly for that very thing. Unless Polyphony have a roster of a chosen few gamers from around the world who secretly got their copies, the only way Kaz and the lads have to judge our opinions is to browse boards like this one, possibly this one in particular since it seems to be the largest and best. And they do want to assess:

• How the net code is working, and how much they can fill it with content and options while still being tight.
• How well the enthusiast community likes their work and level of simulation.
• What more we really insist HAS to be in the final game.

So, yeah, be happy that you're contributing to the details they have to add to the heap. And I'm with you in wanting as much sim as the team is willing to give us.

Oh, and on that. What I'd really like to see is an engine that really captures as much of the real life feel of these cars in Simulation Mode as possible. If they can't do it in one engine, I'd rather they create a whole new finicky engine for the Sim Mode, rather like they did for GT2. It came on two discs, Arcade and Simulation, so if one engine forces too many compromises, I'd rather they go the GT2 route with a dual engine game. They have the space for it with Blu-ray. Heck, even in Arcade Mode, they can have two settings, Standard and Professional like they have in Prologue now.

 

[RC45]

So, yeah, be happy that you're contributing to the details they have to add to the heap. And I'm with you in wanting as much sim as the team is willing to give us.

But be careful what you ask for - because I am getting the idea the majority of users/posters of this forum have little to no on-track experience, and are really "imagining" what certain aspects, feedbacks and impressions should be like... and are not basing their criticisms and requests on real life exposure.

Remember - again - the actual development team have tons of track time and vast experience driving a huge variety of cars in high speed situaiotns and are all car nuts - so for a moment why not imagine they know exactly what they want and how it should feel based on their first hand experience, and don't assume they are bunch of accountants in a boardroom.

My fear is that the "dreamers" will get what they think feels the most real, and those with actual tracktime and pracitical experience to compare against will get to "just live with what the masses thinks feel the most real".

I am not trying to be an arse here - just wondering exactly how many of the loudest "counter pointers" have actual experience to base their oppositions and requests on.

If everyone here commenting has multiple car track time then I am sorry for doubting anyone and will shutup and go sit in the corner... but I am guessing its a safe bet the minority have real high speed track time not the majority (and "high speed street driving" is NOT the same a race track time)

I will be pleasently surprised and suitably impressed if I am proven wrong - afetrall the more tarck enthusiasts the better

 

[hunter_jc]

Personally i think the GTHD engine improved a lot compare to GT4. I think there are way too many other settings for GT5, thus it is much harder to get the best simulation mode. From what i heard of ebart. Knowing what is 0 and 1 does not qualify for talking about the GT game development. Everyone knows the basic physics formula but there are so many things that occur in a real racing car and talk about 16 cars on the track at the same time. PS3 is just good enough to do part of the calculations. If you think the PS3 is good enough for such simulation then why would Formula 1 manufacturer has to spend millions of dollars for those supercomputer??

 

[ebart]

Here's what I think: I think GT5 Prologue *does* have proper physics implemented with understeering situations. The problem is that a lot of people will be playing this game with a controller and it's simply impossible to navigate a car around a track with such an input device if all the physics elements would be in effect. People would most likely get into an understeering situation constantly because the controller stick doesn't allow for finegrained input. Would anyone dare driving your car in real life with a PS3 controller?? I think not.

I believe Polyphony tried to solve this problem by somehow maximizing the amount of steering input when the car is cruising at higher speeds. In effect letting the amount of steering be controlled by the speed of the car and not the steering input of the controller. I think Polyphony considers the controller as the main input device and us wheel users are suffering from this same limited behavior. I wouldn't be surprised if all they'd have to do is to simply remove this routine and everything would work as expected.

But be careful what you ask for - because I am getting the idea the majority of users/posters of this forum have little to no on-track experience, and are really "imagining" what certain aspects, feedbacks and impressions should be like... and are not basing their criticisms and requests on real life exposure.

You're right RC45. I've never been on a track. You are the expert and I'm not. I'm simply getting a feeling that something isn't right and am trying to translate that feeling here. I was actually hoping someone like you could provide us with proper insight! So are you saying that GT5 is properly simulating an understeering situation? Do real life cars behave the same way? Or are you saying we shouldn't be too critical and accept some shortcomings? Your experienced input is greatly appreciated.

