Kazunori Yamauchi: Driving Simulators Shouldn't be Difficult

[Johnnypenso]

Not everyone will enjoy realistic physics, that's the fact. You can try to convince people of it all day long, but if they don't feel comfortable with the handling, they will right it off as inferior. Most people will not be able to appreciate realistic physics for what the are unfortunately.

There isn't anything that everyone will enjoy, people always have different preferences. How do you know most people will not be able to appreciate realistic physics for what they are?

 

[Mr Tree]

Not everyone will enjoy realistic physics, that's the fact. You can try to convince people of it all day long, but if they don't feel comfortable with the handling, they will right it off as inferior. Most people will not be able to appreciate realistic physics for what the are unfortunately.

Not sure if this is meant as a 'reply' to the ongoing discussion with highwaystar. If so I have to say your post was irrelevant to the current discussion.

I agree that not everyone will like a simulator. But when one is trying to make a simulator there is not a thing that should be subjective as a physicsmodel is a representation of the objective physical reality.

If this was just an opinion post of you then please ignore this message.

 

[EDK]

I agree with the sentiment of Kaz's comments. I personally believe that many of the "realistic" simulators are more difficult to drive at the limit than the real life counterpart.

I believe that the developers become obsessed with modeling as many aspects of real life physics as possible, but while those elements are present, they don't come together in the same way as the real world. That is to say, some aspects become overdone, while others are underdone. So you are left to compensate for things that you really would not need to in real life, while not needing to compensate for things you might in fact actually need to.

I will provide an example that relates to GT5 and GT6, which I believe were both inaccurate relative to the real world, and inherently more difficult than in real life.

I believe that PD were so completely focused on assuring that everyone could tell the difference in handling dynamics between FF, FR and MR cars that they completely over-modeled the effect of weight distribution on handling. I race in a first generation MR2 in real life, and if that car handled the way it does on GT5 or GT6, I would be dead. Is an MR a bit more tail happy than and FR? Absolutely? Will a 130 HP car completely loop with lift off oversteer when entering a corner at moderate speed? Absolutely not. In order to practice in that car, I needed to either reduce the weight, add ballast, and redistribute to something closer to 50/50. Or, stagger the tires with a harder compound in the front than in the rear.

It of course goes the other way with FF, with unbearable understeer that would be present in some form, but not nearly at the same levels as presented on the game. So in that sense, Kaz is right. If it's too difficult, something has gone wrong. As it did for his two most recent releases.

 

[UKMikey]

I remember the Edge magazine review of the first Gran Turismo game on PSX. In giving the game a rare 10/10 for the magazine the reviewer made the point that it was easy to make a lap of the track but that the slightest application of racing technique would shave seconds off the player's lap time. This to me was an indication that an attempt had been made to simulate real-world physics on the console.

There's nothing wrong with sim racers being hard to master but if they have artificially high barriers to entry then there's something wrong somewhere. As with everything it's a matter of degree.

 

[Imari]

Not everyone will enjoy realistic physics, that's the fact. You can try to convince people of it all day long, but if they don't feel comfortable with the handling, they will right it off as inferior. Most people will not be able to appreciate realistic physics for what the are unfortunately.

I think you're right, and I think that's why trying to make a mass market simulator is an effort in futility. The genre in general just doesn't hold appeal for most people, regardless of how engaging it is.

People seem to enjoy games with enough realism that they can believe that it's like the real thing, but not so much that it spoils the fantasy. I'm not knocking those sorts of games, I enjoy them just as much as I do simulators. Horizon 3 in particular is freaking awesome, but it's at best a caricature of a simulator. Hot wheels style loop the loops? Negro, please.

My only objection is when people try to hold these sorts of games up as though they are simulators. They're not, they're just games and they've had significant compromises to the physics added to make them more fun. That's OK, the whole point of the games for most people is fun. There's a subset of people who find trying to master highly realistic physics fun, but I don't think it's really that controversial to say that it's not for many.

 

[lancia delta hf]

There isn't anything that everyone will enjoy, people always have different preferences. How do you know most people will not be able to appreciate realistic physics for what they are?

From my personal experience with friends, I agree with what he says. Though that doesn't necessarily translate to "most". I have a friend who thinks he's a great driver, virtually and in real life, complained that I wouldn't allow any assists on in GT5/6 lobbies, he wanted them all on. Now he played AC, was not good at all, of course this isn't down to his skill or inability to learn, oh no. It's because the physics are way off. He's driven a 4wd in real life so there's no way he should spin the BMW E30 GR.A on slicks at the first corner on Spa.

That's the biggest issue with realistic physics and gamers who secretly think they could be real race drivers. They don't like that the realism shows up their real skills. They can't grasp the concept that you have to modulate the throttle on corners etc. Of course some gamers just want simple physics and just to be able to play the game.

