question for real life rally or track driver

[Scaff]

Sort of... same as most of the physics discussions we've previously had... of which there are... tons.

My only addition: I've always thought the understeer a bit too much in GT4 till I went on my own trackday, after which I realized that there wasn't enough of it on some occasions. I came away from that trackday with a better appreciation of GT4's attention to detail and realistic depiction of road racing (not to be confused with street racing). I drove on track exactly as I drive on GT4... set-up early, brake in a straight line, trail brake slightly after the major braking is done if it's needed to set up the car (lack of absolute ABS means merely romping on the brakes will cause you to plow straight into the corner), wind the steering up and unwind slowly while easing into the throttle.

I've found realistic high-speed understeer, FF oversteer and FR understeer(yes, Virginia, it can happen), fishtailing and break-away in most cases. It's great to drive a lot of different cars back-to-back like I do in my testing articles, because it allows you to get a "feel" for the nuances of each car model... to see the differences that are there that aren't apparent at first. After learning to interpret the differences between cars, I double check my findings with magazine and internet reviews and they do seem to hold up. One conundrum for me was the 2005-2006 Mitsubishi Eclipse GT, which seemed too snappy and tail-happy in the game, while this trait wasn't touched on in most reviews... until I found one where the reviewers actually drove it in anger, and complained of... you guessed it... oversteer.

Drive on tracks like the Nurb or El Cap... practicing on these rougher surfaces helps you learn how to interpret and interpolate car movement from visual and audio cues such as screen shake, lean and tire squeal (very useful cue that... PD set tire squeal to start a little bit early to make up for the lack of Seat-Of-the-Pants sensation).

Additionally, in line with Slow's comments on feedback, with a DF controller, I found the increased bump-steer and kickback on tracks like the Nurb more informative, and the ability to feather the throttle and brakes effectively helps... a lot. With a good wheel, the car will sometimes try to wrestle the wheel out of your hands over bumps or in turns... pretty amazing in terms of feedback, but not having experienced the competition, I don't know how it stacks up.

Other problems, like lack of dynamic camber and tripod-ing or three-wheeling add an element of unreality or artificiality to the handling dynamic (which won't allow low speed maneuvers dependent on these traits), but it's good enough, otherwise. In comparison to other games... I haven't driven any of the other current sims, but I think Scaff has mentioned EPR makes high speed drifiting too easy. Apparently GTR is the only one that's patently better in all areas, but since my gaming computer burned down, I guess I won't know for a long while.

Well said, and can I say an excellent thread, with great contributions from all.

I quite agree with niky in regard to GT4's representation of understeer, track experience is realy the only way to understand the levels of understeer that can be experienced in a car. Road driving just does not push the limits of the tyres in the same way, no sane person would be pushing a car to the limits of both slip angle and percentage on the road. As a result you just do not get the same experience as on a track.

GT4 does suffer badly in some areas (which I have discussed in detail before) mainly in regard to lower speed physics, in situations such as handbrake turns and donuts. An area that is much better represented in Enthusia, however as niky mentioned, Enthusia has its own weak areas, with high speed drifts being one. Enthusia allows these to be caught and held to easily, for to long and recovered from as if helped by a hand from above.

I also have no real issue with the steering feel from GT4, yes it is different from other games, but almost all 'sims' of this type have a slightly different feel to them. However, even given this 03 yellow makes a very, very valid point about 'feeling' what the car is about to do. Something that is very difficult (and/or expensive) to do, Enthusia has its VGS system to help, GT4 has the early onset of tyre noise and the g-meter. Watching replays is however a very good tip, one that I use a lot when tuning a car, as it allows you to see how the car is reacting, in ways that you may not be able to feel. Very handy, particularly when it comes to damper settings.

Regards

Scaff

 

[soptom]

Some retired rally driver was standing in for a stage and went straight from that to qualifying for lemans. The only experience he had on the track was driving gt4 on the plane over.

Hardly some retired rally driver.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/4614345.stm

 

[Gabkicks]

rofl at him calling loeb a retired rally driver are u sure he was talking about loeb?

 

[MasterGT]

You don't have to drive a lot in real life to realize that GT4 has problems with its physics and tire friction, especially during the rally events. PD made a game, a game that is a compromise with real life and entertainment. They know that and it doesn't look any more promising for GT5.

Their dirt/wet tire friction is not real. When you drive on certain dirt surfaces, there is a _lot_ of grip. The GT4 cars, by default, use dirt tires on dirt courses. Have you ever seen a dirt rally tire? Sure you can break free on loose gravel and other textures, but come on. If real cars were as slippery on dirt/wet roads as they are in this game, insurance companies would make it illegal to drive on them or in the rain.

Some cars, such as the Clio V6 Sport, came factory direct with tire compounds that [removed: equal F1 materials] [edit: are softer than common street tires]. Mind you, this car needs it, but the point is, there _is_ grip with some real life stock tires. None of this N1 crap. Even an FF PT Cruiser handles really, really well, in real life. I pushed one really hard for a whole weekend, on all kinds of surfaces, and saw almost no understeer or tire slippage. It's a great handling vehicle.

This was also Enthusia's problem. Tire friction is not right, dry or wet. If someone who has never driven before used Enthusia as a training tool, they'd have to learn how to drive all over again once they got behind a real steering wheel. They'd have to learn that tires aren't made of ceramics. They do grip.

Sure, it is not too hard to break real rubber tires free on tarmac, if you try, but give me a break, if real cars handled the way they do in these games in real life, the world's population would be much smaller. You have to actually get to the point where tires break free first, though. THEN you lose it! Not a moment before.

Our only hope on the PS2 is ToCA3. Pray that Codemasters gets tire stiction right.

Cheers,

MasterGT

 

[Gabkicks]

toca 3 sucks. lol

 

[Scaff]

Some cars, such as the Clio V6 Sport, came factory direct with tire compounds that equal F1 materials. Mind you, this car needs it, but the point is, there _is_ grip with some real life stock tires.

The above statement is, I am sorry to say, total rubbish.

I worked on the UK product launch for the Clio V6, and its tyres were not the equal to F1 materials, no road legal tyre is. The tyre life would be far to short for any practial or realistic use (not to mention the expence involved).

Please provide some sort of evidence to support you're claim that the Renaultsport Clio V6 came with tyre compounds that equals F1 materials.

As for the remainder of your post claiming that the grip levels of GT4 and Enthusia are far lower than real world tyres, again this is not a statement I can accept in any way, I have tested the lateral g limits of GT4 cars and compared them to the grip levels offered in real world tests, and is the case of lateral g limits, N2 tyres are very, very close to the real deal.

