Do you think that GT is losing the battle against Forza?

[Hun200kmh]

Wait, you don't want us to compare Forza 2 physics to GT4's, but to GT:HD's?

Um, am I the only one who sees something off? That's like doing the samething since all GT:HD is, is a polished GT4 engine. Everything you got in the GT4 engine is pretty much all these in the GT:HD demo with the physics only appearing to be easier to drift on.

As I said, I never played GTHD and the only thing I know comes from a friend's comment (and I trust his words).

However, the part of your reply I have put in "bold", along with the comment from dan, makes one thing certain. GTHD is different from GT4. And it is the latest game from PD. So ... to me it seems obvious that there is no point in comparing the last PS2 GT game, more than 2 years old, with the new Forza game.

 

[Scaff]

Poly deformation is an automatic process that doesn't require separate "damage models," and it's been used as a form of damage for a long time -- the earliest game I can think of that had it was Viper Racing, a PC game that came out in 1998. There's no reason why GT4, or GT5 for that matter, couldn't/can't use it.

Poly deformation has been around for a long time, and the main reason is that its an easy way of getting realistic 'looking' damage, its not however even close to what realy happens to a car in a collision.

The biggest issue I have with poly-deformation is that in most cases it simply effects the outer skin of the car, now modeling the effect of a collision on what happens to the components under the skin is a differing matter and does need significantly more time.

Personally I would like to see a step up from simple poly deformation to something a little more involved.

Wolf,
Concerning GT HD. I will vouch for it. I think its definitely improved over GT4.
When people talk of feeling, it is touch/sense? Your 2 hands is the closest contact to the feeling of a sim. What your eyes sees on screen is secondary.
This is why I keep pointing out that this is what holds Forza 2 back.

I would have to add my voice to this as well, improvements have been made in the physics engine in GTHD, particularly in the low speed area. Handbrake turns and do-nuts, which as we all agree are impossible in GT4 can now be (just about and sort of) achieved, even if not quite with the ease that one would expect.

Don't get me wrong it still got a way to go, but given that GTHD is simply a pretty version of what is basically GT4 (and this does add some validity to claims that GT4's engine was not designed around the PS2 but rather around the PS3) its a step in the right direction.


Regards

Scaff

 

[Biggles]

Wolf: Some interesting comments.

I've played Forza 1 A LOT, but always with the controller & mostly in 3rd person because I just couldn't feel enough control over the car without being able to see it. (I did play a little with both the Madcatz wheel - rubbish - & the Fanatec - OK, but not great).

Switching to GT4 (recently) I'm playing only with the wheel & only in 1st person (feels too weird to be using a wheel behind the car). I can tell you, physics aside, driving in Forza with a controller always felt like playing a game, GT4 feels like ... driving.

It's true that it sometimes seems a bit too easy in GT4, but that's partly because with the wheel the responses of the car feel entirely natural, whereas in Forza 1 they feel artificial & digital. I think it's hard for anyone to truly comment on the realism of the physics in either game unless they've actually raced the equivalent car on a track in real life.

I will say that I'm frustrated that I can't try Forza 2 with the wheel without buying a 360 - I actually have the M$ wheel sitting on my floor (got it really cheap, "open-box" - but can't use it (apparently) with my Xbox on Forza 1, so I'll have to return it without trying it.

One final question: should I pick up a copy of Enthusia ($20 used at my local Blockbuster - seems a bit $ for an unpopular 2 year old game )?

 

[TheCracker]

One final question: should I pick up a copy of Enthusia ($20 used at my local Blockbuster - seems a bit $ for an unpopular 2 year old game )?

Definately. It doesn't have the long shelf life of a Gran Turismo game, but in some respects it's the better game. The way the cars handle seems more natural and realistic then in GT4, the pitch and roll of the cars is especially good. I've never used a wheel with it, but apparantly it really makes the game 👍

It'll be the best $20 you've probably spent on racing games. 👍

Checkout what people have to say about it in these threads:
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=147

 

[Scaff]

One final question: should I pick up a copy of Enthusia ($20 used at my local Blockbuster - seems a bit $ for an unpopular 2 year old game )?