The biggest learning curve with realistic physics imo is not the difficulty ( really not that hard ), its adapting to a new rule set, comprehending that you can't put the same inputs in as you have been for the last 10-30 years of playing Outrun, Pole
Position, NFS, GT etc etc. I doubt GT will ever get too realistic for these reasons.

 

[fortbo]

Wow, this topic really took off, huh? Kaz seems to have a way with words.

Sure seems to be a lot of "couch racers" out there giving their opinions on what it takes to be a race car driver...

I race in real life, and I can say with confidence that both Kaz and a few members here are right. Yes, it is easy to drive a car at a decent pace around a track. I've seen many novice drivers tackle a race course without any issue. However, they are nowhere near getting the true pace their cars are capable of. Driving on the limit is a different story however and that's not even taking into account cold tires. Racing at the limit is hard and exhausting at times. You are constantly on the edge. It is easier on normal road summer tires because their break away point is much more gradual, but on a slick or r compound tire, they are not very gradual at all which makes driving them on the limit that much more difficult.

 

[EDK]

I race in real life, and I can say with confidence that both Kaz and a few members here are right. Yes, it is easy to drive a car at a decent pace around a track. I've seen many novice drivers tackle a race course without any issue. However, they are nowhere near getting the true pace their cars are capable of. Driving on the limit is a different story however and that's not even taking into account cold tires. Racing at the limit is hard and exhausting at times. You are constantly on the edge. It is easier on normal road summer tires because their break away point is much more gradual, but on a slick or r compound tire, they are not very gradual at all which makes driving them on the limit that much more difficult.

Agree with all of this. My racing has all been on 180-200 TW summer tires. Even those have varying degrees of breakaway and feedback, depending on the brand and compound.

Even on those, I am totally drenched when I get out of the car at the end of a 2 hour stint.

The concentration required to work traffic and keep the car near or at the limit is significant, and it should be that way on a sim as well. But that doesn't mean that certain vehicle dynamics need to be overblown to make sure you notice they are modeled.

 

[Johnnypenso]

From my personal experience with friends, I agree with what he says. Though that doesn't necessarily translate to "most". I have a friend who thinks he's a great driver, virtually and in real life, complained that I wouldn't allow any assists on in GT5/6 lobbies, he wanted them all on. Now he played AC, was not good at all, of course this isn't down to his skill or inability to learn, oh no. It's because the physics are way off. He's driven a 4wd in real life so there's no way he should spin the BMW E30 GR.A on slicks at the first corner on Spa.

That's the biggest issue with realistic physics and gamers who secretly think they could be real race drivers. They don't like that the realism shows up their real skills. They can't grasp the concept that you have to modulate the throttle on corners etc. Of course some gamers just want simple physics and just to be able to play the game.

The biggest learning curve with realistic physics imo is not the difficulty ( really not that hard ), its adapting to a new rule set, comprehending that you can't put the same inputs in as you have been for the last 10-30 years of playing Outrun, Pole
Position, NFS, GT etc etc. I doubt GT will ever get too realistic for these reasons.

Good points but here's the thing though ( you knew there'd be a thing right). People always use PCARS or AC or iRacing as an example but it's the wrong example. Those games are legitimately much harder on a controller than GT is, no question. Imagine if you will, the same Gran Turismo game you have now, same graphics, same music, same UI, same cars etc. Add in the same "hand of God" assist apparently hidden in the game now + braking assist + steering assist + TC + ABS etc. Now add it GT's stellar controller optimization and the ability to change between 9 different sets of tires.. Now add in AC's physics engine and the ability to deactivate all assists. Voila, a whole new animal. IMO the casual GT player would notice very little difference beyond the cars feeling more alive when the aids are all on and the more hardcore players would have endless replayability with snappy physics and graphics.

I don't think anyone wants to transplant AC into GTS, they want access to a better physics engine wrapped in that confortable and familiar GT package that is still noob and casual friendly through a variety of driving aids and assists.

 

[lancia delta hf]

Good points but here's the thing though ( you knew there'd be a thing right). People always use PCARS or AC or iRacing as an example but it's the wrong example. Those games are legitimately much harder on a controller than GT is, no question. Imagine if you will, the same Gran Turismo game you have now, same graphics, same music, same UI, same cars etc. Add in the same "hand of God" assist apparently hidden in the game now + braking assist + steering assist + TC + ABS etc. Now add it GT's stellar controller optimization and the ability to change between 9 different sets of tires.. Now add in AC's physics engine and the ability to deactivate all assists. Voila, a whole new animal. IMO the casual GT player would notice very little difference beyond the cars feeling more alive when the aids are all on and the more hardcore players would have endless replayability with snappy physics and graphics.