Something else, RC45. Most of us unfortunately don't have the luxury of visiting a track. Are you going to be on a track soon? I think it would be seriously cool if you could do some understeering tests in real life and perhaps put some video's online.

 

[Wolfe]

I think the main problem with GT, and I think it's the bigger one, is that the grip envelope is a bit too mushy. If the tires, including the N class street tires, lost and regained grip more tangibly and distinctly, I think that would be a big help.

👍

I think it's more than just the tires, though. Ever since GT3, the series' suspension modelling seems to have been getting worse. Hell, when I drove the V35 Skyline in GTHD:Concept, I could have sworn I was in a dinghy on the open sea, tossing and turning in the waves. The games appear to have simply lost any sense of sharp handling.

This is, however, the first GT for the PS3. The PS2 simply didn't have enough processing power to do real-time simulation calculations.

Sure it did. Richard Burns Rally and Enthusia Professional Racing are prime examples of this. In any case, it doesn't really matter anymore now that the latest Gran Turismo will be on the PS3.

Remember - again - the actual development team have tons of track time and vast experience driving a huge variety of cars in high speed situaiotns and are all car nuts - so for a moment why not imagine they know exactly what they want and how it should feel based on their first hand experience, and don't assume they are bunch of accountants in a boardroom.

Actually, when Polyphony Digital is working on a game, they tend to stay inside the office, living and sleeping there, not even driving between home and work (no, seriously). And I doubt any track testing sessions they've performed were done with the entire development team getting a chance behind the wheel. They probably have dedicated drivers so that any data they take is reasonably consistent.

I am not trying to be an arse here - just wondering exactly how many of the loudest "counter pointers" have actual experience to base their oppositions and requests on.

If everyone here commenting has multiple car track time then I am sorry for doubting anyone and will shutup and go sit in the corner... but I am guessing its a safe bet the minority have real high speed track time not the majority (and "high speed street driving" is NOT the same a race track time)

I will be pleasently surprised and suitably impressed if I am proven wrong - afetrall the more tarck enthusiasts the better

I drove two laps around the Nürburgring Nordschleife in 2005, participated in an autocross this last fall, and over the years have done plenty of performance driving of questionable legality. I drive a RWD car daily and year-round, and when it rains or snows I enjoy probing its oversteer-related handling limits in an empty and relatively safe place.

I base my perceptions of handling and driving physics on my real-world experience and physics discussions with knowledgable GTP members like Scaff, and also use that experience and those discussions to evaluate the areas in which Live for Speed (which I consider to be the closest thing to reality available) could be considered questionable. From that point, for convenience and safety, I often use Live for Speed as a benchmark against other driving sims for testing high-speed maneuvers that would be impractical to attempt to perform in real life.

However, my real-world experience is all I need to conclude that I have yet to play a Polyphony Digital game I consider reasonably "realistic." GT3 was the closest they've come, though I bet GT5P is significantly better.

Here's what I think: I think GT5 Prologue *does* have proper physics implemented with understeering situations. The problem is that a lot of people will be playing this game with a controller and it's simply impossible to navigate a car around a track with such an input device if all the physics elements would be in effect. People would most likely get into an understeering situation constantly because the controller stick doesn't allow for finegrained input. Would anyone dare driving your car in real life with a PS3 controller?? I think not.

I believe Polyphony tried to solve this problem by somehow maximizing the amount of steering input when the car is cruising at higher speeds. In effect letting the amount of steering be controlled by the speed of the car and not the steering input of the controller. I think Polyphony considers the controller as the main input device and us wheel users are suffering from this same limited behavior. I wouldn't be surprised if all they'd have to do is to simply remove this routine and everything would work as expected.

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- no matter what control input you use, the physics remain exactly the same. A physics engine does not have to be compromised by the need to cater to a controller-user, either -- the very thing you described in that second paragraph is what console sim developers use to make the controller usable. They have the game "second-guess" your inputs so that you can't go from full-lock to full-lock in a fraction of a second and you don't have to worry about moving the stick half way for pretty much every corner.

