- 1,142
- Clayton/ NC/ US
- Sanderson1981
Forza 4 vs GT5 physics (read the first post before contributing)
- Thread starter Nicholas9889
- 2,140 comments
- 238,068 views
dylansan
Premium
- 4,987
- Massachusetts
- GTP_dylansan
- MINICOOPER120
Does anyone have anything to add about physics?
I do have to wonder with GT5's numerous updates what they're actually aiming for in terms of physics. They must have identified some issues but overall things haven't changed that much and the still continue to change things. I have a feeling they just need more information/research. They're not going to improve the tire model, for example, if they don't get some more data about how tires behave under certain conditions.
If they're just changing values of the physics model, they can change the feel, but not really make any dramatic improvements. To make dramatic differences, different equations and relationships are needed. New perspectives and ways of modelling things. Probably new factors and variables corresponding to things like tire deformation and suspension movement. Obviously I don't know how they currently model it, but there's definitely room for improvement.
Last edited:
I just hope PD realise the biggest flaw in their physics engine is the tyres and they do something drastic about it. IE most of the big rubber companies are in Japan, get them involved. If they don't I can't see how their tyre physics are ever going to get any better, clearly they don't have the expertise themselves. That isn't a slight on them, you can't expect physics programmers to know everything, that's why they need to swallow their pride and reach out to people to help them.
Unfortunately I get the feeling with GT it's either PDs way or no way.
Unfortunately I get the feeling with GT it's either PDs way or no way.
A better tyre model will just bring the entire physics engine alive. As we all know the only way the car touches the road is four contact patches of rubber. If you're not simulating those properly you're going to struggle in so many areas, torque steer as you mention, progressive feeling of grip loss etc etc.
- 7,601
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
Torque steer will be impacted by the tire model sure, but a tire model would need to be really bad to make torque steer go away completely. Really bad. I don't think GT's is that bad. Updating the tire model won't fix torque steer.
Tires certainly are hugely important, but I think sometimes their importance, great as it is, may be overblown. It will liven up the sim yes, but an excellent tire model is worthless if the rest of the car does not resemble a car.
Think about this, imagine GT as it is with near perfect aero model. It doesn't just model lift and drag correctly, but Reynold's number, compressibility, transient flow, wakes, wind, airborne particles, surface imperfections, ground effect, extreme AoA, cooling, etc. That would be a pretty big game changer despite GT5's current tire model limitations. Some of the older, pre wind tunnel cars could get very scary, especially if you modified them to reach speeds their designers never imagined possible. Go around a corner in a car that's already mimicking a wing when a strong wind gust comes along and it would feel quite different from a LMP with more than its own weight in downforce pressing it onto the road. Yet at the same time, tire break away wouldn't be right. Grip levels wouldn't be right. You still wouldn't have the correct amount torque steer.
GT need to do better in more than one area, and for that matter while Forza has done a good job with their tire model I expect them to push it further in future and also put the same amount of work into other areas. Tires are hugely important, but four rubber tubes don't make a car.
Zer0
(Banned)
- 1,624
Are you aware that your theory would make inaccurate any car in FM4 that don't use a Pirelli in stock form? that means a lot of cars!
Anyway I don't think that this is the cause. Forza's cars have been always too tail happy, like they wanted to drift and in FM3 they used data from a lot of manufacturers (Toyo, Michelin, Bridgestone, Falken..) and the cars had the same behaviour so I don't think that the problem is in the tyres but in the game physics.
Also in the LFA vid the driver speaks generally about the handling on supersports cars, not specifically about the LFA, so it's a common pattern on those cars and I'm sure that not all supercars wears Bridgestone tyres.
Personally I doubt that two similar high end road tyres could change the general handling of a car to that extent just by being of a different brand. That control and performance doesn't look realistic at those speeds.
About my last reply I think that all the links are self explanatory, I'm sure that most of the readers will have no problem to understand and follow my opinion throught them.
But just for you: GTA it works at giving results, and I have posted a link of them. And thanks to being realistic, and I posted another link about first hand opinions of people that learned real skills throught GT. There are some interesting reads there. And to avoid future questions that does not mean that think of GT5 as a responsible of winning races, just a first step or help into the right direction.