I don't think anyone wants to transplant AC into GTS, they want access to a better physics engine wrapped in that confortable and familiar GT package that is still noob and casual friendly through a variety of driving aids and assists.

Well i suppose that is entirely possible, but then it raises another question. Are PDI even capable of it? Do they want to go through that effort when the majority may not care anyway?

 

[Mr P510]

Oh......your talking about the moon content in the previous game right?

 

[XxHighWayStarXx]

Let's get to why you're wrong once more.

The perception is diffrent for every driver (didn't I allready say that in my last post try to keep up).

But it's diffrent perceptions of the SAME PHYSICS.

Now no you don't start building a simulator from scratch based on feelings.
1. You start with measurements on the real life thing.
2. Then you start to build equations that fit your measured data.
3. Next you run the simulation and compare it to a benchmark real life test and tune your model until it accuratelh represents reality.

In the case of a car simulator I could see this going this way:
They measure these physical effects on the car in confined test area's to try and get these right.
Once that's done they start tweaking and debugging with MULTIPLE drivers as to get as much feelings/perceptions as when they can make the game feel real for everyone ot means they used equations that relate well enough to real life to fool everyone's perception to think this is the real world.

All this only needs one physics model.

Now if you don't want to reply to me can ypu please please explain one thing to me: if for diffrent perceptions you need diffrent physics engines in a game to feel real. Does that mean that those test drivers all driven the car in a diffrent physics model? And if not then why does the need for diffrent physics suddenly arise when someone builds a simulator?

Edit: perception of motion is a measurement of a real physical atribute you know motion every movement can be defined in a single correct way so no not feeling. It's a very baf measurement tool that's why we all perceive that one reality diffrent. And that's why people put motionsensors and accelerometers on cars as in that way we can bypass our perception and measure the real physical attribute.

Answer to your question: I hope everyones perception. Because if everyone perceives it to feel real it must be pretty ... Close to real.

You know what g-forces are and that they are just as set in stone as the width of a door?

No ones (objective), i geuss you meant to say subjective, viewpoint is ever used to set reality. That again is a misconception of mechanical/scientific development. We don't use perception to set up model of objective reality. We use measuring devices and set up tests that are repeatable again and again.

On your personal believes of afterlife and such please do not open that book and you had not need to tell me you are a believer I could see that from your opinion alone. You probably did this as you could notice I have a grounding in secular humanism and a basis of education in physics and this usually means I don't believe in (fill in your prefered story) and this cpuld easily derail the topic. I'd love to discus that topic in private if you please but the public board is not the place for that.

I am wondering what you studied as I can not believe it would be anything scientific. (You can still be very smart, this was not meant offensively! For example I love physics yet I hate languagues and am bad at them.)
Must it interest you I studied to be an electro-mechenical engineer at 'thomas more hogeschool' in belgium that has now become 'KU Leuven'. So you can check those credentials.

Sorry, it's you who just doesn't get it. Did I say that a different physics engine would be needed for different perceptions ???
And sorry if this sounds harsh, it's meant to be matter of fact but someone's "title" or educational "qualifications" mean nothing to me. They do not sway my perspective. They don't automatically make you right.
I have already said that physics,though fixed in the real world, it's our perceptions that shape our reality.
A machine interprets data that someone else has fed it. And different people will naturally provide different responses.
As far as a car's handling characteristics go we can have :
Driver A : "Man,that car is a handful, it's twitchy and the brakes feel spongy."
Driver B : " I thought it handled good, wasn't twitchy and the brakes felt great."
Here we have the same car but different perceptions of its handling. So, same objective reality, same physics yet different results. Therefore a different reality for each driver. Regardless what diagnostic machines show, it's our perceptions that ultimately matter.
As for g-forces, we all have different tolerance levels, so what may be perceived as strong for one may not be for another.
So when any car's default handling is programmed into a simulator, someone had to test drive the car & give feedback for it right?
So when us mere mortals play a simulator, who's to say that any of the cars' simulated behavior is the way it should feel and behave?
According to whose senses ??
Now throw in a supercharger, roll cage, anti roll bars, racing suspension - each of those additions will alter & affect the car's performance and behaviour.
So when simulated, according to whose feedback of said changes in behaviour is the simulation using ?
Essentially, cars handle and feel differently depending who's at the wheel so a simulator can only use someone else's input data. Which won't necessarily correspond with your own inputs.
So it still stands, a simulator can never simulate reality. There are far too many variables which are processed in infinite combinations in our own personal ways.

