So what's new Physics wise?

[cpp214]

Haha, so its sounds like racing in real life!

By the way sorry for offtopic, whats your favorite car in the game?

I was getting use to that lil Pontiac, once I went to that Ford race car, man the feedback was a beast, I had to turn down the force feedback a bit.

Hey Nox, no hard feelings man We're both GT fans at heart, although at times I may not sound like it.

Boy, it's hard to pick just one really. I like the Corvette a lot, along with the Radical. The Lotus 79 is the best according to a lot of people, and I like it too, but it's really difficult to drive, and would take a lot of dedication to become good with it. The Mustang is great too, you would really like it I think. It handles beautifully, is not too difficult to drive and makes for great racing. All the cars are great in their own way. A new free car will be coming tomorrow--the MX-5 Miata Along with the Williams F1. The Miata will be the new rookie car and should be pretty fun, or more fun than the Solstice at least

EDIT: I'm not much of an oval racer, but if that is your thing, that's really where iRacing shines at the moment. They have nearly all of the courses that are on the Sprint Cup schedule, and they have a really solid, oval racing career path, where you start out in low-powered Legends cars on short ovals, and progress through Late Models, SK/Tour Modifieds, Trucks, Nationwide, and Sprint Cup cars. They also have the Silver Crown too.

 

[The Outlaw]

EDIT: and I am officially done defending iRacing in this thread. I can't believe it needs defending in the first place, but I'm done with it. If people want to believe that GT5's physics will equal iRacing that's fine.
You're entitled to your opinion.

From the sounds of it, the new tire model on the way for iRacing will take things to a whole nother level in terms of feel and in the specific way they respond to stress and such. That's the thing with iRacing, the developers are constantly working to improve the realism and aren't scared to provide continual DLC and updates to improve the game. *cough* Instead of leaving us with nothing for years on end like some other developers *cough*

I've gotten rather bored of iRacing in the past couple of weeks or so, but with the Williams F1 car on the way, that will without a doubht hold me over until GT5 comes out. Too bad they couldn't release Spa and Suzuka with the William's F1 car, as I could likely make my residence there for the next couple of months or more

Boy, it's hard to pick just one really. I like the Corvette a lot, along with the Radical. .

Wouldn't you know it - those are my two faves as well The Radical is an absolute blast to drive! Probably my favorite sim car period. I need to convice the old man to buy one for me in a few years

 

[Kryz11]

Hey Nox, no hard feelings man We're both GT fans at heart, although at times I may not sound like it.

Boy, it's hard to pick just one really. I like the Corvette a lot, along with the Radical. The Lotus 79 is the best according to a lot of people, and I like it too, but it's really difficult to drive, and would take a lot of dedication to become good with it. The Mustang is great too, you would really like it I think. It handles beautifully, is not too difficult to drive and makes for great racing. All the cars are great in their own way. A new free car will be coming tomorrow--the MX-5 Miata Along with the Williams F1. The Miata will be the new rookie car and should be pretty fun, or more fun than the Solstice at least

EDIT: I'm not much of an oval racer, but if that is your thing, that's really where iRacing shines at the moment. They have nearly all of the courses that are on the Sprint Cup schedule, and they have a really solid, oval racing career path, where you start out in low-powered Legends cars on short ovals, and progress through Late Models, SK/Tour Modifieds, Trucks, Nationwide, and Sprint Cup cars. They also have the Silver Crown too.

MX5 ehh? tomorrow!!!! 👍

I think ill re subscribe for at least a month !!! Also it will kill some time and have a second go on for the best racing sim game!

By the way I was checking the site today and it said I have these cars once I re subscribe.

Pontiac Solstice
Legends Ford '34 Coupe
SCCA Spec Racer Ford

Should the VW be free or something?


Also everyone argues about this and that because everyone is pissed GT5 is on delay!! again.. I never have any hard feelings to anyone in these forums even if I seem so

 

[CommanderShepar]

it'd be nice if the VW were free but it is not. I love using diesel power, but the VW Jetta TDi is a bit too bumpy for my taste. Can't wait to see how the MX5 and the Williams handle in the game!

