Physics?

[G36E]

What exactly do people mean when they talk about physics in Gran turismo 5?

 

[frogmanlego]

What exactly do people mean when they talk about physics in Gran turismo 5?

how realistic they are compared to real life =D

 

[W3H5]

The way the cars are balanced, the way that they react with the environments, the way that weight and air resistance affects speed and handling and so on and so forth. Essentially the term refers to the behavioural dynamics of the in game objects.

 

[Bobalob]

the way the game mimics real life forces. Often using real world numbers such as acceleration due to gravity doesn't translate well at all (feels like your floating) and a totally fictional system is created to fulfill expectations.

 

[iamjajo]

Probably classical mechanics, as derived from Newton's Laws of Motion.

 

[Bobalob]

My point is that real physics don't look right in a game, the biggest being gravity, and if 9.81m/s per sec is used as a value for gravity it feels wrong, and so often developers can't adhere to real world rules and have to make up their own, which is based purely on opinion, not mathmatical fact.

This does not count for the laws of motion as they are a set of rules rather than values calculated by examining data and evidence (such as a value for the effects of gravity) however problems arise when you mix your own (I think this looks better) value with rules such as the laws of motion. This is why there is no definitive "real world" game engine.

 

[Exorcet]

My point is that real physics don't look right in a game, the biggest being gravity, and if 9.81m/s per sec is used as a value for gravity it feels wrong, and so often developers can't adhere to real world rules and have to make up their own, which is based purely on opinion, not mathmatical fact.

Not if they're trying to make a sim and want to be taken seriously.

Where did you get this idea anyway? How does gravitational acceleration not look like gravitational acceleration?

 

[iamjajo]

My point is that real physics don't look right in a game, the biggest being gravity, and if 9.81m/s per sec is used as a value for gravity it feels wrong, and so often developers can't adhere to real world rules and have to make up their own, which is based purely on opinion, not mathmatical fact.

This does not count for the laws of motion as they are a set of rules rather than values calculated by examining data and evidence (such as a value for the effects of gravity) however problems arise when you mix your own (I think this looks better) value with rules such as the laws of motion. This is why there is no definitive "real world" game engine.

That's just a little too broad of a statement to make based on your observations.

What have you done to disprove PDI's implementation of real world physics in GT5 other than speculate?

 

[Vince_Fiero]

The way the cars are balanced, the way that they react with the environments, the way that weight and air resistance affects speed and handling and so on and so forth. Essentially the term refers to the behavioural dynamics of the in game objects.

For me essentially this translates in:

Tyre dynamics: adherence to ground (mainly loss of adherence)
Suspension dynamics: steering, tyres, springs and dampers interaction on the four independent wheels.
Traction dynamics: torque, differential, etc...
Body dynamics: how the weight of the body moves on the different wheels, depending on acceleration, turning, bumps in the road, etc...

how this works together gives how the car behaves on input and that seems to be what people call the "physics".

Since I have a tendency to drive within the speed limits on the real road and flat out when possible in GT5, I find it difficult to give a founded opinion on the quality of the model.

 

[Jubby]

The physics may be wrong, but a portion of the physics that is really wrong and are a detriment to the game (and most games) are the differences in the racing surfaces. Tires will fall off at nearly the same pace at La Sarthe as they do at Tsukuba, Suzuka, etc. They all seem to have the same/similar grip levels. Using two comparative tracks: Laguna Seca should have much less grip than the Nurburgring GP/F course. Unless I'm mistaken the tarmac is older, more bumpy (never mind the bumps in Ford Kurve). and inconsistent. Also, some of the city tracks have patches of concrete, you should get a ton more wheel spin off of that and loss of grip, but you don't. This is a prime example of physics and how it can be realistic or not. Even if they couldn't get things perfect, they could have at least simulated a difference in the surfaces (old vs new, concrete vs asphalt, bumpy vs smooth, night vs day-- I didn't notice a difference).

 

[Crazed_Coupe]

What exactly do people mean when they talk about physics in Gran turismo 5?

The way cars and objects react to different situation you may come across during the game.