This is why there are levels available. They really do reflect different abilities and thus, different feels.
Except that ABS functions flawlessly immediately from '1'. Turning it up merely tweaks the way the game threshold-brakes all four wheels independently, in a manner similar to ASM (except only when braking), such that it's possible to remove some of the understeer inherent in GT's ABS system (when braking). TCS is similar, the step from 0 to 1 is massive, with very little actual (longitudinal) slip allowed.
Really reaching to try to discredit the horrible aids now.
Discredit them? I don't follow. If you mean I'm deliberately attacking aids so as to make a point that people shouldn't use them, then you're wrong. You oughtn't assume you know where I'm coming from (though, if you'd read my post, it should have been implicit) - I'm not arguing for or against using aids, I'm simply stating that a control method devised for a digital representation (one that is far from accurate, i.e. it isn't real) is in no way comparable to one that is designed for use on the real thing. There's no getting around this.
Stop mixing points. Let me separate these for you and everyone else - machines are faster than people. Period. Masochists in these threads make blanket statements that, in the real world, not just GT, driving aids will slow down a good driver. This is patently untrue. Yes, much depends on the nature and quality of the aids, but let's be straight for a moment - we aren't talking about a Chevy Tahoe. We're talking about cars that would find themselves in a racing environment in the first place - like a ZR1 or GTR. Or... TCS on F1. That proves indisputably that machines can enable the human to go faster. There is nothing more that can be said about that. From here on in, keep it focused on the GT world.
This was never part of my argument, at all. However, machines being "faster", doesn't automatically make them better. Remember, a machine is only as good as its designer. The problem with what you're saying, though, is that in GT, we have a lot of cars that aren't by any means intended for the race track. What that means is, that their stock aids are not of a performance type. Does GT model this? No. All aids in GT are, by default, performance oriented - no scaling changes that. On top of this, aids on every car function in the same way, via the same mechanisms. You might be able to tweak the settings to come close in certain situations, but fundamentally you're approaching from a different direction to systems in the real car.
Just to add - All they did with the F1 TCS was map it based on location (and probably many other variables as well) - This is more than possible on a street car if the OEM so desired. It's just a matter of adding the right data and connecting to the GPS which is now becoming standard anyway. But it would be a bit counter productive as there are too many roads out there, so they instead opt for resolution (speed and data rate), response times, and generic settings (asphalt, snow/ice, gravel, sport, or off/race). Again, nothing you said there in any way invalidates my prior point. Just much ado about nothing.
The fact that the systems have to be made to cope with a variety of road surfaces, temperatures, tyre wear levels etc. etc. automatically makes them compromised. It might only be a small margin in real terms, but on the track that can make all the difference. Like I said, the best systems come close to being flexible enough, but it'll never approach the bespoke quality that Formula-1 employed - unless we get machines that really can read the road, amongst other things.
The fact that these systems have the ability to be (theoretically) faster than any real world system actually just drives home the point that using it can make one faster, and with the right tweaking you certainly CAN bring out realistic behavior.
ABS is about the only aid, for "slower" cars, that can really make a difference to an accomplished sim-driver in GT. TCS takes too much out of the slip to be of any use anywhere but on a wet track or high-powered cars, in this game. For drivers of "lower ability" (or with "poorer interfaces") the other stuff will no doubt help, but not anywhere near as much as actually improving your driving technique, or upgrading the "interface". If the aids really do allow
anyone to drive faster, then why are the time trials not reflecting this?
I personally don't want to bother tweaking the aids to try to imitate the electronics in a car I've likely never driven, nor likely ever will - there's no fidelity that way, at all. For those with the experience, fine, if they're convinced it's accurate, that's all that matters. If not, we shouldn't be surprised.
E-Diffs are flappy paddle gearboxes are ECS is TCS is ABS. You can not state that "this is ok, but those aren't". That really invalidates your whole argument with what it reveals about your thinking (or at least what you're willing to say even if it's all a charade here - not saying it is, but some people like to pull that after the fact - not naming any names.... lol)
I was trying to contribute to the discussion, don't try to judge me based on
another poster's reactions to you. I'm not interested.
Independently variable differentials (as opposed to the automatic, mechanical types) are a tricky one. On the one hand, they're about as important as brake bias is for (engine) braking stability, yet the differentials do so much more for the car
overall. I consider aids an "intervention" (that's how they function in GT), and whilst it is only sensible to tie these different systems together, it's not definite that this occurs in all cars in real life. In emergency situations in some cars, the "e-diff", as you put it, probably is an aid just as much as ABS or ASM can be. Primarily, the "e-diff" was developed to allow the car to be more flexible at any point on the circuit, or a range of surfaces and conditions. This translates to the road in the form of friendly engine braking and power-over, switchable for the track to something a bit more useful.
Wrong.
Realistic in this context means to represent reality - which, in this particular case, is a given car on a given track under almost any set of driving conditions in controlled weather settings.
It has NOTHING to do with g-forces, fear factor, or anything else that makes a 'game' different from reality. It has purely to do with accurate representation - ie, if you were to take that car on that track with those tires in that weather and do those things in reality - would it match the sim?