The LFA vid as I explain was a response about a previous post, anyway this is a physics thread so I think that it match the topic. Even If I only say: "-Hey I found an interesting vid about FM4 physics. What do you think?". My opinion as I said it's that some of the faults found by the driver are faults been discussed at some point here or in other threads, so the "familiar" word. I think that my point with the magazines credibility was explained in a past post. Seems that when things don't are favorable to FM you take that to a personal level. There is no interrogatory and harassment when GT5 is put on doubt.
- 7,601
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
It would make them accurate, just accurate to their real versions on non stock tires. And 100% of GT's cars have the wrong tires.
Tail happy is not how I would describe FM3. FM3 was glue tires. It was hard to make RR cars lose control. I honestly still think FM4 has too much grip in some instances, but it's much better than FM3 or GT.
I'm curious as to why the video review didn't mention Forza's inaccurate Nurburgring or how they modeled the tires (or why the real LFA was a completely different model). It does not strike me as a really in depth review, but it's better than some of the magazine reviews I've read.
But it did not look like he tested a Pirelli car.
There's a reason tires are specifically designed for cars when it comes to high end sports cars and race cars. When we were choosing tires for our FSAE car we spend months pouring over data and writing code to evaluate the impact of tires on our cars performance. It's not like in GT where you stick on a tire and get X amount of grip.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,441
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
If I take my own car and swap out the OEM Conti's and replace them with Dunlop's (as I did recently) does that now make my car inaccurate?
Of course not and this is a point I have address in a number of threads, as its an interesting one, its makes the handling different to the stock car on OEM tyres but that does necessarily mean inaccurate.
That does however then raise the exact same issue for GT, as they don't use any manufacturers tyre data at all what does that mean for GT?
Except for the fact that the data used in FM4 is almost entirely new and T10 and Pirelli acknowledged that it highlighted a lot of issues with the old data that was used. I will be the first to state that FM3 did not have a great tyre model, that is a matter of my own posting record. However FM3 is not under discussion here and if you are honestly attempting to say that the tyre model in FM4 is comparable in its behavior to FM3's then you quite clearly have very little experience with FM4.
No he's talking specifically about the LFA, the whole point of the comprison (if you read the source article as well) is a comparison between his experience of the car in the real world and FM4.
You can doubt that a change in tyres will make that degree of difference all you want, it can and does. Can I ask how many times you've done back to back tyre tests on your own car(s)?
Given that a number of people have queried them I would have to say that doesn't appear to be the case.
And once again its nothing that any other halfway descent sim could not achieve. It doesn't prove anything in regard to the degree of accuracy within GT5's physics engine at all.
No you didn't explain it at all, you simply posted a video with the comment "Most of their comments sound very familiar." its borderline flame-bait and does nothing to move things forward.
Oh and you explanations about magazine creditably was not very well reasoned the last time around, as for me taking it to a personal level please remember that I've not actually used a magazine article to support or rebut the accuracy of either sim. A point you seem to be constantly forgetting.
I'm going to set you a little challenge, one that I think will be interesting. Try and explain in your own words, referencing only real world physics, what makes the GT5 physics engine so accurate. Don't bring Forza into it at all, if the GT5 engine is as strong and accurate as you claim you should be able to clearly explain and provide examples as to why it is and how that can be tested.
- 1,142
- Clayton/ NC/ US
- Sanderson1981
I posted this earlier, but it seems it got lost in the squabble. Anyway does anyone know?
Zer0
(Banned)
- 1,624
Again you are trying to force me to play your game. I have never claimed that the GT5 engine it's so strong and accurate, it's enought for me and this thread is plenty of examples why. I have recognized their faults and only I have discussed and exposed the points that I don't agree and others have claimed. Seems that you want to discredit me with false claims.
I find funny that in GTP the GT players need to justify every bit of why they enjoy GT5 and FM4 players are treated with honors.
- 27,387
- Toronto
- NewAesthetic
- SlipZtrEm
So if it's plenty enough for you on it's own, why are you in a thread comparing it to a game you have no interest in?
