Where Does GT5 Rank on the Simulator Scale

[Kryz11]

I voted 90%, but after longer thought, I should of vote 80%.

 

[rkk01]

What an amusing thread!!!

The very thought of assigning percentages suggests that we are delivering a much more accurate verdict than is possible without any quantitative data. This is our own personal impressions as a score out of 10, basicaly...

Anyway - here goes - the best console racer, by far...

...somewhere between 10% and 30% (based on my view GT5P and GTTT demo).

Why the somewhat harsh score - well I think it's a good score, as I said, it's the best console racer.

Lets compare to a good combat flight sim - arguably the benchmark for simulation achievement, both in terms of physics, systems modelled and level of imersion created.

A good flight sim has to have a good flight physics model - end of. On top of that we will have power systems (engines), fuel systems, cooling systems, hydraulic systems, electrical systems, navigation systems, communications systems, flight control systems, sensor systems and weapons systems - all modelled as accurately as posisble using declassified data. Plus all systems wil have a damage model - from enemy damage, pilot damage (ie bad flying) and many sims will include a mean time between failure model for component failure on those systems.....

Then we have the enemy - AI, flight models, sensors, weapons etc etc...

So GT5 (P, TT or full version) is a car sim, so it has a lot less to model to start with, but lets run through and see how it fares..

Power systems - different engines, transmission and drives are modelled, with suitably distinct power, torque and revs relationships. BUT these systems CANNOT be stated as accurately modelled. Change down a gear and come off the power and there is no engine braking - a fundamental model component of the power system. Come down two gears and keep the revs on and the engine should be shredded, but that damage is not modelled.

Are air pressure, air temperature and track altitude modelled. These will affect the performance of turbo charged (air temp) and normally aspirated engines (air pressure / altitude)

Are cooling, hydraulics and braking systems properly modelled??? In a good flight sim a large radial engined fighter will overheat on the ground if manual radiator flaps aren't opened....

Are track and tyre temperatures modelled?? If tyre temperatures change, do the corresponding changes to tyre pressures get modelled??

Is damage modelled - physical and component systems mechanical damage - we sure believe it is in the final product,but based on GT5P / GTTT demo, you can drive into a wall at 150mph, spin and drive off again....


.... so yeah, calling it at 80%, 90% or I think someone suggested 99.9% sim is, well, far from reality. That far from reality probably falls into the deluded spectrum...

 

[finnracer]

As well as G-forces you can't feel the road through the seat like you can in real life.

 

[NissanSkylineN1]

Where does GPL fit in?

 

[Northstar]

*snip*

A++ post:tup:👍

 

[TouringDevotee]

The title says it all. But what I'm most interested in is how the average GT player will rank GT5 compared to the GT players/real racing drivers.

Maybe I'm having a brain-fart, but how does this relate to the poll?

No sarcasm, I really feel like I'm missing something. Just to rephrase, you are asking how a player of the Gran Turismo series will rank Gran Turismo 5 TT, as opposed to Gran Turismo Players who are also actual racing car drivers?

Is the idea that anyone who votes on a % is claiming to also be a real racer, as the only other option is "How should I know, I've never raced before."

 

[hampus_dh]

That's not possible. Why? To simulate the exact same forces as if you were going through Eau Rouge, you have to be accelerating in the exact same way, that means the only way a simulator can simulate going through Eau Rouge is if it actually moved through a path that was exactly the same as Eau Rouge.

So if the simulator is stationary in a room, it can't possibly simulate the correct forces, all it can do is jostle you around a bit.

Obviously.

 

[Radracing]

Even with this setup it would probably only come to 80-89% you have the motion but no G-Force. Pretty cool thou! I'll take one to go please.

 

[WolfRacer543]

Obviously.

Yeah, just thought I'd mention. People bring up these simulators that jostle you around as if they are something realistic, but there's nothing that can give you the sensation of 2G sustained cornering.

 

[Kemalettin]

Simulator and GT ? Wow

 

[People_Know_Me]

iRacing is still way behind driving a real car as well, for exactly the same reasons as GT5, so use some common sense.

Oh really, care to elaborate on your experiences with GT5? I've never played it, but seeing as you have, I don't really have an argument, do I...

iRacing simulates racing like no other at the moment. It has sanctioned leagues, a VERY strict penalty and rating system, some of the best drivers in the world (including professional drivers), standings for a multitude of ratings and classes, the most advanced physics systems for the cars, etc.

GT is known for delivering great graphics and insane amounts of cars with a very good form of delivering simulation. I do not believe their physics are up to par with iRacing, and don't think GT5's will either. In terms of providing a quality racing experience, GT fails big time. The online experience that's "supposed" to come with GT5 will take a big step forward by the sounds of it, but will still lag behind iRacing because of a console's limited capabilities.