 

[Kryz11]

Just bought iRacing for one month for 2.16 US dollars, I had 10 dollars in credits from them

IF you guys want, for 12 bucks you can get 3 months for new members!!! It expires soon. I dont want to advertise, just informing.

 

[CoolColJ]

Erm, that's not typically how it works. Creating a surface model of a track that relies on individual polygon placements is about as efficient as creating a model of a brick wall where you model it one brick at a time. The laser scanning gets them a giant point cloud, which can then be assigned to a 3d model showing areas of the track which gave a uniform response, which can in turn then be given a surface type assignment.

The bumps happen in the surface model, which has nothing in particular to do with 'the polygons' (not that any of the physics primitives will be rendered in any traditional sense anyhow), other than acting as an index for location assignments for surface types. The surface type itself will contain a set of physics parameters for that part of the track surface, which influence how the tyres/car body/ffb interacts with it.

I don't think anyone outside of First has seen exactly how it works, but that's certainly how they did it in NR2003, which is the codebase they started from, and every racing game I'm aware of does the same thing. It's just obscenely wasteful not to do it like that.



I don't think the inputs on this example are quite the same

The reason people throw games through "the donut test" is that it's very good at picking up on steering assists (though some games will defeat this by just disabling them at lower speeds). It's not particularly indicative of what the tyre model does under the surface, but it's VERY good at picking up on whether there is a limit on how much steering lock you can apply when the tyres are slipping out.

So the video card somehow takes this point cloud and renders it on the screen without polys huh? Polys are nothing more than point data info anyway, with a direction for the normal (which side should be facing up). All visual rendering requires polygon/triangle information these days.

I just feel that iRacing likes to pull the wool over people's eyes and make people think their tech is something that it's not, and it seems to work for most...

With the Enzo, I'm only talking about the initial movement into the spin, it moves a bit before actually slipping. Like you'd expect from a MR car

Have you played iRacing recently? I have no problem dumping the clutch and doing burnouts in just about any car, except maybe underpowered ones like the Skip Barber and Solstice.

Here's a burnout in iRacing with skid marks. He seems to do pretty good with figure 8's and skid marks. Must not be too hard.

Not recently, last year I did. Couldn't get the Radical SR8 to spin the wheels, Solstice nope, plus a few others.
I supect the SR8 should be able to do it really easy in real life....

 

[Timppaq]

Compared to gt5p:

- weight transfer is much better
- the sense of the rubber tyres touching the tarmac improved greatly
- instabilities much more apparent during braking

Overall the driving feeling is worlds apart from gt5p. Can't wait.

And I like Racing very much also! 👍 👍 (but not driven that much)

 

[boxox]

So the video card somehow takes this point cloud and renders it on the screen without polys huh? Polys are nothing more than point data info anyway, with a direction for the normal (which side should be facing up). All visual rendering requires polygon/triangle information these days.

I just feel that iRacing likes to pull the wool over people's eyes and make people think their tech is something that it's not, and it seems to work for most...

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what it is they collect from laser scanning and what it is you interact with in a game.

The point cloud they collect from scanning is not usable as raw data in the game. It's basically the same thing as laser surveying, only over the whole surface and to a much finer scale (<1cm vs <10cm). Lasers aren't necessarily totally accurate when it comes to this kind of work, either - they're accurate in that they report what happened to the light between being fired and received by LIDAR, but that's not necessarily a perfect guide to where everything is (over the kinds of numbers of sample points they use), since some of those points will refract differently, or have a different temperature (and one will influence the other). So the data needs to be massaged before it can be used for anything. They don't literally model the entire cloud, because that would be a) less accurate, overall and b) a gigantic waste of time. They use it like a giant laser surveying map, and then compare the 3d model built around those coordinates to the ones from the survey.

