Skid Recovery Force - Time lap - What it is?

[Vagabond]

Ahh i see. You mention that you can achieve quicker time with TCS & ASM off but what about ABS?? I always switch this off aswell, although Ive seen a lot of people on here saying they always have it set to 1? It does make controling hard braking much more challenging, but could it contribute to quicker times? Going back to the SRF, I dont think ive ever actually switched it on. Might try it tonight to see what the difference is like but wont revert to using this competitively. I want the driving experience to be as challenging and as close to real life as possible, and for me thats all aids off.

My own thoughts on ABS from a conversation I had just a couple of days ago:

I'm surprised at the number of people who choose to drive ABS 0 to be honest. It just has no feel at all and random lockups at half pedal travel are not realistic. In fact, ABS 1 is the most realistic in terms of required pedal pressure. I raced a Caterham 7 back in the early 90s and it was literally bare-bone no frills driving (bum ache, jeebus....) and as I remember, you had to really stomp on the pedal at the end of the straights coming in to a tight turn, then progressively release as you set up for the entry. (No trail braking with that though, or it just sat down and spun.) Your average road car still needs a hefty stomp on the pedal to stop at everyday speeds, and real welly to get the ABS to kick in, even in the wet.

The Clubsports, with the loadcell and vibration motor, are fantastic but with GT5 and 6, if you have ABS 0, you never get anywhere near the 'bite' point of the pedal before you get irrecoverable lockup. I can drive it, yes, if I must... and have on occasion just for something different but its horribly frustrating not to be able to use the pedals properly.

ABS 0 is a challenge of sorts but to my mind (and feet) its not a realistic one and isn't as great as its biggest promoters shout. I used to think of it just as a pissing contest but there are a few people I like and respect who have chosen to use it. Fair go, guys, I hope you enjoy it like that. I really don't with the poor and inconsistent way its implemented.

 

[DrkPhnyx]

And lol @ the always funny cockpit view debate. No, it's no where near realistic and they're not even being included for "sim" purposes to begin with. It's eye candy for the casuals.

You don't understand the concept. It's never going to be perfect, that is a given, stop trying to split hairs for the sake of supporting your crutch. It's MORE realistic than wonder woman view. Always was, always will be (until technology comes along that allows us to jack into our cars and drive them as cyborgs). Your view as a drive is higher, and more obscured by the interior and exterior of the car, and, funnily enough, you can actually see the gauges and dash. Imagine that. Until they implement full VR the only compromise is to make it a little more prominent than it ought to be. That is no excuse to turn it off and claim realism. That's just seeking a crutch and trying to support it. Hell, you said it yourself -

People love to use whatever assist they can as a crutch

It's true. They do, and you demonstrate that nicely. Give up calling your wonder woman view "more realistic", please, it really makes you look bad. If you prefer using it, great, do so, nobody ever said not to. But.... don't lie to yourself about being more realistic or fight against the idea of allowing it to be a controlled setting in an online room, or getting full interiors for all cars, or even for that matter, separate leader boards. Same thing applies as SRF, you can be faster with it (wonder woman view, or SRF, the former gives unprecedented view, the latter more mechanical grip, both allowing one to drive faster, just in different ways).

I'm trying to not keep bringing this up, but if people keep taking whacks at it, it'll happen. (they must feel insulted at the notion, apparently)

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

I set ABS=1 to accommodate more realistic brake bias settings. When ABS is set to off, I find that no car behaves like the ~ 4 dozen various cars I've driven in real life over the past 40+ years, from Honda Coupes to Cadillacs and everywhere in between. No simulation is perfect, even moreso on a game console using the computational power of a circa 1999 PC. ABS=1 allows me to set brake bias in such a way as to more accurately mirror real world brake bias ratios, instead of driving as if the brakes were "Skid-on" "Skid-off".

ABS=1 is close to real life. ABS off isn't.

Wrong. I drive with high brake balance that mimics real world bias, and since GT5 I never use brake assist ( ABS ), Read these posts for more info :

snip...

At the same time, ABS OFF in GT6 remains a much better experience than in GT5 for all cars without Racing Brake Pads, because it seems that new physics and suspension model takes into concern actual mechanical properties of the braking-potential of a particular car (thus making ABS OFF driving more right) and it provides much more liviable and believable sensation.

**NOTE: - In my assessment, the *ABS* in GT series is not representative/simulation of the real-life ABS, it just uses that "name". ABS in GT is some kind of permanent braking assist *override* that not only prevents wheel-lock on the buffer-bases (dot doing what real ABS doing in the RL), but also have some invisible traction-control that nullify the suspension-modelling and equalizes unique characteristics of the vehicles resulting with the ability to turn while braking and never lose grip. It is an imposed as simple game-assist with adjustable level of assistance (1-10), it is not "simulation" of the RL ABS effect at all.

**NOTE #2: I am driving with Fanatec wheel and Fanatec CSPV2 pedals with load-cell and oil-damper - and still going through hell because of the Racing Brake Pads. I can't even imagine the horrors of braking with pedals that have no load-cell and especially the plastic pedals such as on DFP/DFGT wheels where sensitivity is probably 5X greater than on my set. Polyphony needs to fix this ASAP, it is the greatest current issue of GT6.

The default 5,5 appears to be "stock" brake balance. So if the car has a 70% forward bias stock, setting the in-game "bias" to 5,3 reduces overall power by 20% and shifts the bias forward to 79.5%.

The "formula", should you happen to know the stock bias (and it's correct in the game), is:

B*F/5 / (B*F/5 + B'*R/5) ​

Where B is forward bias, B' it's complement (rearward bias), F and R are the bias settings in game.

For 70% stock bias, 5,3 setting: 70*(5/5) / (70*(5/5) + (100-70)*(3/5)) = 0.795..., i.e. ~79.5%
For 70% stock bias, 5,7 setting: 70*(5/5) / (70*(5/5) + (100-70)*(7/5)) = 0.625, i.e. 62.5%
For 62% stock bias, 4,2 setting: 62*(4/5) / (62*(4/5) + (100-62)*(2/5)) = 0.765..., i.e. 76.5%

So depending on whether you want a more or less forward bias than stock, sometimes you need to set the rears "stronger" than the fronts.

The bias setting does nothing outside of a race, although I'm not even sure it works online at all, so although trial and error is still king, there's not much provision for it in the game, whereas it always worked in GT5.
Is this another thing where PD think they're "balancing" online by removing the ability to adjust the bias? Seems to me if people are disabling ABS, they're going to expect that bias settings will be tuned to personal taste, and accept that they may be slower than others as a result.

Really, the existing adjustment needs to be replaced with a proper, transparent bias and overall force adjustment instead of this silly use of low-integer rational numbers nonsense. Then allow that adjustment everywhere in the game.

This is done with stick and high BB ( 9/2 )

Lamborghini Diablo GT'00, Bathurst, Comfort Medium, 2:24.678

 

[DrkPhnyx]

My own thoughts on ABS from a conversation I had just a couple of days ago:

I'm surprised at the number of people who choose to drive ABS 0 to be honest. It just has no feel at all and random lockups at half pedal travel are not realistic. In fact, ABS 1 is the most realistic in terms of required pedal pressure. I raced a Caterham 7 back in the early 90s and it was literally bare-bone no frills driving (bum ache, jeebus....) and as I remember, you had to really stomp on the pedal at the end of the straights coming in to a tight turn, then progressively release as you set up for the entry. (No trail braking with that though, or it just sat down and spun.) Your average road car still needs a hefty stomp on the pedal to stop at everyday speeds, and real welly to get the ABS to kick in, even in the wet.