Don't worry about your experience with a wheel being tainted by the game being designed for a controller. That hasn't happened since GT3. Trust me, you're getting the fullest experience PD can give you.

As for the topic of understeer, again, I have yet to play GT5P, but in GT4 and GTHD, the problem isn't that understeer is excessive. The problem is that oversteer is inaccurate (and in the case of GT4, severely underpronounced). To put it another way, understeer is simulated just fine, but the game can't really simulate anything else, so it's all you get.

If it means anything to you, I've heard from a few people that I trust here at GTP that GT5P's oversteer is very much improved.

 

[Tenacious D]

But be careful what you ask for - because I am getting the idea the majority of users/posters of this forum have little to no on-track experience, and are really "imagining" what certain aspects, feedbacks and impressions should be like... and are not basing their criticisms and requests on real life exposure.

Well, I'm not too worried for a couple of reasons.

One, I think a properly rendered game will give sufficient feedback to give anyone with a reasonable level of skill and experience with a car to race it reasonably well. And further, to learn what the car is telling you and what it wants to go even faster. Within reason of course.

Two, that Kaz and the lads aren't going to leave the noobs and little kids hanging. There's always an Arcade Mode, and even from what little bits have been coming out about GT5 itself, perhaps even three levels of physics, unless the translators have been confusing the menu listings of the Wheel response.

In any case, there will be a short ladder to help out those who can't really just grab a LeMans car with proper physics and be competitive. Those can just jump in and race like they always did in GT, and those who want more can dig in to Simulation Mode. And both modes should be able to school you, along with the darn license tests, to show you how to drive properly GT style.

Another thing is what you remarked about there, is that I'm not really seeing too many outrageous requests from users that would break the game. Aside from the spinners and blingy rimz. For the most part, people are just asking for as much of that real life feel of being in a Ferrari or a race car as they can get in Gran Turismo.

Remember - again - the actual development team have tons of track time and vast experience driving a huge variety of cars in high speed situaiotns and are all car nuts - so for a moment why not imagine they know exactly what they want and how it should feel based on their first hand experience, and don't assume they are bunch of accountants in a boardroom.

Well, one thing on that. There are many in Polyphony digital who are well versed in the finer aspects of racing and motorsports. I have a feeling the chief architects of GT's game engine, the Seven Samurai, have been schooled by Kaz and other pro drivers in how a car behaves. As for the rest, some have some car experience, some have a passing knowledge, and some are just plain computer geeks.

That doesn't deny what you say in the least, especially since Kazunori-dono himself is quite the accomplished racer, it's just a point of clarification, and may have a bearing on people insisting that GT have some aspects dumbed down for the rabble. And there's also the point of building a racing game around a base of hand controller users, which I'll get to below.

The problem is that a lot of people will be playing this game with a controller and it's simply impossible to navigate a car around a track with such an input device if all the physics elements would be in effect. People would most likely get into an understeering situation constantly because the controller stick doesn't allow for finegrained input. Would anyone dare driving your car in real life with a PS3 controller?? I think not.

I am in agreement with you on that. I've had quite a discussion on the boards some time ago with a few members who insisted that a hand controller was sufficient to get a realistic feel for how a car handled - see Wolfe's reply previously. I tried to be adamant without getting mouthy that cars didn't use anything like that, only games, so whatever you thought was right or wrong about GT with a controller was in relation to other video games.

I also think this is a big issue with racing games. I think it's high time that the game engines, in addition to being split up over arcade and sim physics, also had routines coded that properly fed the inputs from a wheel controller, and a whole other set of code for hand controllers.

I believe Polyphony tried to solve this problem by somehow maximizing the amount of steering input when the car is cruising at higher speeds. In effect letting the amount of steering be controlled by the speed of the car and not the steering input of the controller.

I said something very like this earlier in the thread, but it seems to be a universal problem with video games.