You're being asked to provide some validation because that's exactly what others have done. Scaff has provided plenty of documented examples behind his reasons for preferring FM4's physics. So have I. So has Exorcet. Your typical approach in this thread is to either a) avoid a request to flesh out your reasoning, like just now, b) use irrelevant "evidence" like GTA (which also isn't new), or c) throw a bunch of links to videos or interviews at a question.
You've dismissed magazine interviews as biased and then used different ones when they favour your views. A request for a "professional" opinion has you looking to Kaz.
This isn't about "forcing" anybody to play a "game", there have been many members who have popped into this thread, given an actual detailed description of why they prefer GT5's physics, and it promotes healthy discussion. I can cover what parts of FM4's physics feel passably real to me without reference to other games; I can do it with the aspects of GT5 that do too, or Enthusia, or most other sim-like games I've played for any decent amount of time. What's so difficult?
- 40,766
Perhaps you wouldn't see it like that if you didn't repeatedly resort to drive-by arguments that you keep repeating over and over again but refuse to back up when your feet are put to the fire, deciding to just leave when specific questions are asked of you instead and hope everyone forgets.
So let me ask directly: How many weeks are you going to leave the thread this time before coming back again so you can start posting the same arguments about GT Academy and biased reviews and Kaz's skill as a racing driver?
- 926
- machschnel
Are you aware that your above statement would make inaccurate any car in GT5 that uses real world tires in stock form (ie. all of them)? that means a lot of cars (ie. all of them)!
If GT5 had Forza's tire data/model, how would the two physics compare? Being that it's GT5's biggest weakness (in physics anyway), I'd love to know to what extent it would it "come alive" - would it match/surpass Forza?
- 926
- machschnel
Yeah fair enough.
So frustrating that such an integral aspect of the physics was neglected.
So frustrating that such an integral aspect of the physics was neglected.
- 40,766
Actually, there is something I've been wondering about. Something that's been really bothering me with FM4 from the start but more recently in particular since I dove back into it is the... weird, artificial gravity thing that happens when you hit a curb. I've never quite understood why rolling a car regularly through a high center of gravity seems fairly spot on in terms of weight shift and loss of grip and the gradual increase in instability after you get it up on two wheels, but why if you get a car up on two wheels after running over the rumble strip everything is in slow motion like someone is just sort of pushing the car over. It's really annoying me because it makes the GMC Syclone, which is ordinarily one of my favorite cars at around Class B or A, really obnoxious to drive on certain tracks. It grips great and runs flat, but as soon as you hit a curb it acts like it is twice as tall as it actually is.
While GT5 handles those kind of rollovers a lot better in my experience (a lot more abrupt and sudden if you can find a turn that will actually cause it, as I imagine they should be), is there a game that does both properly?
While GT5 handles those kind of rollovers a lot better in my experience (a lot more abrupt and sudden if you can find a turn that will actually cause it, as I imagine they should be), is there a game that does both properly?
Zer0
(Banned)
- 1,624
Good for you and them but I'm not here to discuss my tastes or preferences, or to justify them to anybody. I'm here to discuss what I think are false claims, to show another point of view and to make these discussions less monopolized towards Forza. When I can I like to discuss facts with real data and logic, not opinion or tastes.
Here most of the opinions are not backed with facts but they are valid excuses at the FM crowd eyes, the same opinions made with GT5 in mind are replied with "not" by the same people. Some GT5 facts exposed are outdated or exagerated to make a big claim with them. Etc. So you can expect what is the discussion flow in this thread. The thread is clearly moderated with FM favour in mind. If you want to edit the thread rules to ban my interventions let me know and I will not post anymore.
And again the magazine interview harrasment... I have already explained the differences and my opinion about the famous video, if you don't like it I'm sorry but I have my valid reasons to think like that and obviously I dont expect your aproval.
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=7897365#post7897365
- 2,756
- Brisbane
- thelvynau
- Thelvynau
Zer0Good for you and them but I'm not here to discuss my tastes or preferences, or to justify them to anybody. I'm here to discuss what I think are false claims, to show another point of view and to make these discussions less monopolized towards Forza. When I can I like to discuss facts with real data and logic, not opinion or tastes.
