Physics of Standard cars

[hessi]

Hi there,


for a while I am wondering whether there is a distinct difference in the driving physics of standard cars compared to Premium models.

First things first:
Obviously GT6 is a simulation running on limited hardware, so there is probably no car in GT6 that reacts 100% like its counterpart in real life. And yes, some cars are probably modeled well enough and the GT6 physics engine is suited nicely around their properties so that they feel "a lot" like their real-life counterpart.

But: Are there cars in GT6 that are just "sloppily" defined according to a few key facts (power, weight, weight distribution, dimensions, ?) so that their driving behaviour is a lot more "generic" than their real-life counterparts? If that's the case I would assume these cars are mostly found on the standard side of the car list - correct?

I guess what I'm really asking is: How good can a car be defined in GT6? Are all the key facts necessary to create a unique driving experience existing in all cars, or did some cars get more details that are used by the physics engine to define its driving characteristics?

 

[Wide Boy]

There seems a huge difference in quality, some cars are a lot more correct than others in my view.
It however has nothing to do with them being standard or premium.
That said perhaps they are taking a bit more time & care with some of the newer ones.
It is possible some older ones have seen several physics updates & its mucked them up a bit.

 

[Griffith500]

I think, in short, the physics engine has changed, so the data being put into it has changed, and the Standard cars would have needed to be "retro-fitted" with that extra data. Either that, or the existing data "translated" for the new model. Any guesswork in that data, or inadequacies in the translation, or even the physics model itself, will cause "problems".

As has been mentioned, physical accuracy is an issue across the board anyway, which is to be expected given the scope of the game.

 

[grog]

It was definitely this way in GT5. You could buy the same car one premium and one standard, and the standards seemed more forgiving but they felt different for sure.
I'm not sure about GT6, those duplicate (PSP models) cars aren't in GT6 so checking will be harder.

 

[332i]

It's not just the standards. Plenty of the premium cars probably aren't spot on, but who am I to say. I haven't driven a fraction of the 400+ premiums. I'm big into BMWs, though and they hit all the premium ones like a nail on the head. You can tell which ones are done well, physics-wise, because it's not just that it will feel close ton the car in real life without the feeling of the road, but more son the fact that you'll think to yourself - wow...THIS feels like driving. Cars like the huayra, skylines, BMWs, vettes...just a few examples of ones that really feel like driving, because you can control them with legitimate driving manuavers and you can power through throttle lift oversteer situations much better, etc. Usually you can feel a direct difference in the cars responses.

Curious to see if someone has driven both the premium and standard M5s and huayras and what they thought with all being on stock setups. Both cars have a standard and premium version in the game.

You make a good point with GT6 being a simulator and that the problem is really limited hardware. I 100% back this, with the proper cars and it seems you feel the same; that the cream of the crop premiums respond to the physics engine "correctly". The cars that are well simulated are harder to pull off video game style maneuvers like the standards...basically cheating the physics engine, but they aren't as quick as someone with proper techniques who can do them very well.

The GTRs in GT academy were definitely screwed with, physics wise. I hear people with the top times are using ebrake maneuvers and things like that, which could never be applied in real life. No one is going to pull their ebrake in a GT3 car to modify their entry angles and so on. I feel like they mixed the physics a little or something between premium and standard, because the arcade-esque feeling was back. Especially right now in round four. It does not feel like the current physics engine in the rest of the game. It feels floaty and too easy to get out of trouble. Not easy to net sub 2:15s at spa, but too forgiving. You wouldn't see half the people that are in the top thousand if that car were legitimately simulated.

This was my first GT academy and I was kind of put off by the physics change. It was obvious. I have been doing well, too. It's not that.

This led me to the conclusion which you have come to as well, that the cars are modelled differently in terms of physics, and that they all handle the physics engine differently. Remember the cars bouncing off of rumble strips and flipping? Doesn't happen anymore, but the rumble strips also don't affect force feedback as much either after they adjusted the physics engine. You could set two different cars up the same with the same ride height, spring and shock settings, if I recall correctly and it would be easy to roll one, whilst the other just wouldn't. And so I think they changed how the physics engine fights back at the car and throttled down the physically reaction, because they wouldn't even be able to find all of the cars that would roll. So they changed part of the engine rather. I think the physics engine was certainly to blame, but interesting to note that it wouldnt happen to some cars that should, in theory, react the same to the engine.