I'm simply getting a feeling that something isn't right and am trying to translate that feeling here. I was actually hoping someone like you could provide us with proper insight! So are you saying that GT5 is properly simulating an understeering situation? Do real life cars behave the same way? Or are you saying we shouldn't be too critical and accept some shortcomings?

In my own case, I think many of us can understand that GT gets much of the driving and racing aspects right, but a few things are fudged a bit. There are some nuances, like those who bring up the donut/spinout/drift dynamics, or in my case, the grip envelope of the various grades of tires, and along with that, the sound samples applied during that envelope.

To some people, those nuances are deal breakers. Most of us though just kind of shrug it off and learn the rules GT style. I'm not sure what else to say in this regard because the game isn't finished yet. I have no idea what the physics will be like in a year, or the understeering characteristics, or the grip dynamics of the tires, or the sound samples applied to them. It is beneficial to discuss them now, because as I said before, relating what Kaz himself stated, that Prologue is a test case to see what we find favor with, what we find realistic and reasonable, and what more we want.

 

[unv412]

But be careful what you ask for - because I am getting the idea the majority of users/posters of this forum have little to no on-track experience, and are really "imagining" what certain aspects, feedbacks and impressions should be like... and are not basing their criticisms and requests on real life exposure.

Remember - again - the actual development team have tons of track time and vast experience driving a huge variety of cars in high speed situaiotns and are all car nuts - so for a moment why not imagine they know exactly what they want and how it should feel based on their first hand experience, and don't assume they are bunch of accountants in a boardroom.

My fear is that the "dreamers" will get what they think feels the most real, and those with actual tracktime and pracitical experience to compare against will get to "just live with what the masses thinks feel the most real".

I am not trying to be an arse here - just wondering exactly how many of the loudest "counter pointers" have actual experience to base their oppositions and requests on.

If everyone here commenting has multiple car track time then I am sorry for doubting anyone and will shutup and go sit in the corner... but I am guessing its a safe bet the minority have real high speed track time not the majority (and "high speed street driving" is NOT the same a race track time)

I will be pleasently surprised and suitably impressed if I am proven wrong - afetrall the more tarck enthusiasts the better

I'm guessing there would be a minority of guys here on GTPanet with substantial track time. That said most would know how a car should behave at high speeds. Basically short of having the racers from Best Motoring contributing on this forum (as they are the guys who have driven mostly standard cars really hard) its hard to beleive anyone!!!!!! My driving creds are 4 laps of the ring in 2003 with a E Class Merc rental, 3 dedicated track days at Wakefield Park (Ausie track) in a mix of rental BA falcon/VY SS Commodore, and some seriously dumb stuff on the street in all kinds of standard/modified cars, but mostly my standard R31 GTS-x Skyline and my weekender HK Monaro 68 (race 383 chev). I have lots of friends who have had 100 times the track day experiance that i have had.....but when they drive its never 10/10ths (or even 8/10 ths) because of either mechanical sympathy or talent? All this means is that no one here qualifies to be supreme judge on real life physics (unless there signon name is Gan-San) but everyones entitled to request their likes or dislikes.

 

[RC45]

All this means is that no one here qualifies to be supreme judge on real life physics (unless there signon name is Gan-San) but everyones entitled to request their likes or dislikes.

Exactly - however when one person says "XY does not feel real" and another says ""Yes it does" it goes more to prove that the "perception" is very subjective - and not really a validation of the accuracy of the physics model but rtaher the presentation of the sum of the parts.

Some people rave about NetKar and Live for Speed, yet even those "sims" rely on all their "feedback" coming via sound and steering wheel feedback.

So until the home simulator models the input and feedback in 3 dimensions the "reality" (ignoring the obvious arcade games) is all in the eye of beholder.

 

[ebart]

Exactly - however when one person says "XY does not feel real" and another says ""Yes it does" it goes more to prove that the "perception" is very subjective - and not really a validation of the accuracy of the physics model but rtaher the presentation of the sum of the parts.

Well, RC45, there's a nice summary of human behavior. Someone thinks 'A' and someone else thinks 'B'. Then those people then go and talk about their views on a forum. This is sometimes also called "communication". It's what people do. And you can't go around on a forum telling people to stop talking about a subject because they're not all-knowing. Nobody knows "the truth" for 100%. Neither do you.

