PD turned the Pagani Huayra a monster

[Exorcet]

Your story was somewhat credible until right here. Such a shame.

I think the meaning might have been, for their time. I'm personally more lenient with GT1 as a simulator compared to 5/6. Some things have progressed in a simply unacceptable manner, like inconsistent and less informative tuning screens and more sterilized tuning effects, particularly on things like the powerband.

As far as a simulator goes, GT6 is a very good one. It has its problems but it is still very good. The physics are the best they've ever been so that last sentence is ridiculous. Just because the top-speed and aero models are slightly out of kilter doesn't mean that it's horrible or pathetic.

You're right about the engineers. Except in racing teams, you'll have more than one engineer for different things, suspension, engine, gearbox etc. These engineers will deal with one car and have a much longer period of time to analyse and process this information into real world figures. Not into figures that computers understand.

Both engineers and computers use models. A good amount of stuff might be both real world and computer compatible.


The thing is that it is still hard for todays processors, you obviously no nothing about programming if you think that re-creating real-world physics is easy for todays processors; not to mention that the Cell processor is nearly 10 years old!

You may have said that "simulators have been around forever", but it doesn't explain the reason why these simulators get refreshed on an almost yearly basis. If you have a go on any simulator from the early 90's, try and tell me that simulation hasn't improved. If you still think they haven't then you're an idiot! The reason why they keep updating is because they can do more and more sophisticated processing than before, meaning they can take more data entries than before, this leads to a far superior and more complex game, but it's never going to be perfect in terms of physics. Even car manufacturers can't create the perfect car based on computation alone, so how do you expect a 10 year old commercial computer to do so? You can't. All you can do is just improve on every release and GT6 has done that!

It tends to give diminishing returns in some cases though. Sure, sims today are much better than in the past, but how much improvement you see with each generation goes down as there is simply less of a gap between game and reality. There are some areas where GT just feels behind, tires being a big one (at least in GT5). It might be difficult to get them right, but it's not so difficult that other simulators can't tackle the problem.

 

[SciroccoRich]

I think the meaning might have been, for their time. I'm personally more lenient with GT1 as a simulator compared to 5/6. Some things have progressed in a simply unacceptable manner, like inconsistent and less informative tuning screens and more sterilized tuning effects, particularly on things like the powerband.

Both engineers and computers use models. A good amount of stuff might be both real world and computer compatible.

It tends to give diminishing returns in some cases though. Sure, sims today are much better than in the past, but how much improvement you see with each generation goes down as there is simply less of a gap between game and reality. There are some areas where GT just feels behind, tires being a big one (at least in GT5). It might be difficult to get them right, but it's not so difficult that other simulators can't tackle the problem.

You can't expect the jumps now to be as great as they used to be though. It's an exponential curve and now it's all the smaller little bits that add up to a much smaller difference. I take your point about lack of tuning information etc. However, this thread is about physics. I personally believe the tire model is better than before. Especially if you use the correct tires ie. Comfort Soft rather than Sport Hard.

The difference between engineers and programmers is that the units will be completely different, it is much much harder to programme a game from scratch than it is to use data from real cars and convert that into a model, then put that info back into a car. There's no comparison between the two really. One is using the real world, the other is trying to replicate the real world.

All Sims have their downsides. GT6's aero model isn't right, Forza for some reason can't get the physics right on FF cars.

 

[jr93alty]

As far as a simulator goes, GT6 is a very good one. It has its problems but it is still very good. The physics are the best they've ever been so that last sentence is ridiculous. Just because the top-speed and aero models are slightly out of kilter doesn't mean that it's horrible or pathetic.

You're right about the engineers. Except in racing teams, you'll have more than one engineer for different things, suspension, engine, gearbox etc. These engineers will deal with one car and have a much longer period of time to analyse and process this information into real world figures. Not into figures that computers understand. The thing is that it is still hard for todays processors, you obviously no nothing about programming if you think that re-creating real-world physics is easy for todays processors; not to mention that the Cell processor is nearly 10 years old!

You may have said that "simulators have been around forever", but it doesn't explain the reason why these simulators get refreshed on an almost yearly basis. If you have a go on any simulator from the early 90's, try and tell me that simulation hasn't improved. If you still think they haven't then you're an idiot! The reason why they keep updating is because they can do more and more sophisticated processing than before, meaning they can take more data entries than before, this leads to a far superior and more complex game, but it's never going to be perfect in terms of physics. Even car manufacturers can't create the perfect car based on computation alone, so how do you expect a 10 year old commercial computer to do so? You can't. All you can do is just improve on every release and GT6 has done that!

