Poll:Do you believe GT5 works as a simulator...

[phil bell]

In the sense that it relays realistic driving physics,supports tested techniques and gives adequate feedback?.Leave opinions below on why you chose yes/no/to an extent.

 

[uMadson?]

Of course it would. No cheesy effects like Shift 2 and the HUD looks more simulator-ish, unlike Forza.

 

[zedextreme8177]

Yes, try an F40 on the Nurby:tup:

 

[Parnelli Bone]

To an extent it does. Physics are awesome. Visuals are also getting better. But there's still way too many things missing from this game that's in other games. I'm not going into details, it would take all afternoon...

 

[jimy281090]

No.. I had a thread during the week that contested this mainly with high powered sports cars and supercars!. Having been lucky in the fact that i work as Mechanic for a company that allows me not only fix & build such cars i have had the chance to push them hard and i must say, the comparison between most high powered cars and GT5 is more than just a bit off.. The Gallardo is an understeering pig but in real form the car is very tail happy. Bear in mind i am talking about non modified cars and the Gallardo is just mentioning 1 of a bad bunch.


I may have more of a problem with cars themselves but i find most high powered street cars have major issues and racing soft tyres are very unrealistic

 

[NFSCARBON1]

To an extent yes. But with things such as tyre compounds possibly not being true to real life (Comfort Hards surely would be too dangerous!) and certain stats being off (like weight) I wouldn't use it as a proper simulator. Maybe as a trainer before stepping up to a more realistic sim. The fact is despite being called 'the real driving simulator' GT is still a game.

 

[Quada]

The tire physics in this game need major work; the way they are set up is terrible. Other than that, I would vote yes.

 

[Parnelli Bone]

The tire physics in this game need major work; the way they are set up is terrible. Other than that, I would vote yes.

How so? They're actually an improvement over past GTs. Soft tires in GT4, for instance, would only last less than one lap of the Nurburgring before they were toast. And I like the fact that tire temperature is now accurately displayed. When a tire is rolling straight, it's going to be cooler than it is when it's cornering hard. Track temperature is not simulated in GT, which is why they stay cool when they're rolling straight, but otherwise I'd say PD is in the right direction.


The only area they need work is with hardness/softness ratings. Hard tires should last longer than softs, for instance, assuming both are given near-equal amounts of punishment. The way it is now, there is not any reason to use hard tires during an endurance anymore, because softs seem to last just as long.

To an extent yes. But with things such as tyre compounds possibly not being true to real life (Comfort Hards surely would be too dangerous!) and certain stats being off (like weight) I wouldn't use it as a proper simulator. Maybe as a trainer before stepping up to a more realistic sim. The fact is despite being called 'the real driving simulator' GT is still a game.

This could easily turn into a GT versus Forza discussion ha ha. I'm in the habit of thinking PD's terms "Comfort Hard" or "Sports Soft" are just like tire brands...albeit a bit on the generic side. It's like all the cars in the entire game are rolling on just one brand if tire.

Think of it like this: in America's Grand Am there's the Continental Tire Challenge. All the cars are running on (guess) Continentals, no matter which make or manufacturer. PD is sort of doing the same thing. There's a tire for the Veyron in PD, for instance, which has certain grip, temperature, and treadwear ratings, and the exact same ratings can be found on a similar tire for a Subaru 360. Only difference obviously is size. The 360 is going to have much smaller tires than the Veyron.


My experience with Forza is limited. I know they've managed to put real-life tire brands in the game, but opinions vary wildly as to how accurate of a job Forza did.

I think PD just doesn't want to deal with naysayers going: "well, that's not how a Michelin Pilot would react", so they just implment their own brand of tire, with three distinct classes (Comfort, Sports, Racing).

 

[porkchop87]

If you want to learn a track and understand basic racing principles, driving lines, and handling characteristics, then yes. GT5 provides this better than any console game right now.

 

[Bludragon]

If you want to learn a track and understand basic racing principles, driving lines, and handling characteristics, then yes. GT5 provides this better than any console game right now.

I agree with the post above, yes it gives drivers a sense of how to drive a real car on laguna seca, or other real life tracks. but in other areas things seem so far from reality it ridiculous. Camber not affecting straight line traction, and other minor issues, too many to list.

I would say to PD if they read this, come on guys & gals, spend a little more time testing/developing what made you famous, rather than sponsoring real race teams and races. I've grown disappointed in the GT series since GT5 and now GT5, GT4 was their pinnacle, get back to that.

 

[GeekCred]

In the sense that it relays realistic driving physics,supports tested techniques and gives adequate feedback?.Leave opinions below on why you chose yes/no/to an extent.

Mostly no. Furthermore I think to call it a simulator is a slap in the face to real simulators. Parts of the physics model show some signs of believability (specifically while driving on road, not doing anything crazy), but too many other aspects (or lack thereof) of the physics model just break the sense of immersion completely.