The Clubsports, with the loadcell and vibration motor, are fantastic but with GT5 and 6, if you have ABS 0, you never get anywhere near the 'bite' point of the pedal before you get irrecoverable lockup. I can drive it, yes, if I must... and have on occasion just for something different but its horribly frustrating not to be able to use the pedals properly.

ABS 0 is a challenge of sorts but to my mind (and feet) its not a realistic one and isn't as great as its biggest promoters shout. I used to think of it just as a pissing contest but there are a few people I like and respect who have chosen to use it. Fair go, guys, I hope you enjoy it like that. I really don't with the poor and inconsistent way its implemented.

Agree.

I actually find I can dial in older cars, depending on the car to some extent, to behave just like you described the 7 - stand on it (full pedal) at speed, then ease up to avoid lock up. I often go with like 2/4 or something. But it can still be a handful, either needing more braking time because you aren't getting quite everything out of it, or locking up. It's not perfect, but I find it works.

However, totally agree with you on the presence of ABS and realism. All modern road cars, with the exception of a very small select few, have ABS. And TCS, but that can be turned off with a switch. So on those, I'll run ABS 1 for older crappier systems, and 2 for newer better systems. For ones like the new Challenger, or Mercedes Benzs, I leave TCS at 1 because as I've heard Clarkson moan about constantly, M-B never allows you to really turn it off entirely, even when it says it's off.

One thing I haven't done yet, but might at some point, is "upgrade" (so to speak, more RP than anything because it's a setting, not a purchase) an older car with a modern ABS system. That would make it faster (because it would be easier to drive hard), and so be just as valid an upgrade as tires or shocks or a cam and heads swap. But for now, I enjoy the different feel of the older cars without and just dial the brake balance to make it work.

 

[xiando]

Wrong. I drive with high brake balance that mimics real world bias, and since GT5 I never use brake assist ( ABS ), Read these posts for more info :

Umm... no I won't. Frankly, I don't care how you play. I find that cars in the game lock up far too easily with ABS set to zero. I set it up to reflect my own experience. You can feel to play this game as you see fit. I won't be following your management, but thanks for your input.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Umm... no I won't. Frankly, I don't care how you play. I find that cars in the game lock up far too easily with ABS set to zero. I set it up to reflect my own experience. You can feel to play this game as you see fit. I won't be following your management, but thanks for your input.

That's too bad, it really depends on the input device stock wheel/pedal usually too sensitive for no ABS ( DGFT is one of the worst ). If you read the first quoted post, at the end the poster ( Amar212 ) mentioned he used Fanatec wheel and Fanatec CSPV2 pedals with load-cell and oil-damper. I don't have any difficulty braking without ABS even with 9/2 brake balance + racing brakes kit as I don't use DS3

 

[xiando]

Well, lol, with a silver-spoon setup, anything's possible. If I had hydraulically damped peddles, I'm sure I'd set things up differently, just as I'd probably drive in cockpit mode if I had a multi-monitor setup. I don't have either so I do with what I have. And I'm doing fine. The game is progressing just as fast as I want it to, and I'm doing ok in the seasonals, well above the average.

In GT, I work based on reading papers off the net and interpreting them into the game when it comes to suspension/brakes/etc and by correlating my real worlkd experience with that of the simulation. In the case of brake bias, my setup corresponds to real world 10-20% F/R bias seen in "normal" and lower end sports cars, much like I tend to drive in the game.

Whatever works for you, that's fine by me. I do with what I have, whether it's an old, under-performing "utility" car I have to drive in real life or a consumer-level I/O device for the game console.

 

[Tangofry]

Well ds

SRF is fine for the beginner players, but when you see the top times in the seasonal events all done with it, then you have a problem.

IMO using SRF should disqualify your time from rankings. Hey, if you're not a super skilled GT player, it's there for you to use to get gold, but if you want to see where you rank against the rest of the world, you should have to disable it or your time doesn't count -- or at least have two separate time boards. It makes no sense that they're mixed.

It's not like traction control which is a realistic and available driving "aid," and even things like ASM or steering assist slow down experienced players more than it helps them. But skid recovery force is an artificial aid that makes too much of a difference. It's annoying when I would start a seasonal event and a ghost line from an online friend shows up, and I just can't keep up with it. He's got all the grip in the world and incredible acceleration from corners. Then I check his info and he has SRF on... Just annoying. I don't want to have to turn it on myself just to beat him. And on the other end if I do the event first and he does it after, he sees my ghost line and laughs as he easily beats me, unknowing that I'm not using SRF.

Seriously. Address it, PD.

Well said

 

[Mr.Slow]

You don't understand the concept. It's never going to be perfect, that is a given, stop trying to split hairs for the sake of supporting your crutch. It's MORE realistic than wonder woman view. Always was, always will be (until technology comes along that allows us to jack into our cars and drive them as cyborgs). Your view as a drive is higher, and more obscured by the interior and exterior of the car, and, funnily enough, you can actually see the gauges and dash. Imagine that. Until they implement full VR the only compromise is to make it a little more prominent than it ought to be. That is no excuse to turn it off and claim realism. That's just seeking a crutch and trying to support it. Hell, you said it yourself -



It's true. They do, and you demonstrate that nicely. Give up calling your wonder woman view "more realistic", please, it really makes you look bad. If you prefer using it, great, do so, nobody ever said not to. But.... don't lie to yourself about being more realistic or fight against the idea of allowing it to be a controlled setting in an online room, or getting full interiors for all cars, or even for that matter, separate leader boards. Same thing applies as SRF, you can be faster with it (wonder woman view, or SRF, the former gives unprecedented view, the latter more mechanical grip, both allowing one to drive faster, just in different ways).

I'm trying to not keep bringing this up, but if people keep taking whacks at it, it'll happen. (they must feel insulted at the notion, apparently)

I spent a couple of years as a casual track day driver and IMHO cockpit view is worse than bumper cam. Why? Because when you are at the track IRL you DON'T look at the dash/wheel/shifter unless you absolutely have to (which is usually because you are having a problem). You spend most of your time looking for brake markers and aiming the car for the next turn (entry/exit). And looking at the dash/wheel/etc actually requires taking your eyes off the road and moving your head downwards, which, when you are barreling down a 90 degree turn at a 'measly' 100mph is the very last thing you want/should do. All up/down shifting is done by ear not by looking at a rev counter/speedometer.

Also a full face helmet limits your visibility quite a bit to the point that you struggle to see your own hands without moving your head unless they are at the top of the steering wheel (it is much worse if you are strapped in a 4 point harness). This leaves you with a very poor visibility inside the car. The only way you can get something resembling 'cockpit view' is to sit about 2 feet behind and 1 foot higher than you normally would. That is were we used to put our recording equipment and the view is very much the same.

Bumper cam view is low and too far forward, yes, but with the exception of the window pillars not being there it resembles more closely what I actually saw/looked at when going to track days. You also don't have the part of the hood (and depending on the car the corners of it) but you don't get that for most cars in dash cam view anyway. And you don't get the rain / wipers , but the again you probably would not be racing IRL under those conditions unless you are a paid racing driver.So neither view is any more realistic than the other IMHO but bumper cam is closer to what I experienced at the track IRL.

