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

[Spagetti69]

All that details were never publicited in GT games like are in Forza(active aero, tire physics, Hz, etc), most times the simulation details are only revealed when someone ask directly to Kaz for it in interviews. Some people assume that if is not known or shown in a menu is because do not exist and that's wrong.

I shouldn't have to twitter Kaz to find out my tire temps.

It may have things under the hood but a good telemetry system where engineers can get info dependant upon driving style is important too.

I'm not bashing GT I think the pure driving physics are great.

Airborne and collisions physics for me, is where GT needs to improve.

 

[Luminis]

Like I've said before this is really the only thing left for GT5 to hang it's hat on but even this is subjective.

My point exactly.

You mean visually? It's obvious that GT5 tyre simulation take in account a lot of unadvertised things wich are not represented visually. For example in the replays you can see the pressure of the tyres compressing in bumps but the tyre is not see deforming in real time, it clips in the ground and bounce according to the weight applied.

Is it? Because, frankly, you're just making assumptions here. And I dare say that, given how much PD did brag about, well, anything really, if the physics engine of all things would do a lot of things they would keep silent about.

All that details were never publicited in GT games like are in Forza(active aero, tire physics, Hz, etc), most times the simulation details are only revealed when someone ask directly to Kaz for it in interviews. Some people assume that if is not known or shown in a menu is because do not exist and that's wrong. GT4 cars had over 300 physics parameters, how many of those are made public? GT5 is running in a new more complex engine.

I don't know, that sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory, really. "Oh, yes, GT5 has the most advanced physics engine! I swear! It's just that nobody knows about it..."

That's the problem with Forza, it checks boxes yes, but the core is not up to par.

Depends on what you consider 'the core'. To me, the core of a racing game is proper reaction to what I'm doing. This of course encompasses reactions to my driving, which are handled by the physics (which GT5 does better) as well as reactions to mistakes I make, e.g. mis-shifting and thereby damaging my gear box (which FM3 does better). If either is off, I'll do thigns differently than in real life. I really don't think either is worth a dime without the other.

It's easy to convince anyone with a list of favourable features(theory) but is very hard to keep thinking that FM3 is a better sim once you try both games with the same cars, same track, no aids, low grip tyres and steering wheels(practice).

A completely different animals regarding handling realism, individual car authenticity and steering inputs, the very basics of a driving sim.

Now, I'll be the first to admit that GT5 does the physics stuff better. I'm not questioning that, one bit. But it loses so many points everywhere else that I'd be hard pressed to call it the better sim. Okay, so the car handles more realisticly, until the first contact to another car is made, from which point onward, it's losing a lot of its realism, as you're still driving with 100% downforce instead of what little a broken front splitter would provide.

Because: A damage model like Forza's is affecting how the car drives, just like the car is affected by mechanical damage in real life. To me, that's just as much of a core feature as the physics. Being able to downshift like mad and not blow the transmission despite all of the punishment it has to take is exactly like four wheel drifting around every corner in Shift 2 to post a faster lap time than what you could achieve by driving properly: It just shouldn't be possible. Yet, in GT5, it is.

 

[Bogie 19th]

Not sure how you can possibly think that when every car in Forza understeers like crazy.

I haven't had too many understeer issues, but have had some (though corrected through my suspension setups and tire pressure). But physics isn't just understeer. Physics also includes the 360 calculations per second that are happening with the Forza engine....giving you feedback for draft, tire deformation, body roll, tire wear and heat, tire pressure. It's also the physics involved in the loss of acceleration and speed with damaged aero, danaged body and loss of acceleration and speed with damaged gearboxes, and yet so much more.

While understeer can be an issue, there are many other issues at hand affecting not only Forza's physics (or should I say lack of some physics features), and the loss of those physics in GT5 that don't represent that well.

So, you when you say "not sure how you can possibly think that", that is my same though back to you.

Because: A damage model like Forza's is affecting how the car drives, just like the car is affected by mechanical damage in real life. To me, that's just as much of a core feature as the physics.

That's just it. The damage modeling in Forza is physics. There is "physical visual damage", then there are the physics behind that damage that affect the end result.

