FM Vs GT - Discussion Thread (read the first post before you post)

[Scaff]

The following may be of interest....



Its the final approach to the corkscrew and while the angles are not exactly the same, its close enough to be of interest.

First off the purple markers are in place simply to check that trackside objects are of a similar height to make any observations and discussions worthwhile.

For me the two key areas are:

Red lines:
These are at exactly the same angle and length and a clear difference can be seen between the real track and the GT5 one, with the drop appearing to not be steep enough in GT5. The line ends on top of the trackside wall, while in reality it should be slightly below the wall.

The area circled in green seems to me to clearly show a wall and runoff area that is dropping down to the left as it follows the track, in GT5 this is completely level.

Now, as I mentioned above a margin for error will always exist in these comparisons, however as these two areas join, it does point to a potential issue with the corkscrew in GT5 (the first part at least) not being as steep or as rapid a drop as it should be.

Edited to add:

Just did another quick one, this time the hill leading up to the corkscrew. In this image I have taken the two and laid them on top of each other. The right hand side of the track lines up almost perfectly (the two black lines are the top of the trackside wall so we do have a camera height difference), as does the blue and white rumble strip on the left. However a major difference can be seen by following the line of the left hand track edge.

The real footage curves to the left, while the GT5 footage curves to the right, and this would not be caused by the difference in camera height, nor a difference in focal length of lens in the cameras (the difference in focal length here are not that great anyway - the right wall and rumble strip line up clearly shows that).

This one to me is not a minor difference, but quite a significant one, however if anyone can offer a logical explanation (I'm a trained photographer so I know that perspective and focal length would not be the cause) I would be interested to know. I have also checked FM4 and it doesn't follow the correct line for this part of the track either, its not as far out as the GT5 image seems to imply, but its not right either.






Discuss


Scaff

 

[McLaren]

I also find this very offensive and have come to the conclusion that you are not a GT fan. When a fan of series wishes the creator of that series to be gone he is not a true fan.

You speak of him being ignorant, yet you present the viewpoint that the creator of a series will always know best & that people are not fans if they believe he has lost his touch & need be replaced?

How absurd. Here's a quick lesson in the business world & yes, it applies to Polyphony as it is a company like any other; when a board or group believes the head of the company is no longer fit to run said company, it is usually done in the best interest of the company, not that they are not loyal to the business creator.

In this instance, while Kaz. can not be removed by any of us, it is still Vaxxtx presenting a valid opinion on why he believes Kaz should step aside in the best interest of GT, as if he was board member of the Polyphony. He is not insulting Kaz. or implying the series sucks, he's just presenting a viewpoint that Kaz. may need to rethink how he manages this series.


I apologize in advance that the post isn't a GT vs. FM debate-post, but I'm amazed GT6mebe continues to present his very apparent bias for GT as some sort of valid response to others.

 

[Fat Old Sun]

Turn 1 - Run off too big

The effect, I believe, could be blamed on differences in bumper angle.

Turn 2 - Completely flat, real video shows camber quite clearly

Don't see the difference, it appears to be the same for both cams.

Turn 3 - Grandstands completely wrong, missing absolutely every piece of enviromental detail on the right immediately after the turn. Also missing an escape road on the right just before the bridge.

Granstands are off. I don't see it as a big deal.

Turn 4 - barrier on the inside waaay too close to the road.

Seems fine to me.

Turn 5 - Ignoring the magical gutter/drain thing that is clearly not there in the real video, turn 5 clearly does not have enough camber compared to the real one, not a myth, fact. Look how the real car is fighting on the exit but the GT5 one stays completely calm and serene like nothing was there.

I see no problem with the camber here.

Straight bit - Wall is way too close to the track, should be gravel, isn't.

I wouldn't say it's "way too closer". Appears to be just fine.

Corkscrew entry - I am sorry but until I saw this video I never realised how off this hill was, its not even going the same direction and isn't close to the real elevation. GT5 has a random dip that clearly is not there irl.

Now i'll give you the dip. Are we sure the dip wasn't there when the track was mapped by PD though?

Turn 7 - Barrier on the right too close to the track, again, wrong camber.

No problems with camber here either.

Turn 8 - Unusually here it seems there is too much camber on GT5, so wrong camber again.

As well as here.

Final corner - Wrong angle for the turn, exit barrier too close.

Here you are absolutely wrong, are we watching the same video? Angle is pitch perfect.