Here most of the opinions are not backed with facts but they are valid excuses at the FM crowd eyes, the same opinions made with GT5 in mind are replied with "not" by the same people. Some GT5 facts exposed are outdated or exagerated to make a big claim with them. Etc. So you can expect what is the discussion flow in this thread. The thread is clearly moderated with FM favour in mind. If you want to edit the thread rules to ban my interventions let me know and I will not post anymore.
And again the magazine interview harrasment... I have already explained the differences and my opinion about the famous video, if you don't like it I'm sorry but I have my valid reasons to think like that and obviously I dont expect your aproval.
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=7897365#post7897365
You read through all of the posts to see if there are facts?
- 27,387
- Toronto
- NewAesthetic
- SlipZtrEm
Except that's all you've been doing. The first bit, of course; not the justifying. What you have been posting is the rough equivalent of saying "because I said so".
As pointed out, others have very much been able to talk in-depth about GT. If you're unhappy with the ratio of GT talk, back it up. Your refusal to go in-depth about anything at all, and the repeated back-stepping into things like your GTAcademy arguments does not do you any favours.
Which is something rarely seen from you. You "feel" like a TV show presenter would have picked GT5 (again, the selective approach to media), you've repeatedly tried to relate the GT Academy program and its drivers' success to the physics engine's prowess, or just use Kaz as an example of a professional driver (but ignore others).
Any examples? I could dredge up the silly "GT5 has torque steer" argument from a few weeks back, if you'd like.
Again, such as? I've even posted the qualifier that I haven't tried the most recent patch for GT5, and I still want to, to see what if anything has changed with the actual physics and not just the PP system. Want to talk outdated? How many times have you brought up FM3?
So you can expect what is the discussion flow in this thread. The thread is clearly moderated with FM favour in mind. If you want to edit the thread rules to ban my interventions let me know and I will not post anymore.
The rules apply to everyone equally; to suggest otherwise is borderline insulting. It is strange that the users that tend to go on sweary, angry rants do so in some bizarre show of "defending" GT5 (overlooking the fact that a good chunk of the so-called "pro-FM" people actually play both games, which is more unlikely of the other side). If you're unhappy with being asked to follow the same stipulations every other member is asked to in the thread, that is your problem, but repeatedly ignoring the basic premise of the thread will eventually make it more than that.
I recommend re-learning what "harassment" means. The only "valid" reason I got from that post about the video was that you like the letters G and T. No further reasoning, which strikes a few people as odd; if you're so adamant about GT's inherent goodness, why can't you explain why it's so good?
Actually, you've still ducked this:
So please, some "facts with real data and logic".
I would have thought that an indicator of the realistic physics of driving in any game is the lap time. But there are plenty of games where the lap time is correct, but not physics.
This is the biggest mystery of auto simulators, as the lap time turns out correct, it speeds up or slows down? seems to be no. For example, in fm4 lap time on all tracks except the Nordschleife is quite correct.
As for the comparison LFA and real life, the only explanation (if he is not lying) is that the game traction tires, lower than in reality. that is, in the game are tires - lower class, not sports.But I tested the LFA in the game and this is my REVIEWS
Lexus LF-A 2010 08/41/4 My rating 6 out of 10
Pardon the pun, but it goes "like a computer game")) LFA completely devoid of emotion and passion, it is a pure robot, a bit like the NSX.
It's not too fast when accelerating, but has inherent supercars feature: not to react to attack on the gas pedal in a turn.
That is, the gas pedal, to break in the bank it is difficult, although it is possible, if you do it very insolently Sound nasty, handling normal, obedient behavior, the car resists slipping,. and usually very stable car, while overcoming the stability margin starts instantly, sudden loss of traction, and the gulf. But the LFA is still margin for such a case.
I succeeded because of the error of driving, to destabilize the car, but contrary to expectations in the drift that it can be to track down. And the drift occurs at such overloads that specifically create a situation scary and I did not. In general, car stingy, boring, and uninteresting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5lSH48PLiY
As for the GT Academy, I knew a guy there who was involved, and he said that GT5 realnnoe and driving, it is quite different. For them it was a shock that the real 370Z on the standard suspension, compared to gt5, is a crank, big banks, squatting during acceleration and braking.
