Physics: EPR vs GT4

[JohnBM01]

To answer the two questions...

1.) I did Arcade Mode because I just wanted to do a test run and not anything like a GT Mode run. I have a 2005 Ford Mustang GT already in GT4, but I chose not to use it because it wouldn't make much sense to use a greatly-modified car in a simple one-off run. Then too, I didn't want to purchase a second Mustang in GT Mode just to use it for some makeshift run. What I could have done was archive my main GT4 file to another Memory Card and use the main GT4 file to get that second Mustang just to do a one-time run. I just wanted to save myself the trouble and just use an unmodified car in Arcade Mode. Now if you could load game files from the Memory Card during GT4 besides when in start up, this could be much easier.

2.) I chose the default settings, so that's why the run was so sweet. The defaults for race cars are Racing Hards front and rear. I normally go for the Racing Mediums with race cars. I went with defaults by GT4, so that's why I went with the Sport Mediums instead of a Normal-grade tire. I dind't want to complicate things or take too long than I actually had to.

I appreciate all the kind comments I've gotten from my 10-lap sessions. All I wanted to do is make the most of my 10-lap run. I wanted to make things as fair as possible and use pretty much normal specs. It's no fair to have one of my fully-modified car go up against its stock variant in Enthusia. Tell you what. I'll redo my GT4 run with a stock Mustang on non-Sports and non-Racing tires if you like. Both Tsukuba variants. If you like.

 

[Scaff]

Tell you what. I'll redo my GT4 run with a stock Mustang on non-Sports and non-Racing tires if you like. Both Tsukuba variants. If you like.

I certainly would be interested in the results, so it would be greatly appreciated.

Running in GT mode would also make me very happy as I am of the opinion that Arcade mode is a little dumbed down, certainly the Yellowbird is far easier to keep on track in Arcade mode than in GT mode.

Thanks in advance

Scaff

 

[JasBird]

I've been going between GT mode and Arcade latley, and I think I have to agree with Scaff that it seems a little more difficult in GT Mode. I have yet to try the Yellowbird in GT Mode but I guess the more "wild" the car is the easier it is to notice the difference.

 

[Scaff]

I've been going between GT mode and Arcade latley, and I think I have to agree with Scaff that it seems a little more difficult in GT Mode. I have yet to try the Yellowbird in GT Mode but I guess the more "wild" the car is the easier it is to notice the difference.

The Yellowbird is actually the car that really brought it home for me, its a far easier car to control in Arcade mode that in GT mode.

Regards

Scaff

 

[rsmithdrift]

The Yellowbird is actually the car that really brought it home for me, its a far easier car to control in Arcade mode that in GT mode.

Regards

Scaff

No....I tested the HELL out of this last year along with the 0 ballast + 100% rear weight dist = moving the battery thing......all BS.

BTW, the Yellowbird is what i used also, along with a 2005 Mustang GT, a 96 MR-2, a NSX, a 180sx, a Ford GT40.

All showed absolutely no difference between GT and Arcade mode with totally stock cars on Medium sports tires in both modes....also with N1's in both modes. Never saw any differnce at all. It's called the placebo affect. You expect a difference, so your mind percieves there to be one even though there isn't. Like when you make changes in the garage then go out on track and feel a good difference, then go back to the garage to find you forgot to hit ok and cancelled all the changes before going back on track....LMAO.

 

[Scaff]

No....I tested the HELL out of this last year along with the 0 ballast + 100% rear weight dist = moving the battery thing......all BS.

BTW, the Yellowbird is what i used also, along with a 2005 Mustang GT, a 96 MR-2, a NSX, a 180sx, a Ford GT40.

I don't recall mentioning ballast and/or weight distribution at all?

All showed absolutely no difference between GT and Arcade mode with totally stock cars on Medium sports tires in both modes....also with N1's in both modes. Never saw any differnce at all.

And it would seem to both myself and others would disagree with you on this particular point.

It's called the placebo affect. You expect a difference, so your mind percieves there to be one even though there isn't. Like when you make changes in the garage then go out on track and feel a good difference, then go back to the garage to find you forgot to hit ok and cancelled all the changes before going back on track....LMAO.

I sorry but I don't see how you know if I was expecting a change or not?

For the record I have made the mistake of hitting the cancel button rather that OK when tuning before and have not been fooled by it at all, quite the opposite in fact.


My main points here were in regard to the comparison between GT4 and EPR and that I feel a more accurate set of results would be obtained (allowing for a better comparison) if GT mode and N class tyres had been used.