GT5 also seems too narrow in some parts and too wide in others and don't get me started on how inaccurate the enviroment is, grass everywhere, missing entire buildings, landscapes and areas.

To me it seems like a sweeping statement, with little to do with reality. What does appear to me also, is that you are reaching waaaay to deep to prove something that is simply not there. I disagree with nearly every point in your analisys.

 

[FyreandIce]

And in that process the "simulation" aspect of the game gets destroyed. Let alone the "track realism" that some praise Forza for. Let it be clear then - Forza 4 gives you real world experience on a track within white lines. Whatever lies beyond - is pure phantasy - as we all know quite well - on a real track cars never dare to put a wheel over a curb or even worse - touch the grass.

So we have a "simulated" environment where some (player) get to drive a phantasy obstacle course brought to you by Turn 10, an others (AI) gets to use grass as if it was tarmac. And then we get unsupported claims of "missing camber" in GT5. I, personally, find it a bit amusing.

You should really try actually playing Forza because it's quite obvious you have never actually done so no matter how much you try to claim you have.

The only "phantasy" (spelt Fantasy...) in going off the track in FM4 is when it can be done in a matter which gives you an advantage in lap times. Other than that it is quiet realistic. And no, dropping one tyre into the dirt for a tenth of a second does not automatically equal an uncatchable deathspin.

And I'd love to know where the A.I get to use the grass as tarmac. The A.I is bound by the same physics you are. If the A.I hit sticky grass, they get slowed down as much as you do.

So please, actually play the game before you try to act as an authority on it.

 

[Vaxxtx]

You speak of him being ignorant, yet you present the viewpoint that the creator of a series will always know best & that people are not fans if they believe he has lost his touch & need be replaced?

How absurd. Here's a quick lesson in the business world & yes, it applies to Polyphony as it is a company like any other; when a board or group believes the head of the company is no longer fit to run said company, it is usually done in the best interest of the company, not that they are not loyal to the business creator.

In this instance, while Kaz. can not be removed by any of us, it is still Vaxxtx presenting a valid opinion on why he believes Kaz should step aside in the best interest of GT, as if he was board member of the Polyphony. He is not insulting Kaz. or implying the series sucks, he's just presenting a viewpoint that Kaz. may need to rethink how he manages this series.


I apologize in advance that the post isn't a GT vs. FM debate-post, but I'm amazed GT6mebe continues to present his very apparent bias for GT as some sort of valid response to others.

Thanks for putting in in a way that I couldnt. Thats exactaly my point.

To me it seems like a sweeping statement, with little to do with reality. What does appear to me also, is that you are reaching waaaay to deep to prove something that is simply not there. I disagree with nearly every point in your analisys.

No surpirse. Even though people have gone over the track, just as you asked them to do. Nothing will change your mind. And yet, you have not shown otherwise in your case that it is perfect.

Also I do believe you get more credit if you give some folks your gamer tag. If nothing else it would be cool to add more people for rivals.

 

[Fat Old Sun]

You should really try actually playing Forza because it's quite obvious you have never actually done so no matter how much you try to claim you have.

The only "phantasy" (spelt Fantasy...) in going off the track in FM4 is when it can be done in a matter which gives you an advantage in lap times. Other than that it is quiet realistic.

Let me guess... "Quiet" spells quite? Oh the irony...

And I'd love to know where the A.I get to use the grass as tarmac. The A.I is bound by the same physics you are. If the A.I hit sticky grass, they get slowed down as much as you do.

You can ask here:
http://f-wheel.com/forums/index.php?topic=1203.msg7653#msg7653

Or here:
http://forums.forzamotorsport.net/forums/permalink/5118541/4992966/ShowThread.aspx#4992966

There's another option as well, you can actually easily reproduce it on your own.

 

[FyreandIce]

This one to me is not a minor difference, but quite a significant one, however if anyone can offer a logical explanation (I'm a trained photographer so I know that perspective and focal length would not be the cause) I would be interested to know. I have also checked FM4 and it doesn't follow the correct line for this part of the track either, its not as far out as the GT5 image seems to imply, but its not right either.






Discuss


Scaff

Logical explanation incoming.

The track model is anything but accurate.

The track turning right when it should be going left is worse than anything that is wrong with the FM nurb model.

Let me guess... "Quiet" spells quite? Oh the irony...

Quite =/= Quiet.

Try again.

