Ways you can tell that GT is not a sim at all.

Tina Branford

(Banned)
226
United States
United States
- No car damage.
- Bad tire physics model.
- Being able to even play the game with a controller(as the game is primarily designed with the knowledge that most players will use controllers) You couldn't drive a car with a controller.
- Car performance makes no sense. The Toyota Minolta 88C-V is too fast in GT4 and GT5. In real life it was a failure. Why'd PD make one of the most failed race cars from their country perform so well in the game? Compensating much.
- The mere existence of the inane Red Bull concept car breaking the laws of reality at warp speed.
- 800 MPH Escudos


Need I go on? It's not even a simcade GT is an arcade level racing game in it's entirety.

Please PD stop the improper touting as a "real driving simulator" if not that than program your cars better. The real life failure 88C-V need not be wasted in a game no one wants that failure it's gross. How about more IMSA GTO RX-7's or actual SUCCESFUL race cars performing as good as the failures you make so awesome lol!
 
Whether GT5 is considered a sim or not would all depend on what the definition of a sim is (same goes for simcade/arcade). To me, a sim is something that sets out to simulate reality & manages to do so in various areas. GT has always tried to do that, but, has not always succeeded in every area. A simulator is defined as, "A machine designed to provide a realistic imitation of the controls and operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or other complex system..." so, seeing as realism is partially subjective, I guess we're all entitled to our opinions of what constitutes a simulation, or not as the case may be. I considered GT5 to be a sim in it's day, not a very good one initially, but, one that I came to appreciate for what it did do rather than what it didn't


No car damage.

This statement is false, there is car damage; both mechanical & cosmetic. There are also two levels of cosmetic damage, with some cars having a far more detailed model. The damage isn't very good imo, but, it is there nonetheless.


Bad tire physics model.

I felt the same way initially, until @calan_svc came up with an interesting theory on how to work out what the appropriate tyre compound was for each car, supposedly corresponding to the cars real life counterpart. When I applied that, I realised that the physics weren't as bad as I had initially assumed, but, that they were merely hidden beneath too much grip. The theory isn't without it's flaws, & is by no means perfect, but, when I started using it the physics model came to life & I started to have fun racing again. Try it for yourself; link. Also, it's best to turn off all assists (except ABS set to 1) because SRF certainly does dumb down the tyre model.


Being able to even play the game with a controller(as the game is primarily designed with the knowledge that most players will use controllers) You couldn't drive a car with a controller.

Being able to play the game with a controller has nothing to do with the physics model, nor the tyre model, & therefore nothing to do with the games simulation status. Also, most driving/racing simulators on most platforms can be played with controllers other than FFB wheels, so, by this false reasoning almost nothing could be considered a sim!


It's not even a simcade GT is an arcade level racing game in it's entirety.

That's just an opinion, & one that you're welcome to. Imo, GT5 is a simulator; not the best & certainly not the most comprehensive, but, a sim nonetheless.


Please PD stop the improper touting as a "real driving simulator" if not that than program your cars better.

I've always been annoyed by that statement too, but, in reality it's just marketing BS & should be treated as such. It's just an advertising slogan, & is only aggravating if we take it literally while expecting the game to live up to it in every area (something that I was once guilty of doing myself).


👍
 
Last edited:
VBR
Whether GT5 is considered a sim or not would all depend on what the definition of a sim is (same goes for simcade/arcade). To me, a sim is something that sets out to simulate reality & manages to do so in various areas. GT has always tried to do that, but, has not always succeeded in every area. A simulator is defined as, "A machine designed to provide a realistic imitation of the controls and operation of a vehicle, aircraft, or other complex system..." so, seeing as realism is partially subjective, I guess we're all entitled to our opinions of what constitutes a simulation, or not as the case may be. I considered GT5 to be a sim in it's day, not a very good one initially, but, one that I came to appreciate for what it did do rather than what it didn't




This statement is false, there is car damage; both mechanical & cosmetic. There are also two levels of cosmetic damage, with some cars having a far more detailed model. The damage isn't very good imo, but, it is there nonetheless.




I felt the same way initially, until @calan_svc came up with an interesting theory on how to work out what the appropriate tyre compound was for each car, supposedly corresponding to the cars real life counterpart. When I applied that, I realised that the physics weren't as bad as I had initially assumed, but, that they were merely hidden beneath too much grip. The theory isn't without it's flaws, & is by no means perfect, but, when I started using it the physics model came to life & I started to have fun racing again. Try it for yourself; link. Also, it's best to turn off all assists (except ABS set to 1) because SRF certainly does dumb down the tyre model.