Many people talk about fear in sim racing. There is a fear when you drive iRacing because of it's very strict penalty system. Your rating means everything there, and if you are a bad enough driver, you can and will get banned. Tell me there's no fear there?

I'm an iRacing user, and a big GT fan having played all of the titles they have delivered. You tell me to use common sense, yet you don't provide any reasoning or give any credentials to your ill-willed comments.

 

[AAscooter]

Less than 80%

If you say more, you are an ignorant and stupid fanboy.

 

[justin_credible]

Well, in truth I have no idea, as I've never raced in real life (which is how I voted). I can drive under normal circumstances so I know what a car feels like in a very generalised sense. If I had to give a score it would probably be 80% or below (assuming this poll is aimed at comparing GT to the real deal). As good as GT is, it still falls a long way short of the real thing.

I cant add any more comments than what has already been said about real life vs. sim, but having played some of the PC sims (GTR2, GTR Evolution, rFactor), I would say these feel superior in terms of the way the cars physics have been modelled and the depth of these physics, but these still fall a long way short of what it must be like to race for real, in my honest opinion. Like I said, I've never raced before so I have no idea, its just my personal take on it.

I love GT, but I'm not a blind fanboy. Constructive criticsm and/or competition from other racing game developers, is improtant to help the series grow and evolve. GT has always been my fave racing game since the first one ooohhhhh so many moons ago, but this is purely for the amount of depth and content it has compared to other titles i.e. number of cars, amount of tracks, customisation/tuning blah blah blah. Physics seem like a good overall representation, which is good enough for me to get the enjoyment I'm looking for out of a racing/driving title.

There's no way I would have the nuts to drive a car, the way I do in GT, or any other racing sim for that matter (although the comment about iracing's stats system was interesting to hear) and I'd be surprised if there's anyone here who can put their hand on their heart and say they would drive like that in real life. Unless you are scared of dying, if you crash in GT.

I'm sure there must be many members here who do race in real life, it would be interesting to see what their opinions on this are. 👍

 

[Sam48]

GT is obviously arcade enough to please the average gamer, but at the same time sim enough to turn one of those gamers into a racing driver.

Maybe there should be a competition where the fastest GT player, iRacing player, GTR2 player, and maybe a Forza 3 player, compete to see who's the fastest in reality.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

Less than 80%

If you say more, you are an ignorant and stupid fanboy.

As a stated by others, I did go Less then 80% too, since it makes sense with what technology can deliver and when you compare to things like flight simulators.

However contrary to the above quote:
If you believe it is more:try to open your horizon on what simulators should be, you probably have your evaluation criteria quite narrow to what you expect from house room processors, logitech like interfaces and screens, in stead off what you expect from a real car.

Less then 80% can still be the best you can do in your living room and that other simulators are similar or better, does not take away that one or the other like Gran-Turismo just hits the point you like in simulated car driving better.

I went yesterday in a pod with hydrolic actuators below it, going through a WRC race. I was surprised how bad it feels in acceleration and decrease of speed.
This would be solved by the system in the link below, could not find it quickly again, but saw it before on GTPlanet:
http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/12/toyota-car-simulator-1602985

The real thing will remain something though.

However I like in simulations:
* missing getting really hurt in crashes, no need to put a FIA conform fireproof suit, helmet, HANS device, ...
* missing repair costs
* missing cleaning
* actually from my experience I can not take the real g-forces to well going really fast
* a bit more accessible to the normal person
* missing petrol fumes and costs
* ....

 

[Racer XO]

I don't see how can the game be properly ranked when the full game hasn't even been released yet.

 

[rkk01]

I don't see how can the game be properly ranked when the full game hasn't even been released yet.

The poll states - based on GT TT demo, and I for one have qualified my comments as being based on GT5P and GT TT demo.

 

[Dave A]

Less than 80%

If you say more, you are an ignorant and stupid fanboy.

Your post is much more ignorant than anyones who I've read that's given it between 80-90. What context your rating the game in kind of has a big bearing on how high or low you might score the game also. You call other people ignorant and stupid, take a look in the mirror lad.

 

[rexc]

My view would also be way less than 80%, simply because of the limit of what any console or pc game can currently acheive.

However I would like to suggest that accuracy may also be dependant on the car.
I think midrange sportscars like the Nissan 370, Mazda RX7 etc can be modelled as accurately as can be achieved, because in real life the average person, with a bit of practice, should be able to get those cars around a race track reasonably competently. Therefore if they are accurately modelled in the game most gamers will have no trouble mastering them.

But in the supercar range, well, in game we all want to take a Zonda around the Nurburgring on pro physics, with all assists off, and do it in about 7 minutes or less. However I know I wouldn't have a hope of achieving anywhere near that in real life in such car, and thats probably the same for most gamers.

Therefore I'll make an assumption that by default supercars are deliberately less accurately modelled than sportcars to enable most gamers, with a little bit of practice, to still master them as they expect.