Interesting stuff to think ponder and pay attention to when we play.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The GTRs in GT academy were definitely screwed with, physics wise. I hear people with the top times are using ebrake maneuvers and things like that, which could never be applied in real life. No one is going to pull their ebrake in a GT3 car to modify their entry angles and so on. I feel like they mixed the physics a little or something between premium and standard, because the arcade-esque feeling was back. Especially right now in round four. It does not feel like the current physics engine in the rest of the game. It feels floaty and too easy to get out of trouble. Not easy to net sub 2:15s at spa, but too forgiving. You wouldn't see half the people that are in the top thousand if that car were legitimately simulated.

That's the same unsubstantiated argument I hear over and over about TT's and GTA about the top players, usually from players that can't reach the top of the heap. The top players are top players because they do what it takes to find the limit of the car...period. The same names are at the top levels of TT's regardless of cars/tracks/tires/physics/game version etc. etc. etc. They can find the limits regardless of the parameters, that's why they're aliens and it's been proven over and over and over in dozens of TT's on all imaginable combinations.

I don't know if people are e-braking in the GTA Rd. 4, I've only watched a couple of replays and didn't look. But you don't need to use the e-brake on at least some corners to get the back end to lock and break loose to rotate, you only need to hold the brake pedal down a little longer than usual and flick the wheel at the right time while dropping down 1 extra gear. Works in La Source, Les Combes, Rivage and the Bus Stop for sure. No you wouldn't do that in real life, but this is they way PD designed the game so you do what you have to, to win, that's the name of the game. When they program in engine damage from downshifting, increased heat and tire wear from sliding the back end around, then you'll see a smoother style prosper, but it'll be the same people at the top of the leaderboards, guaranteed.

 

[332i]

That's the same unsubstantiated argument I hear over and over about TT's and GTA about the top players, usually from players that can't reach the top of the heap. The top players are top players because they do what it takes to find the limit of the car...period. The same names are at the top levels of TT's regardless of cars/tracks/tires/physics/game version etc. etc. etc. They can find the limits regardless of the parameters, that's why they're aliens and it's been proven over and over and over in dozens of TT's on all imaginable combinations.

I don't know if people are e-braking in the GTA Rd. 4, I've only watched a couple of replays and didn't look. But you don't need to use the e-brake on at least some corners to get the back end to lock and brake loose to rotate, you only need to hold the brake pedal down a little longer than usual and flick the wheel at the right time while dropping down 1 extra gear. Works in La Source, Les Combes, Rivage and the Bus Stop for sure. No you wouldn't do that in real life, but this is they way PD designed the game so you do what you have to, to win, that's the name of the game. When they program in engine damage from downshifting, increased heat and tire wear from sliding the back end around, then you'll see a smoother style prosper, but it'll be the same people at the top of the leaderboards, guaranteed.

Edit - just realized you're the same guy that had a problem with my posts in the Senna content boohoo thread. My apologies for taking the above post somewhat seriously and wasting time writing the below.


I have no argument, just making an observation. If you deny there are some physics tweaks, something is wrong your perception.

And if you want to be condescending like that and assume I'm doing poorly, I'll gladly go head to head, bud.

There is a guy on here who actual races tourings cars and says the same thing - that something feels different and he said that if he tried some of the maneuvers people are using in GTA in real life, he'd wreck the car. I'm going to have to agree with him and trust his experience, which is greater than mine and I'm sure you're not out racing tourings cars toe to toe either. You're welcome to think what you please

You must be doing very well in GTA. Like top 100 in your region. I'll be on throughout the day running the 97T, if you like. You don't need to use the brake and throttle at the same time to rotate the gt3 either, unless you're using a ds3. That car is very easy to modulate the throttle with. I read your post up to about there, because you'he been bent out of shape over my posts before and the your posts reeks of condescending/passive aggressive. People aren't stupid.