Being able to play the game with a controller has nothing to do with the physics model, nor the tyre model, & therefore nothing to do with the games simulation status. Also, most driving/racing simulators on most platforms can be played with controllers other than FFB wheels, so, by this false reasoning almost nothing could be considered a sim!




That's just an opinion, & one that you're welcome to. Imo, GT5 is a simulator; not the best & certainly not the most comprehensive, but, a sim nonetheless.




I've always been annoyed by that statement too, but, in reality it's just marketing BS & should be treated as such. It's just an advertising slogan, & is only aggravating if we take it literally while expecting the game to live up to it in every area (something that I was once guilty of doing myself).


👍

I appreciate your input but can you let me know why they made the Minolta 88C-v so good when it was horrible in real life? I'm all for being corrected and it makes me happy to know I'm wrong on something once in awhile so I can change my perspectives. So being that you're more knowledgeable than I am is the Minolta really the best non redbull car in the game or am I mistaken. I know it was op's in GT4 which it does not deserve.

Please help. I made this thread very brashly I suppose.

Thanks!
 
I can't tell if this post is meant to be taken seriously or not and that worries me.

It's meant to be takes seriously. My main issue come from the fact that the Minolta is too good in GT4 and GT5 but it was a failure in real life. I like to research race cars I see in games to see how good they actually were or how successful they were. The Minolta wasn't a winning machine like it is portrayed in GT games.
 
It's meant to be takes seriously. My main issue come from the fact that the Minolta is too good in GT4 and GT5 but it was a failure in real life. I like to research race cars I see in games to see how good they actually were or how successful they were. The Minolta wasn't a winning machine like it is portrayed in GT games.
The game doesn't have to worry about mechanical failure, though.

Simulations are not going to be able to replicate reality 1:1. Not even the top contenders.
 
Being able to even play the game with a controller(as the game is primarily designed with the knowledge that most players will use controllers)
It's a :censored:ing video game. To not be able to use a controller would be ridiculous.

You couldn't drive a car with a controller.
That actually sounds totally possible. It's not really something any regular person would do (which I assume is the point here), but it's certainly an interesting prospect.

Car performance makes no sense. The Toyota Minolta 88C-V is too fast in GT4 and GT5. In real life it was a failure.
A quick bit of research shows that the car was plagued with mechanical problems, something that wouldn't be a factor in the game. While I do think this would be an interesting thing to simulate, it would be extremely complex and not something you'd really be able to do practically within a video game designed to run on a game console constructed of mid-grade hardware from 2006. I take it manufacturers wouldn't be very fond of it either.

Why'd PD make one of the most failed race cars from their country perform so well in the game? Compensating much.
So are we just gonna ignore that the R89C exists?

The mere existence of the inane Red Bull concept car breaking the laws of reality at warp speed.
Partial agreement here.

I do believe that such a car could theoretically exist and perform as it does within the game. PD aren't idiots, they did their research and looked into how such a car would be constructed and what would be required for it to do so. It's no doubt an extremely taxing vehicle to drive and the tires wouldn't last for very long, but it's definitely within the realm of plausibility.

With that said, people have tuned the X1 and have reach some ludicrous speeds out of it (~600kmh). I do think this is where you start to see the limitations of the game's physics and weird stuff starts happening. Ditto for bugs like the Escudo.


Need I go on? It's not even a simcade GT is an arcade level racing game in it's entirety.
Except it fits the simcade label perfectly. It's not quite as sophisticated as "proper" sim games but to say this is an arcade game would be ridiculous.
 
Sure I know mechanical failure is hard to replicate but as far as my research has shown me on the awesome racing history database site.. racingsportscars.com it was FAR from EVER being the fastest qualifier either. So it's lightning fast speed beating all other non F1 cars in GT4 makes no sense!

Here is the link to it's laughable qualifying round grid placements...

http://www.racingsportscars.com/type/photo/Toyota/88C-V.html

The Nissan R92CP was good in real life making 1st place on qualifying once and actually had good success in the races. So in all reality it should be smoking the Minolta pile of garbage. However PD got an incentive payment from Toyota to improperly depict their vehicles as superior to the competition or either that PD has no logic lol!

Also, I agree the Nissan R89 performed less than admirably in most cases so it being extremely awesome in GT4 and GT5 further proves my point thanks!