This is the same as with flight sims too. People love to pull this "it's not real because it's a game" crap cop-out and hope to pull the wool over people's eyes about the above and the interface. Any sim can and should only be expected to be as realistic as it's interface allows - in flight sims, that's generally a PC, in this case, it's a PS3 (and associated optional hardware - coders design them for proper control hardware and people are able to use improper if they choose, but the loss of fidelity in the experience is on them in that case).
So let's drop this little nugget entirely.
No. I agree with the statement (it's the same statement, repeated) in bold, but quite how you can convince anyone that GT actually does this is beyond me.
"People" are right, it's
not real. It is
just a game. Some sims come damned close to copying reality (in terms of behaviour), but usually only in a small scope - e.g. one car on one track.
And that's fine. But you clearly feld like you had to defend yourself by trying to take me to task and discredit my points ("try", not "do/did").
No I didn't. You're bringing me into arguments I never mentioned.
Per rules, but most professional racing series also don't drive street cars either. At best they drive completely stripped out and re-built cars that may have started out life as street cars, or even tube chassies with fake bodies. That's what GTR (from Simbin) and iRacing are about. Gran Turismo is about driving real cars - street cars - and wringing them out on various tracks from across the world. Like being our very own blend of Jeremy Clarkson and The Stig.
I already addressed this above, where you said: "
We're talking about cars that would find themselves in a racing environment in the first place"
As you pointed about above - there's a lot of difference between sim and reality. If you are unable to afford a wheel - then what? It's more realistic to leave TCS on (assuming the car actually had it) as it can work with your inferior interface to allow you to do what you could acutally do were you actually to be in the car. Alternately, let's say you buy a full control rig. Ok, but you are still missing out on SOTP, and FFB motors and wheels aren't 100% dead on either, and there's also lack of FFB on pedals, so you still aren't getting all the proper feedback. However, the software/interface can help out to help create the proper experience (lap times or speed in this case).
This also ignores the simple fact that if the car actually has it, it should have it. But my point here is that what you call an "irrevocable pig of a car" is just a car that you are trying to control through a limited interface. And having more power is not a bad thing - if the machine can help control it, or if you have the proper interface (all the missing elements present) to control it.
So there is no such thing as an irrevocable pig of a car in real life? Ignoring the poorly chosen adjective (I'm not a walking thesaurus, sadly) I'd say they almost certainly do exist on the road, so there must be loads of them on the race tracks, where performance is measured across a much smaller envelope / range / whatever - analogous to "tolerance", in engineering terms, if you will. Machines won't give you more traction than is available. They might make that limit more accessible, sure. But that's an important distinction.
All you've done is prove my point, really. Sport Mode/Competition Mode. In the game, it's similar to dialing it back down. It works pretty much the same. However, the point you tried to nullify, yet missed, is that in an absolute sense, if you are sliding and spinning, you are not going in the direction you want, unless it's D1GP and making smoke is the point. This is WHY the GTR has all that whiz-bang techno-geekery - because it makes the car faster.
And that of course is the other side, the Elise doesn't need it. The GTR does. Not many cars can be what the Elise is. If you want utility and comfort, and sell under modern safety regs (especially in the US), then you need to make a heavy car. And a heavy car will be faster if you let the machine do some work.
No. A tyre grips best when it is sliding. This is fact. Anywhere between 5-20% slip is optimal. This is either within the bounds of sidewall creep, or much beyond it - depending on the tyre - the range of workable slip will feel different on different tyres, even at the same slip ratios. TCS in GT doesn't allow enough longitudinal slip, so in many cases (particularly low-to-mid powered cars) it is actually slower - the crossover occurs at the point where you can no longer control the throttle finely enough, or read the grip levels well enough.
The GTR
adjusts its mechanical balance (via its "trick" diffs) in order to "find" the optimal yaw rate based on the available traction at all four wheels.
That's what makes it fast. GT does not do this. ASM works via the
brakes only, and fixed LSDs are more likely to be too tight or too slack in corners, and just right on the corner you deem most important.
A great example of this is the Prodrive street car on Top Gear, same test with and without electronics on, the sort of test that could be rigged with some wire to hold the wheel and gas, and with it on, it turned tighter and could go faster - it wasn't a question of driver skill or other factors as it was all boiled out of it.
Again, trick diffs - this time for WRC, and they are much better than anything on the road. Again, does GT model these systems? ASM doesn't work the same way (brakes), and a variable centre-diff is only controllable from the RA menu (or settings), so that's not an aid, either.
But, I thought we were keeping this to the GT world?
The tire behavior is ideal as well. So it's a match. Again, if you want partial slip, dial it down. It does change it.
But it's not a match for reality. It is not realistic.
And do what you find is more enjoyable for you, but don't try to claim it's more realistic - it's not, or that realism can't be had - it can. Just enjoy it the way you enjoy it and go with it.
I never claimed it was more realistic.
" ... claiming that using [GT's aids] is a realistic analogy to [real-world aids]
is just as false as claiming (for those same cars) that driving with no aids at all is realistic."
Apologies for the monster post.