I would like to add, I am not claiming this as FACT...I am saying this is my experience with the two games.

 

[Hotspitta]

Thats Forza 4 not 3


Ferrari F355

I know. The point was about Gt5 forcing me too learn how too drive in a physics engine whereas F1 racepro and Forza feel more natural and connected too the car. FM3 physics 13/15.

The good stuff starts at 17:30:tup:
"This drives like a real car" @ 20:40.


Yo Bogie what rideheight do you use?

 

[Bogie 19th]

I know. The point was about Gt5 forcing me too learn how too drive in a physics engine whereas F1 racepro and Forza feel more natural and connected too the car. FM3 physics 13/15.

The good stuff starts at 17:30:tup:

Race Pro 09 completely demolishes FM3 and GT5 in the physics and simulation department though. Not really a fair comparison.

 

[Hotspitta]

Race Pro 09 completely demolishes FM3 and GT5 in the physics and simulation department though. Not really a fair comparison.

I have all three and imo Forza comes out on top. DOnt get me wrong RacePro is awesome but it lacks cars and tracks. I love driving the Radical in that game on Zandvoort.

 

[Bogie 19th]

I have all three and imo Forza comes out on top. DOnt get me wrong RacePro is awesome but it lacks cars and tracks. I love driving the Radical in that game on Zandvoort.

Oh, no doubt. Race Pro lacks:

Cars
Tracks
Graphics
Features
Players
Livery
Photo Editing
UI
Game modes

It's like a "no frills" console sim racer that is missing 95% of what GT and Forza has. But the two things it does have completely demolish GT/Forza in these areas:

Physics (and best physics in rain)
Transmission sounds

 

[I'm Motarded]

I have all three and imo Forza comes out on top. DOnt get me wrong RacePro is awesome but it lacks cars and tracks. I love driving the Radical in that game on Zandvoort.

I feel the same, I wish I could put Forza & Race Pro in a vice, squash them, put the squashed discs back in the xbox and it would play.



I would hurt somebody for Caterhams, Brands hatch and RP physics in FM.
Did the dirt build up on the windscreen in RP really bug anybody else? After 5 laps you cant see a thing, with no way to clean it off.

 

[Zer0]

Is it? Because, frankly, you're just making assumptions here. And I dare say that, given how much PD did brag about, well, anything really, if the physics engine of all things would do a lot of things they would keep silent about.


I don't know, that sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory, really. "Oh, yes, GT5 has the most advanced physics engine! I swear! It's just that nobody knows about it..."


Depends on what you consider 'the core'. To me, the core of a racing game is proper reaction to what I'm doing. This of course encompasses reactions to my driving, which are handled by the physics (which GT5 does better) as well as reactions to mistakes I make, e.g. mis-shifting and thereby damaging my gear box (which FM3 does better). If either is off, I'll do thigns differently than in real life. I really don't think either is worth a dime without the other.


Now, I'll be the first to admit that GT5 does the physics stuff better. I'm not questioning that, one bit. But it loses so many points everywhere else that I'd be hard pressed to call it the better sim. Okay, so the car handles more realisticly, until the first contact to another car is made, from which point onward, it's losing a lot of its realism, as you're still driving with 100% downforce instead of what little a broken front splitter would provide.

Because: A damage model like Forza's is affecting how the car drives, just like the car is affected by mechanical damage in real life. To me, that's just as much of a core feature as the physics. Being able to downshift like mad and not blow the transmission despite all of the punishment it has to take is exactly like four wheel drifting around every corner in Shift 2 to post a faster lap time than what you could achieve by driving properly: It just shouldn't be possible. Yet, in GT5, it is.

Like I said that aspect is obvious when you see a replay. Here it can be seen in more detail, check the sofness of the tyres:



LFS:


I think you are confusing PD with T10 , there's no reason why such fearure would mean the most advanced physics engine, is just another detail. PD always have been secretive or discreet about the simulation insights. Is not a thing that you see explained or advertised in detail during the game promotion. Always have been like that with GT games.