Regards

Scaff

 

[JasBird]

It's definetly a difference when you drive full fuel in GT Mode compared to Arcade mode. I assumed it was weight/fuel that made the difference, but you get no fuel gauge in GT Mode when you go for free practice, so I'm not sure if it's in consideration at all? Still I feel there is a little difference in GT Mode with the car being just a little more nervous.

Back to the original topic for a second comparing GT4 and EPR. If we take the Yellowbird/CTR it's the one car that's more challeging to drive in GT4 than in EPR.

Now comparing cars only in GT4 for a moment; for instance the Elise's, RX7's and the RUF cars to be should I say more "alive". You feel the weight shift and you can easily get the car to slide. Also for example the Skyline R32-R34 in GT4 are good fun to drive and easily get a smal drift out of the corners. The BMW you can also feel are very balanced, just like they are famous for. Apart from the M5 which is a beast which seems to have good physics in GT4. Again compared to other cars in GT4.

Looking at other cars and EPR; the EVO 8 which is my favourite car in EPR, you can slide it around and it's great fun to drive. In GT4 it's almost like the car has a different physics model compared to other cars mentoined above. It's just understeer most of the time, and it doesn't have any characther. Same thing with the 350 Z which is also know to be a fun car to drive. In EPR it's a blast, but not in GT4.

My point being that in GT4 it seems that they programmed some cars well and left others on some kind of "standard driving model"? I think it's interesting point when comparing both games driving models. Atleast I think EPR does a better job to capture each car's "soul" compared to GT4.


Cheers

 

[Deathclown66]

Well, I'll have to agree that GT4 contains no difference that I have ever seen between arcade and GT modes.
perhaps you didn't realize tcs or asm was on in arcade?


Since we're comparing EPR with GT4, where does Toca 3 fit in? (physics wise, of course)

 

[Scaff]

Well, I'll have to agree that GT4 contains no difference that I have ever seen between arcade and GT modes.
perhaps you didn't realize tcs or asm was on in arcade?

And as I said above I (and others) would disagree with this, what cars have you tried it with and what tracks? I strongly suggest giving the Yellowbird a go around the 'ring on N1 or N2 tyres.

As far as TCS and/or ASM, nice idea, but not correct as far as myself goes. I don't use either in GT mode or Arcade mode.

Since we're comparing EPR with GT4, where does Toca 3 fit in? (physics wise, of course)

Personally I would rate TRD3 below either EPR or GT4, even with the pro-sim mode switched on. TRD has some nice touches, particularly in the damage area, but its physics are still a bit arcade biased for my liking and some of the tracks are not well modeled.

Regards

Scaff

 

[Deathclown66]

And as I said above I (and others) would disagree with this, what cars have you tried it with and what tracks? I strongly suggest giving the Yellowbird a go around the 'ring on N1 or N2 tyres.

As far as TCS and/or ASM, nice idea, but not correct as far as myself goes. I don't use either in GT mode or Arcade mode.

The Yellowbird? no. But now that you mention it, this is far to intriguing to not look into.

Personally I would rate TRD3 below either EPR or GT4, even with the pro-sim mode switched on. TRD has some nice touches, particularly in the damage area, but its physics are still a bit arcade biased for my liking and some of the tracks are not well modeled.

That's sortof the impression I'm getting, (compared to GT) but I have to love the amount of races, competition, and loads of great tracks, whether they're modeled correctly or not, most of them I don't know anyway, they're just great tracks.

 

[Scaff]

The Yellowbird? no. But now that you mention it, this is far to intriguing to not look into.

Look forward to hearing what you think 👍 .

That's sortof the impression I'm getting, (compared to GT) but I have to love the amount of races, competition, and loads of great tracks, whether they're modeled correctly or not, most of them I don't know anyway, they're just great tracks.

Don't get me wrong TRD3 is a great game and great fun.

Its just that the tracks that I know in real life that are in it are a bit sanatised. take Castle Combe (which is my local track), Quarry corner is a beast of a corner, but in TRD3 its almost straightforward.

Regards

Scaff

 

[Deathclown66]

Well, I ran the Yellowbird in both Arcade and GT modes, and after about a half an hour, I can only imagine you've forgotten that the car comes with S3's in GT mode, as other than that, they most certainly are one and the same, this can be verified by saving your ghost, and racing against it.

 

[Wolfe]

I must say I've tried various cars in GT4, including the Yellowbird, in both modes before and never noticed any differences. I think it may be nothing but a perceived difference (like the effects of a placebo).