Yes, right now you should leave the house, go to Blockbuster and buy it.

When you get home you will be confused beyond all belief by the opening movie, the menu system will do your head it, but you will like the driving......





....to be continued in the Enthusia sub-forum should you actually listen to my ravings.

👍

Scaff

 

[Biggles]

Okey Dokey, Scaff & Cracker - I'll bite (I hope it isn't too mind-boggling : bear in mind that I'm only a little way into GT4).

 

[Bram Turismo]

I've never played Forza 1 , but GT4 AI sucks bigh time

I can't remember where it was posted but I do know it was posted on GTP. It was a You Tube video where someone demostrated the Forza AI, it was no better. The driver took an R8 and drove ahead of a BMW V12 LMR, then, he stopped to see what the AI driver would do...He stopped and just sat there...waiting!



Wolfe and Scaff: So, basically, that poly...blablabla thingy would give a damage model which is the same on every car and thus not every single car has to be worked with in detail?

 

[Biggles]

Forza 1 AI is way more sophisticated than GT4's. If you go wide it will try to cut to the inside, & vice versa. There are situations, where if you come to an unexpected stop in a tight corner, the AI cars will stop behind you rather than ramming into you, but typically they will manoever around you & continue on their way.

 

[Dave A]

Forza 1 was too agressive imo and that clouded some of it's technical nuances. I did a test in Forza 2 to see how good the AI was at learning in that, I started a race and right at the start I turned into the car next to me, I restarted the race and repeated, after a couple of restarts the car next to me turned into me instead before I could get him which it hadn't done before. The AI reacts to your driving, if your agressive then certain AI personalities will either get agressive back or others will avoid you. Likewise if your driving fair, they will hold thier lines better and not try to occupy your space, it takes some testing to see some aspects of it really come to the fore, but it works.

 

[Scaff]

Wolfe and Scaff: So, basically, that poly...blablabla thingy would give a damage model which is the same on every car and thus not every single car has to be worked with in detail?

Its not quite as straight-forward as that, as described in this piece on Race Driver....

Pro Race Driver features a unique polygon deformation damage model system entitled Finite Element Modeling (FEM). FEM simulates the deformation of a car’s structure over the duration of an impact, calculating how both the internal structure and outer bodywork of the cars twist and break. This physics based approach gives unparalleled realism with varying impact results depending on the exact conditions of the crash.

Source - http://pc.gamezone.com/news/07_27_01_01_18PM.htm

...it uses a basic form of Finite Element Analysis, which is a form of non destructive testing. In very simple terms a grid is laid down over elements (in this case the car body panels) and this grid can be used to help determine how a object will react to stress (impact in this case). With areas where more grid lines meet being the weakest point.

As each cars basic shape is different and the body panels are different then it allows theoretically different reaction to the same impact. The problem is that FEA'S accuracy is entirely dependent on the detail put into the mapping of the nodes and mesh's, and being blunt the PS2 (and the vast majority of PCs) simply don't have the power to do this accurately enough for a single car body, let alone the internal components.

Here's an example of FEA modeling for crash simulation...

..now the reason you can't see the mesh is because that model will be made up of numerous smaller parts, and keep in mind that the above was a supercomputer simulation performed and rendered at the NCAC (National Crash Analysis Center).

FEA is a very cool tool, allowing a large object to be broken down into many smaller components and then the reaction between them looked at in almost any scale, as this FEA of two gears meshing shows...

..I'm sure you get what I am hinting at now. Poly deformation is fine in a very basic and general manner, but (despite marketing to the contrary) is a very, very dumbed down version of true FEA modeling.

Forza 1 AI is way more sophisticated than GT4's. If you go wide it will try to cut to the inside, & vice versa. There are situations, where if you come to an unexpected stop in a tight corner, the AI cars will stop behind you rather than ramming into you, but typically they will manoever around you & continue on their way.