 

[DrkPhnyx]

I spent a couple of years as a casual track day driver and IMHO cockpit view is worse than bumper cam. Why? Because when you are at the track IRL you DON'T look at the dash/wheel/shifter unless you absolutely have to (which is usually because you are having a problem). You spend most of your time looking for brake markers and aiming the car for the next turn (entry/exit). And looking at the dash/wheel/etc actually requires taking your eyes off the road and moving your head downwards, which, when you are barreling down a 90 degree turn at a 'measly' 100mph is the very last thing you want/should do. All up/down shifting is done by ear not by looking at a rev counter/speedometer.

Also a full face helmet limits your visibility quite a bit to the point that you struggle to see your own hands without moving your head unless they are at the top of the steering wheel (it is much worse if you are strapped in a 4 point harness). This leaves you with a very poor visibility inside the car. The only way you can get something resembling 'cockpit view' is to sit about 2 feet behind and 1 foot higher than you normally would. That is were we used to put our recording equipment and the view is very much the same.

Bumper cam view is low and too far forward, yes, but with the exception of the window pillars not being there it resembles more closely what I actually saw/looked at when going to track days. You also don't have the part of the hood (and depending on the car the corners of it) but you don't get that for most cars in dash cam view anyway. And you don't get the rain / wipers , but the again you probably would not be racing IRL under those conditions unless you are a paid racing driver.So neither view is any more realistic than the other IMHO but bumper cam is closer to what I experienced at the track IRL.

Another one....

Go to any window - house, car, doesn't matter. Look out of it. Get a good look at how things look. Now open it and look out. See a difference? There is one. Especially on car windows. Even looking out the door it's different up vs down, and you see more, better, and more brightly down.

This effect is present in wonder woman view. Not just missing the a-pillars, and the mirrors, and the actual sense of a car around you, you are also missing the effect of glass. And you STILL have gauges, only this time they are super high tech HUD displays, which is worse.

That is not anything close to more accurate. In fact, your commentary about helmets and harnesses exacerbates the issue and makes my point even more strongly. You state that in a real situation you are even more restricted, yet espouse a view that does the exact and total polar opposite. That line of argument makes absolutely no sense at all. Even if one wanted to make a case about what the interior view shows being incorrect, the mere fact that it is more restrictive makes it more realistic. Period.

As for looking at the other stuff, well, full face helmets aside, you see the car around you when you are sitting in it. And do occasionally look at the instruments. Even fighter pilots did. That's why HUDs exist, because that info is useful and having it up in your field of view makes the work load lighter. However, prop fighters didn't have HUDs, so simulations give you a cockpit taking up part of your monitor.

There is, I suppose a method to using this. It's pretty basic and I think natural, but maybe people who only come from the GT series haven't developed it? I think it's more a case of people simply trying to justify their advantage/crutch. The method is to narrow your actual field of view to only the monitor, mentally project yourself into that situation, let it envelope you and focus on what you can see. Again, it's not perfect. Never said it was, and without full VR it won't ever be. BUT, it is more accurate than the alternative of doing away with it entirely.

Keep using what you like. But it's not more realistic in any way shape or form at all. It is in fact, more arcade.

 

[Gentoo64]

I think SRF should be ditched from the game, but then again there's no proper hotlap leaderboards like in games like Forza, so it don't bother me as you can turn off any assists in a game lobby. If people can drive fast with SRF on or off thats good but if they're so used to SRF they can only drive with it on then they'll have a hard time racing in a lot of lobbies.

I wish GT6 did have hotlap leaderboards for every track for each class, say PP in increments of 50 eg 450, 500, 550, 600 etc and clearly displaying what assists were used on the time. Maybe I was a bit of a Forza 2 head back then but I miss these things, beats these DIY forum hotlaps.

Anyway, not a fan of SRF at all I think it's completely unnecessary.

 

[Vagabond]

Wonder Woman, Wonder Woman.
All the world's waiting for you,
and the power you possess.

In your satin tights,
Fighting for your rights
And the old Red, White and Blue.

Yeah well... and no I'm not sorry neither. 👍

 

[Mr.Slow]

This effect is present in wonder woman view. Not just missing the a-pillars, and the mirrors, and the actual sense of a car around you, you are also missing the effect of glass. And you STILL have gauges, only this time they are super high tech HUD displays, which is worse.

The 'sense of a car around you' is relative to the car you are in. In a Caterman you practically drive with your arms sticking out of the car and if you are over 6' tall the standard roll bar won't help you much in the even of a roll over. Some people think only giganormous SUV will give you enough 'car around them' IRL. At the track what matters is that you know where the corners of the car are, not that you can actually see them.

That is not anything close to more accurate. In fact, your commentary about helmets and harnesses exacerbates the issue and makes my point even more strongly. You state that in a real situation you are even more restricted, yet espouse a view that does the exact and total polar opposite. That line of argument makes absolutely no sense at all. Even if one wanted to make a case about what the interior view shows being incorrect, the mere fact that it is more restrictive makes it more realistic. Period.

You missed the point. The harness makes you less able to move your head around (that is the restriction I am referring to) and the full face helmet narrows your field of view. The result is that you have to make an effort to look at the dash. If you just sit there and take in what you can see WITHOUT moving your head up and down / sideways, you see road/track. You DON'T see the dash (unless it higher than the average dash), you DON't see both mirrors (or rear view mirror, which btw most race cars don't have), you hardly can see your own hands and you certainly DO NOT see the gear stick.

That dashcam view shows less track and therefore is more restrictive/harder to play with is another matter. I agree it is harder, just not more realistic.

As for looking at the other stuff, well, full face helmets aside, you see the car around you when you are sitting in it. And do occasionally look at the instruments. Even fighter pilots did. That's why HUDs exist, because that info is useful and having it up in your field of view makes the work load lighter. However, prop fighters didn't have HUDs, so simulations give you a cockpit taking up part of your monitor.

If you are sitting in the car at the traffic lights and move your head around you can see the spot on the carpet where you spilled coffee yesterday. But if you are looking at that spot you can't see (without moving your head) what colour the lights are at that very instant, but that is the sort of view that dash cam view gives you.

Racing and flying are quite different on how much you depend on instrumentation. Flying you need to keep the plane at a certain angle relative to the horizon and you follow an imaginary line in the sky as flight path. You can't do that without instruments and looking at those instruments fairly often. When you are driving you got the road to tell you which way to go and you don't have to worry about the angle relative to the horizon. Most track instructors tell you that the most important instruments in the car are your buttcheeks because you can feel everything the car is doing, the revs the engine is at, the way the car is pointing , the amount of grip on the tyres, etc with them.

There is, I suppose a method to using this. It's pretty basic and I think natural, but maybe people who only come from the GT series haven't developed it? I think it's more a case of people simply trying to justify their advantage/crutch. The method is to narrow your actual field of view to only the monitor, mentally project yourself into that situation, let it envelope you and focus on what you can see. Again, it's not perfect. Never said it was, and without full VR it won't ever be. BUT, it is more accurate than the alternative of doing away with it entirely.