 

[Lukanyon]

Sorry, it's you who just doesn't get it. Did I say that a different physics engine would be needed for different perceptions ???
And sorry if this sounds harsh, it's meant to be matter of fact but someone's "title" or educational "qualifications" mean nothing to me. They do not sway my perspective. They don't automatically make you right.
I have already said that physics,though fixed in the real world, it's our perceptions that shape our reality.
A machine interprets data that someone else has fed it. And different people will naturally provide different responses.
As far as a car's handling characteristics go we can have :
Driver A : "Man,that car is a handful, it's twitchy and the brakes feel spongy."
Driver B : " I thought it handled good, wasn't twitchy and the brakes felt great."
Here we have the same car but different perceptions of its handling. So, same objective reality, same physics yet different results. Therefore a different reality for each driver. Regardless what diagnostic machines show, it's our perceptions that ultimately matter.
As for g-forces, we all have different tolerance levels, so what may be perceived as strong for one may not be for another.
So when any car's default handling is programmed into a simulator, someone had to test drive the car & give feedback for it right?
So when us mere mortals play a simulator, who's to say that any of the cars' simulated behavior is the way it should feel and behave?
According to whose senses ??
Now throw in a supercharger, roll cage, anti roll bars, racing suspension - each of those additions will alter & affect the car's performance and behaviour.
So when simulated, according to whose feedback of said changes in behaviour is the simulation using ?
Essentially, cars handle and feel differently depending who's at the wheel so a simulator can only use someone else's input data. Which won't necessarily correspond with your own inputs.
So it still stands, a simulator can never simulate reality. There are far too many variables which are processed in infinite combinations in our own personal ways.

ANALOGY TIME!!!
There's a recipe for making the perfect chocolate cake. @Johnnypenso made a chocolate cake using a predetermined set of ingredients from the recipe that he thinks will make it taste very close to the original recipe. Both @XxHighWayStarXx and @Lukanyon prove it and have different tastes. @XxHighWayStarXx likes its taste; @Lukanyon doesn't.
The ingredients for making the ultimate chocolate cake (realistic physics) are defined by a fixed recipe. @Johhnypenso (Developers) try to replicate the ingredients based on the original recipe. The ultimate recipe is fixed. The fact that different tasters (players) have different tastes doesn't nullify the fact that the ultimate cake is what it is.

Analogy time has ended. Rate it 1-10.

 

[ScottPuss20]

I think you're right, and I think that's why trying to make a mass market simulator is an effort in futility. The genre in general just doesn't hold appeal for most people, regardless of how engaging it is.

People seem to enjoy games with enough realism that they can believe that it's like the real thing, but not so much that it spoils the fantasy. I'm not knocking those sorts of games, I enjoy them just as much as I do simulators. Horizon 3 in particular is freaking awesome, but it's at best a caricature of a simulator. Hot wheels style loop the loops? Negro, please.

My only objection is when people try to hold these sorts of games up as though they are simulators. They're not, they're just games and they've had significant compromises to the physics added to make them more fun. That's OK, the whole point of the games for most people is fun. There's a subset of people who find trying to master highly realistic physics fun, but I don't think it's really that controversial to say that it's not for many.

I'll give you an example: A couple of the guys I race with in Project Cars used to play GT5 and GT6 (as well as some of their associates, even guys from ROOZ) and they were really quite good at it. When they decided to play Project Cars though, many said it was crap - too hard to play. Which is kinda laughable because it actually isn't in most circumstances. Yes the physics felt difficult at first but I managed to get used to it. When you hit the apexes and the correct braking points, it doesn't feel any more difficult than GT6. How and when you apply the right amount of throttle or brake has to be dealt with in a completely different way on Project Cars; yet if you remember the basics, you can be a very accomplished driver.

 

[XxHighWayStarXx]

No ones, because that's what "objective" means. If it was someone's viewpoint, it wouldn't be objective.



I think I see where you're missing the boat. A simulator is not attempting to replicate your personal viewpoint of reality. A simulator is trying to replicate the objective interactions that you have with reality. Your personal viewpoint is created in response to those interactions that you have with objective reality, and in the same way your personal viewpoint can do the same with interactions with a video game.



Did you notice how you changed what the game was an accurate representation or not of between the first and second?

A game can do a good job of replicating what a driver feels while being a poor simulation of reality, and the other way around. However, we don't judge how good a simulation is on how it feels, we judge it on how accurately it reproduces real world behaviours. Those are objective and can be measured.

If I say "this tyre is hard" and you say "this tyre is soft", we can both be correct depending on our experiences and what we consider to be hard and soft. However, if we measure the tyre to have a hardness of 47 millisquishies, that's an objective fact. You can have a go at the testing method if you like, but there's no interpretation or personal viewpoint in there. That is a measure of what the tyre is.

Similarly, one designs a simulator to respond the same way as reality does to inputs, objectively. One may design a game to evoke certain feelings or emotions, but that's not part of the simulation aspect.

Back to your example of 10 writers testing the same car and having different experiences, do you think that means that they're actually testing ten different cars? I suspect most wouldn't claim so. The car is an objective reality with definable characteristics. The way that certain writers interact with that car may be different, because they're different people. But that's a characteristic of the writers that is changing the experience then, not an aspect of the car.