Well, I'm a mech engr so, yes, I was required to write code in school and am pretty good at it. Can you write code? And as someone already responded, simulators were pretty good a while ago and only small amounts of improvement have been shown lately because of refinement. I don't believe I said that they didn't improve. And it may bother you but I'll say it again. Recreating physics isn't as difficult as you make it out to be. Nissan's Atessa II AWD is also getting old and not only does it interpret physics at each wheel based on driver input, it does it without knowing what is going on in the world outside of the car and it also reacts and adjusts wheels to compensate which is why the GT-R has video game handling ability. Compare that to a video game that simply has to interpret it and display it on the screen and it understands the environment around it. On top of that, cars use chips that are more simplistic than even an old PS3 Cell chip. Reference the person that just endo'd an evo on braking and tell me that only the aero and top speeds are flawed.

 

[jr93alty]

Also, when I said that cars can race themselves, I'm talking about the cars that aren't programmed by engineers...I'm talking about the cars (BMW, etc..) that you drive around a track a couple times and then the computer can full out race it without any input from an engineer. It figured it all out on it's own.

 

[Exorcet]

You can't expect the jumps now to be as great as they used to be though. It's an exponential curve and now it's all the smaller little bits that add up to a much smaller difference.

Yes, that's what I was saying. The macro details should be pushed out of the way fairly quickly. Cars should behave like cars. The next step is handling the smaller details and making a Pagani act like a Pagani instead of just a car. At this point, getting a virtual car to be behave in a car like manner should be pretty easy.

I take your point about lack of tuning information etc. However, this thread is about physics. I personally believe the tire model is better than before. Especially if you use the correct tires ie. Comfort Soft rather than Sport Hard.

There shouldn't be "correct" tires, that is one problem with GT's physics model. The tires are overwhelmingly influential. The aero bit is puzzling too because on the surface, it looks like a single car variable or global physics variable is off.

The difference between engineers and programmers is that the units will be completely different, it is much much harder to programme a game from scratch than it is to use data from real cars and convert that into a model, then put that info back into a car. There's no comparison between the two really. One is using the real world, the other is trying to replicate the real world.

Speaking from experience doing this, the same units are used everywhere. The models used to build a simulation are the same models used to explain how a real car works. Sometimes you simplify things, but they don't have to be totally different.

All Sims have their downsides. GT6's aero model isn't right, Forza for some reason can't get the physics right on FF cars.

Yes, it's not about which one has issues, they all do. It's about what are the issues and how big they are. I think, for example. Forza 4 felt about right as a console sim. Cars were cars were the most part even if Model X didn't necessarily behave exactly like a real Model X. GT5 had subpar tires and suspension which weren't good enough for even general car behavior, and it took major patches to fix things like lift and drag relationship. I don't mean to turn this into a GT bashing thread, just some examples that stick out to me.[/quote][/quote]

 

[SciroccoRich]

Also, when I said that cars can race themselves, I'm talking about the cars that aren't programmed by engineers...I'm talking about the cars (BMW, etc..) that you drive around a track a couple times and then the computer can full out race it without any input from an engineer. It figured it all out on it's own.

I'd have to see evidence of that to believe it, I'm afraid.

With regard to your other comment, yes I do.

With regard to the small improvement, like I said, we're nearing the top of the curve now, you can't expect massive jumps.

You're wrong AGAIN, I'll say it AGAIN, with things like cars that read the road etc, that isn't recreating physics, that's using real world physics to steer a car. The maths isn't even comparable. Those cars don't have to generate a world, they are just in one.

 

[SciroccoRich]

Lol. Please can you sort the quote thing out?

The cars do behave like cars though? The model isn't *that* bad. There's a few issues with aero and gravity. That's it.

Of course there's a difference in tires! That's the whole point of different tires! CS tires grip how normal road car tires do because they're normal road car tires! Stick SS on them and it'll change!

So you worked on GT6 did you? If you didn't you can't talk from experience as it'll be coded completely different to what you've worked on in the past, especially considering that the architecture that the PS3 utilises.

 

[jr93alty]

I'd have to see evidence of that to believe it, I'm afraid.

With regard to your other comment, yes I do.

With regard to the small improvement, like I said, we're nearing the top of the curve now, you can't expect massive jumps.