As Bram says here...

I can't remember where it was posted but I do know it was posted on GTP. It was a You Tube video where someone demostrated the Forza AI, it was no better. The driver took an R8 and drove ahead of a BMW V12 LMR, then, he stopped to see what the AI driver would do...He stopped and just sat there...waiting!

...FM1's AI left a lot to be desired as well. I've seen the same video and its quite frankly almost as silly as GT4's AI. In addition FM1's AI had the same nasty habit as GT4's of wanting the racing line. Numerous times I had a car in FM1 simply drive into me on a straight, purely to get back on the racing line.

TRD3 actually had a halfway decent AI (and Enthusia's is not to bad either) in that it at least varied the aggression level depending on the cars being driving. So its a lot more wary in open wheel cars yet quite happy to bump and rub in closed wheel touring cars, with GTs being a balance between the two, and in a moment of almost true realism the Aussie V8 supercars are all driven by nutters.


Regards

Scaff

 

[Biggles]

Numerous times I had a car in FM1 simply drive into me on a straight, purely to get back on the racing line.

In hundreds of hours playing F1 I can't recall this ever happening to me. The most annoying thing in F1 is the tendency for the AI cars to rear-end you braking into a tight corner (most noteably in New York long, Road Atlanta long, Road America & Tokyo). However, as my skill level increased this rarely happened & usually only when I had clearly over-braked.

Other than the repetition of approaching the first corner in any race, I found the AI in Forza 1 quite inventive - certainly enough to make each race different - this is quite unlike the drone-AI in GT4.

 

[Wolfe]

I remember trying a EA F1 game long ago.

Yup. F1 2002, which was published by EA but developed by ISI.

GPL however is on another level. This sim taught me many skills I still use to this day.

Oops. My fault. I meant GTL, and I thought that's what you were talking about -- GT Legends. It uses the same ISI engine as GTR.

Now I realize you were referring to Sierra's Grand Prix Legends.

When people talk of feeling, it is touch/sense? Your 2 hands is the closest contact to the feeling of a sim. What your eyes sees on screen is secondary.
This is why I keep pointing out that this is what holds Forza 2 back.

I've been playing driving simulators for so long that my sense of sight can make up for a lack of true "feel." While playing I take note of all of the minor nuances of the car's movement, from the undulation of the suspension to the rotation -- or yaw -- of the car itself.

In terms of these subtle motions, GT4's feedback is severely lacking. It either overemphasizes (brake dive) or underemphasizes (body roll), and the whole feeling I get from the game is stiff and sterile. Forza 1 was even more lacking, because the cars didn't even feel like they were connected to the road. Forza 2 showed noticable improvement, but bodyroll is almost nonexistent.

For the sake of comparison, Live for Speed is the king of these subtle visual clues. The biggest reason for this is because of its fully-rendered interior view, which can be set to move and shake over bumps and from G-forces, but even if it didn't have this view, its incredible suspension modelling would be enough:


Meanwhile, Enthusia is somewhere between LFS and the others. Body roll is modelled well, and most of the time the suspension responds to bumps and sudden weight shifts realistically, but it lacks a true interior view, it isn't as precise as Live for Speed, and in extreme cases you'll notice that lifting one or two wheels off the ground is impossible -- only jumps can break the "glue" between your car and the road.

Wolf: Some interesting comments.

...I can tell you, physics aside, driving in Forza with a controller always felt like playing a game, GT4 feels like ...driving.

See above. To an extent I agree -- GT4 has a better feel than Forza. But not by much.

One final question: should I pick up a copy of Enthusia ($20 used at my local Blockbuster - seems a bit $ for an unpopular 2 year old game )?

It's definitely worth $20, but if you're worried that you might not like it, you should be able to find it for cheaper. I picked up my second copy (yes, I have two -- my best friend borrowed my first copy and couldn't stop playing it) for less than $10 at EB Games (aka GameStop).