The car is independent of the perception, unless you really want to go down the rabbit hole. But I'll warn you that you'll end up at "I think therefore I am" and not be able to get any further. Not a terribly useful way to view the universe, regardless of how accurate or not it might be.



This guy gets it.

Imari, really, I could have said feels and perceptions for both drivers. You are nitpicking trivialities when the vernacular I meant was obvious.
And I clearly said the drivers were testing the same car. Again, pretty obvious. Why you infer imaginary meanings from that is pretty crazy to me.
Yes, exactly, each driver's characteristics informs their own perception of the car. I've been saying that all along. I never said the CAR itself magically changes for each driver. Yet another imaginary inference.... I must be using a hidden Mongolian text that I'm not aware of because clearly there is a disconnect between what I'm typing & what you're reading.
And stop inferring on my behalf.
I know the difference between reality and simulation, I don't need you or anyone else, or a machine for that matter, to inform me of these things.
Really, stop the regurgitation of other people's ramblings and try coming up with your own perspective.
Because when you're behind the wheel of a real car, or even a simulator, it's YOUR senses that dictate your reality, not somebody else's.

 

[Earth]

I'll give you an example: A couple of the guys I race with in Project Cars used to play GT5 and GT6 (as well as some of their associates, even guys from ROOZ) and they were really quite good at it. When they decided to play Project Cars though, many said it was crap - too hard to play. Which is kinda laughable because it actually isn't in most circumstances. Yes the physics felt difficult at first but I managed to get used to it. When you hit the apexes and the correct braking points, it doesn't feel any more difficult than GT6. How and when you apply the right amount of throttle or brake has to be dealt with in a completely different way on Project Cars; yet if you remember the basics, you can be a very accomplished driver.

Project CARS for me was a mixed bag. The physics IMO are half brilliant and half a work in progress. Im really looking forward to PCARS 2 in the fall. But PCARS 1 definitely counts as one of those games that are more difficult then real life. Ive been told by people that they've had zero issues with the physics, and that I simply lacked talent. Well, good for them. However it was quite obvious to me some areas of the game exceeded real life difficulty.

Navigating the Mulsanne chicanes at Le Mans feels electric and stunningly realistic, and theres moments in the game that feel spot on.

But there are issues.

The high speed right hand kink before Indianapolis at Le Mans has a small bump that upsets the car far too much making spins there far too common an occurrence. I've never, ever seen anybody in real life spin in that kink, because its still very high speed and the downforce is working well to keep the car glued down and its slightly banked to hold you. However it wasnt just me going off there, in many online races I witnessed a number of drivers crashing there. It got to the point where I had to baby the car through that corner to maybe make it, which was just wrong.

The Project CARS Nurburgring is a complete nightmare. The car was bouncing around so violently it was hard to even complete half a lap without crashing into a barrier, even when driving at just 90%. I know its a bump track but this felt like I was racing on potholes. I checked real life onboard cameras in the same car, an Audi R8 GT3 to see how it compared, and sure enough, the real thing looked far, far smoother then the chaos I had to endure in the game. In fact it looked closer to what I experienced in GT5.

But it should be noted the PCARS team is fixing alot of these issues for PCARS 2. Other 'more difficult then reality' issues like the inability to catch oversteer at times has also been worked on and fixed. Hopefully they fixed the 'on ice' feeling many of the cars had at low speeds, which doesnt make any sense at all. A purpose built racecar should not feel like it is 'on ice' below 70mph or really any speed.

So my point is, maybe dont be so quick to defend the difficulty of a game when it has real issues. When I criticized the PCARS physics in the forum here some people quickly dismissed what I said because the game was 'easy' for them. So if you are a good shooter and you can still make shots into a basketball rim smaller then regulation size, doesnt mean its OK for it to be smaller then regulation size.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Driver A : "Man,that car is a handful, it's twitchy and the brakes feel spongy."
Driver B : " I thought it handled good, wasn't twitchy and the brakes felt great."
Here we have the same car but different perceptions of its handling. So, same objective reality, same physics yet different results. Therefore a different reality for each driver. Regardless what diagnostic machines show, it's our perceptions that ultimately matter.
As for g-forces, we all have different tolerance levels, so what may be perceived as strong for one may not be for another.
So when any car's default handling is programmed into a simulator, someone had to test drive the car & give feedback for it right?
So when us mere mortals play a simulator, who's to say that any of the cars' simulated behavior is the way it should feel and behave?
According to whose senses ??
Now throw in a supercharger, roll cage, anti roll bars, racing suspension - each of those additions will alter & affect the car's performance and behaviour.
So when simulated, according to whose feedback of said changes in behaviour is the simulation using ?
Essentially, cars handle and feel differently depending who's at the wheel so a simulator can only use someone else's input data. Which won't necessarily correspond with your own inputs.
So it still stands, a simulator can never simulate reality. There are far too many variables which are processed in infinite combinations in our own personal ways.