WIth regard to the PT Cruiser, if you can't get one of these to understeer (even on a public road) you just are not trying hard enough. Having driven a number of examples on the road nad proving grounds, I would say that it is an OK drive, but it does suffer from understeer. AS for being a great handing car, a Lotus Elise is a great handling car, a PT Cruiser most certainly is not.

Regards

Scaff

 

[niky]

You don't have to drive a lot in real life to realize that GT4 has problems with its physics and tire friction, especially during the rally events. PD made a game, a game that is a compromise with real life and entertainment. They know that and it doesn't look any more promising for GT5.

Their dirt/wet tire friction is not real. When you drive on certain dirt surfaces, there is a _lot_ of grip. The GT4 cars, by default, use dirt tires on dirt courses. Have you ever seen a dirt rally tire? Sure you can break free on loose gravel and other textures, but come on. If real cars were as slippery on dirt/wet roads as they are in this game, insurance companies would make it illegal to drive on them or in the rain.

Some cars, such as the Clio V6 Sport, came factory direct with tire compounds that equal F1 materials. Mind you, this car needs it, but the point is, there _is_ grip with some real life stock tires. None of this N1 crap. Even an FF PT Cruiser handles really, really well, in real life. I pushed one really hard for a whole weekend, on all kinds of surfaces, and saw almost no understeer or tire slippage. It's a great handling vehicle.

This was also Enthusia's problem. Tire friction is not right, dry or wet. If someone who has never driven before used Enthusia as a training tool, they'd have to learn how to drive all over again once they got behind a real steering wheel. They'd have to learn that tires aren't made of ceramics. They do grip.

Sure, it is not too hard to break real rubber tires free on tarmac, if you try, but give me a break, if real cars handled the way they do in these games in real life, the world's population would be much smaller. You have to actually get to the point where tires break free first, though. THEN you lose it! Not a moment before.

Our only hope on the PS2 is ToCA3. Pray that Codemasters gets tire stiction right.

Cheers,

MasterGT

Rally, yes, the general consensus is it does suck, badly.

By the way, according to Scaff, N2's are a technical match for real-world tires, even on high-performance cars like the M3. And yes, cars like the M3 and the NSX still grip better than others even when they're on N2's or N3's. I prefer N3's, though, but that's personal.

Cars which feel great at 8/10ths in real life (like the Clio V6 does) may really bite you at 10/10ths, and in GT, since you can't feel the speed, you're always driving 10/10ths. Try driving the Clio a little slower through turns and with very small steering inputs, it feels great, razor sharp and responsive. Drive it at full blast, then it feels really tricky. This is one of the tricks I use for learning a car, I drive it slowly. Slowly in GT4 often equals 8/10ths real-world driving.

And as for the PT Cruiser, you probably weren't driving fast enough. I didn't want to believe my car understeered at all, seeing as how I managed to race a V8 X5 up a mountain in it, up to near the tire-squealing limit. The Mazda feels almost as neutral as a rear-wheel drive in 8-10ths driving, and was actually picked by Road&Track for its 8Great handling comparison (the ONLY FF car in a comparo that included the Elise, M3, and 911) due to its positive steering feedback and neutral balance.

But track-time showed up a lot of ugly front-wheel drive understeer... lots and lots of it. Sure, it wasn't nearly as bad as any of the other FF cars at the track, but it was a night and day difference from the way it felt on the road.

It's all about perception. You can't feel the lateral g's. You can't sense the steering angle through the dual-shock (very important at the track), you can't sense the speed of the car through the turn, and it's hard to measure turns on a TV screen based on real-life experience.

And GT's tire-squeal is misleading, as it comes in long before the tires start to slip, as both Scaff and I have mentioned, as a way to compensate for the problems above.

Cars don't exactly handle the same way in real life, but if we drove the same way in real-life as we do in video games, yes, the world would be a lot less crowded...

EDIT: I think too long... Scaff beat me to this. And, yes, I didn't twig on to the fact that you said the PT Cruiser is a "great handling car".

 

[MasterGT]

It's been a while since I read the F1 reference to the Clio's Michelin tires, so my recollection of what they actually said is off. Renault's web site uses the term "F1 inspired", which could mean anything. I haven't found their PDF which I think describes these tires better. The Michelin tires they did use on later Clio years are the Pilot Sport 2 and from Michelin's own comparisons, they are their grippiest DOT approved road tire; tire life is not that great (it's not bad, either), but grip is, even in the wet. From what I gathered, these grippy tires were used to control some of the car's faults.

Michelin Pilot Sport 2

Other street, production cars, such as the Buick Grand National, also came with tires which had vastly superior tire performance. Good performance cars don't get to the top without good tires.

I didn't say that the PT Cruiser would not understeer (I did make it understeer), but after a few hundred hard miles, on very different surfaces, including back country roads, it showed little of it, in real life, for a FrtWD vehicle.

As for any comparison with game tires with real tires, for me, it's too subjective and variable to be able to make an acceptable, definite general relationship. To me, Enthusia does not get it right, even on dry tarmac. GT4 certainly blew it with dirt and wet grip.

To me, real cars don't give the same perception of grip as portrayed in these games. Going from real life to the game isn't the same. It's getting better, but it's not "there" yet.

Cheers,

MasterGT

 

[MasterGT]

It's all about perception. You can't feel the lateral g's.

That's the problem; I perceive things differently than many of you. But when a car is uncontrollable when going slowly, too, as you suggested, I have to wonder what exactly is wrong - me or the game.

Cheers,

 

[Scaff]

It's been a while since I read the F1 reference to the Clio's Michelin tires, so my recollection of what they actually said is off. Renault's web site uses the term "F1 inspired", which could mean anything. I haven't found their PDF which I think describes these tires better. The Michelin tires they did use on later Clio years are the Pilot Sport 2 and from Michelin's own comparisons, they are their grippiest DOT approved road tire; tire life is not that great (it's not bad, either), but grip is, even in the wet. From what I gathered, these grippy tires were used to control some of the car's faults.

Michelin Pilot Sport 2

The F1 inspired bit is almost certainly marketing at work, other than being a production of the Renaultsport division, the Clio V6 is not related to the F1 programme. Just as the Clio Williams had nothing to do with Williams, pure marketing.