As for TRD3, it's just as floaty and vague as the first two TRD games, and the Colin McRae games. You can tell right away that it's based on the "old-school" method of programming racing-game physics, where turning left and right is accomplished by "rotating" the car from an axis in its middle, rather than turning the front wheels and having the grip between the front tires and the road (among many other simultaneous factors, of course) determine the path of the car. Furthermore, the "improvements" Codemasters added for the Pro-Sim mode seem to consist of nothing but the ability to lock up your brakes and encounter wheelspin more easily.

 

[rsmithdrift]

I must say I've tried various cars in GT4, including the Yellowbird, in both modes before and never noticed any differences. I think it may be nothing but a perceived difference (like the effects of a placebo).

.

I have said this OVER AND OVER AGAIN!

Along with the fact that shifting 0 weight balast does NOTHING! But yet people still argue that there is a "quite noticable difference" *cough*placebo*cough*effect*cough* and that it's the effect of moving the battery *cough*bull*cough*

And as far as TRD3 goes, I've owned all TOCA's and TRD3 is the first one that I could drive BELOW 30 mph. LMAO. TOCA 1 and 2 are so floaty in pro sim modes that you literally can't keep the car straight below 30mph. TRD3 is the first one that feels like I'm actually driving a real car at all times. Which is something even Richard Burns Rally can't do. And EPR does best. Though RBR is still a VERY realistic and fun game that I still have a hard time with. Turns come up on you quick on gravel at 120kmph (70mph) lol.

 

[Scaff]

Well, I ran the Yellowbird in both Arcade and GT modes, and after about a half an hour, I can only imagine you've forgotten that the car comes with S3's in GT mode, as other than that, they most certainly are one and the same, this can be verified by saving your ghost, and racing against it.

I do wish you would stop making assumptions about what you believe I have forgotten, quite simply because they are not correct. I've run probable hundreds of hours of tests right the way across the GT range, in particular GT4 and run comparisons to other games (as a search of this site will quite clearly show), the difference between tyres is easy to spot and feel.

I must say I've tried various cars in GT4, including the Yellowbird, in both modes before and never noticed any differences. I think it may be nothing but a perceived difference (like the effects of a placebo).

As for TRD3, it's just as floaty and vague as the first two TRD games, and the Colin McRae games. You can tell right away that it's based on the "old-school" method of programming racing-game physics, where turning left and right is accomplished by "rotating" the car from an axis in its middle, rather than turning the front wheels and having the grip between the front tires and the road (among many other simultaneous factors, of course) determine the path of the car. Furthermore, the "improvements" Codemasters added for the Pro-Sim mode seem to consist of nothing but the ability to lock up your brakes and encounter wheelspin more easily.

And while I don't doubt your opinion regarding the two GT modes, you have to acknowledge that many people disagree with it. Now you can call it a placebo effect, but that argument could go both ways, in that I could argue that you (and others) subconsously 'correct' for the differences and therefore see none.

Neither opinion can be 'proven', and only PD could 100% confirm that they are or are not the same.

Something I do need to add in regard to the often criticised 'rotation' of Codemaster's (and other games) is that people seem to believe that 'rotation' has no place in a true sim (I often read this on some of the PC sim sites) and quite frankly that's not correct. To be correctly modeled rotation does need to be modelled, and while Wolfe is correct that good tyre grip and slip does need to be modeled (on all tyres) to ignore rotation (or more correctly Yaw) is also a mistake.

What TRD and CM get so wrong is that its the only factor involved and almost always from the dead centre of the car.

I have said this OVER AND OVER AGAIN!

Along with the fact that shifting 0 weight balast does NOTHING! But yet people still argue that there is a "quite noticable difference" *cough*placebo*cough*effect*cough* and that it's the effect of moving the battery *cough*bull*cough*

And as far as TRD3 goes, I've owned all TOCA's and TRD3 is the first one that I could drive BELOW 30 mph. LMAO. TOCA 1 and 2 are so floaty in pro sim modes that you literally can't keep the car straight below 30mph. TRD3 is the first one that feels like I'm actually driving a real car at all times. Which is something Richard Burns Rally can't do. Though RBR is still a VERY realistic and fun game that I still have a hard time with. Turns come up on you quick on gravel at 120kmph (70mph) lol.

I have to ask why are you once again bringing up the ballast issue, as if its addressed at me I have already quite clearly said that I have not mentioned it n or for the record do I disagree with you on that particular point. Moving ballast location with no weight selected does nothing, I don't disagree with you on that.

However I totally fail to see what that has to do with GT vs. Arcade mode, its quite possible for me to agree with you on one point and disagree with you on the other. In the same way that I agree with your comments about TRD3 being the best of the series so far and the first to feel like you are driving an actual car, but disagree with you on the RBR point, I feel quite at home with RBR.