While driving on road it does a pretty adequate job, but some things are downright quirky; one thing that comes to mind is what I like to call the "dreaded low speed swerve". With almost no forward momentum, you can get into this undulating back and forth swerve that seems to go on forever. I think the problem is the tire grip is lacking a bit of dynamics.

Getting the wheels off the ground seems impossible in some places and unbelievably easy in others, like there are carefully placed gravity distortion fields on the track.

Off the track, particularly on grass, it feels like you're on ice (there's practically no granularity between surfaces).

Gearbox modeling? There practically isn't any. Shift with your clutch while on the gas pedal (even the tiniest amount) and you're instantly kicked into neutral. Do a downshift from 6th to 1rst and you get wheel spin but absolutely no damage; the transmission is indestructible. Gearbox and drive train damage, gear crunching, and grinding apparently doesn't exist in this universe.

Collisions and damage. I don't need to say any more here, but if you're going to call your product a simulator you have to at least try to model some of this stuff; to halfheartedly tack it on as an afterthought makes you look a bit foolish.

That said, even though the physics are half-baked, I think it's more than adequate for what it is: a game. As a game, it's fun but leans a bit toward the sterile in my opinion.

 

[JJ72]

I voted to an extent.

Trying to play GT5 with a hard-core sim mentality always highlights the area it lacks: tire wear rate/heat properties, ability to set fuel load, realistic tank size, drivetrain damage modelling, clutch heat and damage modelling, visual customization (it IS part of realism to run in a league with your own livery), inner->outer tire surface temperature reading, tire core temperture reading, live camber changes reading, gearbox simulation, flag rules, collision modelling, etc etc...I can go on forever.

GT5 isn't a all-rounded sim, and it will go nowhere if it tries to become a PC sim - imo a console sim should make up what PC sims doesn't offer - gameplay, story, entertainment value and some bell and whistles. The console platform will always be a limiting factor in the physics department, the crown of most realistic console sim is ultimately as meaningful as being the tallest dwarf.

In terms of physics GT5 has done plenty enough, it should differentiate itself not by being more realistic, but project its own charisma though game design - I think the grand tour special challenge captures part of that aura.

Forza distinct itself with the community sharing, Shift 2's selling point is a visceral experience, and right now I think GT5 is a bit lost - it has pursued realism, but somehow found that realism alone isn't enough to make a good game; it have to look elsewhere.

 

[scca_ziptie]

I'd say it provides simulation "to an extent."

 

[Quada]

How so? They're actually an improvement over past GTs. Soft tires in GT4, for instance, would only last less than one lap of the Nurburgring before they were toast. And I like the fact that tire temperature is now accurately displayed. When a tire is rolling straight, it's going to be cooler than it is when it's cornering hard. Track temperature is not simulated in GT, which is why they stay cool when they're rolling straight, but otherwise I'd say PD is in the right direction.


The only area they need work is with hardness/softness ratings. Hard tires should last longer than softs, for instance, assuming both are given near-equal amounts of punishment. The way it is now, there is not any reason to use hard tires during an endurance anymore, because softs seem to last just as long.



This could easily turn into a GT versus Forza discussion ha ha. I'm in the habit of thinking PD's terms "Comfort Hard" or "Sports Soft" are just like tire brands...albeit a bit on the generic side. It's like all the cars in the entire game are rolling on just one brand if tire.

Think of it like this: in America's Grand Am there's the Continental Tire Challenge. All the cars are running on (guess) Continentals, no matter which make or manufacturer. PD is sort of doing the same thing. There's a tire for the Veyron in PD, for instance, which has certain grip, temperature, and treadwear ratings, and the exact same ratings can be found on a similar tire for a Subaru 360. Only difference obviously is size. The 360 is going to have much smaller tires than the Veyron.


My experience with Forza is limited. I know they've managed to put real-life tire brands in the game, but opinions vary wildly as to how accurate of a job Forza did.

I think PD just doesn't want to deal with naysayers going: "well, that's not how a Michelin Pilot would react", so they just implment their own brand of tire, with three distinct classes (Comfort, Sports, Racing).

Just because they are an improvement over GT4 doesn't mean that GT5 is totally correct.

 

[wills402]

I know for certain that my car (Acura TL) is not simulated well. If the real thing handled as bad or was as slow as the one in GT5 I'd have never bought it.

 

[Sum1s2pid]

To an extent. Sure, there are some issues here and there (some more glaring than others), and it still has quite a way to go, but it does enough right to at least put it on the lower / mid end of the simulator scale.

 

[10,500RPM]

No, it is just a game. The driving simulator tag is just marketing bs.