I have attached a .pdf of a page from the original Clio V6 press release, which says (in French - relevent section highlighted - bottom of the page) that the standard tyre is indeed the Michelin Pilot Sport and that the tyre was 'specifically designed to exploit the cars chassis'. Which translates to helps make the damn thing controllable, and having driven a number of them i can vouch for that.

The thing is, even the stickiest road legal rubber is no match for true racing rubber, particularly in regard to grip.

Other street, production cars, such as the Buick Grand National, also came with tires which had vastly superior tire performance. Good performance cars don't get to the top without good tires.

As I say above, even the best road legal rubber will strugle against true race tyres.

I didn't say that the PT Cruiser would not understeer (I did make it understeer), but after a few hundred hard miles, on very different surfaces, including back country roads, it showed little of it, in real life, for a FrtWD vehicle.

Take one to a track and I promise you will get terminal understeer by the load, the forces involved in driving a car on the road almost never push the very limit of a tyre. Even when they do, its for a very short period of time.

Its the same with brakes, no one complains about brake performance on the road, even when driving hard. Yet take the same car to the track and the vast majority of road cars will suffer brake fade after a few hard lap.

The differnce between 8/10the and 10/10ths is, as niky said, very big; and the forces placed on tha car and its componants much greater.

As for any comparison with game tires with real tires, for me, it's too subjective and variable to be able to make an acceptable, definite general relationship. To me, Enthusia does not get it right, even on dry tarmac. GT4 certainly blew it with dirt and wet grip.

The lateral g results I carried out for the M3 were far from subjective, in terms of straight lateral-gs the N2 tyres are a very, very close match.

In terms of feel its a different story, as this is an area I would agree is very subjective, as it is in the real world. Different brands and models of tyre have quite differnt handling characteristcs, providing differing levels of dry grip, wet grip, temperature sensitivity, etc.

To me, real cars don't give the same perception of grip as portrayed in these games. Going from real life to the game isn't the same. It's getting better, but it's not "there" yet.

Cheers,

MasterGT

I would quite agree that its not there yet, but again the perception of grip is always going to be very subjective.

That's the problem; I perceive things differently than many of you. But when a car is uncontrollable when going slowly, too, as you suggested, I have to wonder what exactly is wrong - me or the game.

Cheers,

Slowly is always a difficult term to use to compare the real world with a sim, as the real world has a habit of making you think you are going quicker than you are; while the sim almost always appears to be going slower than you are.

Its down to the lack of periferal vison and the forces placed on the body, 50 - 60 mph in GT4 looks and feels very slow, in reality 50 - 60 mph is a speed at which sudden steering lock being applied could well cause a loss of control.

I've carried out (in the real world) 60mph lane changes without braking, in a Renault Laguna (like the elk test the Merc A-class fell over doing), in the wet to test stabilty control systems. With them dis-engaged the car would lose control after the first lane change very easily.

Exceed a tyres grip limit and control can be lost at any speed, particulalrly in very low traction conditions, such as, rain, snow, ice, mud or gravel.

Regards

Scaff

 

[niky]

And an addendum, as to low speed instability.

This doesn't say much for my driving, but I have had a Sentra on medium wear tread, stock tires start getting squirrely on me at "merely" 60 kph (sudden lane change, dog avoidance). Like I've said, one other factor besides perception of car movement is perception of steering. Sudden lane change maneuvers will unsettle cars, like Scaff has said. These same cars will feel stable in all other manner of "sporty" on-road handling... i.e.: they'll hold up to and beyond 100mph in some turns.

The difference is steering input. In general, we tend to oversteer the car in videogames, even with a force-feedback wheel. Tiny movements of the controller accurately simulate the regular steering inputs you use everyday, while the way we regularly drive in GT would give you quite a workout if you tried to do it in real life. A lot of times you're headed into a corner with way too much steering angle dialled in... hence, terminal understeer.

 

[Wolfe]

Exceed a tyres grip limit and control can be lost at any speed, particulalrly in very low traction conditions, such as, rain, snow, ice, mud or gravel.

And the laws of physics don't change, which calls into question the fact that drifting a lsd-equipped 300-hp FR in GT4 is incredibly difficult, whereas drifting an open-diff-equipped 100-hp FR in real life on a wet road is quite easy and enjoyable...

 

[Scaff]

And the laws of physics don't change, which calls into question the fact that drifting a lsd-equipped 300-hp FR in GT4 is incredibly difficult, whereas drifting an open-diff-equipped 100-hp FR in real life on a wet road is quite easy and enjoyable...

I don't believe that I said or implied that the laws of physics changed?

It is quite correct that the physics involved in a loss of traction do not change acording to speed (a point that neither GT4, Enthusia or any 'sim' I have played gets right), but the level of force and inertia involved most certainly does.

A wet road has a lower coefficient of adhesion than a dry road (0.55 vs 0.8 approx), with ice and snow being much, much lower (0.05 to 0.1 and 0.15 to 0.2 respectively). Source - The Porsche Driving Book.

As a result the limit is much much lower, and as a result the inertia involved is much lower. The end result is that the car will break away with less inertia, being far more progresive and easier to control.

The same laws of physics would dictate that with the same car but a dry surface, the limits would be much higher and the inertai much greater when they are reached. The result here is that the car will break away in a much more sudden manner and be far harder to control.

As is said in the Autocar guide 'The Art of Car Control' - "If possiable, practice in the rain at first because it all happens much more slowly in the wet."

I don't personally find getting the back on a car out in GT4 'incredibly difficult' at all, the shot below is a stock M3 CSL (not even an oil change) on N2 tyres quite happy in its sideways attitude.



A clear distinction does also need to be made between drifting for show and a show-off moment of power oversteer. The first involves holding a car at very high yaw angles for a sustained period of time, clearly not a simple or easy thing to do. The second is much more straight forward, as the yaw angle reached is not normally great (despite what it feels like in the car) and the duration quite short.


The point I am making here is that while the physics involved do not change with speed, that does not make it as easy to control a car at 60mph as it does at 20mph. Ask anyone who has lost control of a car at 50-60mph+ what its like, and I'm not talking about a white-knuckle moment here, but stepping right over the edge. In a post above I mentioned wet lane change tests at 60mph, what I did not mention is that once the car had lost control it resulted in a 720 degree spin, again demonstrating that the inertia involved was large. This is why you carry out these tests on proving ground, the only thing hurt was a bit of grass and the tyres.

The forces involved in an object weighing over a tonne moving at 60mph are vast, this is what makes throwing a car around in the wet at low speeds easy and enjoyable, but far, far more difficult (but enjoyable none the less) at 60mph.