 

[tribolik]

Well Im glad the people that play Forza found the inaccuracies with that track and hope that more people start to complaining about it on the internet... because Im sure that way it will get fixed... Im not so sure about the Ring on Forza though... people have been complaining for a few years now and it is still the same model they used in FM3.

 

[Fat Old Sun]

The following may be of interest....



Its the final approach to the corkscrew and while the angles are not exactly the same, its close enough to be of interest.

First off the purple markers are in place simply to check that trackside objects are of a similar height to make any observations and discussions worthwhile.

For me the two key areas are:

Red lines:
These are at exactly the same angle and length and a clear difference can be seen between the real track and the GT5 one, with the drop appearing to not be steep enough in GT5. The line ends on top of the trackside wall, while in reality it should be slightly below the wall.

The slight angle difference could also be attributed to the fact that the camera in a real car is outside the cockpit, higher from the ground and appears to be slightly tilted. I see what you are saying but that shot is not quite conclusive.

Edited to add:

Just did another quick one, this time the hill leading up to the corkscrew. In this image I have taken the two and laid them on top of each other. The right hand side of the track lines up almost perfectly (the two black lines are the top of the trackside wall so we do have a camera height difference), as does the blue and white rumble strip on the left. However a major difference can be seen by following the line of the left hand track edge.

The real footage curves to the left, while the GT5 footage curves to the right, and this would not be caused by the difference in camera height, nor a difference in focal length of lens in the cameras (the difference in focal length here are not that great anyway - the right wall and rumble strip line up clearly shows that).

This one to me is not a minor difference, but quite a significant one, however if anyone can offer a logical explanation (I'm a trained photographer so I know that perspective and focal length would not be the cause) I would be interested to know. I have also checked FM4 and it doesn't follow the correct line for this part of the track either, its not as far out as the GT5 image seems to imply, but its not right either.






Discuss


Scaff

I clearly see the difference in the second shot as well. I do wonder though if that difference could be attributed to changes that were made to the track in recent years? Quick peek at the Laguna's wikipedia page reveals following:

The track itself has undergone significant changes over the past two decades to meet evolving safety homologation requirements of the Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme (FIM), Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) and other sanctioning bodies. Changes include the addition of the entire infield area in 1988 (present day turns 3, 4, and 5, eliminating the straight that started at present day turn 2 and ended at present day turn 5) extending the track from its original 1.9-mile (3.1 km) length to meet the minimum-track-length criteria of the FIM for MotoGP events, plus the more recent relocation of pedestrian bridges and embankments, and the expansion of gravel pits outside turns 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 for additional runoff. The original media center was demolished in 2006 to make way for additional run-off room in Turn 1. Also in 2006, the 'hump' at the top of the Rahal Straight was flattened to accommodate the MotoGP riders, though some claim that this increases the wind effects that can perturb a race motorcycle.

It is quite often claimed on these boards that GT5's Laguna is a carryover from previous titles. That would explain minor differences in the track layout that surely are present due to the Laguna changing with time.

 

[Terronium-12]

Well Im glad the people that play Forza found the inaccuracies with that track and hope that more people start to complaining about it on the internet... because Im sure that way it will get fixed... Im not so sure about the Ring on Forza though... people have been complaining for a few years now and it is still the same model they used in FM3.

No it isn't. At least I don't think.

 

[Fat Old Sun]

Quite =/= Quiet.

Try again.

Well, did you actually read the article you posted the link to?

 

[tribolik]

No it isn't. At least I don't think.

Texture wise, color wise and lightning may lead you to beleave it isnt but then again Im not the best person to talk about the evolution of the tracks from Forza games. unfortunatly

 

[Tornado]

No it isn't. At least I don't think.

As I understand it, they have retextured it for each game but they are still using the mesh that was put together for PGR.

 

[Terronium-12]

Texture wise, color wise and lightning may lead you to beleave it isnt but then again Im not the best person to talk about the evolution of the tracks from Forza games. unfortunatly

I'll do a comparison between 2, 3, and 4 and report back. I doubt it's been the same throughout the series though.

As I understand it, they have retextured it for each game but they are still using the mesh that was put together for PGR.

Hm. Wonder if they'll ever bother (or perhaps be permitted) to accurately model it.

 

[Scaff]

The slight angle difference could also be attributed to the fact that the camera in a real car is outside the cockpit, higher from the ground and appears to be slightly tilted. I see what you are saying but that shot is not quite conclusive.