But I'm probably feeding the troll here. If this were my forum I would've banned you ages ago.

 

[Tenacious D]

Well, now, he does have a point. Because video game racing takes place in a virtual world which is an approximation of the real world, to one degree or another, the experience is much more subjective or visceral than objective.

Take the first turn at Fuji. I think only Formula 1 drivers follow a set path with any real precision, and of course they drive cars with enough downforce to yank a manhole cover 50 feet in the air. They're the closest thing to flying a jet fighter a civilian will ever get. So everyone else drives their car to it, and more or less take it the same way. But they can do it because it's really there, and they feel a million things from their race cars and the track. And even then, things sometimes just don't work as they'd expect, they slide off the track or spin out or hit an opponent or whatever. Do they say reality is broken?

We're lucky that we do half as good as we do in these games. Of course things are simplified to help us out, and yet all some of us can do is complain.

Okay, so there's room for improvement. But it's not helpful to overstate things to allude to the fact that GT is broken and needs to be scrapped, starting from scratch. Likewise, saying everything's peachy is just clinging to the easy sequel, much like the last game. So let's play nice in this area.

 

[ebart]

Well, now, he does have a point. Because video game racing takes place in a virtual world which is an approximation of the real world, to one degree or another, the experience is much more subjective or visceral than objective.

Take the first turn at Fuji. I think only Formula 1 drivers follow a set path with any real precision, and of course they drive cars with enough downforce to yank a manhole cover 50 feet in the air. They're the closest thing to flying a jet fighter a civilian will ever get. So everyone else drives their car to it, and more or less take it the same way. But they can do it because it's really there, and they feel a million things from their race cars and the track. And even then, things sometimes just don't work as they'd expect, they slide off the track or spin out or hit an opponent or whatever. Do they say reality is broken?

We're lucky that we do half as good as we do in these games. Of course things are simplified to help us out, and yet all some of us can do is complain.

Okay, so there's room for improvement. But it's not helpful to overstate things to allude to the fact that GT is broken and needs to be scrapped, starting from scratch. Likewise, saying everything's peachy is just clinging to the easy sequel, much like the last game. So let's play nice in this area.

I'm not complaining. But I'm not here to give a fuzzy happy feeling about GT5P either. I'm a realistic person trying to have a serious discussion about a game that's shaping up to become something great. If I wouldn't believe in a game I wouldn't even bother starting a discussion about it.

So here I am. I'm not stupid. I think I'm quite capable of detecting false car behavior. And I'm simply stating that a certain aspect of this game doesn't feel accurate. It involves understeering. Either agree or disagree with that statement. Anyway I'd like to hear some arguments that backup someone's point of view. Don't go around telling me my entire statement is bull**** because someone thinks I'm an amateur driver. I think I've made a legal statement. I've provided numerous arguments and theories to back it up. If anyone disagrees, backup your point of view as opposed to bog down on me as a person. It's disrespectful.

The funny thing is that I've never had such feelings with LFS. Everything just immediately felt right. I was seriously impressed how real it felt. I think it's safe to say I've even improved my real life driving skills by experimenting with LFS. And that's what a (real life-)simulator should be all about. Otherwise don't call it a simulator. Call it a fun racing game.

 

[hunter_jc]

What discussion? You have already made up your mind. If your standard is Live For Speed then Live For Speed fits you. Glad you like something. Move on.

 

[RC45]

Well, RC45, there's a nice summary of human behavior. Someone thinks 'A' and someone else thinks 'B'. Then those people then go and talk about their views on a forum. This is sometimes also called "communication". It's what people do. And you can't go around on a forum telling people to stop talking about a subject because they're not all-knowing. Nobody knows "the truth" for 100%. Neither do you.

Yet some how YOU know the truth? I never claimed to know the truth - but I am convinced you have little real world experience to back up your opinions and that most of your opions are just that "opinions" not based in practice.

This thread is about discusison the "reality" of the steering wheel in GT5 - and I am saying to folks who want to read, that based on my experience (whihc includes a bit of at the limit track work), the wheel has a great and realistic feeling.