Neither GT4 or Enthusia gets this right. GT4's problem is that its is slightly more difficult to initiate a slid at lower speed (Idon't agree with it being to difficult to catch, just back off the damn throttle as the car returns - slows the inertia - as you should in the real world) , Enthusia does not represent the forces involved at speed well, its to easy to catch, hold and recover from high speed drifts.

In short, GT4 is weaker in the areas of low speed physics and Enthusia is weaker in the area of high speed physics.


Regards

Scaff

 

[prodriver]

I like to reffer to GT4 as a simmulator not a game. it is quite accurate, the key to feeling real charicteristics is road tyres sport tyres in the game are like the hooser road race tyres I use. In my OPINION N3s' are equivilent to a quality Z rated potenza or yokohama. Im not a pro road racer but I do have rally experience and have some track time on tarmac. the problem is not having the G forces that give you the seat of your pants feel and the fear you would have over speeding into a corner is not present. but lets face it going slow and being coutious is boring so you need to realy love to practice skills not playing games.

 

[Inter 61]

I've got 6 years worth of racing experiance (Karts mainly) so I can answer your question,

The Front wheel drive cars are not as real as real life as you can trail brake in them (braking and turning at the same time) on the game. This isn't possible in real-life on the race track as you would just keep going straight if you attempted to do this. The game also doesn't take into account how effective engine breaking is. It is very useful on a series of of corners if you overshoot one of the apexes.

The normal road cars ride kerbs to easily as well, believe me taking a kerb you would normally see at a apex of a standard club racing circuit at racing speed in a normal road car could result in either:

A, in the wall

or

B, facing the wrong way with a wall of tyre smoke surrounding your car.

Proper racing cars are designed to ride over kerbs (especially touring cars) so taking a kerb in those are no problem. I hope that answers your question

 

[fujiwaratofuuuu]

My experience lies in karting only so I can only give my feedback comparing the physics to that.

I think GT4 allows you to turn and brake into corners with too much brake applied, even with ABS it seems too pronounced.

Also, the tactic sensations from the DFP sometimes feel wrong when turning in too hard into say, for example, a long radius corner. In karting, if I push too hard, I can feel the front tires lose steering grip through the steering wheel, but that sensation is absent.

Some games I think that do the physics better are GTR for grand touring car racing, and although I'd be lying to say that I ever drove an F1 car, F1 Challenge '99-'02 and GP4 are also good sims - F1 cars and karts have similiar g-forces so it FEELS right.

That said, GT4 does a marvelous job for such a mass-produced video game that sells really well. They've balanced the sim aspect and the playability perfectly. The other games I said above sold poorly and only have a close-knit community, but GT4 has a great community like this one and brings more and more people into racing.

 

[niky]

@fujiwaratofuuuu: yes, it does a relatively good job for a mass market game. Allows you to turn with too much brake? That's a difference, most people say it won't let you turn enough with the brakes down.

Yes, that artificiality in feedback is present, but I think it will take another generation or so of DFP to give us something better.

@Inter 61: You've obviously never driven a well-set-up front-wheeler in anger. Trail-braking is a very real and valid thing for an FF driver on the race track. In fact, I've seen quite a number of spins by guys who relied too much on trail-braking.

What the front-wheelers do lack is a decent drive-wheel traction model, as GT makes traction for front-drive wheels just a bit too little (which results in lap-times for front AND all-wheel drive cars a little slower versus real-life as compared to rear-wheel drive vehicles).

I've had loss of control in GT4 from riding kerbs with stiff setups, so I don't think that factor is absent, though there are some kerbs in GT4 that are just too benign compared to their real life counterparts. (notably on the Nurb)

As for the kerb-riding ability of road cars, any car with a supple-enough suspension should be able to ride most kerbs (really bad for your tires at track pressures, though...). It's extremely stiff racecars and modified road cars that suffer instability from going over too high or too rough kerbs.

 

[Scaff]

@fujiwaratofuuuu: yes, it does a relatively good job for a mass market game. Allows you to turn with too much brake? That's a difference, most people say it won't let you turn enough with the brakes down.

Yes, that artificiality in feedback is present, but I think it will take another generation or so of DFP to give us something better.

Niky, I would have to agree with fujiwaratofuuuu on this one, I find trail braking quite straightforward in GT4 and much easier to balance than in a real car. That all cars in GT4 are fitted with ABS helps in this regard, as does running on anything other than N spec tyres.

The lack of real feedback is something I have mentioned before, GT4 is much better than previous games in the series and a lot of other games as well. Its the one area I feel will always be an issue with any driving sim, as feedback through the wheel is one thing, but recreating driving by the seat of your pants in another.

@Inter 61: You've obviously never driven a well-set-up front-wheeler in anger. Trail-braking is a very real and valid thing for an FF driver on the race track. In fact, I've seen quite a number of spins by guys who relied too much on trail-braking.

What the front-wheelers do lack is a decent drive-wheel traction model, as GT makes traction for front-drive wheels just a bit too little (which results in lap-times for front AND all-wheel drive cars a little slower versus real-life as compared to rear-wheel drive vehicles).

Well spotted niky, I missed that one, you are quite right that trail braking is used by a lot of fwd racers, watch any round of the British Touring Car Championship and you can see it being used.

I've had loss of control in GT4 from riding kerbs with stiff setups, so I don't think that factor is absent, though there are some kerbs in GT4 that are just too benign compared to their real life counterparts. (notably on the Nurb).

As for the kerb-riding ability of road cars, any car with a supple-enough suspension should be able to ride most kerbs (really bad for your tires at track pressures, though...). It's extremely stiff racecars and modified road cars that suffer instability from going over too high or too rough kerbs.

The curbs on some tracks can be a real nightmare (the two Paris tracks spring right to mind here), on others they are easy to cross and can be used to straighten the line.

Careful use of suspension settings can allow most (but not all) curbs to be handled, you just need to watch how it affects the cars handling on the rest of the circuit. Again either of the two Paris tracks are a great example of this, while the circuit itself is very smooth and would suit quite a stiff set-up, this would be murder on the curbs. Set the car up for the curbs and you may well lose out on the rest of the track. It all depends on how you like to drive.

In regard to the 'ring, GT4 has most of the curbs about right, a few are slightly smaller than they should be, but given the size of the track its damn good.

Certainly better than Forza, which appears to have been put together by people who had heard of the 'ring but could not be bothered to actualy visit the place. Its too wide, too long and the curbs have been replaced by what appear to be 6 inch high walls. The best can be found in the official Forza guide which states "This is called Nordschleife or 'free drive'.", I mean were they too lazy to even visit babelfish? Takes about 20 seconds of research to get a true translation of North Loop, or just speak to anyone who knows of the track.