But the formula bollid and Nissan GT-R suspension is more like .. gt5 There are other differences, but the main thing that the coaches at Silverstone once said forget all that you got in the game, and learn anew. The game is not identical to the real driving
The man in the video said that in real life he does much less rudder movements than in the game. But I think it is not.I think that he should make a comparison of the game and reality, drawing attention to the steering angle
Another issue that drives this man off esp tsc the reality on the Lexus LFA? Maybe it's a completely different experience
This is the biggest mystery of auto simulators, as the lap time turns out correct, it speeds up or slows down? seems to be no. For example, in fm4 lap time on all tracks except the Nordschleife is quite correct.
As for the comparison LFA and real life, the only explanation (if he is not lying) is that the game traction tires, lower than in reality. that is, in the game are tires - lower class, not sports.But I tested the LFA in the game and this is my REVIEWS
Lexus LF-A 2010 08/41/4 My rating 6 out of 10
Pardon the pun, but it goes "like a computer game")) LFA completely devoid of emotion and passion, it is a pure robot, a bit like the NSX.
It's not too fast when accelerating, but has inherent supercars feature: not to react to attack on the gas pedal in a turn.
That is, the gas pedal, to break in the bank it is difficult, although it is possible, if you do it very insolently Sound nasty, handling normal, obedient behavior, the car resists slipping,. and usually very stable car, while overcoming the stability margin starts instantly, sudden loss of traction, and the gulf. But the LFA is still margin for such a case.
I succeeded because of the error of driving, to destabilize the car, but contrary to expectations in the drift that it can be to track down. And the drift occurs at such overloads that specifically create a situation scary and I did not. In general, car stingy, boring, and uninteresting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5lSH48PLiY
As for the GT Academy, I knew a guy there who was involved, and he said that GT5 realnnoe and driving, it is quite different. For them it was a shock that the real 370Z on the standard suspension, compared to gt5, is a crank, big banks, squatting during acceleration and braking.
But the formula bollid and Nissan GT-R suspension is more like .. gt5 There are other differences, but the main thing that the coaches at Silverstone once said forget all that you got in the game, and learn anew. The game is not identical to the real driving
The man in the video said that in real life he does much less rudder movements than in the game. But I think it is not.I think that he should make a comparison of the game and reality, drawing attention to the steering angle
Another issue that drives this man off esp tsc the reality on the Lexus LFA? Maybe it's a completely different experience
Last edited:
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,441
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
WARNING - GIANT POST INCOMING
To be blunt I actually find it rather insulting given the sheer volume of testing and experimentation I've carried out over the entire GT series, with Enthusia, with RBR and with the Forza series (all of which can be found by simply searching my posting history); that you are attempting to claim the moral high-ground in this area without a single test carried out off your own back. More so given that you are now steadfastly refusing to even consider doing so.
I await the results with interest.
That some members of the staff disagree with you does not mean that this thread is moderated in a pro FM / Anti GT manner at all. If that was the aim then you wouldn't be posting here would you?
Oh and I do expect the questions you have been asked to be answered, rather than avoided (as you are once again doing).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now onto an area that seems to scare some members, a bit of testing.
It was mentioned a while ago that stopping distances on stock tyres seemed to be too short in FM4 so I've spent a while testing this out. Its a first test based on one car (the Ford Ka - as the first cars you get access to were specifically mentioned and this was the car I started with) and a 60-0 test.
Now stopping distance figures (either time or distance) are a pain to find, however the basic physics involved mainly revolve around the mU value for the tyre and road interface and this allows the stopping time to be calculated based on the long-g generated and the speed from which your stopping.
I used a calculator that can be found here:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/background.html
The test tracks on FM4 were used and a number of 60-0 runs were carried out, with the following be a representative one (reply and telemetry data is on my storefront). The time was calculated based upon the standard used for stopping times (from the moment the throttle is released to the car stopping at rest (i.e. not g loading).
While some will be able to check this from the replay the following are screenshots from the reply and telemetry at each of these points.
Start:
End:
The time difference between the two (Start - 51.809 / End - 54.801) is 2.992 seconds, and the g over the run peaked at around 0.95g with a rough average of 0.9g. The calculator would give a stopping time in the range of 2.9 to 3.0 seconds based on that, which would put the Ford Ka in the right range.
