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

[FoolKiller]

Just found this, which indirectly may have some bearing on this topic:

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/06/18/blu-ray.html

Blockbuster rents 70% more BD, but I want to see what the online services that are making it available to everyone are seeing.

I am sure the PS3 having a built-in BD player is helping a lot. Between games being able to use the BD format and even one having game and movie on the same disc (although that probably means it will suck) it gives it a boost.

It will be interesting to see if/how PD utilizes the BD format. They could have so much more to work with and be able to truly utilize the PS3.

If PD plays their cards right and uses the technology at their disposal they can create something Forza can't even achieve this generation because of its technological restraints.



As a side note: for those who are concerned about GT4's lack of oversteering GT:HD seems to do quite a good job with it. I know I spun out (all the way around) at least a couple of times and then even purposely did a doughnut (which is obviously the ultimate test of a great physics engine) all with R3 tires (which is the softest available).

 

[afc2112]

You know, I was playing Forza 1 today and I realized that racing in Silverstone in a GT3 against a GT2, a GT3, F355 Challenge, Viper GTS, Tuscan S, and a 360CS was damn near unbelievable. It's really hard to beat. Just a legendary track full of beautiful cars going at it.

Then I play GT4, and to be able to race @ La Sarthe & Monaco is just bliss...Too bad, I can't race any Porsches or Ferraris on it that way I can recreate a proper Le Mans battle!!!

 

[ChadSpeed]

I have'nt been in this thread for awhile, but now have FM2. I am playing with the controller since an wheel just dosn't work on my oversized sofa, and cockpit is outta the question( thanks wifey). I have noticed one thing that has really surprised me with FM2 so far. I race on Simulation with A.I. on hard, no ABS, STM, or TCS, and full damage.

If I have a small wreck with some tires or another car, even just dent up the front end my lap times actually drop and top speed is affected. Its only cosmetic damage but it affects the cars aero and creates more drag. Didn't expect that and thought it was neat suprise. I'm sure other have already talked about the A.I, and other good stuff along with the HORRID replays, but is anyone has any question feel free to ask.

Also Kent have you been able to give FM2 a proper go yet? It will really fill the gap for me until GT5.

 

[harrytuttle]

I thin k you may be rather underestimating just how serious the computing power used here is, and don't forget they don't have to do it in real-time for half a dozen or more cars .

Are you forgetting that we used to be stuck with this not too long ago? Time and determination are no match for what is currently considered impossible. I'm not expecting it next year, but certainly before Sony goes bankrupt.

 

[Biggles]

Nice graphics, but wot are the physics like?

 

[Scaff]

Are you forgetting that we used to be stuck with this not too long ago? Time and determination are no match for what is currently considered impossible. I'm not expecting it next year, but certainly before Sony goes bankrupt.

Nope I'm not forgetting things like that at all, its just the leap is far, far bigger than that.

As an example BMW Motorsport has recently bought a new computer to allow it to carry out CFD calculations to support its windtunnel. The specs of Albert 2 (as its the second of its type they own) are rather impressive.

Albert 2 is based on the latest Intel technology, one of BMW F1's technical partners. It has 256 nodes with two Xeon 5160 processors each, and each of these has two cores. This results in a total of 1024 cores. The capacity of the main memory is 2048 gigabytes (th maximum computing power is 12,288 gigaflops). In short, this means that Albert 2 is capable of performing 12,288,000,000,000 floating point arithmetic calculations per second..........The super computer consists of a total of 10 racks, each having a width of one metre, a depth of 1.2 metres and a height of 2.3 metres, and a total weight of 21 tons.

Source - Racecar Engineering - Vol17 No03 march 2007

Now Sony may well still be around when the PS-whatever hits these kind of specs (hopefully it will have shrunk a bit as well by then), but I don't think we are going to see it in the short term.

Now while I fully admit Albert 2 is used to calculate CFD data, it does give you an idea of the scale of systems used in the motorsport and motor industry to handle truly realistic data. After all while it may cost the same as a small countries national debt to buy one of these, its still cheaper and quicker to use that building and crashing actual cars. Manufactures now use FEA modelling to carry out almost all the early design and crashtesting of vehicles, with many modern cars only getting 'real' crash tests very late in the development cycle. If they are going to do that, in no way will they take risks in the accuracy of the data.

Here's a paper that looks at the level of system required to carry out crash-test simulations.....

http://www.erexi.com.tw/solutions/scali_crash_analysis.pdf

...the company in question do work for...

• Audi
• BMW
• Daimler Chrysler
• Jaguar Racing
• Peugeot Citroen
• Rolls Royce

...and as the paper says, thats what is required for overnight processing of a single model. It would be great if we were close to this kind of thing, but in reality we are still quite a long way from it indeed.