Regards

Scaff

 

[niky]

About trailbraking, I guess I'm about halfway between you and Duke (who claims it's too hard) on this one, but then it's probably just me. 👍

I guess the Paris thing is because most of the kerbs in Paris are real curbs. Yes, they're a nightmare... any more realistic and they'd be popping tires off the rims.

 

[Scaff]

About trailbraking, I guess I'm about halfway between you and Duke (who claims it's too hard) on this one, but then it's probably just me. 👍

I think its always going to be a personally thing with how easy anyone finds trail braking.

I guess the Paris thing is because most of the kerbs in Paris are real curbs. Yes, they're a nightmare... any more realistic and they'd be popping tires off the rims.

Having driven in paris I can vouch for that, it does make the two circuits challenging, I know a lot of people don't like them, but personally I love them.

Regards

Scaff

 

[Appie]

so gt4 is realistic

 

[fujiwaratofuuuu]

I guess the Paris thing is because most of the kerbs in Paris are real curbs. Yes, they're a nightmare... any more realistic and they'd be popping tires off the rims.

I remember in GT3 it seemed the kerbs actually gave a little extra grip.

Kerbs are something I thought GT4 did really well, beacuse I find that they're, to me, always predictable. And so when I get footheavy and try to get on the gas a bit too early after taking a kerb that had sent me airborne. . . you can see the outcome!

 

[Wolfe]

I don't believe that I said or implied that the laws of physics changed?

No, that part was agreeing with you.

It is quite correct that the physics involved in a loss of traction do not change acording to speed (a point that neither GT4, Enthusia or any 'sim' I have played gets right), but the level of force and inertia involved most certainly does.

A wet road has a lower coefficient of adhesion than a dry road (0.55 vs 0.8 approx), with ice and snow being much, much lower (0.05 to 0.1 and 0.15 to 0.2 respectively). Source - The Porsche Driving Book.

As a result the limit is much much lower, and as a result the inertia involved is much lower. The end result is that the car will break away with less inertia, being far more progresive and easier to control.

The same laws of physics would dictate that with the same car but a dry surface, the limits would be much higher and the inertai much greater when they are reached. The result here is that the car will break away in a much more sudden manner and be far harder to control.

As is said in the Autocar guide 'The Art of Car Control' - "If possiable, practice in the rain at first because it all happens much more slowly in the wet."

That's all well and good, but it has nothing to do with why GT4 drifting is so wrong. I have no problem at all keeping the tail from going too far and spinning out (in other words, if the corner was a right-hand corner, I'd be spinning clockwise). That was GT3's drifting flaw. The problem I have with GT4 is that upon countersteering into a drift, the front end instantly pulls me out, very violently, either ending up in fishtailing and a bit of off-roading, or a spin in the opposite direction (right-hand corner, counter-clockwise spin). It's as if the rear end's inertia ceases to exist. Oh, and this isn't just a low-speed thing. The faster the speed, the faster the fake-a** über-spin.

I don't personally find getting the back on a car out in GT4 'incredibly difficult' at all, the shot below is a stock M3 CSL (not even an oil change) on N2 tyres quite happy in its sideways attitude.



A clear distinction does also need to be made between drifting for show and a show-off moment of power oversteer. The first involves holding a car at very high yaw angles for a sustained period of time, clearly not a simple or easy thing to do. The second is much more straight forward, as the yaw angle reached is not normally great (despite what it feels like in the car) and the duration quite short.

I'm not talking about brief power-over. I'm talking about drifting. And, unlike your description there, drifting doesn't even require "very high yaw angles," IMO. Any tail-out sliding that was initiated by more than just jabbing the throttle in a powerful car, is drifting to me. In GT4, this is next to impossible.

The point I am making here is that while the physics involved do not change with speed, that does not make it as easy to control a car at 60mph as it does at 20mph. Ask anyone who has lost control of a car at 50-60mph+ what its like, and I'm not talking about a white-knuckle moment here, but stepping right over the edge. In a post above I mentioned wet lane change tests at 60mph, what I did not mention is that once the car had lost control it resulted in a 720 degree spin, again demonstrating that the inertia involved was large. This is why you carry out these tests on proving ground, the only thing hurt was a bit of grass and the tyres.

The forces involved in an object weighing over a tonne moving at 60mph are vast, this is what makes throwing a car around in the wet at low speeds easy and enjoyable, but far, far more difficult (but enjoyable none the less) at 60mph.

Indeed, but I'm not referring to difficulty of control. I'm only referring to how the car behaves. As you said earlier, the difference between dry-surface high-speed drifting and wet/snowy-surface low-speed drifting is the "intensity" with which traction is lost and gained. Physics do not change. My car in a snowy parking lot, at 10-20mph (or whatever I'm doing, as the speedometer becomes useless upon wheelspin ) exhibits all of the same characteristics of drifting an E30 M3 at higher speeds in the Airport Square in Enthusia albeit in a slow-motion of sorts. And that includes not only drifting, but also spinning out. Drifting and spinning an E46 M3 on the Gymkhana course in GT4 is completely different. The front end dictates almost entirely where the car is going to go (as if it were pulling), and drifting is an awkward process of quickly tapping the stick to dial in minute amounts of countersteer, praying to whatever deity you believe in that the car won't pull you into an opposite-direction spin.

Neither GT4 or Enthusia gets this right. GT4's problem is that its is slightly more difficult to initiate a slid at lower speed (Idon't agree with it being to difficult to catch, just back off the damn throttle as the car returns - slows the inertia - as you should in the real world) , Enthusia does not represent the forces involved at speed well, its to easy to catch, hold and recover from high speed drifts.

In short, GT4 is weaker in the areas of low speed physics and Enthusia is weaker in the area of high speed physics.

I do still partially agree that Enthusia is (a bit) too easy (only in keeping the tail from continuing on into a spin -- but again, this is even easier in GT4, because countersteer-spins are too busy #$*^% you in the #$& to allow that to happen), but it just occurred to me -- could it be, perhaps, that you find it easier simply because Enthusia's suspension and physics modelling actually tell you that the end of the drift is near, unlike GT4's stiff, lifeless modelling? In all of my experiences with drifting, I've learned to "read" a car's movement during a drift to determine whether it's about to regain grip. I have yet to do this at high speeds in real life, but it's worked in every situation so far, it works in Enthusia/LFS, and it's what I see drivers doing in drift videos and such. GT4 doesn't tell me a thing.