 

[kr0nika]

No, it is just a game. The driving simulator tag is just marketing bs.

Pretty much this.

 

[Tower Turn 13]

I mean we've probably all heard these stories about drivers that train for a track (such as approach speeds up or down hill) in real life by using GT5. We've all heard about people who play GT5 and are almost matching their lap times on real tracks in real cars. But I don't know if I buy all that or not. I'm also not a race car driver but I can say driving a real car is quite a bit different than sitting still and playing a game.

Eh, at least it's a fun and challenging game that leans towards realism. That's all I care about.

 

[Crumpet]

pretty much this.

+1

 

[Greycap]

It depends on what is needed from a simulator. If 100% reproduction of real life is required there's nothing else than real life that can do it. No matter how good the software, something will be missing. But if simulating the movements and actions it takes to drive a real car does the trick, yes, GT5 definitely works as a simulator. When I lost control of my real RWD car for the first time I did what I had done in GT4 (it was three years back from now) for countless times and saved it. Everything may not be right but a lot is.

 

[LeeC2202]

I'd say it was more of an emulator of driving, rather than a simulator. It sits in between arcade and simulator, with a bias towards sim. There are a lot of things that feel compromised for accessibility's sake.

I suspect that they have tried to appeal to a wider audience with GT5, and that requires making things more acceptable to the non-hardcore sim racers. Codemasters admitted that's why F1 2010 wasn't a pure sim, and it's possible that Sony have pressured PD into making the same kind of decision.

Of course, there is also the argument that none of the GT series have ever been sims (despite the name), so why would GT5 be any different?

 

[GT_Prologue5]

It's a video game incapable of portraying exact real-time car problems, i.e. simulation. It's still a fun game, and just because it's not a perfect sim does not mean it's a bad game. Compare the physics to previous GT's, and they are more spot on then ever.

One thing I've found annoying with the term "simulation" is downforce. I cannot change a Subaru Impreza Rally Car's downforce through a slider. I can however, add/remove aero pieces to mimic air movement. Also, the number ratings on the sliders should go. A more exact measurement should be pounds of downforce, because that's exactly how it is rated. While the system in GT says a Subaru 360 and Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG have "0" downforce on a slider, I bet at 50m/h the C63 creates more downforce.

 

[seadog777]

It's only 50+ dollars.... I doubt you could get a real sim for that price!

 

[GT_Prologue5]

It's only 50+ dollars.... I doubt you could get a real sim for that price!

I doubt you could ever buy a car at $59.99.

 

[IceMan PJN]

No, it is just a game. The driving simulator tag is just marketing bs.

More or less this.

It's a simulator relative to most other console racing games. It's probably the closest thing you can get to a simulator on a game console. It's still crushed by some PC offerings, and actual racing simulators like those used by top Formula One teams beat the crap out of everything else including PC sims.

I mean we've probably all heard these stories about drivers that train for a track (such as approach speeds up or down hill) in real life by using GT5.

Maybe the ones working on a shoestring budget, but any team with two pennies to rub together would train on something like iRacing instead, and a well-funded team would have in-house simulators that beat the pants off of common PC sims.

 

[ucwepn]

Its the best console sim and is easy to pick up and play on the couch with your friends, PC sims are real sims but not anywhere nearly as much fun IMO. The real driving simulator is just the slogan for the series.

 

[Senojelyk]

Yes in the sense that it is still a game. Can you go from never driving a car to being able to do a perfect lap after playing GT5? Most likely not. There are some aspects that can't be simulated.. like G effects for cornering hard as an example, and probably the biggest: if you crash horribly in GT5 you can hit restart and try again, if you crash horribly IRL you are toast. That whole mentality plays into effect when driving for real, no matter how comfortable you are.

Will you be a better driver for playing GT5 on a regular basis in addition to IRL track driving? IMO, yes. It's about hitting the right breaking spots and the apex and being able to corner perfect, and GT5 helps you do that to an extent. Especially if you set up 3 screens, with a wheel/pedals.

 

[tinram]

There is no group or governing body that dictates what is a sim or is not. It's called a simulator, who would say it's not?

It has an accelarator, brake, steering, a road and cars, what else does it need to be a driving sim?

 

[JJ72]

There is no group or governing body that dictates what is a sim or is not.

It has an accelarator, brake, steering, a road and cars, what else does it need to be a driving sim?

Just use your common sense and read it within the arcade vs sim context. I think the biggest distinction of being a driving sim is to replicate the real world limitation of racing, namely tire, damage, racing rules, difficulty in handling, wear and tear, surface imperfection etc - features that doesn't necessary improve the entertainment value but is there because it is part of real life racing.

There's no absolute sim but there is always a relative sim vs arcade scale, for example back in the days Indy500 was considered a top sim relative to all other driving games, however in today's standard it is no more.