Keep using what you like. But it's not more realistic in any way shape or form at all. It is in fact, more arcade.

Maybe I am limited in my driving abilities (and maybe the handle fits) but I haven't noticed my times being any slower in dash cam view than bumper cam view. I find it a bit like 2 player view, you have to ignore half of the screen and make do with whatever you can see on the other half. After a few laps you don't even notice.

 

[amar212]

.

 

[CBH]

.

What does the dot mean

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Well, lol, with a silver-spoon setup, anything's possible. If I had hydraulically damped peddles, I'm sure I'd set things up differently, just as I'd probably drive in cockpit mode if I had a multi-monitor setup. I don't have either so I do with what I have. And I'm doing fine. The game is progressing just as fast as I want it to, and I'm doing ok in the seasonals, well above the average.

In GT, I work based on reading papers off the net and interpreting them into the game when it comes to suspension/brakes/etc and by correlating my real worlkd experience with that of the simulation. In the case of brake bias, my setup corresponds to real world 10-20% F/R bias seen in "normal" and lower end sports cars, much like I tend to drive in the game.

Whatever works for you, that's fine by me. I do with what I have, whether it's an old, under-performing "utility" car I have to drive in real life or a consumer-level I/O device for the game console.

I use this :

And the adapter similar to this - I have a 2 in 1 ( PC + PS3 modes ) - must have the version with switch to guarantee it works on PS3.

Very cheap investment as I have several old DS2 stick from PS2 days, and USB adapter costs about 5 bucks. I would never go back to DS3. Regardless of the aids used, the face buttons ( cross, triangle, circle and square ) works much better than DS3, gas and brake accurate with good feel. The face buttons require 3 times more pressure than DS3, and the analog stick also a bit heavier to move than DS3 ( more resistance ) - great for steering.

 

[nib95]

I must admit, I turn it on for certain vehicles that I find are just too crazy without it (e.g. the Stratos).

 

[DrkPhnyx]

Really? ::: smh :::

The 'sense of a car around you' is relative to the car you are in. In a Caterman you practically drive with your arms sticking out of the car and if you are over 6' tall the standard roll bar won't help you much in the even of a roll over. Some people think only giganormous SUV will give you enough 'car around them' IRL. At the track what matters is that you know where the corners of the car are, not that you can actually see them.

You see the hood, the roofline, and so much more. Especially when you are 6'2". Then even fitting in a 4th Gen Trans Am without hitting your head or having your vision blocked too much by the roof and still being comfortable can be a trick.... ask me how I know.

You missed the point. The harness makes you less able to move your head around (that is the restriction I am referring to) and the full face helmet narrows your field of view. The result is that you have to make an effort to look at the dash. If you just sit there and take in what you can see WITHOUT moving your head up and down / sideways, you see road/track. You DON'T see the dash (unless it higher than the average dash), you DON't see both mirrors (or rear view mirror, which btw most race cars don't have), you hardly can see your own hands and you certainly DO NOT see the gear stick.

That dashcam view shows less track and therefore is more restrictive/harder to play with is another matter. I agree it is harder, just not more realistic.

Actually no, it is you who missed, or rather apparently, totally ignored the point. The interior in GT is an overlay. The view from the windshield does not get zoomed to fill the screen when you turn it off, it just gets removed. With interior off, you see more of the road and surrounding than you could see just sitting in the car without a helmet. And, it also removes any tinting effect of the glass, exacerbating the issue. The fact that you are trying to claim a helmet restricts visibility even more, totally undermines your entire goal to claim that wonder woman view (as in, the invisible jet) is in any way realistic. It's not. It's arcade, and a crutch, and the only reason to argue FOR it is to feel better about using it. You're either trying really hard to convince yourself, or perhaps you feel you are crusading on behalf of everyone else who wants to not feel bad about using an arcade crutch.

If you are sitting in the car at the traffic lights and move your head around you can see the spot on the carpet where you spilled coffee yesterday. But if you are looking at that spot you can't see (without moving your head) what colour the lights are at that very instant, but that is the sort of view that dash cam view gives you.

This shows that you never even looked (closely) at the GT interiors and are just desperate.

When I sit in my vehicle, as I took specific note of on the way home last night, I see the roof, the effect of glass reducing brightness and visibility compared to it not being there, the a-pillars (both of them), all 3 mirrors, the hood, the dash, the instruments, the wheel, my hands on it, and stuff going on through the side windows. Now, it happens that I have nearly 180* of peripheral vision. I don't know if that's unusual, I assume it is not, and don't really care either way, but vertically, the limits are the eye socket, and I see a HELL of a lot more than just the windshield. I don't have to look down to see my instruments or wheel.

The night darkness obscured a lot. I just walked out to my truck to take a pic for this and realized (when I payed attention to it), I can see my thighs! If I had a gear stick I would see that, I see my knees, the windows buttons, the list goes on. This is looking straight out/through the windshield, not moving my head or even eyes, just taking note of what was within my field of vision.

In fact, what I see, is what is represented in GT5 and 6 fairly well. If anything, I see more of the interior in an actual car than what is in GT - as noted above.

This is what a camera sees when held at my right eye's level and position. A camera lens does not have NEAR the field of view of an eyeball, let alone 2. Meaning this pic shows, not only much restriction of the vehicle around the windshield, it shows far less (of the vehicle) than is actually seen by a real eyeball. In short - You. Are. Wrong.

(yes, I removed the headliner, and the upper part of the interior with it, haven't put it back in yet, hence the wires showing)

Racing and flying are quite different on how much you depend on instrumentation. Flying you need to keep the plane at a certain angle relative to the horizon and you follow an imaginary line in the sky as flight path. You can't do that without instruments and looking at those instruments fairly often. When you are driving you got the road to tell you which way to go and you don't have to worry about the angle relative to the horizon. Most track instructors tell you that the most important instruments in the car are your buttcheeks because you can feel everything the car is doing, the revs the engine is at, the way the car is pointing , the amount of grip on the tyres, etc with them.
Maybe I am limited in my driving abilities (and maybe the handle fits) but I haven't noticed my times being any slower in dash cam view than bumper cam view. I find it a bit like 2 player view, you have to ignore half of the screen and make do with whatever you can see on the other half. After a few laps you don't even notice.

You don't know about flying, and you just demonstrated that. In any non-regimented-route situation you don't need to care about instrumentation once you attain cruise configuration. In formation, you care only about the guy next to you, navigation is on the leader. In a 2-ship combat air patrol, the leader navigates (with his head out of the cockpit) and the second man watches for bogeys (with his head out of the cockpit). In combat you are watching your sight, your tracers, and keeping your head on a swivel for other bandits. The only thing you care about instrument wise, in the main, other than your sight in combat is the ball, which is why Mustangs have one on the sight. But seat of the pants and sound and vibration tell you a lot of what you need to know regarding engine speed, prop pitch, and slip angle. Checking your altimeter is the main thing you need to do, but you get a slight sense of that from the windows - unless you enter a cloud.

Yet, despite that, for a simulation, you NEED a cockpit, AND the restrictions to visibility that that creates. Even though you look at that far less than what is out side. Even on a 19" 4:3 monitor.