Maybe I'm being too critical though. They get some things right. At least they made the Mazda 787B op'd because it actually brought victory home for their country. It's not the fastest like it wasn't in real life but it has durability like it had in real life. They at least portrayed this car correctly.

I'm glad Mazda's are properly portrayed as good in GT though.

I guess it deserves it's simcade title after all. Besides I still love GT. I'm just a impulsive person.
 
Last edited:
I appreciate your input but can you let me know why they made the Minolta 88C-v so good when it was horrible in real life? I'm all for being corrected and it makes me happy to know I'm wrong on something once in awhile so I can change my perspectives. So being that you're more knowledgeable than I am is the Minolta really the best non redbull car in the game or am I mistaken. I know it was op's in GT4 which it does not deserve.

Please help. I made this thread very brashly I suppose.

Thanks!


I'm not more knowledgeable than you when it comes to race cars, I tend to only drive untuned road cars in GT games, so, I can't help you out with the Minolta issue.
 
- No car damage.
They featured car damage for the first time in GT5. I've found that most current day sims are pretty bad on damage anyway.

- Bad tire physics model.
Sure they are compared to the latest sims on PC, but the tires are far better than in most other PS3 racing games and better than Forza's tires imo.

- Being able to even play the game with a controller(as the game is primarily designed with the knowledge that most players will use controllers) You couldn't drive a car with a controller.
Have you tried playing over 200 hours of Assetto Corsa with a controller? I actually ended up driving quite well, am having troubles reaching that same level of pace and car control on my G29.

- Car performance makes no sense. The Toyota Minolta 88C-V is too fast in GT4 and GT5. In real life it was a failure. Why'd PD make one of the most failed race cars from their country perform so well in the game? Compensating much.
Every driving simulator ever created becomes an arcade game if faulty physics on one single car undermines the success the developers had with other cars. For having to simulate hundreds and hundreds of cars, I think GT does a pretty admirable job overall, better than Forza.

- The mere existence of the inane Red Bull concept car breaking the laws of reality at warp speed.
Do you have similar issues with the Ford GT LM Spec II race car, Polyphony 001 and 002, Formula Gran Turismo, Nike One 2022 and Polyphony racing karts? None of them are real cars. There's technically nothing for them to simulate, they are the originals. Besides, the X2010 has a basis in reality, only the tires it uses are truly out of this world.

- 800 MPH Escudos
The wheelie glitch in Gran Turismo 3 is a glitch though.. :lol:

Need I go on? It's not even a simcade GT is an arcade level racing game in it's entirety.

Please PD stop the improper touting as a "real driving simulator" if not that than program your cars better. The real life failure 88C-V need not be wasted in a game no one wants that failure it's gross. How about more IMSA GTO RX-7's or actual SUCCESFUL race cars performing as good as the failures you make so awesome lol!

It only was The Real Driving Simulator back in 1997 when the first GT game had physics ahead of its time (for the PlayStation 1). Even then it couldn't compete with PC simulators such as Geoff Crammond's Grand Prix. I think the series has done a pretty good job retaining a similar position on the sim/arcade scale throughout its history. The faulty 88C-V does nothing to affect that, no single car in GT was 100% accurate to real life.
 
As most know I was big into GT4 and of course GT5 especially. Very recently I stretched my legs out to GT6. I had to chime in and say that when it comes to the Minolta I have to agree somewhat with Tina. I mean when you look at some of the other race car’s history and records such as that of the Jag, Bently, 787B, Sauber, Audi, etc... where in history does the Minolta belong ? Don’t get me wrong I love the GT5 real driving simulator, but she has a point. By the way... in GT6 the Sauber is a premium with full interior and great detail. Thank you PD ... Love it !
 
Sure they are compared to the latest sims on PC, but the tires are far better than in most other PS3 racing games and better than Forza's tires imo.
For a game that has better tire model than Forza's it's weird that you can't even do something as simple as changing tire pressure. That leads me to believe quite the opposite, really.

Every driving simulator ever created becomes an arcade game if faulty physics on one single car undermines the success the developers had with other cars. For having to simulate hundreds and hundreds of cars, I think GT does a pretty admirable job overall, better than Forza.
Really, they aren't too far from each other in that regard. They both have things they do well, and things they don't. They're basically on the same playing field.
 