Regards

Scaff

 

[Deathclown66]

I do wish you would stop making assumptions about what you believe I have forgotten, quite simply because they are not correct. I've run probable hundreds of hours of tests right the way across the GT range, in particular GT4 and run comparisons to other games (as a search of this site will quite clearly show), the difference between tyres is easy to spot and feel.

Well I'm sorry if you found that offensive, but you seem to notcie a "difference" that is clearly not there.

Neither opinion can be 'proven', and only PD could 100% confirm that they are or are not the same.

Yes, it can be proven. Drive 5 laps 'round the ring, or 10 on your fav track, and see what you average, and then, do it in the other mode, racing your ghost. if you can't run different times, and your ghosts match, there is clearly no difference between them.
Actually, it's very simple.

 

[Scaff]

Well I'm sorry if you found that offensive, but you seem to notcie a "difference" that is clearly not there.

Yes, it can be proven. Drive 5 laps 'round the ring, or 10 on your fav track, and see what you average, and then, do it in the other mode, racing your ghost. if you can't run different times, and your ghosts match, there is clearly no difference between them.
Actually, it's very simple.

Sorry but I do not agree that its that simple (and I don't take offense I'm just not a big fan of assumptions), I have run tests of this nature, running countless hours worth of laps while putting together the tuning guides.

If you recall I suggested the Yellowbird for a back to back test, and personally using a DFP (or DF) I can detect a difference in GT and Arcade mode, I did not say it was a 'chalk and cheese' difference, but in my opinion its certainly a difference.

In regard to you stating that it is a prove-able fact I have already covered in my point about a Placebo effect in my reply to Wolfe, it works both ways.

Regards

Scaff

 

[Hun200kmh]

Scaff, maybe it's just the dumbness of me, but what exactly do you feel it's different from GT to Arcade Mode.

I'm not a guy to play intensive tests, like you and others (but I use to read your writeups, thank you for them) and the only one I "sort of" made (nearly 1,5 years ago) was when I had a hard time with mission 34, so I went and bought a SLR (to unlock it in Arcade mode and practise there).

I remember to feel that the "Arcade Merc" was easier to drive than the one used in the Mission (34), but I changed the tyres to N(whatever number, can't remember) and got satisfied with the result --> the cars (ARcade and Mission) seemed to behave the same way.

Going back to the question: what is it exactly that you feel different?

 

[JasBird]

If you select a race in GT Mode were you see the Fuel Gauge, you feel a difference compared to Arcade. If you do just Time Trial in GT Mode (no Fuel Gauge) it's no difference. You can feel that he car is more nervous/heavy with full fuel. Atleast that's my take on it

 

[Deathclown66]

If you select a race in GT Mode were you see the Fuel Gauge, you feel a difference compared to Arcade. If you do just Time Trial in GT Mode (no Fuel Gauge) it's no difference. You can feel that he car is more nervous/heavy with full fuel. Atleast that's my take on it

That is a very interesting point, but I don't believe it is a full tank of fuel your feeling, rather, cold tires.
In Practice modes, all cars have optimal traction with all four tires, meaning each has full, warmed-up traction, all the time, being equal to a light-bright green color in an actual race.
We should also note that with some cars, mainly one with heavy under or oversteer, one can warm the front/rear tires faster, and correct the inbalance, at least in part, thus creating faster lap times, in a race, than practice.

At this point, I'll make another assumption, but this time, that Scaff didn't make a mistake, and has been talking about GT practice, rather than actual races in gt mode.
Or, has compared arcade races with strong tire wear, to gt mode races with tire wear, along with practice in both.

 

[Wolfe]

And while I don't doubt your opinion regarding the two GT modes, you have to acknowledge that many people disagree with it. Now you can call it a placebo effect, but that argument could go both ways, in that I could argue that you (and others) subconsously 'correct' for the differences and therefore see none.

Neither opinion can be 'proven', and only PD could 100% confirm that they are or are not the same.

Of course. In fact, I should have included in my last post that my observation of both modes being the same is exactly that -- an observation -- and nothing more. I don't have a particularly strong opinion on the matter, and have never bothered to closely examine and compare the two modes. That's why I almost never bring it up.

Something I do need to add in regard to the often criticised 'rotation' of Codemaster's (and other games) is that people seem to believe that 'rotation' has no place in a true sim (I often read this on some of the PC sim sites) and quite frankly that's not correct. To be correctly modeled rotation does need to be modelled, and while Wolfe is correct that good tyre grip and slip does need to be modeled (on all tyres) to ignore rotation (or more correctly Yaw) is also a mistake.

What TRD and CM get so wrong is that its the only factor involved and almost always from the dead centre of the car.