 

[Scaff]

No, that part was agreeing with you.

Cool, all OK on that one then. 👍

That's all well and good, but it has nothing to do with why GT4 drifting is so wrong. I have no problem at all keeping the tail from going too far and spinning out (in other words, if the corner was a right-hand corner, I'd be spinning clockwise). That was GT3's drifting flaw. The problem I have with GT4 is that upon countersteering into a drift, the front end instantly pulls me out, very violently, either ending up in fishtailing and a bit of off-roading, or a spin in the opposite direction (right-hand corner, counter-clockwise spin). It's as if the rear end's inertia ceases to exist. Oh, and this isn't just a low-speed thing. The faster the speed, the faster the fake-a** über-spin.

I must confess that as long as my inputs remain smooth and measured this is not a problem I generally find in GT4, in fact I would go so far as to say the rear inertia is the reason for the uber-spin. Loose it on the return and the rear is going to snap back very, very voilently; the front will have bags more grip in comparison to the rear and the spin is going to occur in a very short distance.

I can promise you this happends in the real world, because I've been driving cars when it has happened (skid pans and proving grounds).

Edited to add:

I've just read a piece in this weeks Autocar that illustrates what I am talking about.

"With 403lbft of torque and a wheelbase longer than a Renault Traffic's (a European panel van), the Corvette (C6) should be the most progressive drifter of all in the wet. No sir. It has heaps of traction: so much that the car just understeers, which is safe and ultimately fast, after a fashion. Attempt the drift, though and the Corvette proves more spitful than you'd imagine. To overawe its sticky rear axle requires just the right amount of throttle: too little and you have the world prettiest Tarmac plough, too much and you will spin. The gap between the two is about 2mm of flex with your big toe. And if that isn't enough, the caster effect of the steering is so severe that the wheel attampts to self-centre itself the moment you back off, making for very snappy corrections if you're not super-accurate. The scare-ometer is reading in the red zone."

I'm not talking about brief power-over. I'm talking about drifting. And, unlike your description there, drifting doesn't even require "very high yaw angles," IMO. Any tail-out sliding that was initiated by more than just jabbing the throttle in a powerful car, is drifting to me. In GT4, this is next to impossible.

My descriptions were generalisations of the difference between a drfit and brief power over, I think most people would agree that 'drifting' would involve high yaw angles, but as no 100% official definition is avaliable to us then it could mean what ever you want.

The picture I used to illustrate this was a moderate yaw drift, over the chicane before the final corner at Grand Valley. As these 'drifts' were linked around the chicane and the car was totally stock, this would both meet your definition of a drift and show it is far from next to impossiable in GT4

Indeed, but I'm not referring to difficulty of control. I'm only referring to how the car behaves. As you said earlier, the difference between dry-surface high-speed drifting and wet/snowy-surface low-speed drifting is the "intensity" with which traction is lost and gained. Physics do not change. My car in a snowy parking lot, at 10-20mph (or whatever I'm doing, as the speedometer becomes useless upon wheelspin ) exhibits all of the same characteristics of drifting an E30 M3 at higher speeds in the Airport Square in Enthusia albeit in a slow-motion of sorts. And that includes not only drifting, but also spinning out. Drifting and spinning an E46 M3 on the Gymkhana course in GT4 is completely different. The front end dictates almost entirely where the car is going to go (as if it were pulling), and drifting is an awkward process of quickly tapping the stick to dial in minute amounts of countersteer, praying to whatever deity you believe in that the car won't pull you into an opposite-direction spin.

If you have not yet experienced what the inertia involved in high speed control loss is like I would strongly recomend spending some time on a good skid pan or at a handling day, as while the physics involved do not differ the level of control required by the car rises significantly. This is my issue with Enthusia, it not much different drifting at 20mph as it is at 120mph, when in reality the two require very, very different levels of skill.

Direct comaprisons bertwwen and E30 M3 and a E46 M3 are something I would avoid myself, as the represent a significant development of the car. With the E30 running 205/55 R15's all around and the E46 running 225/45 R18 (f) and 255/40 R18 (r) the relative grip from the tyres alone is going to be massive. Combine this with a 325kgs weight difference, a 140bhp power difference and a totally different rear suspension setup (semi trailing arms against full multi link) and you end up comparing apples with oranges. The E30 and E46 M3's may share the same ethos but they are very different cars.

That said using the gymkhana as a test area is only going to highlight what I agree is GT4's biggest weak spot, its low speed physics.

I do still partially agree that Enthusia is (a bit) too easy (only in keeping the tail from continuing on into a spin -- but again, this is even easier in GT4, because countersteer-spins are too busy #$*^% you in the #$& to allow that to happen), but it just occurred to me -- could it be, perhaps, that you find it easier simply because Enthusia's suspension and physics modelling actually tell you that the end of the drift is near, unlike GT4's stiff, lifeless modelling? In all of my experiences with drifting, I've learned to "read" a car's movement during a drift to determine whether it's about to regain grip. I have yet to do this at high speeds in real life, but it's worked in every situation so far, it works in Enthusia/LFS, and it's what I see drivers doing in drift videos and such. GT4 doesn't tell me a thing.

This one is (as we have discussed at length before) a very personal one, I have no problem at all with the way in which GT4 tells me what is going on with the cars movement. I can't agree that the modeling on GT4 is stiff and lifeless.

As you get to drive more cars in the real world you will find that the same can be true. Your BMW is old enough to feed you a constant stream of feed-back through the wheel and seat, my Celica is also a great communicator. Try an E46 M3 (or any E46 BMW) and I promise you the level and detail of feedback is greatly reduced, blame modern power steering and NVH demands. Want to get worse, then try almost any car with electrically assisted steering, as these systems rob the driver of huge amounts of feel. One of the worst culprits for me are modern Audi's, which seem to have almost nil feel and feedback through the wheel, even the mighty RS6 feels somehow inert through the wheel.

Its something that everyone reacts to and works with differently. Remember a lot of people here at GTP can and do get stock cars to drift, and a number even state that they find it straight forward to do so, others never get to grips with it.

Just because GT4 has its weak areas (as does every driving sim) does not mean because person A can't get it to do something its not possiable. I'm old enough to remember when 4WD rally cars first hit the WRC in the '80s, and a lot of the WRC drivers at the time said it would be impossiable to drift them and the RWD cars would still win the day. It didn't take long for people to figure out how to do it and the techniques developed then are still very much in use today (altough the WRC is now more about smooth, neat and tidy rather than big sideways action).