So in 3dsmax, they have a track model, vs a giant array of coordinates from the real track, where everything can be overlaid and compared against each other. I'm not sure if you quite understand what a huge benefit this is - they're not not comparing apples to oranges, gps vs model, air survey vs model, videotape vs model - they are literally comparing the exact coordinates as measured by a <10mm accurate laser, over billions of points, with both the created track and the scanning data in the same format. To try and get better than this you start running into problems with the speed of light itself. If you can think of something better to use, which does not violate the laws of physics, you should totally get cracking on that.

The other thing that seems a little odd is that you seem to think the visual model is the same thing as the surface model. There is nothing compelling this to be the case. You're not literally 'driving over bumpy polygons' in racing games, it's vastly more efficient to only use the geometry which is absolutely necessary, then assign each piece of that a surface type, with it's own physics values. None of this stuff need be rendered at all - it's like the difference between your car model, and the car model's bounding box.

With the Enzo, I'm only talking about the initial movement into the spin, it moves a bit before actually slipping. Like you'd expect from a MR car

That might be the case, on the other hand, it's kind of silly to say for sure where you can't actually see what the input vs output on that was. The 'mid burnout straighten up / kick out' is a fairly classic thing you see once you start assisting the user with steering and grip, too.

 

[unv412]

Flawed? I see almost perfect low-speed physics there for a car with MR and 650HP on the rear axle.

But, you probably know better.

all i see is flawed driving lol......looks like DS3 was used judging by the jerky steering during the Enzo donuts! . Still the ultimate test is opposite lock donuts and letting the wheel go during donuts to see how the car reacts/tracks......so till the full game comes out we can just live the real thing and practice in our own real life Enzo's.👍

 

[WesWelker83]

This has nothing to do with ABS. The physics in GT5 now have much better weight transfer. Brake and all the weight is shifted to the front wheels, if you turn at the same time, the rear end will move towards the front.

Wait till you play GT5 in pro physics, and you will see for yourself.
It's a bit like Enthusia in this regard

I have & I agree, it is improved. I meant you could get unstable breaking if you turn off ABS but you're right. The transfer of weight is really improved

 

[WesWelker83]

Much, MUCH better.

There is a much more definite sense of feeling the grip of the tyres, the movement of the treadblocks, the bumps and ripplestrips on the road. On the whole, it is much more engaging than any previous GT game.

Roll on release day!

well said

 

[UK-Gamer]

Here is my take. GT5 will have great physics, maybe even rivalling the top PC sims. But that'll only be for PREMIUM cars.

For standards, it'll just be some slapped together generic physics.

 

[WesWelker83]

Yeah, Live for Speed is outdated, but it still has the best physics of any racing game outside of iRacing. What does that say about GT5? The GT series is only now approaching being on par with Live for Speed in the physics department.

Daytona Road course in GT5P is NOT laser scanned. The version of Daytona Road course in GT5P feels like driving on a glass coffee table compared to the iRacing version. You can feel every single bump on the track in iRacing. In fact, it can be so bumpy on the banked oval section, that if you aren't concentrating, or have a bad setup or badly worn tires, you can actually spin out there it upsets the car so much. It's like a night and day difference.

As usual, GT has the eye candy, and on the surface the track looks good.
But beauty is only skin deep in this case.

that maybe true but not for all tracks. For the money you pay iracing better be laser scanned. I've played a lot of these sims & raced real cars tracks. The few I raced in life & all these sims just feel much more like the real thing in GT5p. GT5 is even better too. GT5p isn't perfect & really its FFB is awful but the feeling of the cars ( not the tires ) is definetly the best. GT5 has fixed almost all of the problems of GT5p. I can't wait for the full game. I don't blame you for being biased & fan boy-ish after paying so much for iracing but you should realize you're being biased

 

[WesWelker83]

Here is my take. GT5 will have great physics, maybe even rivalling the top PC sims. But that'll only be for PREMIUM cars.