As I said myself none of this is 100% conclusive.

However the angle difference may be slight (around 1 to 2 degrees), but it doesn't take more than a couple of degrees to make a massive difference to the camber of a corner or the steepness of a hill.

I clearly see the difference in the second shot as well. I do wonder though if that difference could be attributed to changes that were made to the track in recent years? Quick peek at the Laguna's wikipedia page reveals following:

The track itself has undergone significant changes over the past two decades to meet evolving safety homologation requirements of the Fédération Internationale de Motocyclisme (FIM), Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) and other sanctioning bodies. Changes include the addition of the entire infield area in 1988 (present day turns 3, 4, and 5, eliminating the straight that started at present day turn 2 and ended at present day turn 5) extending the track from its original 1.9-mile (3.1 km) length to meet the minimum-track-length criteria of the FIM for MotoGP events, plus the more recent relocation of pedestrian bridges and embankments, and the expansion of gravel pits outside turns 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 for additional runoff. The original media center was demolished in 2006 to make way for additional run-off room in Turn 1. Also in 2006, the 'hump' at the top of the Rahal Straight was flattened to accommodate the MotoGP riders, though some claim that this increases the wind effects that can perturb a race motorcycle.

It is quite often claimed on these boards that GT5's Laguna is a carryover from previous titles. That would explain minor differences in the track layout that surely are present due to the Laguna changing with time.

I personally believe that a good number of the differences are down to the GT model being based on an older version of the track, this isn't a minor difference however, it seems to be a change in profile in the first part of the corner in the distance.

What it also does change is that you have repeatedly stated that no difference existed at all with the real footage in the above video (shot in 2011) and the GT5 footage (which you agree may be based on the track as it was prior to 2006).

You have been blindly dismissive of the feedback others (one of whom has been to the track and noted this difference), being more open to the opinion of others will I assure you make for a much happier membership here at GTP.

Scaff

 

[MagpieRacer]

The effect, I believe, could be blamed on differences in bumper angle.
Don't see the difference, it appears to be the same for both cams.
Granstands are off. I don't see it as a big deal.
Seems fine to me.
I see no problem with the camber here.
I wouldn't say it's "way too closer". Appears to be just fine.
Now i'll give you the dip. Are we sure the dip wasn't there when the track was mapped by PD though?
No problems with camber here either.
As well as here.
Here you are absolutely wrong, are we watching the same video? Angle is pitch perfect.
To me it seems like a sweeping statement, with little to do with reality. What does appear to me also, is that you are reaching waaaay to deep to prove something that is simply not there. I disagree with nearly every point in your analisys.

I can't see how your failing to acknowledge the missing cambers and incorrect corner modelling.

This discussion can't go on because you won't admit theres big issues with the track.

 

[Fat Old Sun]

As I said myself none of this is 100% conclusive.

However the angle difference may be slight (around 1 to 2 degrees), but it doesn't take more than a couple of degrees to make a massive difference to the camber of a corner or the steepness of a hill.

The difference in camera placement would stop any objective person from reaching the conclusion you are insisting on. I see a big difference in the camera angle as well as distance to the ground. And it explains perfectly the slight discrepancy present in your shot. Moreover, as i've stated before, i have checked it in the game, and the camber is there.

I personally believe that a good number of the differences are down to the GT model being based on an older version of the track, this isn't a minor difference however, it seems to be a change in profile in the first part of the corner in the distance.

The bump that has been reworked in 2006 leads into the corner in the distance. You asked for a logical explanation? You got it. Do we have any reason to believe that the profile you mentioned didn't look exactly like that prior to 2006?

What it also does change is that you have repeatedly stated that no difference existed at all with the real footage in the above video (shot in 2011) and the GT5 footage (which you agree may be based on the track as it was prior to 2006).

Wrong. I have agreed that there's a problem with the Rahal Straight:

Corkscrew entry - I am sorry but until I saw this video I never realised how off this hill was, its not even going the same direction and isn't close to the real elevation. GT5 has a random dip that clearly is not there irl.

Now i'll give you the dip. Are we sure the dip wasn't there when the track was mapped by PD though?

I have acknowledged there was a problem with the track leading up to corckscrew. You obviously are skipping through my posts. Please read them in their entirety before accusing me of blind fanboism.

being more open to the opinion of others will I assure you make for a much happier membership here at GTP.