Wolfe and Scaff: So, basically, that poly...blablabla thingy would give a damage model which is the same on every car and thus not every single car has to be worked with in detail?

Kinda. As Scaff said, it's not the best, but it's simple and can be rather easily applied to a large set of cars. I think it's better than nothing, but it seems Scaff disagrees.

 

[Scaff]

I think it's better than nothing, but it seems Scaff disagrees.

Yes and no.

It depends on exactly how well its done and to what degree. In the vast majority of cases modelling of this nature is used almost exclusively to show damage cosmetically to the exterior of the car. Even when an option is given to have 'real' damage its normally still a long way from that, with cars capable of sustaining far more damage that is even close to realistic. FM1 was a classic example of this (the Colin McRae series another) in which damage could be set to a simulation mode, but all it actually did was make the car more difficult to drive. In FM1 I hit barrier at 60mph+ and the end result was some panel damage and a nasty pull to the left, it certainly didn't stop me winning the race.

In terms of last gen systems the two damage models that stand out as doing a decent job are Richard Burns Rally and Race Driver 3, while neither was perfect (but RBR was very, very good) they did at least punish you for serious impacts, in other words a stupid mistake could result in a DNF. I particularly liked in TRD3 that stiff suspension could be damaged over high curbing if you rode it too often and/or too fast and could result in suspension failure.

In terms of current gen the only damage model to yet impress is F1:CE, which not only allows for some realistic damage modelling of the cars, but also teh debris itself is a significant hazard, with a bouncing wheel and tyre from an accident something you need to be aware of.


Having said all of that I would always support switchable damage, with options for at least No damage, Cosmetic only and Full. My main issue with the term poly deformation is that its applied to a lot of different games, many of which use it to very differing degrees, most poorly. TRD3 and RBR used it about as far as it could be on the last generation, including a decent degree of damage transfer to the internal components of the vehicle, to not do at least as much and significantly more in the current gen would be a major step backwards.....



..and to be honest if this is representative of FM2s level of damage realism, then yes I could live without it. Two cars running head to head and emerging with minor crumples and still drivable, I think not. Now I am more than willing to look at some other videos and if anyone can post up some more FM2 damage footage with maximum damage simulation switch all the way on I would be greatfull, and I'm sure that I would not be the only one interested.

In hundreds of hours playing F1 I can't recall this ever happening to me.

I am surprised, the two worst tracks for it are certainly Rio and Pacific Shipyards, but I have experienced it on the 'ring as well (another reason why its too wide - maybe to help the AI drive it), but you can't honestly say you don't think that the AI in Forza isn't overly aggressive? They do more than enough to get black flagged at almost any track I've ever been to. Certainly I would not rate it any better than GT4's AI, both are poor just in slightly different versions of suck.


Regards

Scaff

 

[Bram Turismo]

Thanks for that post Scaff, wonderfull piece of information, +Rep!


So...if I'm to try a real good racing game, it's going to be LFS or Enthusia? I recently asked in the PC Gaming forum whether I should buy GTR2, GP4 or rFactor. Many say I'd consider Enthusia or LFS as well, though I've never heard about these games. Time to dig deeper in this 👍


Wolfe, that vid is awesome! How old is LFS? It doesn't seem too new or am I mistaken?


*EDIT* Scaff: Must spread first

 

[Hun200kmh]

LFS ---> PC-only

EPR ---> PS2-only

 

[Scaff]

Thanks for that post Scaff, wonderfull piece of information, +Rep!


So...if I'm to try a real good racing game, it's going to be LFS or Enthusia? I recently asked in the PC Gaming forum whether I should buy GTR2, GP4 or rFactor. Many say I'd consider Enthusia or LFS as well, though I've never heard about these games. Time to dig deeper in this 👍


Wolfe, that vid is awesome! How old is LFS? It doesn't seem too new or am I mistaken?