I consider the driving as the core in a driving sim and the damage something secondary. I guess when J.Clarkson test a new car he don't care too much about the damage he could make to it but focus all the attention in the driving. Should not be a problem except that you don't know what are you doing or a mistake that happen not very often. I will never give to that damage detail the same importance than has the full driving model.

Different point of views I guess. To me if the car handles nothing like its real counterpart I don't care if it has a better damage model or crash physics.

 

[Hotspitta]

I feel the same, I wish I could put Forza & Race Pro in a vice, squash them, put the squashed discs back in the xbox and it would play.

The feeling of racing in that game is indeed very good.

Oh, no doubt. Race Pro lacks:

It's like a "no frills" console sim racer that is missing 95% of what GT and Forza has. But the two things it does have completely demolish GT/Forza in these areas:

Physics (and best physics in rain)
Transmission sounds

Love that it has qualifying, man do i love the sound of the radical at 14.000 rpms.

 

[Bogie 19th]

Love that it has qualifying, man do i love the sound of the radical at 14.000 rpms.

Qualifying is indeed awesome in Race Pro. I like that you can sit in lobbies and watch, you can qualify at the same time, but not be put on the track together. They did great.

 

[Luminis]

Like I said that aspect is obvious when you see a replay. Here it can be seen in more detail, check the sofness of the tyres:

First of, I don't really think there's any visual evidence of the game modelling tyre deformation as a part of the physics engine - all I'm seeing is tyres clipping the tarmac.

But, anyways, you want to use that video to prove that GT5's physics are good? If you can do that in the game, I'd think twice about hailing it as the superior sim...

I think you are confusing PD with T10 , there's no reason why such fearure would mean the most advanced physics engine, is just another detail.

What? tyre deformation being simulated is another detail? Sorry, my bad, i always considered it to be impoartant, as the tyre is what connects the car to the tarmac and all that...

PD always have been secretive or discreet about the simulation insights. Is not a thing that you see explained or advertised in detail during the game promotion. Always have been like that with GT games.

I wonder why... They sure don't mind going into very specific details as to how they spend months to model cars and tracks.

I consider the driving as the core in a driving sim and the damage something secondary. I guess when J.Clarkson test a new car he don't care too much about the damage he could make to it but focus all the attention in the driving.

Hey, I guess that's it. You want to play Jeremy Clarkson and test cars, I want to race. Case closed, eh?

Oh, and ask the Stig what happened to the BMW 1M he did a power lap with during Season 17 Episode 1

Should not be a problem except that you don't know what are you doing or a mistake that happen not very often. I will never give to that damage detail the same importance than has the full driving model.

Different point of views I guess. To me if the car handles nothing like its real counterpart I don't care if it has a better damage model or crash physics.

You're acting like you're comparing Mario Kart and iRacing here. In case you forgot (or haven't tried Forza yourself): You're not. I know that lots of people like to act like that, but it's not like there's a day and night difference beetween Forza and GT. GT is better at delivering the driving feel, yeah. The difference between GT5's physics and Forza's isn't anywhere near as big as the difference between GT5's damage system and Forza's.

But, yeah, I'll just point you to the video you posted. If you can make cars jump around like that in GT5, that probably means it has the bestest physics engine ever, right?

 

[cuco33]

Both games have had cars that drove very similar to their real counterparts just as they have had cars that didn't drive like the real thing at all. I'm on another forum where a poster stated he's raced his VW R32 (mk4) competitively on a few tracks for over 2 years and claimed GT5's version of the car handles nothing like the real car does. He doesn't have an xbox/FM so that comparison wasn't made.

 

[Zer0]

First of, I don't really think there's any visual evidence of the game modelling tyre deformation as a part of the physics engine - all I'm seeing is tyres clipping the tarmac.

But, anyways, you want to use that video to prove that GT5's physics are good? If you can do that in the game, I'd think twice about hailing it as the superior sim...


What? tyre deformation being simulated is another detail? Sorry, my bad, i always considered it to be impoartant, as the tyre is what connects the car to the tarmac and all that...


I wonder why... They sure don't mind going into very specific details as to how they spend months to model cars and tracks.


