Don't pay atention. The framerate have never been a worrying issue in the demo, there are players more sensitive to lower than 60fps framerates but even in cockpit view and at 1080p (the worst case scenario) the game is smooth and playable with 48fps at the worst. Most console games still render at 30fps. With hd tvs the frame drops are not like in the past when on a crt tv a drop will mean half of the original framerate to sync in multiples with the tv Hz (60 ntsc and 50 pal), so from 60fps to 30fps, and from 30 fps to 15fps. That was very noticeable. In hd tvs the drops can be dynamic to any framerate and is not much noticeable except if the lows are very lows and the game becomes choppy to render, not the case with the demo.
Also in 720p and 1080i modes the demo run almost at fixed 60fps, same as with 1080p in first person and external view. What to say... this is drama-planet.
I would have to disagree, the variable frame-rate in GTA is more than noticeable, particularly in 1080P and cockpit view.
It is however not a final build and I hope that it can be better resolved for the final release, but as it stands in GTA its not going to be acceptable for a lot of people.
One of them is an autocrossing/racing relative of mine who shall remain nameless because he has a presence on the net and doesn't want to get bogged down in my "silly board politics." He insists that in spite of all the numerous sims and claims about which game is better, GT5 is just about as close to reality as he cares about right now, and when he races around in the 240SX in GT5, it's remarkably similar to the behavior of his real life 240SX. He also owns a Sentra GT as his daily driver and current occasional racing car, and since there isn't one quite like it in GT5, he decided to kick around in Forza one day when I offered him a run, and he bought the Sentra in it. He had a blast, though he kind of loved it but didn't. He pointed out things one game did better than the other, but boiled down, he preferred the drive in GT5 because the cars react in ways more like he expects them to.
Preference I have no issue at all with, that plenty of people prefer GT5 over 'insert sim/game X' is not an issue. Its when that opinion gets presented as unsupported fact that I tend to respond.
He also said something I'd been meaning to bring up, but he's such a fast talker and so authoritative on so many subjects, it's hard to remember everything. In any case, he mentioned a couple of things. One being that if you took the inputs to a racing game and fed them into an identical real car, they would likely wig it out and wreck it because you have to temper how you want to drive a car with how its reacting in real time to your control of it. And a whole ton of sensory response is missing when you try and force a virtual car in its own little world to do what you want it to. Sure, GT5 isn't perfect, but then no game is, and the number of people who can explain just exactly why cars in GT5 act wrong is a tiny fraction of the mass of online critics.
Its a good point and a rather obvious one, however you are right it gets missed by a good number of people.
It also supports a point I have made a number of time in other threads, the one raised by thos who state a wheel is needed to judge physics and is also the be all and end all. At the end of the day a wheel is a better input method, but its not the same as a real car.
Another is that most of GT5's critics are arguing without any real world basis to substantiate from. Rather than being practicing racers, autocrossers or whatever, they base their judgment on what other videogames do, and that's just arguing on which dumbed down version of reality they're used to, rather than which one is more realistic.
A very valid point again, however I have to say that in my own experience (and as you know I have a far bit in this regard) the main people who use a title as a benchmark rather than using reality tend to be those who favour GT.
"I've had a number of times when I thought my car in real life should have done one thing, and it did something completely off the wall. And it didn't matter how much I knew or what experience I had, the car knows way more than I do about the laws of physics. So you might as well forget all this board nonsense and just enjoy your game. Unless you're an automotive engineer with a PhD or the reincarnation of Richard Burns, you're wasting your time because board debates are usually nothing more than a contest to see who's Truth Schwartz sounds bigger." So right!
Sorry but on this point I don't agree. As long as someone is willing to use reality as a benchmark and also put the time and effort in to learn and understand the physics involved then they can get involved and contribute.
As a (well worn) example, you don't need an engineering degree to know that the lack of torque steer on launch in GT5 is a wrong. The ability to observe it in a real car (youtube will do that well enough) and a quick look at the physics involved (pick up a copy of Going Faster or use any of MIT's open source engineering lectures or ask someone who knows) will do the job.
Now you would be right that not all areas are as black and white, but that doesn't mean that a discussion on them can be had.
Just to reiterate for the skimmers or quick to forget, I KNOW that GT5 isn't perfect, because it doesn't behave absolutely like cars do in the real world, though outside of a few points, there are a lot of fuzzy areas in which the distinctions aren't so clear. But just to reiterate something else, you can insist that GT5 has so many holes in the physics engine that you can't have a solid racing experience in it, and you need a PC sim for that, but I'm not the only one who disagrees with that.
I would second that, GT5 can be great fun at at times and the main thing that gets in the way of the racing experience is the AI more than anything else. However putting aside what it does well and the fuzzy areas and you are left with some quite serious issues that are worth looking at. These areas are also serious enough that they should be raised and discussed, and are serious enough that PD themselves have acknowledge that they are worth of being the prime development areas for the GT5 physics engine.
That in itself is enough validation for me in regard to the number of times I have raised these issues, and does put some of the objections (and at times abuse) I have gotten over the years for doing so in place. I honestly have lost count of the number of times I have been told I was wrong/stupid/biased/lying/etc. for addressing the issues in the tyre, suspension and aero physics of GT5, mainly by people using GT5 as a benchmark.
when 99% of racing games are 30fps.