For standards, it'll just be some slapped together generic physics.

not true. Standard cars are confirmed to have indentical physics except they won't flip over

 

[shirakawaa]

Who confirmed that they won't flip over?

 

[amar212]

This thread has been plagued with nonsense.

Not only does the looks of a car change when damaged, how damage is received, and its resulting effect, is closely replicated through a physics simulation.

Physics-Affecting Damage
This is damage in which the physics simulation is affected by alignment deviations, etc. This is damage that affects controllability, meaning that the car may not drive straight, or it might become unstable in corners, depending on the amount of damage. Affects all cars.

http://eu.gran-turismo.com/gb/news/recommend/d13413p4.html

 

[CoolColJ]

I think you fundamentally misunderstand what it is they collect from laser scanning and what it is you interact with in a game.

The point cloud they collect from scanning is not usable as raw data in the game. It's basically the same thing as laser surveying, only over the whole surface and to a much finer scale (<1cm vs <10cm). Lasers aren't necessarily totally accurate when it comes to this kind of work, either - they're accurate in that they report what happened to the light between being fired and received by LIDAR, but that's not necessarily a perfect guide to where everything is (over the kinds of numbers of sample points they use), since some of those points will refract differently, or have a different temperature (and one will influence the other). So the data needs to be massaged before it can be used for anything. They don't literally model the entire cloud, because that would be a) less accurate, overall and b) a gigantic waste of time. They use it like a giant laser surveying map, and then compare the 3d model built around those coordinates to the ones from the survey.

So in 3dsmax, they have a track model, vs a giant array of coordinates from the real track, where everything can be overlaid and compared against each other. I'm not sure if you quite understand what a huge benefit this is - they're not not comparing apples to oranges, gps vs model, air survey vs model, videotape vs model - they are literally comparing the exact coordinates as measured by a <10mm accurate laser, over billions of points, with both the created track and the scanning data in the same format. To try and get better than this you start running into problems with the speed of light itself. If you can think of something better to use, which does not violate the laws of physics, you should totally get cracking on that.

The other thing that seems a little odd is that you seem to think the visual model is the same thing as the surface model. There is nothing compelling this to be the case. You're not literally 'driving over bumpy polygons' in racing games, it's vastly more efficient to only use the geometry which is absolutely necessary, then assign each piece of that a surface type, with it's own physics values. None of this stuff need be rendered at all - it's like the difference between your car model, and the car model's bounding box.

Yes I get there is a lower resolution polygonal model that references the point cloud for object and surface positioning, that is displayed on the screen. All quite logical, but if the point cloud is also referenced by the game engine for the physics, then it has to sit in memory right?
So you don't think this point cloud is going to be some insane memory hogging size if they are sampling at mm resolution? Each point still needs a x, y and z spacial coordinate to plot it. It might compress really well, but it has to be decompressed for the game to read it.

It just doesn't compute for me.
Anyway this has nothing to do with GT5 so we'll let it be, it is what it is.

 

[boxox]

If you have a field of points from the cloud, that show a rough surface, you don't need to represent all of those data points collected from it. You can limit it to a specific number of points, which are a best fit for the physics engine (point of best performance tradeoff, or the point at which there is no more actual gain in resolution from adding more), and then 'fill' that surface polygon with a terrain type. So for example, here is a surface type from Forza 3 - just because this has a nicely commented one, but you will find such a thing in most racing games -