I'm quite happy, thank you very much. I, however, would like to remind you, that we all got opinions, but some of us (not me of course) also got an agenda that might cloud said opinions. So my suggestion to bring some concrete evidence to the discussion could only be viewed as a positive thing, and lead to discoveries (such as the wikipedia article explaining differences in Rahal Straight's depiction) that dispel myths.

I can't see how your failing to acknowledge the missing cambers and incorrect corner modelling.

This discussion can't go on because you won't admit theres big issues with the track.

My opinion based on the video is different from yours. I could say you have a problem admitting that as well.

 

[MagpieRacer]

It's not opinion from my angle, I am pointing out obvious deficiencies in GT5's version of the track.

 

[Scaff]

The difference in camera placement would stop any objective person from reaching the conclusion you are insisting on. I see a big difference in the camera angle as well as distance to the ground. And it explains perfectly the slight discrepancy present in your shot. Moreover, as i've stated before, i have checked it in the game, and the camber is there.

I've not insisted on any position or opinion at all, quite the opposite.

What I do find strange is that I have clearly said:

Its the final approach to the corkscrew and while the angles are not exactly the same, its close enough to be of interest.

and

Now, as I mentioned above a margin for error will always exist in these comparisons

and

As I said myself none of this is 100% conclusive.

....now if I was being insistent I don't think I would have phrased it in that manner at all. Quite frankly I think the above is a more than objective approach.

Oh and in keeping with your own standards, would you please provide concrete proof of the following:

i have checked it in the game, and the camber is there.

The bump that has been reworked in 2006 leads into the corner in the distance. You asked for a logical explanation? You got it. Do we have any reason to believe that the profile you mentioned didn't look exactly like that prior to 2006?

The corner profile may well have been that way pre-2006, I've never suggested otherwise (in fact quite the opposite).

Wrong. I have agreed that there's a problem with the Rahal Straight:

I have acknowledged there was a problem with the track leading up to corckscrew. You obviously are skipping through my posts. Please read them in their entirety before accusing me of blind fanboism.

You acknowledged a bump, not a totally different profile to the start of one of the most famous parts of the track.

I've read the entirely of all your posts and I have also not accused you of blind fanboism at all (and give that I wrote the posting guidelines in the OP I would strongly suggest you stop accusing me of doing so and stop attributing opinions to me I have not made).

I'm quite happy, thank you very much. I, however, would like to remind you, that we all got opinions, but some of us (not me of course) also got an agenda that might cloud said opinions. So my suggestion to bring some concrete evidence to the discussion could only be viewed as a positive thing, and lead to discoveries (such as the wikipedia article explaining differences in Rahal Straight's depiction) that dispel myths.

The different profile on that corner is not an opinion, its clearly observable.

Now if the GT5 is based on the track pre-2006 then most (if not all) of the observations made by others would be correct, as most of them relate to changes to the track from 2006 to last year.

I would also question your perception of having no agenda at all, in my 41 years I have never come across anyone would doesn't have a bias on any given discussion or debate (and as a professional trainer I have plenty of experience in this area). That's simply down to how humans work, you have an agenda, I have an agenda, every single member who posts on here has one. The question is not if we have one (we do and to deny that is pointless), but rather the degree to which we have one and if we are able to acknowledge agenda's that differ from our own.

Right now I have to say that your posting pattern suggests anything but someone without an agenda, given that the only posts you have made during your membership consist of attacking FM's 'ring and defending GT's Laguna Seca.


Scaff

 

[Fat Old Sun]

I've not insisted on any position or opinion at all, quite the opposite.

Looks like we're in total agreement in this case then. I found that comparison shot to be not sufficient enough to draw any conclusion on how something could be present or missing from GT5's depiction of that particular corner.

Oh and in keeping with your own standards, would you please provide concrete proof of the following:

Fat Old Sun
i have checked it in the game, and the camber is there.

You need a proof that i actually fired up the game and run a lap around Laguna Seca?

If you're referring to missing camber, i have two points for you:
a) I have provided the video. With my opinion attached to it. It's just as good as any other "proof" presented in this thread so far.
b) The camber entered this discussion via following post:

"Imaginary problems?"

Like how the GT5 rendition is glass smooth? Like how you can smack into the berms with abandon in the game when Laguna's curbing is notorious for how rough it is in real life? Like how several of the turns in the GT5 rendition are missing their camber entirely, and are instead completely flat (including the left-hander leading into the corkscrew)? The runoff areas that aren't remotely similar to each other? The elevation changes aren't anything like the ones in real life?