Now this is of course far from conclusive as it covers one car at one speed, but it does seem indicate that stopping times are around the range they should be. The above tools and method can of course be used by anyone to give this a go, all that I would ask is that you provide screenshots as above and upload the replay(s) to your storefront.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lap times are one of the worst measures to use in terms of physics accuracy for a number of reasons, including but not limited to the following.
Those alone are enough to make lap times a poor measure in comparison to single incidence testing (such as the brake time test above) and even those are not without issues.
Oh - I've driven an NSX and "devoid of emotion and passion" are not words I would use to describe it. Stunning and involving are.
Odd then that you have to date not actually provided any real data or logic to counter these false claims. All we have had from you is opinion and preference dressed up as fact.
To be blunt I actually find it rather insulting given the sheer volume of testing and experimentation I've carried out over the entire GT series, with Enthusia, with RBR and with the Forza series (all of which can be found by simply searching my posting history); that you are attempting to claim the moral high-ground in this area without a single test carried out off your own back. More so given that you are now steadfastly refusing to even consider doing so.
Utter and complete nonsense. Let me ask did you miss the entire discussion regarding torque steer on launch? No you simply dismissed it and stopped posting for a while.
I'm sure that you will be able to cite them and then also provide facts with logical conclusions to support this claim then.
I await the results with interest.
This thread is moderated in regard to the AUP and nothing else. Not a single post that is either pro/con GT or pro/con FM has been removed, edited, warned or had an infraction issued in anyway and the insinuation that it has been is an insult to the staff here at GT Planet.The thread is clearly moderated with FM favour in mind. If you want to edit the thread rules to ban my interventions let me know and I will not post anymore.
That some members of the staff disagree with you does not mean that this thread is moderated in a pro FM / Anti GT manner at all. If that was the aim then you wouldn't be posting here would you?
If you believe that pointing out your repeated double standard on this is harassment then that's your issue. If you continue to be inconsistent in this regard then I will continue to point it out. Its also odd that you link to one of your early posts in that discussion and not the later ones in which every point you raised was addressed. I would strongly recommend anyone reading this for the first time to read as far as post 1370, as that is the last post in the discussion.
Oh and I do expect the questions you have been asked to be answered, rather than avoided (as you are once again doing).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now onto an area that seems to scare some members, a bit of testing.
It was mentioned a while ago that stopping distances on stock tyres seemed to be too short in FM4 so I've spent a while testing this out. Its a first test based on one car (the Ford Ka - as the first cars you get access to were specifically mentioned and this was the car I started with) and a 60-0 test.
Now stopping distance figures (either time or distance) are a pain to find, however the basic physics involved mainly revolve around the mU value for the tyre and road interface and this allows the stopping time to be calculated based on the long-g generated and the speed from which your stopping.
I used a calculator that can be found here:
http://www.safespeed.org.uk/background.html
The test tracks on FM4 were used and a number of 60-0 runs were carried out, with the following be a representative one (reply and telemetry data is on my storefront). The time was calculated based upon the standard used for stopping times (from the moment the throttle is released to the car stopping at rest (i.e. not g loading).
While some will be able to check this from the replay the following are screenshots from the reply and telemetry at each of these points.
Start:
End:
The time difference between the two (Start - 51.809 / End - 54.801) is 2.992 seconds, and the g over the run peaked at around 0.95g with a rough average of 0.9g. The calculator would give a stopping time in the range of 2.9 to 3.0 seconds based on that, which would put the Ford Ka in the right range.
Now this is of course far from conclusive as it covers one car at one speed, but it does seem indicate that stopping times are around the range they should be. The above tools and method can of course be used by anyone to give this a go, all that I would ask is that you provide screenshots as above and upload the replay(s) to your storefront.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lap times are one of the worst measures to use in terms of physics accuracy for a number of reasons, including but not limited to the following.
- Temperature and humidity differences between a real lap and those in the sim could make a difference of seconds per lap
- The state of the tarmac between the two (freshly laid, resurfaced, rubbered in, even down to what cars last used the track) can once again account for seconds per lap
- Track accuracy would need to be 100% perfect for it to not throw the results out
- Sims take fear out of the equation
- Drivers can and do manipulate the results (I've seen just about every sim under the sun demonstrate 'accurate' lap times over the years)
Those alone are enough to make lap times a poor measure in comparison to single incidence testing (such as the brake time test above) and even those are not without issues.