As for skill, I'm not a great GT player. I think I'm good. I get by. But I often find it frustrating too. And when I have trouble with a mission or test, if I get frustrated to the point where I no longer care about simulation and just want the thing done (the point where I'm ready to cheat), I turn off the interior. And I go faster (and stop running off the road so much). Bear in mind I havea 55" plasma, 1080p. I've tried moving close. It's not about magnification of the available view, it's about what the car blocks from line of sight when it is turned on.

 

[xiando]

If the cockpit is accurate and does not block my peripheral view. til then, the argument is specious.

 

[acky]

It is sad that this option was introduced in the game it will always split the game in two. I have been racing on PC's since the amber screen days and that's a very long time. Now with PS it has become so real. So to you guys out there that can lap the ring in under 5min 10sec in a LMP1 car or 4min 50sec in GT4 you don't have think you fast you are!.

Then their are those who prefer a challenge even though they will never be fast. Sadly the two groups will never race against each other.

I am a racer and the thrill of doing the fastest lap time is far more exiting and rewarding.

Bet that if SRF was called flat floors or aerodynamic aids everybody would have used it.

So if you have gone faster than the above. Congratulations, well done, feel free to comment.

If not well...... rather stick to the challenge.

 

[Flaren89]

My opinion:

Driving aids:

I drive with only ABS 1 and just because I still didn't try brake power adjustment and remember the bad days of GT5... Plus i have DFGT as steering wheel, well known to have bad feeling pedals...
My opponents want to use TCS, ABS and ASM? I'm ok with it, most modern racing cars and supercars got them, some (like Agera R) are mandatory, if u disable TCS the CPU won't start and so the engine, it's a security system... It's a my own decision to not use them...
But Active Steering and SRF? Meh, they are not real because:
- Active Steering do what actually the driver should do, means a correct countersteer;
- SRF it's a TCS + ASM... That actually don't cut off the power of the car and it act as absolute.
I think SRF and maybe Active Steering should be banned from online rankings, in fact they are banned for online GTP official races.

View:

I drive with the cockpit one because i feel more immersed on the game experience. Ok, it's not perfect, but it works.
My opponents want to use hood / bumper cameras? I'm ok for bumpers, quite disappointed about hood because it gives a perfect view of the direction + width of the car giving a "strategical advantage", but if some players prefer to get better laptimes by not having the max immersion... I'm not the one will tell them to stop...

P.S.: For those who don't know, the ASM it's the ESC IRL.

 

[partyboy690]

Can I tell you how realistic this game is? my dad used to do rally's and is downright the best driver I know, he grew up with machinery and cars all his life and used to drive old combines on a hill that was damn near 45 degrees sloped and he is terrible at Gran Turismo. This game emulates driving to a certain degree and it does a fine job considering the technical limitations but it could never emulate real driving. Both the "wonder woman" cam and the cockpit cam are terribly unrealistic, like one poster said when you drive a car your head doesn't just stay fixed to one position but contrary you don't have such a downward view on the bumper cam.

 

[DrkPhnyx]

Can I tell you how realistic this game is? my dad used to do rally's and is downright the best driver I know, he grew up with machinery and cars all his life and used to drive old combines on a hill that was damn near 45 degrees sloped and he is terrible at Gran Turismo. This game emulates driving to a certain degree and it does a fine job considering the technical limitations but it could never emulate real driving. Both the "wonder woman" cam and the cockpit cam are terribly unrealistic, like one poster said when you drive a car your head doesn't just stay fixed to one position but contrary you don't have such a downward view on the bumper cam.

That isn't really an accurate test. You're taking someone who has spent decades developing a skill based around a full list of senses, most of which are removed in a simulator. That will cause that person to perform less well. Like a dancer losing their sense of touch, may not be the best anology, but it works, the other senses play a bigger factor than most realize. And when you take the "human element" out of it, the inner ear and sense of feel and an enveloped sense of hearing as well as full peripheral vision, and then lock the view into one position, all to say nothing of removing stereoscopic vision... it will play a major impact.

Conversely, I can tell you that learning to handle cars at their limit (in GT) plays out to improved skill in low grip situations on the road. Pilots in training use MS FS, which is FCC certified. Drivers have matched cars here to real life track times. Basically it is a case of having to be able to do without the seat of the pants and actually being there. Younger people are more prone to adapt to that. Adding the seat of the pants has less effect to someone who learned without it, than removing it from someone who learned with it. Also, being a sim means people can just hit reset, so in many cases they will run a faster lap time than they can in real like, as Jeremy Clarkson found out, but he admitted it was because he could not push himself in the car the way he could on his couch, because the fear factor of actually being there is too much to over-ride (in real life, there is no reset). Plus you can also learn the edge more finely when you can go past it without negative impact beyond starting over.

Finally, the key thing to remember about any simulator, is that it emulates what it intends to to the greatest extent possible within the limitations of the interface and it's underlying technology. A 2D screen without 3D glasses, will always result in a 3D rendered, 2D displayed image from a singular camera, with limited control input, moving that view around will be impossible and result in an FOV compromise to show enough of what you could/would see without rendering what you need to see entirely unusable. The key is to do as much as you can with what you can, not to go overboard and do too little. There were training simulators for pilots in WWI.... seriously. They were physical contraptions that might look like what you see in a mall or in front of a store for little kids, except that it mechanically moved the student around in relation to his inputs, just as a plane would. Naturally there was loads missing from that, but, given what was available at the time, it qualified as a simulator, AND, the best part is, was effective for use in actual military pilot training. (People often expect the impossible and throw their hands up and say "screw it, who cares about any of it!" when they can't get it)

 

[partyboy690]

That isn't really an accurate test. You're taking someone who has spent decades developing a skill based around a full list of senses, most of which are removed in a simulator. That will cause that person to perform less well. Like a dancer losing their sense of touch, may not be the best anology, but it works, the other senses play a bigger factor than most realize. And when you take the "human element" out of it, the inner ear and sense of feel and an enveloped sense of hearing as well as full peripheral vision, and then lock the view into one position, all to say nothing of removing stereoscopic vision... it will play a major impact.

Conversely, I can tell you that learning to handle cars at their limit (in GT) plays out to improved skill in low grip situations on the road. Pilots in training use MS FS, which is FCC certified. Drivers have matched cars here to real life track times. Basically it is a case of having to be able to do without the seat of the pants and actually being there. Younger people are more prone to adapt to that. Adding the seat of the pants has less effect to someone who learned without it, than removing it from someone who learned with it. Also, being a sim means people can just hit reset, so in many cases they will run a faster lap time than they can in real like, as Jeremy Clarkson found out, but he admitted it was because he could not push himself in the car the way he could on his couch, because the fear factor of actually being there is too much to over-ride (in real life, there is no reset). Plus you can also learn the edge more finely when you can go past it without negative impact beyond starting over.