Hey, I guess that's it. You want to play Jeremy Clarkson and test cars, I want to race. Case closed, eh?

Oh, and ask the Stig what happened to the BMW 1M he did a power lap with during Season 17 Episode 1


You're acting like you're comparing Mario Kart and iRacing here. In case you forgot (or haven't tried Forza yourself): You're not. I know that lots of people like to act like that, but it's not like there's a day and night difference beetween Forza and GT. GT is better at delivering the driving feel, yeah. The difference between GT5's physics and Forza's isn't anywhere near as big as the difference between GT5's damage system and Forza's.

But, yeah, I'll just point you to the video you posted. If you can make cars jump around like that in GT5, that probably means it has the bestest physics engine ever, right?

The vid was only an example of an extreme tuning that shows the tyre detail better than the same subtle effect in a more realistic setup on a normal race. Hope you are not trying to make the jumping vid your new argument against GT.. that car is not even possible in simulation mode.

Looks like you are not open to accept that things could be different than you thought/others said. It's very clear how the rubber of the wheel acts under different levels of pressure, like lfs do. The rim clipping is another history and happens because the impact collision refresh is not fast enought, also happens in all sims when things go too far(crashes or high speed impacts).

Yes another detail to obtain a full car simulation. A tyre deformation does not make a simulator, it make better, like a whole of others aspects that are important too for a simulated experience.

Maybe if the interviewers cared to ask more questions about the physics instead of graphics you will have more responses.. gaming sites you know.

My bad, the handling quote was an example to differentiate my point of view, not refering directly to Forza, but it could be applied in the same context as a less authentic handling sim.

 

[zr1chris]

I know. The point was about Gt5 forcing me too learn how too drive in a physics engine whereas F1 racepro and Forza feel more natural and connected too the car. FM3 physics 13/15.

I just watched the GT5 review again and they gave it a 12.5/15. One thing I don't get is, how can 2 games that have COMPLETELY different physics can get such a close score? Also, for their list of pros for GT5, physics was 1st on the list.

 

[Luminis]

The vid was only an example of an extreme tuning that shows the tyre detail better than the same subtle effect in a more realistic setup on a normal race. Hope you are not trying to make the jumping vid your new argument against GT.. that car is not even possible in simulation mode.

I still don't get why something that isn't going to work in real life and does work in GT5 is a good example as to why GT5 has superior physics.

Looks like you are not open to accept that things could be different than you thought/others said. It's very clear how the rubber of the wheel acts under different levels of pressure, like lfs do. The rim clipping is another history and happens because the impact collision refresh is not fast enought, also happens in all sims when things go too far(crashes or high speed impacts).

Yes, the clipping obviously happens everywhere. Maybe I'm just not enough of an eagle eye to make out the difference between the tyre clipping and the tyres deforming from a Youtube video...

Yes another detail to obtain a full car simulation. A tyre deformation does not make a simulator, it make better, like a whole of others aspects that are important too for a simulated experience.

Quite right. and, to me, one of those things is damage, which contains damage to the gearbox. Not that it's more important, but I'm not going to grasp why people would simply ignore stuff like that in a game that's supposed to mimic real life.

Maybe if the interviewers cared to ask more questions about the physics instead of graphics you will have more responses.. gaming sites you know.

Strangely, that doesn't seem to happen to Forza, for example.

My bad, the handling quote was an example to differentiate my point of view, not refering directly to Forza, but it could be applied in the same context as a less authentic handling sim.

Yeah, I agree that Forza appears to be less authentic on average, as far as the cars go. Is that enough of a gain to sacrifice mechanical damage for? To me, no. Is it forth to sacrifice authenticity to get mechanical damage into the game? Nope, I don't think so either. All I'm trying to say is, you can hardly make a case for either game being clearly superior when both have such noticible flaws.

And thus, I'm bringing this stuff up when people are all like "GT5's a better sim than FM4, 'cause the cars feel better".
It's subjective, it's controversial and it's not all there is to being a sim.

I just watched the GT5 review again and they gave it a 12.5/15. One thing I don't get is, how can 2 games that have COMPLETELY different physics can get such a close score? Also, for their list of pros for GT5, physics was 1st on the list.