*EDIT* Scaff: Must spread first

Its the thought that counts 👍

As for LFS, well click here...

http://www.lfs.net/

..download the two car, two track demo and give it a go. Its an impressive beast indeed and well worth a look. One very nice thing about it, is that its been designe dto run well even on the most basic of PC set-ups, you don't need high end graphics cards, etc. They certainly don't hurt, but they are not a must.

Enthusia of course you just need a PS2 for...

http://www.konami.jp/gs/game/enthusia/eng/top/index.html

...as Wolfe says its not perfect, but it is very good. Well worth a try and you should find it quite cheap as well.


Regards

Scaff

 

[Biggles]

Have any of you played Richard Burns Rally on PS2? How good is it? How good is its support for the Logitech wheels? Thanks!

 

[Bram Turismo]

well I gave LFS a try, even on my current laptop, which is for these days, incredibly slow, it runs very smooth. Engine sounds are great, as well as the engine sound with the in-car view 👍 I especially loved the detail inside the car, also, now I definitly understand how bad GT4's physics are. What an incredible difference between these two games!




Woah...I'm completly blown away by this game, I think this one will be my first purchase after my new laptop arrives

 

[Scaff]

Have any of you played Richard Burns Rally on PS2? How good is it? How good is its support for the Logitech wheels? Thanks!

In order

Yes!

Its great, easily the best sim on the PS2 in my opinion and certainly the most acurate rally sim (but watch out its a real sim - think Grand Prix Legends).

Worked fine with both my Driving Force and Driving Force Pro.


Scaff

 

[unv412]

^^RBR is truly an awsum rally game but i found i cant use the full degree of rotation on DFP as i cant calibrate the sensitivity properly.......inside veiw sits you in middle of car and takes a while to adjust to but seems to work very well.
LFS is also tricky to set up wheel wise i find as well and apart from spendin @ 2 hours playin I found i liked enthusia better for car choices and physics (only generic cars in LFS???) as i can relate to real cars.

Any more glareing insights into the physics side of Forza 2?????
Can anyone else tell me how close or far it is to Enthusia's physics?????

 

[Wolfe]

Yes and no.

*snip*

The problem with a "true," DNF-able damage model like RBR's is that few people will want to play with it. If the game doesn't let you turn it off, the game's sales will be dismal, but if the game does let you turn it off, you can't expect to play online with it turned on.

I guess the difference between you and I is that I'm willing to settle for a "friendly" damage model, while for you it's "all or nothing," but with an option for cosmetic-only. Am I right?

So...if I'm to try a real good racing game, it's going to be LFS or Enthusia?

For me, those are the best of the best. 👍

I recently asked in the PC Gaming forum whether I should buy GTR2, GP4 or rFactor.

If I were you I'd get rFactor instead of GTR2, simply because rFactor was designed specifically for mods, and there's a mod available that replicates all(?) of GTR2's content. The physics of the two games are quite similar anyway, both being based on the ISI engine.

Wolfe, that vid is awesome! How old is LFS? It doesn't seem too new or am I mistaken?

It's been in development for about 5 years, I believe, and is still considered by ScaViEr to be an "open alpha." As such, though they've improved over the years, the graphics are grounded in a 5-year-old engine. However, as Live for Speed's programmer put it:

"It MUST be optimised as a racing simulator, not a screen shot generator." -- Scawen Roberts

...that gives you an idea of their priorities. So, although the graphics have stagnated a bit, the physics are updated and improved constantly, and we're only on the second "stage" of content, known as S2. S3 will arrive in the hopefully-not-too-distant future, and there may even be more, depending on what ScaViEr wants to do at that point.

well I gave LFS a try, even on my current laptop, which is for these days, incredibly slow, it runs very smooth. Engine sounds are great, as well as the engine sound with the in-car view 👍 I especially loved the detail inside the car...

I'm glad you like it. 👍

...also, now I definitly understand how bad GT4's physics are. What an incredible difference between these two games!