		<Dirt Category="SoftWorld">
			<Friction >
				<FrictionScale value="0.8" />
				<HeatTireScale value="0.1" />
				<OffRoadness value="1" />
				<OffRoadWetFrictionScale value="0.9" />
				<OffRoadDryPeakSA value="20" />
				<OffRoadWetPeakSA value="20" />
				<VelDepFriction >
					<VelPeak0 value="18" />
					<VelPeak value="80" />
					<LateralCoeff0 value="0" />
					<LateralCoeff value="1.0" />
					<LongCoeff0 value="0" />
					<LongCoeff value="0.5" />
					<TorqueVel0 value="10" />
					<TorqueVel1 value="60" />
					<TorqueLateralCoeff0 value="0.2" />
					<TorqueLateralCoeff1 value="1.3" />
					<TorqueLongitudinalCoeff0 value="0.1" />
					<TorqueLongitudinalCoeff1 value="0.3" />
					<LatTorqueScaleSlipAngle0 value="25" />
					<LatTorqueScaleSlipAngle1 value="60" />
					<LatTorqueScale0 value="0.15" />
					<LatTorqueScale1 value="1" />
				</VelDepFriction>
				<CarWorldCollFricMods>
					<CarUpAxisY0 value="0.5" />
					<CarUpAxisY1 value="0.866" />
					<FrictionScale0 value="2.0" />
					<FrictionScale1 value="1.0" />
				</CarWorldCollFricMods>
			</Friction>
			<Bumpiness >
				<NoiseType value="HeightGrid" />
				<Frequency value="0.8" />
				<Power value="1" />
			    <MoveToExtremesPower value="1" />
				<UseAbs value="false" />
				<ClampMin value="-0.7" />
				<ClampMax value="1" />
				<Scale value="0.03" />
				<Offset value="0" />
				<Rumble value="0.03" />
			</Bumpiness>
			<Springiness >
				<IsSpringy value="false" />
				<SpringK value="291.0" />
				<SpringCompD value="6.0" />
				<SpringRebD value="62.0" />
				<NormDepSpringNormYCutoff value="0.5" />
				<NormDepSpringSpeedCutoff value="6.0" />
			</Springiness>
			<SteerTorque >
				<FrictionTorqueScale value="0.2" />
				<SurfaceNoiseTorqueScale value="0.6" />
				<SurfaceNoiseTorqueVel value="20.0" />
				<SurfaceNoiseNormLoadScale0 value="0.1" />
				<SurfaceNoiseNormLoadScale1 value="3.0" />
				<SurfaceNoiseNormLoadScaleTorque0 value="0.0" />
				<SurfaceNoiseNormLoadScaleTorque1 value="1.0" />
				<SurfaceNoiseSpeedScale0 value="1.0" />
				<SurfaceNoiseSpeedScale1 value="20.0" />
				<SurfaceNoiseSpeedScaleTorque0 value="0.0" />
				<SurfaceNoiseSpeedScaleTorque1 value="1.0" />
				<SurfaceNoiseRandFreqSpeedScale0 value="10.0" />
				<SurfaceNoiseRandFreqSpeedScale1 value="30.0" />
				<SurfaceNoiseRandFreqMin0 value="0.06" />
				<SurfaceNoiseRandFreqMax0 value="0.12" />
				<SurfaceNoiseRandFreqMin1 value="0.03" />
				<SurfaceNoiseRandFreqMax1 value="0.06" />
			</SteerTorque>
			<SkidData >
				<ColorAlpha value="125" />
				<ColorRed value="255" />
				<ColorGreen value="255" />
				<ColorBlue value="255" />
	            <TextureIndex value="1" />
	            <MinIntensity value="0.4" />
				<SmokeType Smoke="0" Dust="0" Grass="0" Dirt="1"/>
			</SkidData>
			<DebugColor >
				<ColorAlpha  value="255" />
				<ColorRed    value="128" />
				<ColorGreen  value="64" />
				<ColorBlue   value="0" />
			</DebugColor>
			<ShouldSpark value="false" />
			<CarDamageScalar value="1.0" />
			<IsPenaltySurface value="true" />
	    </Dirt>

which will make anything travelling over the surface 'bump' in much the same way driving over a bunch of jumbled polygons would, but at a fraction of the cost. And much less scope for error than trying to do collision detection at 360hz (iRacing uses the same tickrate as Shift, as it happens ) over a giant rough high res pile of polys at 300kmh.