All this really says is different people will interpret the feedback from a game differently. The same is also true of real life. Two people can drive the same car and have different reactions. However, the real life physics don't change from driver to driver, nor do game physics. Game physics can mimic real life as close as someone wants to take it. It's only lines of code and the more complex it is the closer you can get to simulating reality. The test would be placing the same driver in the real car and the virtual car and putting the telemetry up side by side and comparing. None of which has anything to do with how individual drivers feel about a game or interpreting it's FFB and other visual and auditory cues.

 

[mrPetros]

The concentration required to work traffic and keep the car near or at the limit is significant, and it should be that way on a sim as well. But that doesn't mean that certain vehicle dynamics need to be overblown to make sure you notice they are modeled.

ok, but how? when you are in your drivers seat, and you are pushing it to your limit or the cars limit- there is one extra significant parameter that keeps you on your toes, its the same one that gives you the exhauston: fear of life.
Unless we get rigs that are attached to electroshock cables or something, I dont see how a game will be able to "simulate" the real driving force behind your cautious driving at your/car limit. Taking your track experience to a game is one thing, making a gamer that has no clue understand real track experience is another thing.

That's the biggest issue with realistic physics and gamers who secretly think they could be real race drivers. They don't like that the realism shows up their real skills. They can't grasp the concept that you have to modulate the throttle on corners etc. Of course some gamers just want simple physics and just to be able to play the game.

nope, if we are talking about GAMERS, they don't just want to PLAY the game. Actually you know that they want to WIN the game.
And because these are your customers, this fact opens up a bunch of cans of worms....

example: imo forza6 is more forgiving on car to car shenanigans and even slip conditions than forza5. in my eyes, forza5 had it better on realism. fact was that only a small percentage of players could handle it and have fun. especially random online lobbies? LOL you could make funny movies out of people not having a clue, every time. So forza6 in my opinion clearly risen some grip levels under conditions. result: people play better now. they even say "woa! mucho improved physics" (meaning "I dont lose control so often")


anyways... the one who is able to make better compromises, is the one who wins. my 2cs

 

[PzR Slim]

Sorry, it's you who just doesn't get it. Did I say that a different physics engine would be needed for different perceptions ???
And sorry if this sounds harsh, it's meant to be matter of fact but someone's "title" or educational "qualifications" mean nothing to me. They do not sway my perspective. They don't automatically make you right.
I have already said that physics,though fixed in the real world, it's our perceptions that shape our reality.
A machine interprets data that someone else has fed it. And different people will naturally provide different responses.
As far as a car's handling characteristics go we can have :
Driver A : "Man,that car is a handful, it's twitchy and the brakes feel spongy."
Driver B : " I thought it handled good, wasn't twitchy and the brakes felt great."
Here we have the same car but different perceptions of its handling. So, same objective reality, same physics yet different results. Therefore a different reality for each driver. Regardless what diagnostic machines show, it's our perceptions that ultimately matter.
As for g-forces, we all have different tolerance levels, so what may be perceived as strong for one may not be for another.
So when any car's default handling is programmed into a simulator, someone had to test drive the car & give feedback for it right?
So when us mere mortals play a simulator, who's to say that any of the cars' simulated behavior is the way it should feel and behave?
According to whose senses ??
Now throw in a supercharger, roll cage, anti roll bars, racing suspension - each of those additions will alter & affect the car's performance and behaviour.
So when simulated, according to whose feedback of said changes in behaviour is the simulation using ?
Essentially, cars handle and feel differently depending who's at the wheel so a simulator can only use someone else's input data. Which won't necessarily correspond with your own inputs.
So it still stands, a simulator can never simulate reality. There are far too many variables which are processed in infinite combinations in our own personal ways.

Off course different people perceive their experience of a simulator in different ways to others. However, when there are glaring omissions from a physics engine it's pretty easy for all to agree on those omissions. The lack of torque steer in previous games for example. Now that's not as a result of people's different perceptions of the games, it's just not present. So yes whilst different people perceive a physics engine in different ways there are plenty of objective, measurable factors that can be compared to reality to show how right or wrong it is.

 

[mokalovesoulmat]

So we are talking about perception again?

He is making a racing simulator which means simulate a car driving. Does simulation requires you to make a simulator close to reality as possible? No. In terms of video game.

But since most people here (I merge them with AC/iRacing players, racers too) are racing enthusiast I am sure you were expecting Gran Turismo is close to reality based on its physics, not only visuals.

But Kaz does not think that way. He probably want us to drive in a simulator while feeling a realistic driving experience without making you frustrated with the car you're driving. Its been clear with the real != difficult thing.