 

[Sam48]

^I agree, and your right is does depend on the car, but I believe it's possible for some people to do a better lap in reality, than in GT.

 

[phil_2001]

Take for example a video of a real car around the track with the in-the-car camera, we know that that is %100 real, not %60 and not %80. Judging by the same angles + FF wheel effects GT5 is %90-%99 real and that's what I voted for. The G-forces are not to be implicated because it's not a common thing in todays game entertainment industry. Even with a G-force simulator GT5 will not be more than %90 real, but then you just take into account that G-Force simulator, that's it.

 

[P3nT4gR4m]

So I voted less than 80%

What GT series does do it does very well, IMO but what it does is less than half of what's involved in having a real car on a racetrack. It's not simulating g-force, it's not simulating wind, it's not simulating tyre pressure changes or brake fade and it's not modelling the actual track itself in anywhere near the detail you'd actually find in real life (little greasy patches, gravel, rubber marbles, etc...)

Also there's no feedback through the pedals for the time being so clutch bite-point and braking is purely guesswork - You'd be able to feel those in the real world.

But I've always accepted this shortcoming in simulation. What it does simulate it does so incredibly accurately. The dynamics covered do apply in a real car just as well as in the game but it's still less than 50% of the genuine experience.

 

[Ibonibo]

I chose 90-99%.

Let me explain why.

We talking about simulating the reality and not relpicate the reality. that's a difference between those two.

i think in simulating Gt is pretty far. The handling of the car, physics are nearly perfect for todays technology(is to consider). As far as visuals are concerned they don't enter in weight in simulation :

(did you see the simulators of the police, rescue services, army,..., their graphics are 1990's and the physics are so exagerated to get the tense feeling. When you drive 100km/h in those, it outputs to the screen like 200km/h.)

I bet a motion simulator would push Gt from a 95% (my rating) to a 98%. The last % we probably won't be able to get.

And saying sim is 100% if you're dead after a crash, that would not be simulating but relfecting reality.

That's my opinion.

 

[Radracing]

Hmm, anyone ever seen any of the F1 simulators for the real F1 drivers? I wonder what they are like?

 

[Veprman]

Has anyone read the Wiki? Look at what was said about the cars handling characteristics. It sounds to me based on what was said that's its pretty close. What has been said by them and others here is the feedback is not as good, and things like brake fade. Those can be implemented and that's really all you need. G-forces may be cool but are not necessary. You don't want it to be 100% true to life as that would mean fearing for your life during a severe crash and excruciating pain as your virtual driver is being burned alive. As long as the car does what it in game what it would do in real life I'm happy. That's the most important aspect. Get the handle and physics down and then worry about the rest because not every can afford or has room for the extra equipment you would need for all of the force feed back devices needed to simulator a real life feeling. So based on the way the cars drive I guess it would be 80-90. If you include others it isn't as high but it is things I wouldn't be able to experience anyway.

 

[Rocker]

Haven't actually played Prologue, but in GT1, 2, 3, and 4 everything off-track, grass, dirt, ice, etc., the traction is always the same, roughly equivalent to wet ice on wet ice. I mean come on. No car is going to slide 100 feet at 10 mph on anything but ice, and I mean -not-even-on-snow- is traction that bad.

 

[TrievelA7X]

90% I'd say. Of course, that's assuming a LOT.
For instance, assuming they fixed FWD cars.
Assuming they fixed uphill/downhill burnouts

Anybody ever notice it's harder to get traction going downhill?
So, just judging by the flat blandness that Indy RC is, 90%, with a RWD car, but we really don't know about 4wd or FWD, let alone hill's, bumps, etc, but I'm hoping for 90%.

 

[frankwer]

I would say 40%. The braking, engine braking and clutch is not good. There is no simulated rubber build up on the track, the road surface is to smooth, and no simulated tyre flexing. Aero simulation is non existant, no simulation of the weight of the car being full or light with fuel, etc etc.

Face it folks, the processing power is used mostly for the graphics engine so they can sell a nice looking game. Grow up and face the reality.

 

[tinram]

I would say 40%. The braking, engine braking and clutch is not good. There is no simulated rubber build up on the track, the road surface is to smooth, and no simulated tyre flexing. Aero simulation is non existant, no simulation of the weight of the car being full or light with fuel, etc etc.

Face it folks, the processing power is used mostly for the graphics engine so they can sell a nice looking game. Grow up and face the reality.

You just mentioned barely 5 percent of simulation that is not good or non existent, which makes it 95 percent accurate , the glass is half empty i guess.

We have to first agree on what constitutes 100% simulation. And no, it can't be real racing because it won't a "simulation" then.

If i grow up some more, i'll be senile

 

[Lucas]

You just mentioned barely 5 percent of simulation that is not good or non existent, which makes it 95 percent accurate

And what do you propose is the other 95% porcent? In my opinion, what he said is enough to bring the % of simulation under 60%.