Simple. Let's make a graph.

GT||||||||||Real Life||||||||||FM

Both are equally far away from the real thing, they're just on opposing ends of the spectrum.

 

[zr1chris]

I still

Simple. Let's make a graph.

GT||||||||||Real Life||||||||||FM

Both are equally far away from the real thing, they're just on opposing ends of the spectrum.

For them to give scores of 12.5 and 13 out of 15 (pretty good scores) I don't think they their thinking that the physics are way off from the real thing though. Something far away from the real thing I would assume would get a score of something like a 9 or a 10. I do get your point on different spectrums but if they are both getting pretty good score but feel so different to drive I think one of them has to be scored well above the other.
To me (with my opinion of the physics between the 2) the graph should look more like this: GT|||||Real Life||||||||||Forza 3

 

[Luminis]

For them to give scores of 12.5 and 13 out of 15 (pretty good scores) I don't think they their thinking that the physics are way off from the real thing though. Something far away from the real thing I would assume would get a score of something like a 9 or a 10. I do get your point on different spectrums but if they are both getting pretty good score but feel so different to drive I think one of them has to be scored well above the other.
To me (with my opinion of the physics between the 2) the graph should look more like this: GT|||||Real Life||||||||||Forza 3

Well, the 'far off' bit is just semantics. You could call it 'little off' if you wanted. My point being, it's perfectly possible to rate both games equally high why both feel dramatically different from each other... And since this whole 'feels authentic' thing is almost entirely subjective, at least if we're talking those rather small differences like the ones between GT and Forza, I think it becomes very hard to rate them objeticvely.

By small differences between those games I mean that it's far harder to tell which replicates reality better than it is than if you were to compare Mario Kart and iRacing...

In the end, I agree with you, GT5 is closer, but not by nearly as much as a lot of people would probably claim. They just assume that GT5 is spoot on and that, therefore, FM3 is further away from the real thing than it actually is... I think.

 

[HadOne2Many]

I'm in the camp that thinks FM's car physics are better than GT's, but at the same time GT has a closer to reality feel because of the (mostly) superior track surfaces. They are both close enough to reality that real world racing techniques and theory come into play. A fast driver in FM will also be fast in GT (and vice versa of course).

Also @zr1chris about all cars in FM "unsteering like crazy", I don't mean to be rude but seriously it's either your driving or your tunes. I have spent hours in the '95 355 Challenge in stock form and it is very well balanced (as it should be). I haven't driven the '94 355 Berlinetta as much though, but from I can recall there isn't a Ferrari in the game that understeers unless it was tuned that way specifically.

 

[Bogie 19th]

Raises hand: Question!

You guys are talking about GT5 and FM3 scores (12.5/13 out of 15 respectively). Is that from InsideSimRacing I assume? I was just watching the RacePro review that they did:

http://www.insidesimracing.tv/videos/view/360/598/Race-Pro

Starting at 13:15 they start talking about physics and it gets an 83.5 out of 100 rating from them. (they must be changing their rating scale). So if Forza 3 is 13/15, that equates to 86.6. No way on EARTH are the physics in FM3 better than RacePro 09. In my opinion.

 

[zr1chris]

I'm in the camp that thinks FM's car physics are better than GT's, but at the same time GT has a closer to reality feel because of the (mostly) superior track surfaces. They are both close enough to reality that real world racing techniques and theory come into play. A fast driver in FM will also be fast in GT (and vice versa of course).

Also @zr1chris about all cars in FM "unsteering like crazy", I don't mean to be rude but seriously it's either your driving or your tunes. I have spent hours in the '95 355 Challenge in stock form and it is very well balanced (as it should be). I haven't driven the '94 355 Berlinetta as much though, but from I can recall there isn't a Ferrari in the game that understeers unless it was tuned that way specifically.

Well I am using the Berlinetta modded for A class. (suspension and tires only, no power adders). I havent messed with the tuning at all (my point is I shouldn't have to) As far as my driving is concerned I think I'm pretty good. In Forza before I stopped playing 10 months ago I would consistently be in the top 2% and sometimes in the top 1% in the time trial events and in GT5 I did the GT Academy and I finished around 110th place (out of over 50,000) in the nation (25th in the SE). So i really don't think its my driving.