The advantage of laser scanning being that you can pick the exact points at which this happens that are present on a real track, and you no longer have to best-fit to a guess of what the specific camber of a corner is, how high a rumble strip might be, etc.

 

[stig's helmet]

I have a feeling cars like the enzo and other super fast cars like the murcielago and zonda will be like driving the ford gt lm spec in prologue. Not fun and frustrating I can only hope it's easier to get the hang of.

 

[CoolColJ]

If you have a field of points from the cloud, that show a rough surface, you don't need to represent all of those data points collected from it. You can limit it to a specific number of points, which are a best fit for the physics engine (point of best performance tradeoff, or the point at which there is no more actual gain in resolution from adding more), and then 'fill' that surface polygon with a terrain type. So for example, here is a surface type from Forza 3 - just because this has a nicely commented one, but you will find such a thing in most racing games -

- snip-

which will make anything travelling over the surface 'bump' in much the same way driving over a bunch of jumbled polygons would, but at a fraction of the cost. And much less scope for error than trying to do collision detection at 360hz (iRacing uses the same tickrate as Shift, as it happens ) over a giant rough high res pile of polys at 300kmh.

The advantage of laser scanning being that you can pick the exact points at which this happens that are present on a real track, and you no longer have to best-fit to a guess of what the specific camber of a corner is, how high a rumble strip might be, etc.

In other words, it's "canned" within more accurate boundaries from the laser scanning
Otherwise I don't see how, say Laguna Seca in iRacing is only 150 megs. It's most probably compressed, but having textures as well in the encrpyted file.

I suspect GT5 does this too, hop on the Le Mans track and hold on tight as the wheel chatters around on the bumpy straights. And Le Mans is extremely bumpy on the straights in real life.

[YOUTUBEHD]9IcMc7PrCNg[/YOUTUBEHD]

I have a feeling cars like the enzo and other super fast cars like the murcielago and zonda will be like driving the ford gt lm spec in prologue. Not fun and frustrating I can only hope it's easier to get the hang of.

The Enzo is a handful on the Ring. The rear end of the car likes to move around a lot under brakes or coasting/engine braking into a turn, but it feels much more progressive than in Prologue, with S3 tyres that is.
You can feel the rear end start to move and decide how you want to use it or deal with it, which is one of the traits of a MR car. In Prologue it felt like more of a bad thing, but in GT5, it does help turn in, but on the Ring, it can make it tough to string up a good line though a complex series of turns.

 

[infamousDee]

Yeah, Live for Speed is outdated, but it still has the best physics of any racing game outside of iRacing. What does that say about GT5? The GT series is only now approaching being on par with Live for Speed in the physics department.

Daytona Road course in GT5P is NOT laser scanned. The version of Daytona Road course in GT5P feels like driving on a glass coffee table compared to the iRacing version. You can feel every single bump on the track in iRacing. In fact, it can be so bumpy on the banked oval section, that if you aren't concentrating, or have a bad setup or badly worn tires, you can actually spin out there it upsets the car so much. It's like a night and day difference.

As usual, GT has the eye candy, and on the surface the track looks good.
But beauty is only skin deep in this case.

If you take a look at some GT5 gameplay videos on the Nürburgring Nordschleife, you'll see that the track surface is stunningly bumpy. Even from this screenshot you can see this is clearly the case.

http://www.gtpla.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/gran-turismo-5-e3-2010-screenshots-2-50.jpg

..and call me a noob, but I've span out many times at Daytona in Prologue.

So for example, here is a surface type from Forza 3

Not the greatest example in the world, to be fair. Speeding along what would, in the real world, be a ridiculously bumpy surface feels like you're riding a magic carpet in that game.

 

[boxox]

In other words, it's "canned" within more accurate boundaries from the laser scanning

Not really! It doesn't actually lose anyone any detail in terms of the geometry, and the surface model is perfectly capable of complementing anything in the 3d world. It can be mathematically tested as to whether it's producing the same result as driving over a rough surface done via making the collision mesh rough - it will still interact with the tyres, suspension, react differently at speed, etc, as a 'real' surface would. At a certain point using track geometry actually risks ending up less accurate than just assigning a surface property to a flat(er) surface, as well as taking up a lot more resources doing it.