That last sentence of yours is the exact phenomenon that I'm describing.

As for the unjust criticism of rotation, are you referring to the fact that cars can and will enter a degree of "rotation" through a corner merely because the tire slip that is inherent in all forms of cornering? Or are you referring to the fact that racing game programmers will occassionally produce a physics engine that attempts to distance itself from the "rotation" method and instead create a game that baffles the mind with awkward and physically impossible maneuvers (I can think of a few off the top of my head)?

In either case, you are correct in saying that rotation should be just as much of a factor as any other motion of the car (particularly regarding the inertia within that rotation, one area where I believe GT4 is fatally flawed), but that should go without saying. More importantly, as you and I have both noted with TRD/CM, a game cannot rely on rotation as the sole factor in cornering.

 

[Scaff]

Scaff, maybe it's just the dumbness of me, but what exactly do you feel it's different from GT to Arcade Mode.

****SNIP****

Going back to the question: what is it exactly that you feel different?

At this point, I'll make another assumption, but this time, that Scaff didn't make a mistake, and has been talking about GT practice, rather than actual races in gt mode.
Or, has compared arcade races with strong tire wear, to gt mode races with tire wear, along with practice in both.

Its been a while since I drove all the modes back to back, so that's given me a new project to look at. I will get back on this one in more detail.

That last sentence of yours is the exact phenomenon that I'm describing.

👍

As for the unjust criticism of rotation, are you referring to the fact that cars can and will enter a degree of "rotation" through a corner merely because the tire slip that is inherent in all forms of cornering? Or are you referring to the fact that racing game programmers will occassionally produce a physics engine that attempts to distance itself from the "rotation" method and instead create a game that baffles the mind with awkward and physically impossible maneuvers (I can think of a few off the top of my head)

In real world terms a car (when cornering) will generate rotational forces (yaw) quite independently of the tyres themselves. If you were to place a car on a 'lazy-susan'/turntable so that it's tyres were not in contact with teh ground and it was free to rotate, and place both on a trains flat-bed trailer.
When the train is traveling straight the car would remain straight, however as the train turns when encountering a bend in the tracks the car would rotate on the lazy-susan/turntable.

The point around which the rotation will occur will depend on the weight distribution and centre of gravity of the car, and the inertia contained in the rotation will depend on the weight/load distribution of the car, cornering forces and speed of the car (the last two being directly linked of course).

The book Going Faster by the Skip Barber racing school uses this very example (and as such gets the credit for it).

This is the cars natural desire to rotate independent of forces applied to the tyres, however the cars path is also determined by the slip angles and percentages that are being encountered by each individual tyre. As these can't be seperated in actual use the interaction between rotation and the tyres angle of travel/slip angle have to be considered together, as the car is steered into a corner and cornering forces develop, yaw occurs which results in rotation, the degree and strength of this rotation being determined by the factors mentioned above.

Its the combination of these forces that makes a real physics model so damn difficult to get right.

In either case, you are correct in saying that rotation should be just as much of a factor as any other motion of the car (particularly regarding the inertia within that rotation, one area where I believe GT4 is fatally flawed), but that should go without saying. More importantly, as you and I have both noted with TRD/CM, a game cannot rely on rotation as the sole factor in cornering.

I totally agree that a game can't rely on rotation alone and it was for a long time the sole factor used to model many games, which has lead to the entire concept of rotation getting a reputation for poor physics modeling.

In regard to GT4 I actually think that the rotational modeling is not to bad (particularly in regard to how it develops and increases with speed) and its the flaws with the tyre grip limits and breakaway that cause the problems. Do-nut tests in GT4 show this to a degree as rotationally the car is roughly trying to do the right thing, but the front tyres will not develop sufficient grip to allow it to work and the rear tyres (assuming a RWD car here of course) will not breakaway as they should.

On the other hand a lack of high speed rotational inertia in Enthusia is one of the areas that, in my opinion, allow high speed drifts to be developed, held and recovered. The tyres may break away a little too easily in Enthusia, but the slightly slowed rotation allows the car to be easily balanced and held.

Regards

Scaff

 

[Deathclown66]

@ Scaff - Very insightful, but you missed something in the do-nut part: The lack of force provided by the tires to cause it to actually move at a life-like speed.
By that I mean that all cars in GT4, do not move quickly enough when spinning tires, hence a critical factor in "drifting", among other things, namely drag racing.
This is why all FF cars run horrible 1/4 times, because they simply don't move when the tires spin, it also leads to extreme tire wear, on FF's and 4wd's, and simply hurts forward acceleration in rwd's.

So, if anyone is certain, or has a good idea, how exactly did PD get cornering tire grip fairly accurate, while making straight-line grip an unknown commodity?