 

[cuco33]

ISR did change their rating scale over the years. They adjusted some values and added new quantifiers. They also admitted they might have scored Forza a bit high in some values.

 

[Bogie 19th]

Like I said that aspect is obvious when you see a replay. Here it can be seen in more detail, check the sofness of the tyres:



LFS:

Were any of those standards? Why did none of them have any underbody graphics?

I took this picture in game:

And as you can see, there is underbody detail. I have never flipped a car in GT5 yet, so I had never seen that.

Also, those videos do show that camber is present as are shocks/suspension, which is pretty cool. However, I just laughed my butt off after seeing that video lol!

 

[HadOne2Many]

Well I am using the Berlinetta modded for A class. (suspension and tires only, no power adders). I havent messed with the tuning at all (my point is I shouldn't have to) As far as my driving is concerned I think I'm pretty good. In Forza before I stopped playing 10 months ago I would consistently be in the top 2% and sometimes in the top 1% in the time trial events and in GT5 I did the GT Academy and I finished around 110th place (out of over 50,000) in the nation (25th in the SE). So i really don't think its my driving.

Probably the tune then. Once you add any upgrades the default tune usually turns to ****. If you want to PM me the exact build and I can see if I can loosen it up for you.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

I feel the same, I wish I could put Forza & Race Pro in a vice, squash them, put the squashed discs back in the xbox and it would play.



I would hurt somebody for Caterhams, Brands hatch and RP physics in FM.
Did the dirt build up on the windscreen in RP really bug anybody else? After 5 laps you cant see a thing, with no way to clean it off.

Now you are talking. That would be an amazing game.

 

[Bogie 19th]

I wonder if turning on the windshield wipers for a bit would work? The windshield build up never bothered me though.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

I know. The point was about Gt5 forcing me too learn how too drive in a physics engine whereas F1 racepro and Forza feel more natural and connected too the car. FM3 physics 13/15.

The good stuff starts at 17:30:tup:
"This drives like a real car" @ 20:40.


Yo Bogie what rideheight do you use?

I'm not so sure they were referring to GT5 but only made a general statement. My first thought were they were referring to the more recent game Shift 2. They could have been referring even to Forza 3 as Darin questioned if they fixed the "slip angle" ffb in Forza 4.

Starting at 13:15 they start talking about physics and it gets an 83.5 out of 100 rating from them. (they must be changing their rating scale). So if Forza 3 is 13/15, that equates to 86.6. No way on EARTH are the physics in FM3 better than RacePro 09. In my opinion.

ISR really took some heat when they rated Forza 3 and Dirt 2 higher than Iracing. Some started to refer ISR to Inside Arcade Racing. Their scoring system is a little off that's for sure.

 

[Hotspitta]

I'm in the camp that thinks FM's car physics are better than GT's, but at the same time GT has a closer to reality feel because of the (mostly) superior track surfaces. They are both close enough to reality that real world racing techniques and theory come into play. A fast driver in FM will also be fast in GT (and vice versa of course).

Also @zr1chris about all cars in FM "unsteering like crazy", I don't mean to be rude but seriously it's either your driving or your tunes. I have spent hours in the '95 355 Challenge in stock form and it is very well balanced (as it should be). I haven't driven the '94 355 Berlinetta as much though, but from I can recall there isn't a Ferrari in the game that understeers unless it was tuned that way specifically.

Dude i'm a 100% with you on both arguments.

I'm not so sure they were referring to GT5 but only made a general statement. My first thought were they were referring to the more recent game Shift 2. They could have been referring even to Forza 3 as Darin questioned if they fixed the "slip angle" ffb in Forza 4.

No they are talking about how good FM3 physics are.

 

[boxox]

It continues to amaze that anyone takes these guys seriously

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

No they are talking about how good FM3 physics are.

I was referring more to you post with the Forza 4 video. They later admitted after playing the game a little more than they rated Forza 3 a little too high.