Finally, the key thing to remember about any simulator, is that it emulates what it intends to to the greatest extent possible within the limitations of the interface and it's underlying technology. A 2D screen without 3D glasses, will always result in a 3D rendered, 2D displayed image from a singular camera, with limited control input, moving that view around will be impossible and result in an FOV compromise to show enough of what you could/would see without rendering what you need to see entirely unusable. The key is to do as much as you can with what you can, not to go overboard and do too little. There were training simulators for pilots in WWI.... seriously. They were physical contraptions that might look like what you see in a mall or in front of a store for little kids, except that it mechanically moved the student around in relation to his inputs, just as a plane would. Naturally there was loads missing from that, but, given what was available at the time, it qualified as a simulator, AND, the best part is, was effective for use in actual military pilot training. (People often expect the impossible and throw their hands up and say "screw it, who cares about any of it!" when they can't get it)

The funny thing is DryPhynx I think we both pretty much agree with each other here on the major points, its the fine details where it muddles things. I think GT is the finest simulator outside of the PC and even then it is coming damn close to some of the more established ones(excited for GT7 on PS4) but the thing about the cockpit view is that a real driver has more visibility in certain situations for example when I want to see whats behind me in GT I have two options try and make out the distance on the minute rear view mirror or press down on my wheel and get a full view which takes me away from looking forward. At 200MPH that can be fatal. A real driver can take a cursory glance at his rear view mirror and get a much more accurate judgement of where the car is whereas I am statically positioned in GT. In real life a driver has an advantage over us in Gran Turismo in many respects when it comes cockpit view even something like depth perception plays a huge role. When I drive a car my periphery can see to the left and right of me and that also helps when driving.

It's like the clutch and gear stick on the Fanatec wheel my friend has, it's great for immersion but it is not very realistic, when you use a real clutch and gear stick there's more give in it, the clutch usually has more forceback and the gears slide in easier themselves. It in itself once again imposes restrictions that are not present in real life. Lots of minute details like that have an impact on the pure simulation aspects and while they give you an immersion factor they also impose themselves on you in negative ways that just aren't present in a real car.

I am however not disagreeing with you when it comes to saying that cockpit view is the most realistic it is and it is certainly the most realistic but imposes technical restrictions that just don't exist in real life. You have to weigh the negative with the positive and while an option to have a bar blocking entry to races online depending on view used would be a nice feature. Would ensure an even race decided on driving skill alone.

 

[DrkPhnyx]

The funny thing is DryPhynx I think we both pretty much agree with each other here on the major points, its the fine details where it muddles things. I think GT is the finest simulator outside of the PC and even then it is coming damn close to some of the more established ones(excited for GT7 on PS4) but the thing about the cockpit view is that a real driver has more visibility in certain situations for example when I want to see whats behind me in GT I have two options try and make out the distance on the minute rear view mirror or press down on my wheel and get a full view which takes me away from looking forward. At 200MPH that can be fatal. A real driver can take a cursory glance at his rear view mirror and get a much more accurate judgement of where the car is whereas I am statically positioned in GT. In real life a driver has an advantage over us in Gran Turismo in many respects when it comes cockpit view even something like depth perception plays a huge role. When I drive a car my periphery can see to the left and right of me and that also helps when driving.

It's like the clutch and gear stick on the Fanatec wheel my friend has, it's great for immersion but it is not very realistic, when you use a real clutch and gear stick there's more give in it, the clutch usually has more forceback and the gears slide in easier themselves. It in itself once again imposes restrictions that are not present in real life. Lots of minute details like that have an impact on the pure simulation aspects and while they give you an immersion factor they also impose themselves on you in negative ways that just aren't present in a real car.

I am however not disagreeing with you when it comes to saying that cockpit view is the most realistic it is and it is certainly the most realistic but imposes technical restrictions that just don't exist in real life. You have to weigh the negative with the positive and while an option to have a bar blocking entry to races online depending on view used would be a nice feature. Would ensure an even race decided on driving skill alone.

Yep, agreed, there are limitations, as I tried to denote and you did a fine job of that too, but that just means a compromise is needed, and to date, I think all sim makers have done a fine job of that with their cockpits. There was a discussion once about moving the virtual head position up higher over the dash since the pilot cared more about what was out there, but the dev said it would make instruments artificially hard to read. That his decision was a compromise between the 2 and was sticking with it, and he was right. Unfortunately, while you and I seem to understand this, many see the limitations as a bar and just say "to hell with it, get rid of it all" and go all NFS arcade. It's really depressing and we really do need an option to lock the interiors on (or even off, or free choice) when hosting a room. I wish I knew how to petition the dev. I've never seen Kaz speak English, and to my knowledge he does not read this forum, unlike the other dev I mentioned above, who had a whole sub section dedicated to interfacing with the community.

 

[Mr.Slow]

Really? ::: smh :::



You see the hood, the roofline, and so much more. Especially when you are 6'2". Then even fitting in a 4th Gen Trans Am without hitting your head or having your vision blocked too much by the roof and still being comfortable can be a trick.... ask me how I know.




Actually no, it is you who missed, or rather apparently, totally ignored the point. The interior in GT is an overlay. The view from the windshield does not get zoomed to fill the screen when you turn it off, it just gets removed. With interior off, you see more of the road and surrounding than you could see just sitting in the car without a helmet. And, it also removes any tinting effect of the glass, exacerbating the issue. The fact that you are trying to claim a helmet restricts visibility even more, totally undermines your entire goal to claim that wonder woman view (as in, the invisible jet) is in any way realistic. It's not. It's arcade, and a crutch, and the only reason to argue FOR it is to feel better about using it. You're either trying really hard to convince yourself, or perhaps you feel you are crusading on behalf of everyone else who wants to not feel bad about using an arcade crutch.


This shows that you never even looked (closely) at the GT interiors and are just desperate.

I said it before: The location of the camera in bumper and dash cam view is WRONG compared to where your head normally sits. So neither of them is realistic.

I'll explain the helmet bit in a very simple way… focus. The eye focuses straight ahead and that is what your brain 'sees'. And what you can focus on without moving your head is the road in front of you. That is all your brain 'sees'. The helmet reduces your field of view but not your ability to focus. The harness reduces your ability to move your head up and down. Dashcam view ignores the fact that you cannot focus on anything other than what is in front of your eyes (straight line).

And like I said before, when you are racing what is important is that you know where the corners of the car are, not that you can actually see them. So extrapolating from that, if you also happen to know the track layout you can use whatever device you want to restrict your view of the road and still post similar times. Is it harder? yes. Is it more realistic? no. (I have said that before too)

I don't have to convince myself, like I said, it doesn't seem to make a difference in my lap times.

When I sit in my vehicle, as I took specific note of on the way home last night, I see the roof, the effect of glass reducing brightness and visibility compared to it not being there, the a-pillars (both of them), all 3 mirrors, the hood, the dash, the instruments, the wheel, my hands on it, and stuff going on through the side windows. Now, it happens that I have nearly 180* of peripheral vision. I don't know if that's unusual, I assume it is not, and don't really care either way, but vertically, the limits are the eye socket, and I see a HELL of a lot more than just the windshield. I don't have to look down to see my instruments or wheel.

The night darkness obscured a lot. I just walked out to my truck to take a pic for this and realized (when I payed attention to it), I can see my thighs! If I had a gear stick I would see that, I see my knees, the windows buttons, the list goes on. This is looking straight out/through the windshield, not moving my head or even eyes, just taking note of what was within my field of vision.

In fact, what I see, is what is represented in GT5 and 6 fairly well. If anything, I see more of the interior in an actual car than what is in GT - as noted above.

This is what a camera sees when held at my right eye's level and position. A camera lens does not have NEAR the field of view of an eyeball, let alone 2. Meaning this pic shows, not only much restriction of the vehicle around the windshield, it shows far less (of the vehicle) than is actually seen by a real eyeball. In short - You. Are. Wrong.