Regards

Scaff

 

[Biggles]

Originally Posted by harrytuttle
Are you forgetting that we used to be stuck with this not too long ago? Time and determination are no match for what is currently considered impossible. I'm not expecting it next year, but certainly before Sony goes bankrupt.

Nope I'm not forgetting things like that at all, its just the leap is far, far bigger than that.

As an example BMW Motorsport has recently bought a new computer to allow it to carry out CFD calculations to support its windtunnel. The specs of Albert 2 (as its the second of its type they own) are rather impressive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Racecar Engineering
Albert 2 is based on the latest Intel technology, one of BMW F1's technical partners. It has 256 nodes with two Xeon 5160 processors each, and each of these has two cores. This results in a total of 1024 cores. The capacity of the main memory is 2048 gigabytes (th maximum computing power is 12,288 gigaflops). In short, this means that Albert 2 is capable of performing 12,288,000,000,000 floating point arithmetic calculations per second..........The super computer consists of a total of 10 racks, each having a width of one metre, a depth of 1.2 metres and a height of 2.3 metres, and a total weight of 21 tons.
Source - Racecar Engineering - Vol17 No03 march 2007

Now Sony may well still be around when the PS-whatever hits these kind of specs (hopefully it will have shrunk a bit as well by then), but I don't think we are going to see it in the short term.

Now while I fully admit Albert 2 is used to calculate CFD data, it does give you an idea of the scale of systems used in the motorsport and motor industry to handle truly realistic data. After all while it may cost the same as a small countries national debt to buy one of these, its still cheaper and quicker to use that building and crashing actual cars. Manufactures now use FEA modelling to carry out almost all the early design and crashtesting of vehicles, with many modern cars only getting 'real' crash tests very late in the development cycle. If they are going to do that, in no way will they take risks in the accuracy of the data.

Here's a paper that looks at the level of system required to carry out crash-test simulations.....

http://www.erexi.com.tw/solutions/sc...h_analysis.pdf

...the company in question do work for...
Audi
BMW
Daimler Chrysler
Jaguar Racing
Peugeot Citroen
Rolls Royce

...and as the paper says, thats what is required for overnight processing of a single model. It would be great if we were close to this kind of thing, but in reality we are still quite a long way from it indeed.


Regards

Scaff

oops! For a moment there I thought I had logged in to GeekPlanet instead of GTPlanet...

 

[FoolKiller]

oops! For a moment there I thought I had logged in to GeekPlanet instead of GTPlanet...

Be nice. That is a big deal for car guys to understand that car development has taken on a whole new technical aspect. I mean you have guys doing wind tunnel testing and working out drag coefficients without ever building a prototype, saving millions of dollars.

His whole point is that only now car designers have reached the ability to get the kind of simulations fans demand in video games and they probably paid $600 million as opposed to $600. Instead of us whining about not having everything simulated that we think should be maybe we should just wonder what it will be like on a PS9.

 

[Stevisiov]

oops! For a moment there I thought I had logged in to GeekPlanet instead of GTPlanet...

Not clever.

 

[Scaff]

Be nice. That is a big deal for car guys to understand that car development has taken on a whole new technical aspect. I mean you have guys doing wind tunnel testing and working out drag coefficients without ever building a prototype, saving millions of dollars.

His whole point is that only now car designers have reached the ability to get the kind of simulations fans demand in video games and they probably paid $600 million as opposed to $600. Instead of us whining about not having everything simulated that we think should be maybe we should just wonder what it will be like on a PS9.

Thank you 👍

oops! For a moment there I thought I had logged in to GeekPlanet instead of GTPlanet...

I'm sorry, do you have some kind of problem with people supporting a point with a thought-out post that contains sourced references? May I ask exactly what your comment added to the discussion, aside from a remarkably rude tone?

Not clever.

Good job I'm a nice person really, and that contrary to belief the mods are not a blood-thirsty lot (well apart from daan - but he's just a meanie - and he knows it).


Regards

Scaff

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm sorry, do you have some kind of problem with people supporting a point with a thought-out post that contains sourced references? May I ask exactly what your comment added to the discussion, aside from a remarkably rude tone?

I don't know if he was trying to be rude, so much as that was a lot of statistical data for non-computer people to process. I had to reread it to uncross my eyes, but then I stare at spreadsheets all day so crossed eyes are a natural reaction to lots of data.

Besides, whenever I get called a geek I just visit Think Geek and tell myself Geek is cool and that it was a compliment. I even have a hoodie that says geek.

 

[Biggles]

I don't know if he was trying to be rude, so much as that was a lot of statistical data for non-computer people to process.