Oh - I've driven an NSX and "devoid of emotion and passion" are not words I would use to describe it. Stunning and involving are.
Last edited:
When I bought fm4, I thought that the stopping distance in fm4 much longer than gt5 and it was true. But I did not know that the reason in the included, abs.
And then I decided to make a video comparing the braking distance and gt5 fm4.For comparison, I used the plate braking points on the track Top Gear) It's silly, but I have done so)
I made ​​this video because I thought that the longer braking distance = realism.
But now, this video is not meaningful, because I realized that if fm4 off abs, then everything will be fine
Another delusional video comparing Forza 4
And then I decided to make a video comparing the braking distance and gt5 fm4.For comparison, I used the plate braking points on the track Top Gear) It's silly, but I have done so)
I made ​​this video because I thought that the longer braking distance = realism.
But now, this video is not meaningful, because I realized that if fm4 off abs, then everything will be fine
Another delusional video comparing Forza 4
Last edited:
- 40,766
I like how you linked to the that magazine discussion, but you did so without noting the inconsistencies that Scaff pointed out with it just a few posts later but you (strangely) weren't around to explain before coming into this thread a few weeks later (again) and bringing them up as if Scaff never pointed the inconsistencies out the last time you brought them up (again).
As you pointed out, that is because you had ABS on. The implementation of ABS in the games is different. FM4 "pulses" the brakes as a real car would to keep the tires from slipping (perhaps not as fast as it should, but you can definitely feel the tires fighting for traction under heavy braking) whereas GT5's ABS basically just automatically applies the maximum pressure that can be applied to the brakes without slipping.
For that reason, GT5's ABS (like that of the games before it, where ABS was present but you couldn't shut it off) basically acts as a perfectly efficient braking system that already knows the maximum grip before it starts applying pressure and FM4's acts more realistically as a reactive system (though, as said, I don't believe it reacts as fast as a real system would). The tire model comes into play (for example, I don't think Racing Soft tires were the best comparison to make against Forza Racing tires in your video) but I think the main issue with the difference is how the aid functions rather than how the tires react to it.
Last edited:
NCRthree
Premium
- 1,797
- Virginia
- ncrthree/GTP_ncrthree
@ shevd-According to the video, you had GT5's ABS set to 10. Is that correct?
A lot of us don't use ABS at all in GT5 as we feel it does more to a car's deceleration characteristics than just stop brake lock. It takes the physics further from realism by adding stability when it shouldn't. Even when not engaging the brake pedal.
However, braking in GT5 is one area that seems skewed to me. I imagine it would be difficult to get a real world correlation to GT5's braking lengths because of lock up without ABS and the assist that ABS provides. It takes some fine tuning of B/B to not get much lockup with panic stopping unlike the default B/B of 5/5 that allows drama free braking with ABS on even at 1.
I consider myself a layman within any physics discussion but when I've disabled ABS in GT5, it changed the overall handling characteristics of every vehicle. Turn in without braking rids GT5 of that inherent understeer especially in AWDS and FWDS. It makes all drivetrains come alive: front tires digging into the track(tire smoke and screeching) and loosing traction. Speed is lost in the process much more than with ABS on. Weight transfer needs to be paid attention to. BUT, without doing some research and testing, ABS off in GT5 will not drive realistically or virtually properly with the default or higher BB settings, no way.
The area that seems messy is the lockup aspect. I've had my Evo X on a track several times and encountered front end grip loss and weight transfer snap oversteer when I've overcooked a slow-medium speed turn. Lifting the brake when I shouldn't have at VIR turn 2. Yikes! More like ABS off than on by a landslide, not even close. However, my car will NOT lockup like GT5's ABS off at low speeds whatsoever. So it's a trade off. Cornering is much more realistic with ABS off but a quick low speed stop is not. Something isn't quite right either way.
Maybe this is an area that shows GT5's basic tire modeling flaw more than any other, I don't know. But it seems like a common complaint about GT5 from experienced F4 players is the overall grip characteristics. Be it too much or too little. With the later updates, I've found grip to be more progressive on street tires on fully stock vehicles using ABS off. I'm certainly enjoying it more, it makes my virtual Evo X and S2K feel more like my personal ones.