Regards

Scaff

 

[Dave A]

The biggest problem with GT4's physcs are the tyres, the tyres are well off, even the N1's don't properly represent real life tyres. Then theres a cars lack of putting the power down properly, though not so much a physics issue since this is down to the niggling little always on TCS the game seems to have, you can turn off the TCS in the setting but you can never put the power down like you can in a real car. Also driving in the wet in GT4 is a joke, a big one. I do agree with Wolfe2x7 regarding Enthusia, it gives you so much more feedback than GT4 does it's not even comparable, EPR is more accurate in the way cars behave overall imo, I do like that game. Cars like the Elise really feel right whereas in GT4 they don't.

With regards to the front end of a car biting and and the car snapping around if you don't get a drift right, yes that really does happen as Scaff said. However it also happens in EPR and LFS, you just get more feedback from thoes games you can read the drift better and comensate more accurately.

 

[Scaff]

The biggest problem with GT4's physcs are the tyres, the tyres are well off, even the N1's don't properly represent real life tyres. Then theres a cars lack of putting the power down properly, though not so much a physics issue since this is down to the niggling little always on TCS the game seems to have, you can turn off the TCS in the setting but you can never put the power down like you can in a real car. Also driving in the wet in GT4 is a joke, a big one. I do agree with Wolfe2x7 regarding Enthusia, it gives you so much more feedback than GT4 does it's not even comparable, EPR is more accurate in the way cars behave overall imo, I do like that game. Cars like the Elise really feel right whereas in GT4 they don't.

With regards to the front end of a car biting and and the car snapping around if you don't get a drift right, yes that really does happen as Scaff said. However it also happens in EPR and LFS, you just get more feedback from thoes games you can read the drift better and comensate more accurately.

Sorry but with regard to real tyres vs. GT4 tyres, in terms of peak and max lateral g and 0-100-0 times for acceleration and braking, then N2 and N3 tyres are a very, very close match to the real thing.

I carried out a huge number of tests in these areas with BMW M3, comparing GT4 data with real wolrd data and the results are very, very similar.

BMW M3 - An analysis of tyre choice

In terms of tyre feel and how quickly a tyre looses grip once its slip limit is reached, well the real world offers a huge range of differences here. Fit a different brand of tyres to your car and the handling can changes dramatically. My Celica currently has Michelin Pilot Premacy's fitted, which offer less grip in the dry than the previous Yokohama A 680's (OE tyre), but are far more progressive upto the limit and offer better grip and feel in the wet and cold. Same car + same driver + different tyres = totally different drive.

I would also like to ask why you consider driving inthe wet to be a big joke, the level of standing water than the GT4 wet track is using is very, very high. Far higher than you would ever encounter on the road, but not unheard of on a track. Race tracks do not drain water as well as public roads, they generally have little or no camber to aid drainage, the tarmac is produced using a much smaller pebble size (roughly half the size of than used on the roads) which again reduces drainage and promotes areas of standing water.

The GT4 Elise is excellently modeled in my opinion, having driven a number of Elise's on track its a car that is very predictable and controlable when driven at 8/10ths, push to the edge of the limit and its a *****. Lift off oversteer being a very nasty trait of the Elise (mk1 more than mk2).

I don't disagree with the subject of how individual people find the 'feel' of different games, but I do have an issue with using it to say that one is better than the other. GT4, Forza, EPR, LFS and others all have strengthes and weakness', personal preference is just that, personal. Wolfe has in the past stated that he does not like how Richard Burns Rally handles, nor its sense of speed, yet it is widely recognised as the best rally sim on the market, and by quite a margin (winner of Blackhole Motorsports physics engine of the year 2005). Is he wrong, no, because its all down to a personal 'feel'. If it doesn't work for someone, it can be the most realistic sim in the world, but its still not going to 'feel' right.


In regard to LFS and EPR and the snap on counter steer, I have no problem with how this is shown in LFS, but I feel that while it is present on EPR, its not as prominent as it should be from experience. Particularly at high speeds, when the inertial forces involved are going to be very high. Its what I mean by drifting in EPR being too easy; and as I said above I find this to feel unrealistic, others love it.

Regards

Scaff

 

[Dave A]

In terms of acceleration and lateral g yes, but they are still well off the real thing, as in other games have got them a hell of a lot closer to real yeat even thoes arn't spot on yet. It's easy to create a tyre in a game and give it x grip so it'll make a car corner with the same g-force as the real life one does. It's not easy to get that tyre to behave right under full driving conditions, theres so much that a tyre goes through that isn't simulated at all in GT, let alone attempted. I mean thats not suprising really, theres onl so much info you can make the PS2 concentrate on processing. Not a fault of PD, just that the PS2 has pretty much reach the maximum it can do in GT4. The bottom line is, I can drive my car in GT4 and if feels very different to drive then the one I have outside, okay it's not the same engine but with regards to the way the car behaves, the handling. GT4 isn't right, it may pull the same g's and accelerate about right, but the feel of the car just isn't right. It's far better, far closer to how it really feels in EPR, not spot on by any means, no game is but closer than GT4. And I got the same feeling in the Elise, it was nicer to drive more like the real thing in EPR than in GT4, what I really want to test is the Caterham R500 in EPR, I've not got it yet but I've had the pleasure of a quick blast in a couple of Caterhams so I hope to compare that too.

Just on the subject of sayong one game is better than the other, in terms of preference there is not better choice. In terms of which one is more realistic, there is one that is more realistic than the others. It common sense that none of the game you mentioned are equal in realism, they're all sims, but one is still more realistic than the others. In terms of sheer physics data calculated, it's LFS by a country mile, I can't say for sure since the two or three real cars in LFS are cars I've never driven and probably never will so while you can't say just how accurately thoes calulations have been used, it has a far superior phsics engine, it calculates different areas of stress on each tyre, the deformation of the sidewalls, the different temperatures of each area of the tyre and far more. GT4 doesn't, simply put it can't, well the PS2 can't. EPR doesn't either, neither does Forza, bu LFS S2 does, so judging by that, LFS S2 is the most realistic of the 4, but like I said, how that translates to how the cars actually drive is a different matter and until it uses real cars that people have actually driven, one that can't really be answered.