Exactly...

 

[Scaff]

Exactly...

Which is why I posed my reply as a question and took no action until you had a chance to reply. Now you have its not an issue, but I'm sure you must be more than aware that putting a 'tone' to the written word is always a problem.

No harm - no foul.

Besides I have no problem with being called a geek (proud to wear that badge), and what can I expect with some of the threads I've started (biggles if you think this post is geektastic then think again and have a read of this or this or this).

I love automotive engineering 👍

Scaff

 

[Biggles]

Besides I have no problem with being called a geek

I have a profound admiration for Geeks - they are changing our world one terraflop at a time (I don't actually know what that means...)

But I like to think of myself as more of a macho, "man-of-action" type, as created & immortalized by the great Cap'n W.E.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Good job I'm a nice person really, and that contrary to belief the mods are not a blood-thirsty lot (well apart from daan - but he's just a meanie - and he knows it).


Regards

Scaff

I don't know daan well (oh dear, shouldn't have said that ) , I don't use 95% of the existing GTP forums and I don't know 99% of existing users, but I know you (as a GTP user and mod) and that you're a nice guy and a great debater 👍

 

[Wolfe]

I know you (as a GTP user and mod) and that you're a nice guy and a master debater 👍

Fixed.

I have a profound admiration for Geeks - they are changing our world one terraflop at a time (I don't actually know what that means...)

One teraFLOPS is 1,000,000,000,000 Floating Point Operations Per Second. "Floating point" is a system of representing numbers in computing.

 

[Biggles]

Thank you Wolfe for the clarification.

 

[redline]

It's actually an effect from the still shot. Increasing exposure gives drama to the pics.

no it's not, i've seen videos online and the brakes look like the neon signs you see outside bars, and it was an HD Feed i was watching, gotta be honest GT4 looked better, more realistic.

 

[harrytuttle]

Nope I'm not forgetting things like that at all, its just the leap is far, far bigger than that.

As an example BMW Motorsport has recently bought a new computer to allow it to carry out CFD calculations to support its windtunnel. The specs of Albert 2 (as its the second of its type they own) are rather impressive.

I suppose that's nice and all, and it's hardly something I'm unaware of, but how much is necessary to just enjoy the game? As it is now, I'm sure there could be some acceptable damage model (for GT5, for example) that's far superior to what Forza does, and it would do Polyphony a lot of good to explore that route. What you're talking about not only takes a few hours to render, but also requires mountains of data & programming that takes months if not years to acquire. How much time and money should game developers be putting into a driving sim? How much can they expect to return having done all that, having created a game that's actually a challenge to play? Sony has a blockbuster with Gran Turismo, but even I can't see them putting in an extra month or two per car just to determine the proper crash simulation data.

Of course, if you're looking for a true driving/crashing simulator, then I guess only true accuracy will do...however accurate a computer model can be. There's a reason cars still undergo physical crash tests.

I'd be happy enough with something that can model a broken front suspension by folding the wheel under.

 

[Dave A]

I don't think you understand Scaffs point there, he was pointing out why Damage of that level isn't feasible in a racing game not just now, but in the near future. Not that he'll accept that level of simulation and nothing less.

 

[Tenacious D]

After my 360 Elite broke yesterday (saturday) and going back to Gran Turismo 4, it's just amazing how many things GT4 still has on the antiquated PS2 over the quantum-leap superior (if unreliable) XBox360 and Forza 2. This bodes some gut grabbing stuff when even GT5 Prologue comes out.

The first time I went back to GT after quitting Forza 1, I kept thinking regretfully how cool it would be to race modify and paint the cars I was modding, but when it came time to hit the track, suddenly I didn't mind so much. Forza 2 is such an improvement and I've barely gone into it at a 20% completion so I haven't had a chance to get jaded as I did with Forza 1. But GT4 is still so good that I still don't miss it that much.

I do feel a bit stupid that I bought a 360 first. It should always be the second console purchased.

 

[Joey D]

While Forza does not look as good, have as many cars, or as many tracks the one thing that it does do better then GT is the physics, which to me is really all that matters.

I also enjoy that you don't have to use race cars for a majority of the races like you did in GT.

 

[Scaff]

I suppose that's nice and all, and it's hardly something I'm unaware of, but how much is necessary to just enjoy the game? As it is now, I'm sure there could be some acceptable damage model (for GT5, for example) that's far superior to what Forza does, and it would do Polyphony a lot of good to explore that route. What you're talking about not only takes a few hours to render, but also requires mountains of data & programming that takes months if not years to acquire. How much time and money should game developers be putting into a driving sim? How much can they expect to return having done all that, having created a game that's actually a challenge to play? Sony has a blockbuster with Gran Turismo, but even I can't see them putting in an extra month or two per car just to determine the proper crash simulation data.