The discussion about off track bounce and rollover characteristics is very interesting. But personally I'm not that interested in what a virtual car does in those situations. Seems like that would be a very difficult area to match reality. Guess I'm more interested in on road handling comparisons. Although I'm assuming the off track observations would be an indication of physics flaws in many of the opinions and tests posted. Seems like neither game has off track done that well so it seems like a moot point to me.
I didn't mean this to be so long, sorry. But it does seem like whenever a comparison is made, it's generally an older version of GT5's physics that F4 is compared against or running GT5 with ABS on. I don't have any raw data or videos to make any claims of realism, nor am I suggesting any superiority or inferiority between F4 and GT5. Only that it may be worth some time spent in an updated GT5 with no ABS with stock street cars if you haven't in a while. Thanks.
A lot of us don't use ABS at all in GT5 as we feel it does more to a car's deceleration characteristics than just stop brake lock. It takes the physics further from realism by adding stability when it shouldn't. Even when not engaging the brake pedal.
However, braking in GT5 is one area that seems skewed to me. I imagine it would be difficult to get a real world correlation to GT5's braking lengths because of lock up without ABS and the assist that ABS provides. It takes some fine tuning of B/B to not get much lockup with panic stopping unlike the default B/B of 5/5 that allows drama free braking with ABS on even at 1.
I consider myself a layman within any physics discussion but when I've disabled ABS in GT5, it changed the overall handling characteristics of every vehicle. Turn in without braking rids GT5 of that inherent understeer especially in AWDS and FWDS. It makes all drivetrains come alive: front tires digging into the track(tire smoke and screeching) and loosing traction. Speed is lost in the process much more than with ABS on. Weight transfer needs to be paid attention to. BUT, without doing some research and testing, ABS off in GT5 will not drive realistically or virtually properly with the default or higher BB settings, no way.
The area that seems messy is the lockup aspect. I've had my Evo X on a track several times and encountered front end grip loss and weight transfer snap oversteer when I've overcooked a slow-medium speed turn. Lifting the brake when I shouldn't have at VIR turn 2. Yikes! More like ABS off than on by a landslide, not even close. However, my car will NOT lockup like GT5's ABS off at low speeds whatsoever. So it's a trade off. Cornering is much more realistic with ABS off but a quick low speed stop is not. Something isn't quite right either way.
Maybe this is an area that shows GT5's basic tire modeling flaw more than any other, I don't know. But it seems like a common complaint about GT5 from experienced F4 players is the overall grip characteristics. Be it too much or too little. With the later updates, I've found grip to be more progressive on street tires on fully stock vehicles using ABS off. I'm certainly enjoying it more, it makes my virtual Evo X and S2K feel more like my personal ones.
The discussion about off track bounce and rollover characteristics is very interesting. But personally I'm not that interested in what a virtual car does in those situations. Seems like that would be a very difficult area to match reality. Guess I'm more interested in on road handling comparisons. Although I'm assuming the off track observations would be an indication of physics flaws in many of the opinions and tests posted. Seems like neither game has off track done that well so it seems like a moot point to me.
I didn't mean this to be so long, sorry. But it does seem like whenever a comparison is made, it's generally an older version of GT5's physics that F4 is compared against or running GT5 with ABS on. I don't have any raw data or videos to make any claims of realism, nor am I suggesting any superiority or inferiority between F4 and GT5. Only that it may be worth some time spent in an updated GT5 with no ABS with stock street cars if you haven't in a while. Thanks.
I'm not saying that the ABS fm4 has flaws, I like howit works. In gt5 I never turned off the abs, because it did not make sense and benefit.But in fm4 I bought CSR-E pedals, and at first I ridden with abs ON, but it was very uncomfortable with the CSR-E pedals. and when I tried to ride with, abs off,
I was very surprised , The slowdown was much more effective, and the car has become more interesting and easier to braking with ABS off
But in fm4 difference in stopping distance with ABS and non-ABS is quite big. I think somewhere in the 1\8, 1\6, is it real?
some interesting video of suspension
Similar threads
- Poll