(yes, I removed the headliner, and the upper part of the interior with it, haven't put it back in yet, hence the wires showing)

Pretty much everyone has the same peripheral vision. It is just a matter of teaching your brain to stop filtering out things that are in it.

But the fact that you can see something in your peripheral vision is not the same as being able to discern enough detail without refocusing your eyes (or even moving your head).

Don't think so? Sit in your car. Look at the odo reading. Don't move your head or eyes. You can see the road in front of you in your peripheral vision. Now drive to work like that.

You don't know about flying, and you just demonstrated that. In any non-regimented-route situation you don't need to care about instrumentation once you attain cruise configuration.

mmm… so you DO have to care UNTIL you reach cruise configuration…. so, no instrumentation, no flying, right?

In formation, you care only about the guy next to you, navigation is on the leader. In a 2-ship combat air patrol, the leader navigates (with his head out of the cockpit) and the second man watches for bogeys (with his head out of the cockpit). In combat you are watching your sight, your tracers, and keeping your head on a swivel for other bandits. The only thing you care about instrument wise, in the main, other than your sight in combat is the ball, which is why Mustangs have one on the sight. But seat of the pants and sound and vibration tell you a lot of what you need to know regarding engine speed, prop pitch, and slip angle. Checking your altimeter is the main thing you need to do, but you get a slight sense of that from the windows - unless you enter a cloud.

So ball and altimeter, which are instruments, need to be checked , whilst in flight, even in a dogfight, right?

Yet, despite that, for a simulation, you NEED a cockpit, AND the restrictions to visibility that that creates. Even though you look at that far less than what is out side. Even on a 19" 4:3 monitor.

Well put. A plane cockpit by design creates restrictions in visibility. This is due in a big part to the fact that you sit further back from the windscreen in a plane than you do in a car. Except maybe for combat planes. So more dash on the screen is more realistic in a flight sim.[/quote]

 

[DrkPhnyx]

Read the other replies on the topic after the one you quoted.

I said it before: The location of the camera in bumper and dash cam view is WRONG compared to where your head normally sits. So neither of them is realistic.

You are one of those I referred to in a prior post - "XY or Z isn't totally realistic, so give up on even trying and just make it easy, or don't do anything at all!" Great. Lovely attitude. This is part of why I see us spiraling down the drain. We'd never had accomplished what we have had this been the perspective throughout history.

This is why I said read the other posts. No, it's not perfect. How many times must that be stated by me or anyone else? How does that in ANY way make giving too much visibility a better option? That's asinine. You really are trying hard to keep yourself convinced.

I'll explain the helmet bit in a very simple way… focus. The eye focuses straight ahead and that is what your brain 'sees'. And what you can focus on without moving your head is the road in front of you. That is all your brain 'sees'. The helmet reduces your field of view but not your ability to focus. The harness reduces your ability to move your head up and down. Dashcam view ignores the fact that you cannot focus on anything other than what is in front of your eyes (straight line).

Specious at best. Already addressed. Single camera, not 2; 2D screen, not VR; fixed screen real estate, not fully enveloping, and on and on. Can't do it all, but gotta try. You saw the picture I took. That's a hell of a lot more obstruction than wonder woman view. And the eye sees MUCH more. Best way is to show more on screen than you are focusing on, and have it all in focus, because it's 2D and you don't know where the users eyes are (looking).

In fact, when I look at my real odometer, it's always in focus, when I look at the mirror, it is too, or what is going on outside. Whatever I look at is always in focus. And, guess what.... the same thing happens on GT6.

Nevermind that you said odometer and not rev counter because you wanted to pick something tiny to desperately try to support your ludicrous claim.

And like I said before, when you are racing what is important is that you know where the corners of the car are, not that you can actually see them. So extrapolating from that, if you also happen to know the track layout you can use whatever device you want to restrict your view of the road and still post similar times. Is it harder? yes. Is it more realistic? no. (I have said that before too)

I don't have to convince myself, like I said, it doesn't seem to make a difference in my lap times.

Yeah, and those grapes must have been sour anyway.

Memorizing a track and playing with a blindfold would be a hell of a challenge, but artificial challenge isn't the point. Immersion is. It's part of a simulation. It simulates the experience as much as the effects. This is why you need an interior, as much as anything else, to give the sense of being in the various vehicles in question, air or ground. To say nothing of the other reasons. You are all over the place.

Pretty much everyone has the same peripheral vision. It is just a matter of teaching your brain to stop filtering out things that are in it.

Not strictly true, some do have better than others, but this actually is making my point - learn to focus on what is on the screen and mentally project yourself into it. Many often immediately say something about 2 steering wheels or whatever, which means they are not doing that.

mmm… so you DO have to care UNTIL you reach cruise configuration…. so, no instrumentation, no flying, right?

Depends. Many ultralights don't have instrumentation. Early planes didn't either. But they could still be piloted. Instruments are used for different things in different ways, but primarily on complex aircraft would be used for keeping the engine from blowing up, or for dialing in the book recommended economy config, etc. The mere act of "flying a (generic) plane".... no, you do not.

So ball and altimeter, which are instruments, need to be checked , whilst in flight, even in a dogfight, right?

Not what I said. I said those were the most likely to be used, not that they were vital. You can hear (and feel) the whine of the prop when you enter a slip angle, but sometimes it helps to have the visual cue. It's your rear sight (as in, on a handgun or rifle) effectively, as well as useful for economy, but not vital. And alt, that's mostly so you don't get mixed up and forget where you are, or sometimes useful for interpreting CAS when doing certain things, but again, not strictly necessary. But(!) as with the above, plenty useful, and how so depends on the pilot as much as anything else, so it must be present in the sim. And as noted above, when you are watching your sight glass or tracking to line up a shot, you aren't looking at your instruments, and.... they aren't in focus. Only when you look at them are they in focus. Much like it does in real life. It's just a fortunate quirk of physics.

Well put. A plane cockpit by design creates restrictions in visibility. This is due in a big part to the fact that you sit further back from the windscreen in a plane than you do in a car. Except maybe for combat planes. So more dash on the screen is more realistic in a flight sim.

And the guy who claimed that he's been hit countless times by people using interiors because they couldn't see around them?

This isn't a racing sim. Our avatars have full face helmets because they look cool and it means not having to customize the appearance of the guy. It is instead a driving sim involving a race context to provide a purpose. If you wish to say that racing rules would require a helmet, yes, but open face would be legal, and, no racing organization I am aware of allows the sort of matchups that take place regularly against the AI, from players going way too low, to doing things like bringing a race car to a race of street cars because the "PP" and tires match the req's.

So basically - we'd see the interior if we were sitting in the car. It's more realistic to have it than to not. Getting rid of it allows far too much visibility and situational awareness. It's really just as NFS as SRF is.

 

[CBH]

Hey guy's you are going of topic with this. Please talk about the topic Thanks.

 

[Mr.Slow]

Read the other replies on the topic after the one you quoted.



You are one of those I referred to in a prior post - "XY or Z isn't totally realistic, so give up on even trying and just make it easy, or don't do anything at all!" Great. Lovely attitude. This is part of why I see us spiraling down the drain. We'd never had accomplished what we have had this been the perspective throughout history.

This is why I said read the other posts. No, it's not perfect. How many times must that be stated by me or anyone else? How does that in ANY way make giving too much visibility a better option? That's asinine. You really are trying hard to keep yourself convinced.