 

[rsmithdrift]

Honestly GT4's main problem is that the forward bite goes away almost completely once the tires breakaway. But the side bite doesn't fall off hardly at all when the tires breakaway.....that is why drifting feels so wierd in GT4 and why you can't do donuts.

I find that when donut testing the front tires are remaining in grip like they should and the rear tires are clearly broken away as I'm bouncing revlimiter, but the car won't accelerate forward while wheelspinning and can't get any momentum built up because of it and the side grip won't drop as much as it should meaning you need MORE momentum than a real car to actually make the car slide.

The tire should loose forward and side bite at an even rate......instead they loose all forward bite and almost no side bite......

EPR's only problem I see tire wise is that the tires don't loose enough forward bite, OR side bite after the tires breakaway. It's like the car still has almost as much grip at high wheelspin as it does with all tires in full grip. And that's just not right.

Here's the way it is in real life:

Tires NEVER really grip completely, even going a straight line the tires are slipping a small amount because of the grain of the tire and suspension geometry/settings of the car. Once you start pushing a tire it gradually looses more and more of it's gripping power as you push it harder untill you hit the "breakaway" point, at this point the grip quickly falls off a large amount due to the tires vibration as it slides on the pavement. But the tire still has some grip, the more you slide the tire, the less grip it will have. Tire width, profile, and compound all affect the amount of grip the tire will loose and how quickly it will loose it. So will speed. A wider tire will grip more and it's grip won't fall off much, but will do it all at once after breakaway, meaning once it falls off it won't fall off much any more. A low profile tire will grip more and fall off hard and all at once after breakaway. A harder compound tire will grip SIGNIFICANTLY LESS and won't fall off much, but will do it all at once. This makes a good drift tire setup for it's predictability. Drifting is all about being able to predict what your car will do when you do what you do to get it sideways through the turn, anything you can do to your car to make that easier is welcomed. LSD, low profile, hard compound tires, stiff suspension, all makes drifting more predictable, more predictable = easier. Also the faster you go the less grip a tire has and the faster and harder it will fall off.

Anyways back to what I was saying GT4 doesn't replicate the way a tire falls off accurately, it behaves so that a tire has all grip or no grip. And doesn't fall off proportionally, like I said, a real tire looses side and forward grip equally, Not true in GT4, this was PD's way of making up for the on/off switch of the tires grip. If PD fixed this one issue, the cars would behave perfectly.

EPR doesn't "breakaway" enough, It breaks away proportionally, but I feel you don't loose enough grip once you hit the breakaway point, it's as if all the cars have very high profile, thin, soft tires......They fall off so gradually and slowly that you feel like you never really have grip to begin with and it's almost impossible to tell where the "breakaway" point is because it happens so gradually and doesn't fall off much at all. Also EPR doesn't take speed into account into this equation, which is why high speed drifting is so easy in the game.

This is why drifters HATE GT4 and Grippers love it. And most people in general just hate EPR, except for the few drifters like us who love it.

 

[Hun200kmh]

A litle correction. I'm a gripper, and I prefer EPR over GT4.

PS - btw, I don't hate games, just have my preferences

 

[Scaff]

Here's the way it is in real life:

Tires NEVER really grip completely, even going a straight line the tires are slipping a small amount because of the grain of the tire and suspension geometry/settings of the car. Once you start pushing a tire it gradually looses more and more of it's gripping power as you push it harder untill you hit the "breakaway" point, at this point the grip quickly falls off a large amount due to the tires vibration as it slides on the pavement. But the tire still has some grip, the more you slide the tire, the less grip it will have.

While I agree with the bulk of what you have said I do have to just clarify one point, up to the limit of a tyres grip (be it the Slip Angle for cornering, the Slip Ratio/Percentage for acceleration and braking or a combination of the two), the tractive force (grip/gripping power) will increase.

Its only at this limit (breakaway as you describe it) that tractive forces fall off, as these two diagrams show.

Source - Going Faster

Source - http://www.donpalmer.co.uk/cchandbook/modelgrip.htm


The following powerpoint presentation goes into the subject in quite a bit more detail, but those of a technical mind may find it of interest.

Tyre Dynamics Presentation

This is why drifters HATE GT4 and Grippers love it. And most people in general just hate EPR, except for the few drifters like us who love it.

I have to say, I've always maintained (and still do) that both have strengths and weaknesses and personally I love both.