You're wrong AGAIN, I'll say it AGAIN, with things like cars that read the road etc, that isn't recreating physics, that's using real world physics to steer a car. The maths isn't even comparable. Those cars don't have to generate a world, they are just in one.

When considering logic, being in an unknown world is more difficult than being in a created one. And pushing a car at race speeds around a track that the car learned on it's own requires quite a bit of physics knowledge. It has to be prepared for slipping, bumps, etc and react accordingly. Just go to youtube and type in "driverless 330i top gear". I thought all car people watched Top Gear and would've already known what I was talking about. If you think that a car doing that is simpler than creating physics in GT6, I'll say that you're crazy since you already called me an idiot. Just use common sense. What came first? Decent flight and car simulators (decades ago) or cars that could race aggressively around a track (last decade).

 

[Exorcet]

Lol. Please can you sort the quote thing out?

I don't know why, the new GTP always throws me off when it comes to quotes.

The cars do behave like cars though? The model isn't *that* bad. There's a few issues with aero and gravity. That's it.

I don't have much experience with GT6, so I do a lot of inferring based on other comments when it comes to that game. If I'm wrong on something let me know. However, so far as I know GT6 is still using fixed grip multipliers for tires. Suspension seems to be off, as there is a general understanding that camber doesn't give real world results at all. There's also the aero issue, which depending on the cause can be a general physics problem.

When I say cars acting like cars I mean things like FF has strong lift off oversteer, stiffening springs quickens car response, etc. Some of the things GT5 got wrong were surprising, and GT6 seems to have some of its own issues. GT6 (and even 5) are still simulators without a doubt, but I don't think either could be considered cutting edge. It would surprise me if hardware was the limitation.

Of course there's a difference in tires! That's the whole point of different tires! CS tires grip how normal road car tires do because they're normal road car tires! Stick SS on them and it'll change!

Yes, tires must change how the car behaves, but in GT5 at least, racing tires gave you a racing car in the corners. It doesn't work that way. You need suspension and maybe aero to get that grip out of the tires. In GT5 SH tires would make a Samba Bus rival a Corvette. In real life, you might stick on the best tires possible and still not have the same lat g as a sports car.

So you worked on GT6 did you? If you didn't you can't talk from experience as it'll be coded completely different to what you've worked on in the past, especially considering that the architecture that the PS3 utilises.

I have not worked on GT6, but I have engineering and programming experience. I don't understand what you were getting at saying that one was completely different from the other. The point of physics models is so that you can figure out the math no matter where you are, be it the real world or a virtual one. Don't think of it as reality vs recreating reality. You're using established math models to define how everything works. The PS3 architecture probably doesn't play a huge role in how the physics modeling works. It's more important when determining how the software is going to run on the hardware.

 

[SciroccoRich]

When considering logic, being in an unknown world is more difficult than being in a created one.

No it's not. First of all THIS world is not an unknown world. Most of the laws of physics have already been defined as accurately as we can at the moment. There's very little "unknown" - the laws may be slightly off, as the last experiment in CERN highlighted - but it's certainly not "unknown". Creating a computer generated world from scratch to mimic the laws of physics that just *are* in THIS world is a MUCH harder task.

And pushing a car at race speeds around a track that the car learned on it's own requires quite a bit of physics knowledge. It has to be prepared for slipping, bumps, etc and react accordingly.

But not as much as one in an entirely generated scenario. In the simulator, you have to programme the world (which is a given in the real one), all the things you've mentioned, how all of those things interact with the world which you've created AND deal with an input from a user.

Just go to youtube and type in "driverless 330i top gear". I thought all car people watched Top Gear and would've already known what I was talking about. If you think that a car doing that is simpler than creating physics in GT6, I'll say that you're crazy since you already called me an idiot. Just use common sense.
Of course I watch topgear but I'm entitled to miss an episode or two. I didn't call you an idiot. I said that if you think that simulation hasn't improved since the 90's then you'd be an idiot. If you don't then you're not an idiot. Doing what is on that episode of Top Gear IS easier than programming a game completely from scratch.

What came first? Decent flight and car simulators (decades ago) or cars that could race aggressively around a track (last decade).

Um, there's been cars that can race aggressively for the last 70 years or so?

 

[SciroccoRich]

I don't know why, the new GTP always throws me off when it comes to quotes.