So, no need to scan every single cobblestone on the cobbled street, any more than you need to make the brick wall out of bricks. You just need to find the basic 'roughness' of a cobbled street as far as it is relevant to your driving model and stick that onto the surface. There's nothing stopping the collision mesh ALSO being used on a cobbled street, just that it can be restricted to being used in places where it's actually useful to do so.

Otherwise I don't see how, say Laguna Seca in iRacing is only 150 megs. It's most probably compressed, but having textures as well in the encrpyted file.

This is definitely going to go some silly places if we compare sizes of track files with unknown compression methods with some yardstick of "how much memory I think things take up".

 

[mykem]

From the mouth of Stefano Casillo, netKar/netKar Pro developer:

re: Tire modeling

Comment: There is an ongoing discussion about using fixed tables for the data or real time calculations (not a maths guy, sorry!), like ISI they say.

Personally I don't do that, but I see the advantage of doing it that way. My fear is that this is exactly why I feel disconnected in their sims. Sometimes people ask me what I did to make FF good in netKar PRO. I am clueless.. I think there is a fundamental difference in how FF is calculated in the group netKar PRO, iRacing, Live For Speed, VirtualGP3, even Gran Turismo Academy felt "netKar-ish" to me. I think my FF is, I don't know, 20 lines of code?

The rest of the interview: http://www.radicalsonline.com/conte...peaks-about-his-life-simracing-and-netKar-PRO

 

[HBR-Roadhog]

Not the greatest example in the world, to be fair. Speeding along what would, in the real world, be a ridiculously bumpy surface feels like you're riding a magic carpet in that game.

One of the first things I noticed in Forza is that the Ring is much smoother than in GT4 that and the start/finish line is located in the long straight. Not knowing much about the track other than what I learned from GT4 I though perhaps they had resurfaced it after GT4 to make it smoother and relocated the finish line. The vidoes of GT5 look like the start/finish line is still up by the pits.

What is the case in real life? Bumpy? start line at the pits?

 

[Kryz11]

[YOUTUBEHD]9IcMc7PrCNg[/YOUTUBEHD]



.

Nice video!
I was playing iRacing for some hours today, the steering wheel movement reminds me of what I was doing today!

So far GT5 looks like it could have as good physics as iRacing, but we need to play it first before we make sure.

 

[Falango]

not true. Standard cars are confirmed to have indentical physics except they won't flip over

It has been confirmed that all cars can flip over. Where is this talk about standard and premium cars having different physics coming from??? Such nonsense. Why would PD go through the extra work to make different physics for both cars???

 

[Kryz11]

Exacly Standard cars and Premium cars will all share same physics.
Only differance is that Premium cars have better Graphics, modeling, interior, and just more visual damage. But both cars will take same amount of damage, and rollover.. and of course same driving characteristics.

 

[Falango]

People are taking the standard vs. premium thing way too far. The difference is only visual, that's it. Better visuals on premiums, with the ability to have a cockpit cam. People start making all this other junk up and believe it, and then make other people believe it. It's sad.

 

[xNEVER-ONEx]

People are taking the standard vs. premium thing way too far. The difference is only visual, that's it. Better visuals on premiums, with the ability to have a cockpit cam. People start making all this other junk up and believe it, and then make other people believe it. It's sad.

So what about damage, and visual customization, like the race mod?

 

[Kryz11]

People are taking the standard vs. premium thing way too far. The difference is only visual, that's it. Better visuals on premiums, with the ability to have a cockpit cam. People start making all this other junk up and believe it, and then make other people believe it. It's sad.

Especially the fanboys of other games, will go spread the news that GT5s standard cars have weaker physics.. people are so dumb.