You got hung up on the academy BS, when I was merely using it as an example in a physics discussion lol. You are not cool for defending people doing very well in GTA/GTA itself. The discussion is about physics in general, which is why I barely talk about GTA. But, none of the cars in GTA drive the same as as their normal counterparts in the rest of the game. Same goes for the track edges. Both points are undisputable, unless you have no sense of perception and/or you're using a ds3 or other gamepad.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Edit - just realized you're the same guy that had a problem with my posts in the Senna content boohoo thread. My apologies for taking the above post somewhat seriously and wasting time writing the below.

I have no argument, just making an observation. If you deny there are some physics tweaks, something is wrong your perception.

And if you want to be condescending like that and assume I'm doing poorly, I'll gladly go head to head, bud.

There is a guy on here who actual races tourings cars and says the same thing - that something feels different and he said that if he tried some of the maneuvers people are using in GTA in real life, he'd wreck the car. I'm going to have to agree with him and trust his experience, which is greater than mine and I'm sure you're not out racing tourings cars toe to toe either. You're welcome to think what you please

You must be doing very well in GTA. Like top 100 in your region. I'll be on throughout the day running the 97T, if you like. You don't need to use the brake and throttle at the same time to rotate the gt3 either, unless you're using a ds3. That car is very easy to modulate the throttle with. I read your post up to about there, because you'he been bent out of shape over my posts before and the your posts reeks of condescending/passive aggressive. People aren't stupid.

You got hung up on the academy BS, when I was merely using it as an example in a physics discussion lol. You are not cool for defending people doing very well in GTA/GTA itself. The discussion is about physics in general, which is why I barely talk about GTA. But, none of the cars in GTA drive the same as as their normal counterparts in the rest of the game. Same goes for the track edges. Both points are undisputable, unless you have no sense of perception and/or you're using a ds3 or other gamepad.

You're not very good at this discussion thing are you? Saying, "You wouldn't see half the people that are in the top thousand if that car were legitimately simulated", isn't an observation, it's a conclusion. As such it's subject to scrutiny. That's how a discussion board works. Apparently you're used to just throwing out any old conclusion you like and not being challenged. I do agree with your observation though that what you said is, "Academy bs"...at least the bs part anyway.

 

[332i]

You're not very good at this discussion thing are you? Saying, "You wouldn't see half the people that are in the top thousand if that car were legitimately simulated", isn't an observation, it's a conclusion. As such it's subject to scrutiny. That's how a discussion board works. Apparently you're used to just throwing out any old conclusion you like and not being challenged. I do agree with your observation though that what you said is, "Academy bs"...at least the bs part anyway.

I don't aspire to be fantastic at anything on the internet, nor do I care to. You have over ten thousand posts and just about every third is either condemning or hostile as sin. Don't you get tired of being like that? You're right, I am not good at it. That's because I couldn't care any less about wasting much time arguing on the internet...which appears to be what you do all day long. Literally. Look at your post history haha.

That was not a conclusion lol. You want to play word games and dissect what I say? Ok. That is a claim. Would you like to argue said claim? Do you feel that not to be the case? Because that would be absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I don't aspire to be fantastic at anything on the internet, nor do I care to. You have over ten thousand posts and just about every third is either condemning or hostile as sin. Don't you get tired of being like that? You're right, I am not good at it. That's because I couldn't care any less about wasting much time arguing on the internet...which appears to be what you do all day long. Literally. Look at your post history haha.

That was not a conclusion lol. You want to play word games and dissect what I say? Ok. That is a claim. Would you like to argue said claim? Do you feel that not to be the case? Because that would be absolutely ridiculous.

claim
klām/
verb 1. state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

noun
noun: claim; plural noun: claims
1.an assertion of the truth of something, typically one that is disputed or in doubt.

You're right, you're not very good at this.

 

[332i]

Wow lol. Also, I didn't give any evidence or proof...therefore, it is indeed a claim...but still...wow, man. Too much time.