👍

Scaff

 

[Deathclown66]

Just rented EPR last week... still have it, it's due back tomorrow. I haven't played it since saturday, but I have played GT4 for 5-10 hours.
Anybody that claims EPR "more realistic" than GT4, needs to get 3 things: 1. A driver's license. 2. A car. 3. A road. After that, all the have to do is mix the three things, and they'll realize what a peice of crap EPR is. It does have good features, it does have a few perks, I'll let go of the horrible menu designs, the overly-complicated-even-though-it's-got-less-detail-than-GT4-by-far setup, and the inability to drive stock cars around wherever and do fun things off the bat, and the measly 10 car selection at the beginning, that includes not a single car I really wanted to drive, and the horrific-we-made-ps2-seem-like-sega tuning options.
Physics, is what we're talking about in here, so off I go, on a tangent.
1. Infinity G35's (Skyline I had, same car), DO NOT burn out and bounce off the rev-limiter at 80 mph, just because you turned.
2. Not every RWD car in the world spins like a top if you break tire traction a smidgeon, no sir.
3. Speaking of cars feeling like they're floating on a lazy susan, these things seemed to me to carry that far more than any car game I've driven since 1997.
4. Braking is absurd, and stupid, cars with ABS achieve full lock-up constantly at low speeds, and plow like dump trucks, and if you don't lock them, you just don't slow down....
5. opposite of GT4, cars don't spin enough off the line, and spin way to much more when cornering.
6. high-speed cornering? well jeez, I guess I wasn't allowed to drive any fast cars, not any fast track, minus the 'Ring, when it's DARK. Besides, everybody agrees that part's horrible, so I probly couldn't have taken it.
7. The steering response is unbelievably slow, and overreacts once it moves, delivering a very annoying transition between games, and, a very UN-real driving feel.

On side notes, the tracks suck, the cars are made extra big, so the moderate graphics seem better then they are, everything looked fake around me, not a single time did it look like I was on a race track, compared to GT4 or even Toca.

This company thought they could whip out something better than the Console-Racing masters, with half the work. Surprise, they failed miserably.

GT4 Vs. EPR
Steering - GT4 - uses the pressure sensitive buttons well, and allows you to steer smoothly and evenly, without loads of practice.
EPR - A Nightmare. jagged, pointy, slow in response, and drastic in measure, when combined with excessive wheel spin during cornering, and an overly-heightened snap-oversteer on even modest powered RWD's, create an experience that'll scare the racing dreams out of kids near and far.

Wheelspin - GT4 - a little to much spin, that seems way worse than it is, due to a highly overexagerated loss of grip upon wheelspin, but evened out quite a bit due to lack of increase when turning.
EPR - Sticks like glue when straight, spins 3X when turning. pretty much the opposite of GT4.

Cornering - GT4 - Maybe a little much grip, depending what tires you use.
EPR - seemed decent, unless you use the go-paddle, then all hell breaks loose.

Speed - Can't test cars in EPR for crap, so we just don't know, at least I don't, cause I'm not bothering to try to match speeds on the few tracks they share in common.

Braking - neither is right, EPR went overboard trying to be realistic, and disabled all cars ABS, and GT4 did the opposite, not enough realism, and gave all cars ABS, and far as I know, there ain't nothing you can do to fix either, but you can make GT4 better.

All-in-all, I'd say while GT4 spins tires to much going straight, it also doesn't make them increase spin enough in corners, (all cars, even FF), the FFs have it the worst because they have the straight-line the worst. What this does though, is even out, to a degree, so that while cornering, you actually have a close-to-life amount of grip, because it starts to high, but the cornering doesnt increase it enough, meaning it should be Straight - 5. Cornering - 5 total = 10. instead, GT4 gives you this: straight - 2 cornering - 8 total = 10

EPR, on the other hand, is more like this: straight - 7 cornering - 2 total = 9

So while GT4's system disables FF's from competing with others, EPR's just makes FFs the only cars close to realistic.


I used to bitch about GT4, and a lot of things that could be better... till the point I finally decided to try other games.... guess what? GT4 makes these other "good" games look like crap. Some have some great features, specifically toca 3, but the general lack of ability to chose what/where/when you do things is annoying, aside from the inability to drive stock cars, for the most part. The ability to change color in Enthusia, neat again.
And yet, driving aside, tracks aside, number of cars aside, making those all the same, and giving each games it's own features, (the ones they already have, the way they have them), I'd take GT4 based solely on the ability to test cars, the ability to drive stock cars, the ability to tune as I please, and the ability to actually tune at all.
Forced into automatic upgrades? upgrades that I don't know what are, or what they do? and they think this compares to GT?
And in Toca 3, the upgrades just don't seem to do much, along with tuning.
I will give EPR it's due, the tuning has more effect. too bad I don't know what I'm tuning, how much power it has, how much it weighs, oh, and did I mention, AGAIN, EPR over-compensated, and the tuning (settings) changes you make, do to much? sorry guys, but 0.5 of camber doesnt change an understeering car into and oversteering monster, or vice versa.