Your opinion is it doesn't. But that doesnt change how it feels to me and others in my opinion (note its my opinon and you are free to disagree all you want) it feels good enough for the game to be fun and very playable, and I would not be bothered if it stayed the same until the games launch - I want to be sure they dont neglect other features as they try "improve" the steering - if they do great, but its not a deal breaker for me - again your opinion is different.

BTW, if I want som "real feedback" - I just go drive a real car - this is a game after all

*edit* - and if a "real" simulation feel is what I deisre, then GT Legends is also an option - GTR2 with the "real physics" update - but those are PC racing sims, not "visually stunning console titles" - which is where the Gran Turismo franchise fits in - don't forget to keep this in mind

But I'm probably feeding the troll here. If this were my forum I would've banned you ages ago.

Go ahead and report me to the site owner - but I dont see anywhere that I have posted anything to warrant banning - is it possible you have been caught out by someone who really knows "the feel of driving at the limit" and now you are being exposed as little bit of a fibber?

 

[ebart]

As for the topic of understeer, again, I have yet to play GT5P, but in GT4 and GTHD, the problem isn't that understeer is excessive. The problem is that oversteer is inaccurate (and in the case of GT4, severely underpronounced). To put it another way, understeer is simulated just fine, but the game can't really simulate anything else, so it's all you get.

Did some more experimenting today... It seems Wolfe was right... It isn't a problem with understeering... It's a problem with oversteering... GT5P simply doesn't let you oversteer (or powerslide) the car resulting in a constant weird understeering situation... I also noticed it's impossible to lock the front wheels while braking... Something seems to assist my braking even though I've disabled all driving aids...

And that's all from me... Sorry for my share of polluting this thread with off-topic remarks to certain people... I've had a rough week and have let some people get on my nerves a bit too much... Wish you all the best of fun...

 

[Jay]

It's a problem with oversteering... GT5P simply doesn't let you oversteer (or powerslide) the car resulting in a constant weird understeering situation...

What? GT5P doesnt let you oversteer/powerslide? You are using professional physics right?

It's damn easy to oversteer in GT5P, much much easier than in GT4.

 

[RC45]

What? GT5P doesnt let you oversteer/powerslide? You are using professional physics right?

It's damn easy to oversteer in GT5P, much much easier than in GT4.

This is what I was thinking - it is a constant battle between oversteering and understeering as you wrestle almost any car around at the limits.

 

[Wolfe]

Exactly - however when one person says "XY does not feel real" and another says ""Yes it does" it goes more to prove that the "perception" is very subjective - and not really a validation of the accuracy of the physics model but rtaher the presentation of the sum of the parts.

Some people rave about NetKar and Live for Speed, yet even those "sims" rely on all their "feedback" coming via sound and steering wheel feedback.

So until the home simulator models the input and feedback in 3 dimensions the "reality" (ignoring the obvious arcade games) is all in the eye of beholder.

This comes up time and time again, which makes me wonder -- am I the only one who completely isolates "feedback" from physics evaluation? To me, playing Live for Speed with a keyboard and the sound turned off is still more realistic than playing GT4 with a DFP in a full-motion simulator with three screens, surround-sound, and a guy that punches me in the face if I crash.

The way I see it, the physics make the simulation, and any kinds of "feedback" you get are merely accessories; they're no different from the quality of the sound or graphics, and just like those two aspects of the game, they vary depending on the hardware you have. The physics never change.

I'm not trying to say that your perception of the issue at hand here is incorrect, RC45. I'm just wondering why people would tie "feedback" so heavily into a physics discussion.

The funny thing is that I've never had such feelings with LFS. Everything just immediately felt right. I was seriously impressed how real it felt. I think it's safe to say I've even improved my real life driving skills by experimenting with LFS. And that's what a (real life-)simulator should be all about. Otherwise don't call it a simulator. Call it a fun racing game.