The funny thing is that the same thing happened to me a few years ago, with GT3. If I hadn't discovered Live for Speed, I probably would have enjoyed GT4 and wouldn't be so critical of it!

only generic cars in LFS???

Unfortunately, yes. Although two of them (Scawen - programmer; Eric - graphics design) had former experience in game development, working for Lionhead Studios (IIRC), ScaViEr is only a three-man team (third is Victor, the webmaster/musician) and LFS is essentially an "amateur" project. That makes licensing a list of real-world cars a bit difficult, although ScaViEr hasn't gone looking for support either.

The only real cars are the MRT-5, Raceabout, and BMW Sauber F1.06, although the "generic" cars are mostly based on real-world ones...

 

[Scaff]

The problem with a "true," DNF-able damage model like RBR's is that few people will want to play with it. If the game doesn't let you turn it off, the game's sales will be dismal, but if the game does let you turn it off, you can't expect to play online with it turned on.

Why can't I expect to play on-line with a damage model that supports DNFs? I currently am able to with F1:CE, its simply a case of finding the right race, not everyone racing online is a 12 year old out to drive everyone off the track. With a decent group of racers in an invited race having full damage is most certainly not a bar to on-line play at all.

Lets be honest if (and I do hope it does) GT5 does feature a decent damage model, do you think I will struggle to find enough people here who would be willing to race with a full damage model turned on? I certainly don't think it would be an issue at all.

I guess the difference between you and I is that I'm willing to settle for a "friendly" damage model, while for you it's "all or nothing," but with an option for cosmetic-only. Am I right?

Nope, you're taking what I say far too literally. First true damage modelling (as in 100% accurate) is never going to happen, for two reasons. the first being system limits, nothing (360, PS3 or top end PC) is good enough to manage 100% realism in this area; secondly you would never get agreement from manufacturers to do it. Even the damage friendly manufacturers such as Ford have gone on the record as saying they will not allow roll-overs or damage that intrudes into the passenger cell. Given that everything is a slightly more friendly version of reality.

I have absolutely no problem if a toned down version is also available, in addition to a damage model that allows DNF's (so as accurate as they can get it given the limits above), hell provide as many options in between as people want. What I don't agree with is claiming that damage is accurate and then delivering something along the lines of FM1's damage model. I mean are you actually happy for something to claim to simulate damage and then deliver well short of that claim?

F1:CE delivers a decent damage model, with a range of options to keep almost everyone happy, why is that too much to ask for in other racing games and why would it be a problem (with the right fellow racers) on-line with damage enabled?


Regards

Scaff

 

[Wolfe]

Why can't I expect to play on-line with a damage model that supports DNFs? I currently am able to with F1:CE, its simply a case of finding the right race, not everyone racing online is a 12 year old out to drive everyone off the track. With a decent group of racers in an invited race having full damage is most certainly not a bar to on-line play at all.

Lets be honest if (and I do hope it does) GT5 does feature a decent damage model, do you think I will struggle to find enough people here who would be willing to race with a full damage model turned on? I certainly don't think it would be an issue at all.

I will admit that because I don't really play any PC sim other than Live for Speed, and because neither GT4 nor Enthusia had online play, most of my online racing experience has been limited to less-realistic games that attract more casual gamers (eg. PGR, Forza), but I still think you underestimate the laziness and whininess of older players. Not all immature gamers are 12 years old.

I will say this -- I reckon you won't have as easy of a time finding a DNF-able damage server in GT5 as you would in F1:CE. Gran Turismo is more than popular enough for the online multiplayer to be filled with just as many casual gamers as XBOX titles, if not more.

What I don't agree with is claiming that damage is accurate and then delivering something along the lines of FM1's damage model. I mean are you actually happy for something to claim to simulate damage and then deliver well short of that claim?

Ah, I see. That's the crux of the issue, then. I agree with you.