EPR is for the uneducated, uninformed, ignorant, or those who simply cannot tell what cars do in the real world, and translate to what they should be doing in a video game. I apologize in advance if this offends and EPR fans, but I see no way this game compares to GT4, on any level, it's simply a contradiction on every option. and GT4 has far more good than bad. so you tell me, what's the opposite?



Now, if somebody could just get 5 and 5.......


Yes, I hate EPR, and in the future I will avoid it like rabid wolverines.
And I want my 8$ rental fee back.

EDIT: one last thing: the little video, showing the Suzuki, and how they claim their physics to br "real", is a horrible ploy, trying to demonstrate that the game is perfect, when in reality, it makes the gullible belive it must be, and is targeted to those who are gullible. I'm sure the same feat could be accomplished with GT4, the difference is, in GT4, they programmed it right, and the suzuki would oversteer due to chassis/engine layout, along with suspension, and in EPR, they did a burnout, because everybody knows 60hp cars spin like a top if you floor it mid-turn at 55mph. (sarcasm)

 

[NSX-R]

Hey, everyone can have his/her own opions. Although I disagree with some points I still respect your honesty.

BTW, There was a Suzuki in the demonstration video?

 

[Tornado]

I will point something out:

EPR is for the uneducated, uninformed, ignorant, or those who simply cannot tell what cars do in the real world, and translate to what they should be doing in a video game. I apologize in advance if this offends and EPR fans, but I see no way this game compares to GT4, on any level, it's simply a contradiction on every option. and GT4 has far more good than bad. so you tell me, what's the opposite?

That has far more condescension than was necessary at all. If you want to disagree points, fine. But saying essentially that anyone who even remotely thinks that EPR may be more realistic than GT4 is a complete dullard is essentially making it so you are going to be attacked more based on that sentence alone than any of your points. Furthermore, that statement applies to GT4 just as much as it does to EPR when compared to other sims.
Also:

Steering - GT4 - uses the pressure sensitive buttons well, and allows you to steer smoothly and evenly, without loads of practice.
EPR - A Nightmare. jagged, pointy, slow in response, and drastic in measure, when combined with excessive wheel spin during cornering, and an overly-heightened snap-oversteer on even modest powered RWD's, create an experience that'll scare the racing dreams out of kids near and far.

Applying that to EPR and then not applying it at all (if not more so) to GT4 is very hypocrytical.

Braking is absurd, and stupid, cars with ABS achieve full lock-up constantly at low speeds, and plow like dump trucks, and if you don't lock them, you just don't slow down....

It's called modulation. If you slam the brakes in pretty much any car ever they will lock up and slide, regardless of speed. You have to ease into the brakes or they will lock.

I'll let go of the horrible menu designs,

Which is good, because the GT series has never had good menus, with GT4 hitting an all time low in silly amounts of menus rooted in submenus, all dispersed over a "World Map."

Infinity G35's (Skyline I had, same car), DO NOT burn out and bounce off the rev-limiter at 80 mph, just because you turned.

When you experienced said lack of spinning out, were you racing your car? Because EPR is a racing game, and as such cars are used closer to their potential (or over their potential) when they are raced. And when you are turning you are adding lateral g's in addition to accelerative ones, so if you turn violently (and you seem to be having troubles with modulation as your opinion on braking seems to indicate) it will happen.

the tracks suck

So, the tracks that were shared between EPR and GT4 suck in GT4 as well.

and far as I know, there ain't nothing you can do to fix either, but you can make GT4 better.

As far as I know, there is no reason that they can't fix Enthusia's problems.

overly-complicated-even-though-it's-got-less-detail-than-GT4-by-far setup

As opposed to the even-moreso-overly-complicated-but-with-slightly-more-detail-than-EPR-setup that GT4 has?

in GT4, they programmed it right, and the suzuki would oversteer due to chassis/engine layout, along with suspension,

And then this 60BHP skinny-tired subcompact would snap-oversteer the second you tried to countersteer.

 

[Dave A]

Having only ever played EPR with my driving force pro I can't relate to or retaliate to deathclowns comments since I tihnk he's made it clear he used the pad. However my experience with EPR using the wheel has been much better than with GT4. I totally agree with Scaff when he says that both games are flawed. Personally I'd put GT4 and EPR on a par in terms of realism but where one fails the other succeeds. I just enjoy EPR more, where GT4 fails bugs me more than where EPR fails but I put that down to my preference.