This is exactly the way I felt about LFS when I first played it years ago. I didn't even have much real-world driving experience at the time, but from the very moment I took the first corner of Blackwood in the demo, I knew I had found the real deal. All of the real-world driving experience I've gained since then has done nothing but confirm it. Plus, with the physics improvements LFS has received over the years, it just keeps getting closer to "real."

Getting back to the point I made above for a moment, my early experience playing LFS was with a spring-loaded (non-FF) 180-degree wheel. But I could have used the mouse or keyboard and still would have felt the difference.

 

[RC45]

I'm not trying to say that your perception of the issue at hand here is incorrect, RC45. I'm just wondering why people would tie "feedback" so heavily into a physics discussion.

Well - my comment was about what "feels" real, not what about it has been scienticfically analysed to assess its reality - I was commenting on peoples perceptions of what may or may not be real.

And the failure of the ingame cars to execute a single move is hardly a complete damnation of the entire package considering it offers far more that what say LFS does - the entire "feedback" loop is far more engrossing in the end - even if a particular aspect is percieved as being not as real as your favourite title.

Besides, without feedback, how would you know what you were feeding in?

Last time I checked, I wasn't driving any car in real life with a keyboard.

Of course, you might argue that you could rig a set of radio control servos to a real automatic transmission car and control it from a keyboard using the the A S D and F keys.

The car would react to your input and be reacting "realisticly" as it was of course a real car, but I doubt you would be able to race it very successfully - as the on/off nature of the input would be akin to driving the car with its standard controls but using a technigue of jabbing full throttle / full brake / full opposite lock rinse and repeat.

Your progress down the road would be chaotic and you would no doubt crash.

Replace the keys with rhestats controlled by joysticks and suddenly you can control the car.

So, if the physics of the "real" car is real, and you couldnt control it with a keyboard, how could you judge the reality of say LFS physics with only keyboard control?

I guess you could suggest that given the chance to observe a real car as someone performs certain manouvres and then observe a simulated car reacting to the same inputs even Stephen Hawkings could opine on whether the result was real - as his great mind would allow him to observe if the result was realistic - even though he cannot perform either excercise...

So from a purely analytical stand point, you are correct feedback has nothing to do with the dry evaluation of the physics engine - and in the end the popular concensus is that neither does real world experience have anything to with said evaluation either - so the "GT5: Prologue is unrealistic" camp wins this one.

 

[Wolfe]

I was commenting on peoples perceptions of what may or may not be real.

That was a concession I already made, specifically in the first sentence you quoted from me.

And the failure of the ingame cars to execute a single move is hardly a complete damnation of the entire package considering it offers far more that what say LFS does - the entire "feedback" loop is far more engrossing in the end - even if certain aspects are not as real as your favourite title.

Depends on your preferences. As a RWD junkie that enjoys drifting casually, GT4 is like a bitter fruit to me -- it looks delicious, but tastes awful. Similarly, the car and track selection, tuning, and sheer amount of stuff in GT4 is oh so enticing. But every time I give the game "another chance," the awful oversteer simulation reminds me why I shelved it indefinitely to begin with.

If GT4 got its oversteer "correct enough" to facilitate ordinary racing, if not drifting (Forza 2 is like this), then maybe I'd play it. However, attempts at mid-corner corrections and adjustments still don't work the way they should, and any bit of oversteer I do get often ends in an overcorrected spin when the hypersensitive countersteer rears its ugly head. I don't know about you, but having to rely on threshold understeer to take every corner isn't very fun for me.

For someone who's truly accustomed to the game, I could see how GT4 would be fun. Unfortunately, I was spoiled by LFS long before PD could get the game to shelves. When Enthusia came out, that was the final nail in the coffin in terms of getting any sort of enjoyment out of GT4.

If this is the way ebart feels about GT5P, I can sympathize with him. However, if I had a chance to play the game myself I might also disagree with him.

Besides, without feedback, how would you know what you were feeding in?

Last time I checked, I wasn't driving and car in real life with a keyboard.

Of course, you might argue that you could rig a set of radio control servos to a real automatic transmission car and control it from a keyboard using the the A S D and F keys.