Gran Turismo Sport is still a racing video game for me, with a great complementary (real racing cars, FIA, real life competition, etc).

 

[Imari]

Project CARS for me was a mixed bag. The physics IMO are half brilliant and half a work in progress. Im really looking forward to PCARS 2 in the fall. But PCARS 1 definitely counts as one of those games that are more difficult then real life. Ive been told by people that they've had zero issues with the physics, and that I simply lacked talent. Well, good for them. However it was quite obvious to me some areas of the game exceeded real life difficulty.

To be fair, pCARS has some very good physics hiding behind some pretty horrendous control input issues, depending on what platform you play it on.

So my point is, maybe dont be so quick to defend the difficulty of a game when it has real issues. When I criticized the PCARS physics in the forum here some people quickly dismissed what I said because the game was 'easy' for them. So if you are a good shooter and you can still make shots into a basketball rim smaller then regulation size, doesnt mean its OK for it to be smaller then regulation size.

You're right, and like any game pCARS has it's issues. Modelling tracks isn't strictly a physics issue, if there are bumps that aren't existent in real life or are simply bigger than they should be, that's not a problem with the physics engine. That said, pCARS has a number of issues with it's physics engine that I hope they address in PC2.

ok, but how? when you are in your drivers seat, and you are pushing it to your limit or the cars limit- there is one extra significant parameter that keeps you on your toes, its the same one that gives you the exhauston: fear of life.
Unless we get rigs that are attached to electroshock cables or something, I dont see how a game will be able to "simulate" the real driving force behind your cautious driving at your/car limit. Taking your track experience to a game is one thing, making a gamer that has no clue understand real track experience is another thing.

You'd be surprised. I've done the 2.4 hours of Daytona a couple of times on iRacing. While no doubt it's less physically strenuous than the real thing, I was :censored:ing exhausted by the end. Being on edge for that long, concentrating that hard, controlling your reflexes and trying to manage traffic, pit stops and other strategy at the same time is incredibly mentally draining and it carries over to the physical too.

For a seasoned race driver it would probably be a walk in the park, but for your average gamer I'd say that a decent length race where you're actually invested in the result and trying your hardest is both mentally and physically taxing. Even in a sim.

nope, if we are talking about GAMERS, they don't just want to PLAY the game. Actually you know that they want to WIN the game.
And because these are your customers, this fact opens up a bunch of cans of worms....

This is where racing games, and simulations especially, are always going to have a problem no matter what gameplay improvements are made. You've got twenty or more people racing, and only one can win. At best, only a handful are going to finish in a position that would in real life racing be considered "respectable". That's because everyone wants to be Lewis Hamilton, and no one wants to be Nico Hulkenburg.

Imari, really, I could have said feels and perceptions for both drivers. You are nitpicking trivialities when the vernacular I meant was obvious.

I notice that people who say this actually mean that it was obvious to them. You don't get to decide what is obvious to others.

If you mean something other than the words you wrote, write different words. Don't rely on me to read your mind.

Really, stop the regurgitation of other people's ramblings and try coming up with your own perspective.

Oh look, a wild troll. Do please, continue.

 

[mrPetros]

You'd be surprised. I've done the 2.4 hours of Daytona a couple of times on iRacing. While no doubt it's less physically strenuous than the real thing, I was :censored:ing exhausted by the end. Being on edge for that long, concentrating that hard, controlling your reflexes and trying to manage traffic, pit stops and other strategy at the same time is incredibly mentally draining and it carries over to the physical too.

For a seasoned race driver it would probably be a walk in the park, but for your average gamer I'd say that a decent length race where you're actually invested in the result and trying your hardest is both mentally and physically taxing. Even in a sim.

while this is true, its not what I said. for one to get to iracing, it means he already has an understanding of at least what he is expected to do.
high cost of entry guarantees this, no other details given necessary. you get a sub, you buy what you want to do, and of course you need to have a proper wheel setup before you even start to think about it.
thats why iracing is in the thousands of players, while games like GT are in the millions.
I guess there is a chaotic diffrence in the median player level of those two games.
I focused the problem on the latter, not the former. (edit: the player that "has no clue")

 

[Imari]

while this is true, its not what I said. for one to get to iracing, it means he already has an understanding of at least what he is expected to do.
high cost of entry guarantees this, no other details given necessary. you get a sub, you buy what you want to do, and of course you need to have a proper wheel setup before you even start to think about it.
thats why iracing is in the thousands of players, while games like GT are in the millions.
I guess there is a chaotic diffrence in the median player level of those two games.
I focused the problem on the latter, not the former. (edit: the player that "has no clue")

I was trying to imply that even if the player has no clue about racing, simply by doing it and having a modicum of interest there's a lot of similarities in the stress that it puts on the driver, mentally and physically. Obviously it's not of the same magnitude as racing a real car, but couch potatoes aren't generally of the same magnitude of fitness or mental discipline either.