 

[M2R]

Wolfe2x7: About the question which is more realistic, I guess I made sort of an indeterminate statement like I consider GT4 the pinnacle. I play sims to get fun sensations into my body so really I should have said GT4 gets me more fun for less effort. I just sort of take whatever a sim give me and don't get too involved in is that accurate or not because in real life I sort of find that to be true also. You get a car thrown at you and do whatever it takes to get it around the track in the least time possible, in one piece, without excessive abuse. I think that the "rules" ... "aren't really rules more like guidelines".

My first sim was Papyrus Nascar Racing 2002 Season, then I tried to get everything they made N3, N4, NR2003Season, GPL, all PC stuff.

Then I got into the ISI F1 series 2001, 2002, and F1C. But I don't have RFactor yet or GTLegends (SimBin) also PC. I also got GP4 but the mod scene sort of sucked me the ISI way.

If I was forced at gun point to choose most realistic I would say ETTC mod for F1C by RSR. But it's down on my list for smiles/minute value.

For the console I only have WRC and the GT, GT2, GT3, GT4 series and no XBox.

Mike

 

[Dave A]

Which is more realistic is such a hard question really, you have the technical side like say LFS S2 which features far more variables than GT4, EPR and Forza, and you have the feedback the game gives you. At the end of the day, at this point in time none are close to the real thing, this is mainly down to the feedback the games give you.

 

[Wolfe]

I must confess that as long as my inputs remain smooth and measured this is not a problem I generally find in GT4, in fact I would go so far as to say the rear inertia is the reason for the uber-spin. Loose it on the return and the rear is going to snap back very, very voilently; the front will have bags more grip in comparison to the rear and the spin is going to occur in a very short distance.

I can promise you this happends in the real world, because I've been driving cars when it has happened (skid pans and proving grounds).

Edited to add:

I've just read a piece in this weeks Autocar that illustrates what I am talking about.

"With 403lbft of torque and a wheelbase longer than a Renault Traffic's (a European panel van), the Corvette (C6) should be the most progressive drifter of all in the wet. No sir. It has heaps of traction: so much that the car just understeers, which is safe and ultimately fast, after a fashion. Attempt the drift, though and the Corvette proves more spitful than you'd imagine. To overawe its sticky rear axle requires just the right amount of throttle: too little and you have the world prettiest Tarmac plough, too much and you will spin. The gap between the two is about 2mm of flex with your big toe. And if that isn't enough, the caster effect of the steering is so severe that the wheel attampts to self-centre itself the moment you back off, making for very snappy corrections if you're not super-accurate. The scare-ometer is reading in the red zone."

I never said that such a thing does not happen in real life. GT4 simply makes it far, far too easy to do so.

My descriptions were generalisations of the difference between a drfit and brief power over, I think most people would agree that 'drifting' would involve high yaw angles, but as no 100% official definition is avaliable to us then it could mean what ever you want.

The picture I used to illustrate this was a moderate yaw drift, over the chicane before the final corner at Grand Valley. As these 'drifts' were linked around the chicane and the car was totally stock, this would both meet your definition of a drift and show it is far from next to impossiable in GT4

If you have not yet experienced what the inertia involved in high speed control loss is like I would strongly recomend spending some time on a good skid pan or at a handling day, as while the physics involved do not differ the level of control required by the car rises significantly. This is my issue with Enthusia, it not much different drifting at 20mph as it is at 120mph, when in reality the two require very, very different levels of skill.

Again, I understand that it is more difficult at higher speeds. That is beside the point. In GT4, the cars exhibit the wrong handling characteristics to begin with, regardless of whether or not you can control them.

Direct comaprisons bertwwen and E30 M3 and a E46 M3 are something I would avoid myself, as the represent a significant development of the car. With the E30 running 205/55 R15's all around and the E46 running 225/45 R18 (f) and 255/40 R18 (r) the relative grip from the tyres alone is going to be massive. Combine this with a 325kgs weight difference, a 140bhp power difference and a totally different rear suspension setup (semi trailing arms against full multi link) and you end up comparing apples with oranges. The E30 and E46 M3's may share the same ethos but they are very different cars.

I never said that the cars were similar, and I wasn't implying that they were, other than them being FRs.

That said using the gymkhana as a test area is only going to highlight what I agree is GT4's biggest weak spot, its low speed physics.

It's pretty easy to hit 60mph, which qualifies as "high speed" according to your arguments about drift control.

This one is (as we have discussed at length before) a very personal one, I have no problem at all with the way in which GT4 tells me what is going on with the cars movement. I can't agree that the modeling on GT4 is stiff and lifeless.

As you get to drive more cars in the real world you will find that the same can be true. Your BMW is old enough to feed you a constant stream of feed-back through the wheel and seat, my Celica is also a great communicator. Try an E46 M3 (or any E46 BMW) and I promise you the level and detail of feedback is greatly reduced, blame modern power steering and NVH demands. Want to get worse, then try almost any car with electrically assisted steering, as these systems rob the driver of huge amounts of feel. One of the worst culprits for me are modern Audi's, which seem to have almost nil feel and feedback through the wheel, even the mighty RS6 feels somehow inert through the wheel.

I'm not talking about feedback through the wheel -- I'm talking about feedback from the chassis and suspension. And this applies to all cars in Enthusia, LFS, and numerous PC sims, not just my own car.

Its something that everyone reacts to and works with differently. Remember a lot of people here at GTP can and do get stock cars to drift, and a number even state that they find it straight forward to do so, others never get to grips with it.

Just because some people "get it" and that it's possible, doesn't mean that it's truly realistic. I mean, I "get" drifting in Outrun 2, and it's really fun...anyone who would like to attest to the realism of that game can leave now.

Just because GT4 has its weak areas (as does every driving sim) does not mean because person A can't get it to do something its not possiable. I'm old enough to remember when 4WD rally cars first hit the WRC in the '80s, and a lot of the WRC drivers at the time said it would be impossiable to drift them and the RWD cars would still win the day. It didn't take long for people to figure out how to do it and the techniques developed then are still very much in use today (altough the WRC is now more about smooth, neat and tidy rather than big sideways action).

You're right, I should have specified that GT4 drifting is next to impossible for me. At least I'm not alone...

Wolfe has in the past stated that he does not like how Richard Burns Rally handles, nor its sense of speed, yet it is widely recognised as the best rally sim on the market, and by quite a margin (winner of Blackhole Motorsports physics engine of the year 2005). Is he wrong, no, because its all down to a personal 'feel'. If it doesn't work for someone, it can be the most realistic sim in the world, but its still not going to 'feel' right.

Whoa whoa whoa...I never said that RBR doesn't handle right. I simply cannot play with such a slow sense of speed, and I've only tried the PC version, so the consoles might have fared better.