Those imaginary problems?

I've bolded the part in question for you. Any other proof with anything but a 3rd party video and an opinion, would have to originate from a person who made the original statement. I disagree with his statement. And rightly so.

The corner profile may well have been that way pre-2006, I've never suggested otherwise (in fact quite the opposite).

Great, another mutual agreement.

You acknowledged a bump, not a totally different profile to the start of one of the most famous parts of the track.

I've acknowledged the problem with that part of the track to a degree that he suggested the problem existed. I also agreed with your assessment of the problem with the same part of the track. I can't see how that can be read as "being dismissive of other opinions".

I've read the entirely of all your posts and I have also not accused you of blind fanboism at all (and give that I wrote the posting guidelines in the OP I would strongly suggest you stop accusing me of doing so and stop attributing opinions to me I have not made).

You have however put the integrity of my posts in question by suggesting that i "have been blindly dismissive of the feedback others". Which is completely untrue.

Now if the GT5 is based on the track pre-2006 then most (if not all) of the observations made by others would be correct, as most of them relate to changes to the track from 2006 to last year.

I would say not most, but some. To which degree i agreed (missing or moved track side objects, slight differences in wall placements).

And that brings me to the point i've been trying to make. It is wrong to bring up GT5's Laguna as a counterpoint to criticism leveled at Turn 10 for their buthchering of Nurb (cue appropriate quote). Nothing has been brought up that suggests downright sloppiness on PD's part versus changes that naturally happened as the track kept evolving.

I would also question your perception of having no agenda at all, in my 41 years I have never come across anyone would doesn't have a bias on any given discussion or debate (and as a professional trainer I have plenty of experience in this area). That's simply down to how humans work, you have an agenda, I have an agenda, every single member who posts on here has one. The question is not if we have one (we do and to deny that is pointless), but rather the degree to which we have one and if we are able to acknowledge agenda's that differ from our own.

Here i have to apologize, i didn't mean to imply that i am free of any agenda. That was an attempt for a joke, self irony, if you will.

Right now I have to say that your posting pattern suggests anything but someone without an agenda, given that the only posts you have made during your membership consist of attacking FM's 'ring and defending GT's Laguna Seca.

So far my posting pattern suggests that i have a problem with Laguna Seca being an example of PD's negligence in the treatment of real world tracks on the level of Turn 10. Nothing more, nothing less. My entries to the the discussions are evidenced here and here. I have questioned the validity of an argument of certain posters insisting that PD is guilty of the same sins to the same degree as Turn 10 is when it comes to track modeling.

Another point. Even though i have mentioned Forza's Nurb has nothing to do with real world, be it past present or future, i have never passed the judgement on how i view Forza 4 as a game, and nothing should suggest me being in an "anti Forza" camp. My objectivity in this particular debate remains neutral.

I also would like to ask you. Is it really necessary to bring up my posting pattern to this discussion? Cause there's a goldmine of information me and you can dig up on other participants of this thread by looking at their posting patterns. Specifically ones who might have labeled me as a "raging moron".

 

[Terronium-12]

I also would like to ask you. Is it really necessary to bring up my posting pattern to this discussion? Cause there's a goldmine of information me and you can dig up on other participants of this thread by looking at their posting patterns. Specifically ones who might have labeled me as a "raging moron".

I corrected you on this once before but my post was deleted for reasons I can understand, but since you insist on making a point out of absolutely nothing, I'll say it once more:

1. I never called you a moron, did you somehow misread "Example:"?
2. Don't put words in my mouth - that's the second time you've done it today.

I'll leave 3 and 4 out as they're likely what got the original post deleted the first time. Now, you can search through the post all you want to and leverage my use of the pronoun "you" to your heart's content but I'm not going to edit my post simply because you feel attacked, or are attempting to sway the subject to something irrelevant.

 

[Northstar]

Just trying some of the seasonals and it made me realize why I put GT5 on the shelf for as long as it was. The A.I. is completely braindead, at least they were able to avoid me after I got spun out twice by their being unaware of my existence while moving.

Forza 4 isn't much better, but at least the A.I. will give a little breathing room before taking you out.

Really is a shame that we can't have a console game with good A.I. and physics.

 

[Fat Old Sun]

Aaaaannd now I invoke Poe's Law.


Nothing to see here people. Go on home.