Read my posts: If you know where the corners of the car are and you know the track you can still hit the apex every time.
Read my posts again: I see no difference in my lap times with one view or another after an appropriate adjustment period.
Read my posts again: It is not the fact that there are objects in the field of view. It is the fact that dash cam view does not allow for peripheral vision filtering because the position of the camera is too far back and too high. It is a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils.

Specious at best. Already addressed. Single camera, not 2; 2D screen, not VR; fixed screen real estate, not fully enveloping, and on and on. Can't do it all, but gotta try. You saw the picture I took. That's a hell of a lot more obstruction than wonder woman view. And the eye sees MUCH more. Best way is to show more on screen than you are focusing on, and have it all in focus, because it's 2D and you don't know where the users eyes are (looking).

In fact, when I look at my real odometer, it's always in focus, when I look at the mirror, it is too, or what is going on outside. Whatever I look at is always in focus. And, guess what.... the same thing happens on GT6.


Nevermind that you said odometer and not rev counter because you wanted to pick something tiny to desperately try to support your ludicrous claim.

'when you look at the odometer', 'when you look at the mirror', KEYWORD 'WHEN'. Short of having the eyes of a fly you can't focus on both at the same time.

"because it's 2D and you don't know where the users eyes are (looking)." So it shows what you MIGHT possibly if you feel like it in a moment of boredom/ curiosity/ need want to look at, not what you actually look at when driving/racing. Right?

Memorizing a track and playing with a blindfold would be a hell of a challenge, but artificial challenge isn't the point. Immersion is. It's part of a simulation. It simulates the experience as much as the effects. This is why you need an interior, as much as anything else, to give the sense of being in the various vehicles in question, air or ground. To say nothing of the other reasons. You are all over the place.

Purposely not memorising the track and blocking your view sounds pretty artificial of a challenge wouldn't you say?
A realistic and immersive view of the interior of the car does not equate to a realistic view of the road from the driver seat. If only you managed to understand that...

Not strictly true, some do have better than others, but this actually is making my point - learn to focus on what is on the screen and mentally project yourself into it. Many often immediately say something about 2 steering wheels or whatever, which means they are not doing that.

That is what I said, isn't it?

Depends. Many ultralights don't have instrumentation. Early planes didn't either. But they could still be piloted. Instruments are used for different things in different ways, but primarily on complex aircraft would be used for keeping the engine from blowing up, or for dialing in the book recommended economy config, etc. The mere act of "flying a (generic) plane".... no, you do not.





Not what I said. I said those were the most likely to be used, not that they were vital. You can hear (and feel) the whine of the prop when you enter a slip angle, but sometimes it helps to have the visual cue. It's your rear sight (as in, on a handgun or rifle) effectively, as well as useful for economy, but not vital. And alt, that's mostly so you don't get mixed up and forget where you are, or sometimes useful for interpreting CAS when doing certain things, but again, not strictly necessary. But(!) as with the above, plenty useful, and how so depends on the pilot as much as anything else, so it must be present in the sim.

You are right, your knowledge of flying vastly surpasses mine. I concede this part of the argument on the basis that you can quite easily convince me planes can take off and land without the need for landing gear.

And as noted above, when you are watching your sight glass or tracking to line up a shot, you aren't looking at your instruments, and.... they aren't in focus. Only when you look at them are they in focus. Much like it does in real life. It's just a fortunate quirk of physics.

Just replace 'sight glass' with 'track' and 'tracking to line up a shot' with 'looking for a breaking point' and you can say the same for racing. And that has been my point the whole time: if it is not in focus your brain doesn't 'see it'. Dash cam forces you to see these things because they are closer to your DIRECT line of sight than they would be in a real car.

And the guy who claimed that he's been hit countless times by people using interiors because they couldn't see around them?

I fail to see where this fits anywhere in the argument. Bad drivers? people with wonder woman view never hit anyone else?

This isn't a racing sim. Our avatars have full face helmets because they look cool and it means not having to customize the appearance of the guy. It is instead a driving sim involving a race context to provide a purpose. If you wish to say that racing rules would require a helmet, yes, but open face would be legal, and, no racing organization I am aware of allows the sort of matchups that take place regularly against the AI, from players going way too low, to doing things like bringing a race car to a race of street cars because the "PP" and tires match the req's.

So basically - we'd see the interior if we were sitting in the car. It's more realistic to have it than to not. Getting rid of it allows far too much visibility and situational awareness. It's really just as NFS as SRF is.

Attire regulations vary a lot depending on the organisation responsible and the level of amateurism in the drivers or the performance of the cars. Open face helmets are not legal everywhere. As far as the mismatched cars, you just have to look at endurance races and less formal competitions. I have been in races driving a street car (sport tyres, no roll cage, upgraded brakes) at the same time as former Nascar vehicles. I have been in races with handicap and races with no handicap. That is not to say that they would let anyone off the street show up and enter, you had to take lessons and do practice days and qualify to a certain level of skill before you were allowed to participate.

Multiple monitors are the way to make it realistic. Until then it is really a moot discussion

 

[CBH]

Read my posts: If you know where the corners of the car are and you know the track you can still hit the apex every time.
Read my posts again: I see no difference in my lap times with one view or another after an appropriate adjustment period.
Read my posts again: It is not the fact that there are objects in the field of view. It is the fact that dash cam view does not allow for peripheral vision filtering because the position of the camera is too far back and too high. It is a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils.




'when you look at the odometer', 'when you look at the mirror', KEYWORD 'WHEN'. Short of having the eyes of a fly you can't focus on both at the same time.

"because it's 2D and you don't know where the users eyes are (looking)." So it shows what you MIGHT possibly if you feel like it in a moment of boredom/ curiosity/ need want to look at, not what you actually look at when driving/racing. Right?





Purposely not memorising the track and blocking your view sounds pretty artificial of a challenge wouldn't you say?
A realistic and immersive view of the interior of the car does not equate to a realistic view of the road from the driver seat. If only you managed to understand that...





That is what I said, isn't it?



You are right, your knowledge of flying vastly surpasses mine. I concede this part of the argument on the basis that you can quite easily convince me planes can take off and land without the need for landing gear.



Just replace 'sight glass' with 'track' and 'tracking to line up a shot' with 'looking for a breaking point' and you can say the same for racing. And that has been my point the whole time: if it is not in focus your brain doesn't 'see it'. Dash cam forces you to see these things because they are closer to your DIRECT line of sight than they would be in a real car.





I fail to see where this fits anywhere in the argument. Bad drivers? people with wonder woman view never hit anyone else?




Attire regulations vary a lot depending on the organisation responsible and the level of amateurism in the drivers or the performance of the cars. Open face helmets are not legal everywhere. As far as the mismatched cars, you just have to look at endurance races and less formal competitions. I have been in races driving a street car (sport tyres, no roll cage, upgraded brakes) at the same time as former Nascar vehicles. I have been in races with handicap and races with no handicap. That is not to say that they would let anyone off the street show up and enter, you had to take lessons and do practice days and qualify to a certain level of skill before you were allowed to participate.

Multiple monitors are the way to make it realistic. Until then it is really a moot discussion

Why don't you start another tread about your topic and if not I will talk to forum administration.