 

[Scaff]

I will say this -- I reckon you won't have as easy of a time finding a DNF-able damage server in GT5 as you would in F1:CE. Gran Turismo is more than popular enough for the online multiplayer to be filled with just as many casual gamers as XBOX titles, if not more.

Ah, but that's the beauty of GT Planet, as long as GT5 has a decent lobby system we should be able to arrange races here which allow those who wish to race with full damage to be able to do so. A natural progression of the WRS, Spot races, etc that already run here so successfully.

I acknowledge that attempting to find races randomly on-line would be time consuming, but with GTP I don't see that as a major issue at all.

All of which is assuming that we get both a decent lobby system and damage.



Scaff

 

[Biggles]

I just took a few turns of the track in Forza 2 at BB - couldn't really tell anything much about the gameplay, but I did find the visuals very purdy. However, they remain very unrealistic. Am I the only one that sees HD as a double-edged sword. On the one hand there is a ton more detail, on the other hand the detail reveals very clearly that it is not real.

To me running the Ring in GT4 it looks pretty realistic, because you don't have time to look & see how flat the trees look & the overall tone of the visuals looks realistic (apart from the flickering). In Forza 2 you can't help noticing every damn detail because it's so sharp, & you also can't help noticing that it doesn't look real.

 

[shawtyoner]

KENT, i think i remember you asking for an in car view of the ring for comparison, just found one, not sure if you've seen it yet but here it is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oCq6j6DDKvg

 

[Kent]

Thanks, that was exactly what I was looking to see... Sadly, I didn't think it was much of an improvement. The graphics looks good but the course is way too flat and smooth, way too wide, and most of the tight turning sections have been stretched out to match the rest of the course.

Basically, that it's just good enough to keep me from racing the Ring. Not bad enough to keep me from playing the game, but certainly not good enough to keep me playing the Ring like I've done in GT4.

I didn't really expect them to make the course as tight and bumpy as GT4's or the course in real life so it's not a big let-down or anything.

Thanks again for the awesome video find.

 

[Bram Turismo]

I have to agree with Kent on that video. Especially the road surface was too flat, wide and no bumps. GT4 exagorated on the bumps IMO but it's always nice to have some bumps in it.

However, I did like the graphics very much. The car sound was awesome and the tyre squeeling sounded better than in GT as well. One thing that had me watching a little towards the video was that sometimes, it looked as if it were an NFS game, the handling seemed arcade"ish" at times but of course, these are You Tube vids, not worthy to make conclusions out of it for a game

 

[Hun200kmh]

... OMG ... the ... car ... is ... a ... Porsche ... 962 !!!

 

[Scaff]

GT4 exagorated on the bumps IMO but it's always nice to have some bumps in it.

See I would have to disagree with that, with the possible exception of Flugplatz I think they got the bumps down very, very well. Even the issues of taking off at the Flugplatz are not as exaggerated as many claim, the issue is more that we will be taking it at a much higher speed that you would in reality and with no risk of suspension damage or a seriously dangerous off. The Sport-Auto guide to the 'ring talks about how you should always crest it on the left and use brakes to help stop the car leaving the ground.

After the tight and technically demanding Hatzenbach Geschlängel
and Hocheichen, we head on for Quiddelbacher Höhe at full
tilt. The track is very narrow and uneven and the old surface is very slippery.
The bridge over the B 257 is as narrow as the eye of a needle, and
cars tend to get caught up with each other here in heavy traffic. If the
path is clear, you take the right bend over the bridge from the middle of
the track and allow yourself to run out to the left, so as to be ideally positioned
for the double right at Flugplatz. The climb to Quiddelbacher
Höhe is so steep, it is like going up a take-off ramp. You should always
keep left here, overtaking on the right is risky at best: the enormous
bump is even higher there, and the ensuing flight therefore longer. Powerful
cars should be tempered with sensitive braking on the crest to
stop them from lifting off.

In addition the entire guide is littered with warnings about how nasty the bumps can be at high speed.


Regards

Scaff