Of course, if you're looking for a true driving/crashing simulator, then I guess only true accuracy will do...however accurate a computer model can be. There's a reason cars still undergo physical crash tests.

I'd be happy enough with something that can model a broken front suspension by folding the wheel under.

Hold on a second and go back and actually read all of my posts on this subject. I have not said that I want this level of detail and simulation in a game at all (in fact in a reply to Wolfe I clearly stated that I did not, simply that I wanted to see more than was currently present in sims/games), and I then made the point that the current generation of consoles and PCs would not be capable of a full simulation anyway...

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?

...I don't believe that at any point in that did I say I would not accept anything less that a true simulation. After all I quite clearly state that its not possible.

However one thing you did say was..

Having tried to follow this discussion, I think going down the "realistic damage" route starts to turn the game into a crash simulator, rather than a driving simulator. Until IIHS and NCAP turn over their terabytes of data to coordinate with the terabytes of data from the manufacturers, a truly accurate crash model just isn't going to happen. It's not a matter of computing power, because what's only possible on a supercomputer today will be a Playstation game tomorrow.

...now the main point is highlighted in bold, in which you quite clearly dispute that the issue is not computing power, in fact prior to that you state that the issue would be obtaining the raw data (a point you note I don't actually dispute). Now my post simply clarified that processing (or computer if you prefer the term) power is indeed a rather large part of the problem with a console having a 'real' damage simulation. It would also seem that your last post actually contradicts your original point in this matter as well.


For the last time I do not want, nor am I calling for a 100% accurate damage model in any driving/racing sim; for the very reasons that I originally pointed out (that consoles are not going to be capable of it for a very long time) and that manufacturers would not agree even if the console was capable. All I'm asking for is something better that what we currently have been offered.


Regards

Scaff

 

[l2ounD]

While Forza does not look as good, have as many cars, or as many tracks the one thing that it does do better then GT is the physics, which to me is really all that matters.

I also enjoy that you don't have to use race cars for a majority of the races like you did in GT.

the bold part is whats missing, i think to make forza compete with gt

physics doesnt really matter to me, I think both are really fun to play. To me Forza has an oversteer problem and GT has an understeer problem. but like I said not really important to me as I think both play great.

Ive been playing a lot of forza but looking back at all the content gt4 had, makes me appreciate the hard work PD did on the game. all the different type of cars, from classics to formula1... and different tracks, from circuit to snow and dirt.

 

[redline]

While Forza does not look as good, have as many cars, or as many tracks the one thing that it does do better then GT is the physics, which to me is really all that matters.

I also enjoy that you don't have to use race cars for a majority of the races like you did in GT.

Well i guess the physics question depends on who you ask, i personally think GT4 is more realistic.

 

[Dave A]

Actually, no, it doesn't depend on who you ask. The key word in your comment is "think", at the end of the day one is more realsitic than the other and that's regardless of what you or I think. Take note that I'm not actually putting either game forwards, I think both have good and bad points. However, I didn't feel that GT4 felt very realistic, and that was using the DFP and simulation tyres. I can tell you what GT4 get's wrong more than I can Forza 2, but that may have more to do with experience and seeing and taking part in lenthy debates regarding it's accuracy.

 

[Joey D]

Forza is not without it's short comings for sure, but I tend to feel the physics are better even though the graphics, car selection, and track selection aren't.

Forza is better the GT in the following ways:
- Sound
- Physics
- Has damage

 

[scandisk]

Forza is not without it's short comings for sure, but I tend to feel the physics are better even though the graphics, car selection, and track selection aren't.

Forza is better the GT in the following ways:
- Sound
- Physics
- Has damage

Using the term PHYSICS is quite general. I quite agree though, FM is better in this department(overall), e.g. damage modelling, tire physics, weight transfer(compared to GT4).

 

[Joey D]

I meant it in a general way, there are parts of Forza that lack in the physics shut as the weight transfer as people have pointed out, but overall the physics are better then the GT series. Although I have not played GT:HD so I can't say it's better then every GT game.

 

[FoolKiller]

I meant it in a general way, there are parts of Forza that lack in the physics shut as the weight transfer as people have pointed out, but overall the physics are better then the GT series. Although I have not played GT:HD so I can't say it's better then every GT game.

I can tell you that GT:HD has improved on their lack of oversteer. In fact my very first lap I went into a curve too sharp and my back end went around on me, leaving me wondering what was going on. I actually stopped after a spin because I didn't think to correct the oversteer after not having to very often for teh past few years.

Having not played FM2 I can't give a comparison.