It's kind of like HTML code, it should look like this:

At the start it should be:

[quote="username, post: postID, member: memberID"]

and at the end of the bit you're quoting just stick

[/quote]

.

I don't have much experience with GT6, so I do a lot of inferring based on other comments when it comes to that game. If I'm wrong on something let me know. However, so far as I know GT6 is still using fixed grip multipliers for tires. Suspension seems to be off, as there is a general understanding that camber doesn't give real world results at all. There's also the aero issue, which depending on the cause can be a general physics problem.

Genuinely don't know how they're doing the multipliers for the tire models, although they feel completely different to the old ones. Gone are the days where you can just stick Racing Softs on any car and it'll be faster. You have to stiffen all of your suspension to make use of it. On most road cars, generally speaking, sticking RS's on wont do anything at all, you have to stick at the very most SS's on.

Some parts of the suspension require work, but I don't mind it that much. I've tinkered a lot with suspension and I've improved my cars times and "feel".

When I say cars acting like cars I mean things like FF has strong lift off oversteer, stiffening springs quickens car response, etc. Some of the things GT5 got wrong were surprising, and GT6 seems to have some of its own issues. GT6 (and even 5) are still simulators without a doubt, but I don't think either could be considered cutting edge. It would surprise me if hardware was the limitation.

IMO the FF cars are the most realistic of ANY simulator I've ever driven. I own a VW Scirocco and it handles almost EXACTLY like the one in the game. There was very little lift off oversteer before I had it remapped, after it was remapped, the back end would step out slightly - it did in the game, Anti-Lift kit fitted IRL, sorted the oversteer out, did the same sort of thing with the fully custom suspension, bam, it mimicked what happened IRL. I've said on another thread, the Ibiza Cupra was like reality same as the Civic Type-R.

Yes, tires must change how the car behaves, but in GT5 at least, racing tires gave you a racing car in the corners. It doesn't work that way. You need suspension and maybe aero to get that grip out of the tires. In GT5 SH tires would make a Samba Bus rival a Corvette. In real life, you might stick on the best tires possible and still not have the same lat g as a sports car.

GT5 was perhaps like that; linear increase in performance, but personally I don't think GT6 is like that. I agree with the aero. It does need working on.

I have not worked on GT6, but I have engineering and programming experience. I don't understand what you were getting at saying that one was completely different from the other. The point of physics models is so that you can figure out the maths no matter where you are, be it the real world or a virtual one. Don't think of it as reality vs recreating reality. You're using established maths models to define how everything works. The PS3 architecture probably doesn't play a huge role in how the physics modeling works. It's more important when determining how the software is going to run on the hardware.

Trying to create a world is completely different to using information picked up in THE real world testing it against different scenarios, then re-applying it to the real world. It's just completely different. The difference is that IRL physics is what it is, it's predefined. In the simulator, YOU create the physics, YOU decide how everything interacts with each other. That is much more difficult to get right.

 

[jr93alty]

Trying to create a world is completely different to using information picked up in THE real world testing it against different scenarios, then re-applying it to the real world. It's just completely different. The difference is that IRL physics is what it is, it's predefined. In the simulator, YOU create the physics, YOU decide how everything interacts with each other. That is much more difficult to get right.

This is incredibly incorrect. You have clearly never taken a controls class. In a game, you can approximate what happens to certain inputs once you have your physics model and have the car react precisely according to user input. IRL, if a car detects all of it's information from it's sensors and determines that it needs to go from setting X or Y at 2 and change it to a stable 10 it must change it very quickly which usually means an overshoot which you then must correct without oscillation down to what you were aiming for so you have to have a damping effect on the signal all in real time while every other variable is still changing, often at around 1000Hz. I brought up Atessa II AWD by Nissan and how precise it is...could you imagine if it couldn't adjust quickly and accurately? You would have jumpy reactions at every wheel. This is why some AWD vehicles that haven't mastered this often consistently burn down one specific tire way faster than the others. In a video game, there is no overshoot, the reaction is virtual. I really don't even know how to argue with you if you honestly think that a virtual world where the computer can accurately predict the future (because it's constant) is easier than a car that has to figure out how to react based on sensors placed in wheels hubs and other places on the car. Do you really think those computers don't factor in the effects of the suspension on a real car? I would love for you to explain step by step how this is so easy for real life and so difficult in a game because I'm dumbfounded by your logic unless you are just defending PD just to do it. Oh, and did you see the driverless car? Is that easy as well?