- No car damage.
- Bad tire physics model.
- Being able to even play the game with a controller(as the game is primarily designed with the knowledge that most players will use controllers) You couldn't drive a car with a controller.
- Car performance makes no sense. The Toyota Minolta 88C-V is too fast in GT4 and GT5. In real life it was a failure. Why'd PD make one of the most failed race cars from their country perform so well in the game? Compensating much.
- The mere existence of the inane Red Bull concept car breaking the laws of reality at warp speed.
- 800 MPH Escudos


Need I go on? It's not even a simcade GT is an arcade level racing game in it's entirety.

Please PD stop the improper touting as a "real driving simulator" if not that than program your cars better. The real life failure 88C-V need not be wasted in a game no one wants that failure it's gross. How about more IMSA GTO RX-7's or actual SUCCESFUL race cars performing as good as the failures you make so awesome lol!
Dude, if you're talking about GT5 here, you should have included the awful engine sounds. They just sound so freaking hilarious in-game. :lol:
 
Dude, if you're talking about GT5 here, you should have included the awful engine sounds. They just sound so freaking hilarious in-game. :lol:

Engine sounds are actually besides that there's no more online only thing that's really bothering me in GT5... So they made Minolta( 1 car) superior than it is.. Big deal.. Don't use it.. There are 1000+ other cars. And also it's just a game.. Ok I admit I would lovr that the damage was there back ib the days but only to make game more difficult . If I was event creator I would put damage on real and in endurance and any other race if you crash car hard enough its done.. Or go to pit if minor damage.. I think GT5 was actually decent product but it wasn't really rated best among gt fans only because GT5P set bar and expectations so high..

Edit: I have feeling that some people would actually drive a real car on the real track abd and say... Oh cmon this is not realistic..
 
Engine sounds are actually besides that there's no more online only thing that's really bothering me in GT5... So they made Minolta( 1 car) superior than it is.. Big deal.. Don't use it.. There are 1000+ other cars. And also it's just a game.. Ok I admit I would lovr that the damage was there back ib the days but only to make game more difficult . If I was event creator I would put damage on real and in endurance and any other race if you crash car hard enough its done.. Or go to pit if minor damage.. I think GT5 was actually decent product but it wasn't really rated best among gt fans only because GT5P set bar and expectations so high..

Edit: I have feeling that some people would actually drive a real car on the real track abd and say... Oh cmon this is not realistic..

Well after having reviewed race reports and what not I realized that the Minolta is not too op'd. There have been plenty of cases on race reports screens that I seen the Sauber C9, Mazda 787B, and other cars beating the Minolta and the Nissans. This is especially true in endurance events.

I was being brash when I made the post and so I did more research and learnt I was wrong for the most part. It was soo refreshing seeing a lot of races where when the AI was driving class c race cars and LMP class cars where the Minolta, R89CP, and R92CP didn't win or some close.

I also reviewed a race car tier list(if you can call it that) based on this game and found that many race cars ranked higher than the Nissans and Toyota as far as overall performance is concerned.

I admit I was wrong.
 
Last edited:
I actually agreee with you on red bull thing.. It's just stupid and unnecessary waste of time while they could have build some better events etc.. Like the moon thing in GT6.. Just why..

But cars.. You can't expect them to be 100% spot on.. But I think they are little bit biased to japanese cars.. But I don't mind that.. It's japanese game..

But sometimes in real life you can be very wrong when looking stats on paper and seeing cars on the track.. I saw Ferrari 355 outperforming much faster cars on paper just for example..
 
I make weird threads. This one was just me being annoyed at misrepresentation of cars in a game that claimed to be a sim. Though I was quite wrong on many things and I gladly admit to that.
That's the thing though, the claim of being a simulator doesn't mean that it has replicated every single that is available in real life, or that it's even 100% accurate for that matter. It's an attempt. Some things may be accurate, other things not so much. It all depends on what they choose to do, and what their goal is.
 
Engine sounds are actually besides that there's no more online only thing that's really bothering me in GT5... So they made Minolta( 1 car) superior than it is.. Big deal.. Don't use it.. There are 1000+ other cars. And also it's just a game.. Ok I admit I would lovr that the damage was there back ib the days but only to make game more difficult . If I was event creator I would put damage on real and in endurance and any other race if you crash car hard enough its done.. Or go to pit if minor damage.. I think GT5 was actually decent product but it wasn't really rated best among gt fans only because GT5P set bar and expectations so high..

Edit: I have feeling that some people would actually drive a real car on the real track abd and say... Oh cmon this is not realistic..
The other 1000+ cars in the game are actually the carried over ones from GT4 lol. And even if GT5 has some cons like other racing games, I still play and like it more than GT6.
 
Back