The car would react to your input and be reacting "realisticly" as it was of course a real car, but I doubt you would be able to race it very successfully - as the on/off nature of the input would be akin to driving the car with its standard controls but using a technigue of jabbing full throttle / full brake / full opposite lock rinse and repeat.

Your progress down the road would be chaotic and you would no doubt crash.

Replace the keys with rhestats controlled by joysticks and suddenly you can control the car.

So, if the physics of the "real" car is real, and you couldnt control it with a keyboard, how could you judge the reality of say LFS physics with only keyboard control?

For starters, LFS's keyboard input is more than just on/off. It's essentially the same thing as playing a console game with the controller (in that it "second-guesses" your input), but not as refined as a mainstream game, and using the equivalent of a D-pad instead of a joystick.

Anyway, the thing is that no matter how you do it, turning the steering wheel x degrees is turning the steering wheel x degrees, giving the car full-throttle is giving the car full-throttle, and so on. It's these inputs (and depending on the physics engine, they may or may not be filtered through other elements) that define the motion of the car, and if you can replicate the same general input from controller to keyboard to mouse to wheel, the game will respond the same way each time.

Also, while other real-world limitations would make the real keyboard-controlled car difficult to control, I wouldn't necessarily describe the unorthodox control options of Live for Speed as "chaotic." Keyboard driving in LFS requires fine-tuning of the various response rate options and whatnot (something I have neither the interest nor time for), but I honestly have an easier time mouse-drifting in LFS than I do drifting in GT4 with the DFP. The physics work, and that's all I need. In fact, when I'm too lazy to set up the G25 and just want to test one simple, small thing in LFS, I'll boot it up and just play with the mouse for a minute or two.

I guess you could suggest that given the chance to observe a real car as someone performs certain manouvres and then observe a simulated car reacting to the same inputs even Stephen Hawkings could opine on whether the result was real - as his great mind would allow him to observe if the result was realistic - even though he cannot perform either excercise...

An extreme example, but assuming no trickery in terms of the simulated car and a comprehensive set of maneuvers, sure. Being at the wheel of at least one of the cars (simulated or not) would help greatly, of course.

So from a purely analytical stand point, you are correct feedback has nothing to do with the dry evaluation of the physics engine

Isn't a "dry" analysis of the physics engine what we should be striving for, here? As you and I have established, how a game "feels" to someone depends on a long list of variables. However, as I mentioned before, the physics remain the same.

In fact, I would say it is faith in the physics engine itself -- not the way the game "feels" -- that leads people to "distrust" those who knock a game like Gran Turismo yet play with just a controller.

and in the end the popular concensus is that neither does real world experience have anything to with said evaluation either

Why doesn't real-world experience have anything to do with the evaluation? As you described above with your Stephen Hawking example, it isn't 100% necessary to have an idea of what to expect, but it certainly helps.

so you win.

I'm not trying to win anything. I'm just curious as to whether anyone looks at these games the same way that I do -- examining the physics and the physics alone.

Maybe my view stems from the fact that I've been playing racing games/sims for most of my life. I learned high-speed driving in LFS before I ever had a chance to attempt it in the real world, and I largely rely on visual cues for drifting and other maneuvers. Meanwhile, a good friend of mine can't stand drifting in Live for Speed because he can't sense anything other than the force-feedback of the wheel, the sound from the speakers, and what he sees on the screen.

Some of you might agree with him.

 

[RC45]

I'm not trying to win anything.

You missed my edit - the you was collective

 

[ebart]

Did some more experimenting today... It seems Wolfe was right... It isn't a problem with understeering... It's a problem with oversteering... GT5P simply doesn't let you oversteer (or powerslide) the car resulting in a constant weird understeering situation...

I need to make a small rectification regarding my oversteering remark... I had a friend over and had set it to "standard" for him... I forgot to set it back to "professional"... GT5P does donuts and power sliding just fine... Sorry if this has caused any confusion...

 

[Jay]

I need to make a small rectification regarding my oversteering remark... I had a friend over and had set it to "standard" for him... I forgot to set it back to "professional"... GT5P does donuts and power sliding just fine... Sorry if this has caused any confusion...

Ahh, I thought that might have been the case.