In any real simulator, it takes concentration and physical discipline to race at or near your personal limit for any period of time. While the fear of death or severe injury may not be there, the stress is. It's a competitive sport, and people hate losing. See how salty people can get over losing a game of DotA/CSGO/LoL/Overwatch/whatever.

If GTS is to be a real simulator, particularly a simulator of the motorsport experience, it will have a requirement that the player focus on what they're doing. That's stressful if you actually care about the result, and duplicates the real stress that you might feel in a real race in a scaled down version that is appropriate for a sitting room. You don't need to electroshock people to have them in a situation where they feel real pressure to perform at or beyond their capabilities.

 

[EDK]

ok, but how? when you are in your drivers seat, and you are pushing it to your limit or the cars limit- there is one extra significant parameter that keeps you on your toes, its the same one that gives you the exhauston: fear of life.
Unless we get rigs that are attached to electroshock cables or something, I dont see how a game will be able to "simulate" the real driving force behind your cautious driving at your/car limit. Taking your track experience to a game is one thing, making a gamer that has no clue understand real track experience is another thing.

I am not talking about being cautious or worrying about dying. I have over 120 hours of wheel to wheel racing, I got over that a long time ago. Think about the first time you drove a car at all, You might have had some of the same thoughts, but after a while, it's just another thing you do.

Racing a car at the limit is physically exhausting, and I even break out in a reasonably good sweat during most of our 1 hour long WRS races on Gran Turismo. If you are driving the car as fast as you possibly can, it's a lot of work.

I agree to some extent with your last sentence, with a big but. My very first time on track, I had never done any racing other than sim racing. And I was competitive within my team right out of the gate. It prepared me to know what to do in terms of braking points and racing line theory. I had to learn how to push the car to the limit, that was different from sim racing. But the basics were already in place.

 

[mrPetros]

well, imo here's how it goes about racers:
if a racer tells you he ain't scared, it can only be two things: one, he is lying. two, he ain't driving anywhere near limit.
that's pretty much common knowledge, and fear is the only thing stopping you from crashing and burning at every turn.
now, there's two kinds of fear: the one that holds you still and frozen, and the one that makes your blood boil, your adrenaline flow, and your brain overcharge.
guess what kind of fear makes a driver?

 

[05XR8]

I just posted 4 videos in the video comparison thread. GTS is the only one that doesn't feel like the Driver needs to concentrate.

Offline, the last few GTs have been about players catching the rabbit. Not so much about learning race craft offline. I don't see GTS addressing that either, offline. I don't know if the AI has been toughened up, it doesn't look so from videos I've seen.

For all that players that do gain race craft experience, in the Sport portion of the game, the offline players appear to be left behind. Unless I've missed a report on improved AI.

 

[EDK]

well, imo here's how it goes about racers:
if a racer tells you he ain't scared, it can only be two things: one, he is lying. two, he ain't driving anywhere near limit.
that's pretty much common knowledge, and fear is the only thing stopping you from crashing and burning at every turn.
now, there's two kinds of fear: the one that holds you still and frozen, and the one that makes your blood boil, your adrenaline flow, and your brain overcharge.
guess what kind of fear makes a driver?

I would not personally characterize it as fear. I am scared of heights, I don't want to go anywhere near the edge of a cliff.

In a race car, the only type of fear I can think of is lack of confidence/fear of failure. I agree with the rush/adrenaline. But I think you would need to experience it for yourself to understand what I am talking about.

I just posted 4 videos in the video comparison thread. GTS is the only one that doesn't feel like the Driver needs to concentrate.

Offline, the last few GTs have been about players catching the rabbit. Not so much about learning race craft offline. I don't see GTS addressing that either, offline. I don't know if the AI has been toughened up, it doesn't look so from videos I've seen.

For all that players that do gain race craft experience, in the Sport portion of the game, the offline players appear to be left behind. Unless I've missed a report on improved AI.

We don't know, at this point. The Beta has is limited to "Sport" (online, multiplayer) mode only.

 

[05XR8]

We don't know, at this point. The Beta has is limited to "Sport" (online, multiplayer) mode only.

👍

 

[mrPetros]

I would not personally characterize it as fear. I am scared of heights, I don't want to go anywhere near the edge of a cliff.

In a race car, the only type of fear I can think of is lack of confidence/fear of failure. I agree with the rush/adrenaline. But I think you would need to experience it for yourself to understand what I am talking about.

well, its fear.
I have experience, but my job is making fast cars, not driving them.

 

[EDK]

well, its fear.
I have experience, but my job is making fast cars, not driving them.

I'm struggling to understand how you can tell me which emotion I am feeling.