Also interesting. You got the breakdown you asked for, hastily changed the subject, and are now demanding others do what you have still refused to do.

It seems i've missed this little gem. You've got it all backwards. What i demand is you provide evidence to your claim. You claim camber is missing - show everyone that it does. Everything else is a white noise.

I corrected you on this once before but my post was deleted for reasons I can understand, but since you insist on making a point out of absolutely nothing, I'll say it once more:

1. I never called you a moron, did you somehow misread "Example:"?
2. Don't put words in my mouth - that's the second time you've done it today.

I'll leave 3 and 4 out as they're likely what got the original post deleted the first time. Now, you can search through the post all you want to and leverage my use of the pronoun "you" to your heart's content but I'm not going to edit my post simply because you feel attacked, or are attempting to sway the subject to something irrelevant.

You haven't corrected anything, and i have not put words into your mouth (care to elaborate as to where you think i did)?
In few short posts you managed to call me delusional and described my contributions as something worth to be called a "raging moron" over. I'm not sure which one of your posts got deleted, i might have missed it. In general i don't find your tone as productive to this discussion.

 

[Terronium-12]

You haven't corrected anything, and i have not put words into your mouth (care to elaborate as to where you think i did)?
In few short posts you managed to call me delusional and described my contributions as something worth to be called a "raging moron" over. I'm not sure which one of your posts got deleted, i might have missed it. In general i don't find your tone as productive to this discussion.

I could care less what you find productive to this discussion. And, no, I'm not going to elaborate or point anything out to you - we've seen how utterly useless that's proven to be. As far as this meaningless discussion goes, it's over.

Oh, and you contradicted yourself and double posted.

 

[Fat Old Sun]

I could care less what you find productive to this discussion. And, no, I'm not going to elaborate or point anything out to you - we've seen how utterly useless that's proven to be. As far as this meaningless discussion goes, it's over.

Oh, and you contradicted yourself and double posted.

What we've seen is time after time when, you and especially Toronado, when challenged to substantiate your claims with anything but your priceless opinions, jump on a high horse and ride into the sunset. Alot of show, but little substance.

 

[HighSeasHoMastr]

What we've seen is time after time when, you and especially Toronado, when challenged to substantiate your claims with anything but your priceless opinions, jump on a high horse and ride into the sunset. Alot of show, but little substance.

And you do the exact. same. thing.
Where's your proof that the camber is not, in fact, missing from certain corners on Laguna Seca like Scaff, myself, and multiple others have asked you to provide? Oh, that's right, you don't have any proof except your "priceless opinions" do you?
Pot-Kettle.

 

[Terronium-12]

Easy there, don't forget he's provided several videos with his opinions attached to them.

 

[Fat Old Sun]

And you do the exact. same. thing.
Where's your proof that the camber is not, in fact, missing from certain corners on Laguna Seca like Scaff, myself, and multiple others have asked you to provide? Oh, that's right, you don't have any proof except your "priceless opinions" do you?
Pot-Kettle.

You're quite correct! I've never made it a mistery that i use the same evidence as everyone else! But here's the thing. The burden of proof lies on the party making claims (hello there Toronado), not on someone who happens to disagree. Especially when we all, i'm sure, own GT5 and are capable of firing up Laguna, drive up to the corner in question and seeing for ourselves. Which i did, and someone like Toronado most likely didn't, hence his outrageous claims.

Easy there, don't forget he's provided several videos with his opinions attached to them.

Funny thing, he didn't. Somebody else did, and Toronado simply jumped to the opportunity. He can't be bothered to hold anyone's hand, remember?

Besides, aren't we done here?

 

[Fat Old Sun]

Deleted while i read up on double posting rules.

 

[Tornado]

It seems i've missed this little gem. You've got it all backwards. What i demand is you provide evidence to your claim. You claim camber is missing - show everyone that it does. Everything else is a white noise.

Look everyone: It's that guy who isn't dismissive of everyone's opinions.


I suggest you step away from the backhoe before the hole you've dug collapses on itself. You're opening doors you shouldn't be opening, both because it makes you massively hypocritical and because you were told by Scaff to stop opening them.

What we've seen is time after time when, you and especially Toronado, when challenged to substantiate your claims with anything but your priceless opinions, jump on a high horse and ride into the sunset. Alot of show, but little substance.

I can't imagine why I decided that spending the time to debate this with you (which I specifically cited as being the reason I wasn't going to bother) would have been a waste of my time.