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

[zr1chris]

Why would one need to prove otherwise? I just don't think it's something that proves GT5 is the superior game/has superior physics/is more realistic than other games.
I doubt, for example, that a lot of people would consider GT5 to be more realistic than iRacing, for example. Yet, it spawns more preofessional racing drivers. So, it doesn't seem to be too related to the quality of the game in question.

My point is that you cant prove whether it does or doesn't. I agree totally that iracing would yield just as many and more real drivers as GT5 if they did the same type of competition. As far as the console racers I don't think you can say either way without them actually testing that theory.

Doesn't shift have damage? I just got a PS3 copy that I'm borrowing from a friend to check out. Haven't really crashed yet so I haven't noticed if there's damage in shift1

I only played the demo but i'm pretty sure your right.

 

[ItsHim]

But you can't prove the opposite either. We can't say unless they were to try the same competition with the other games and then pin the winners of each game head to head in real cars.

I hardly think that's the point.

PD has managed to further establish the credibility of GT5 via a great marketing scoop.

Stock cars have a big room in GT, far more than in Forza. Then again I could tell from tunes and replays if they were from a FM2 video gamer or someone with a racing background who happend to play Forza.

Even with Shift the difference could be told.

But one just has to hand it to PD: GT Academy expanded to the USA because of user demand and the SLS comp was huge. T10 managed to get an Audi on the cover, I believe iRacing has attracted a Lot of real life talent, but doesn't get the media coverage.

After all GT isn't as bad as X Factor.

Once again DAMAGE (sorry am on my phone typing this)

The question was raised where the 'manufacturers didn't allow for (visible) damage' claim came from. I can recall EA stating this for NFS Porsche. That was the title of the game and being an old fart I can remember that I read it in a games magazine because I was a teen when NFS Porsche hit the shelves.

All this 'proof' is making me a bit tired so I hope you find the articles and have a good read about Game history while I have a good night's sleep.

 

[HighSeasHoMastr]

I thought you had some good points, until I read this:

Until Forza, iRacing and Need for speed produces real world racers the answer to your question would be yes. If they can't prove GT wrong then they need not be mentioned.

FM, NfS, iRacing etc don't produce racing drivers because they don't try to. You can't say that GT Academy proves GT is more realistic, because there is no GT Academy equivalent in other games. You're basically saying that because other games chose not to have an official competition to promote a sim driver to a real driver that the physics in those games aren't as good. There is absolutely no correlation between the two. None.
You don't know if FM or NfS would produce a better driver because they don't even try to. Just like we don't know whether PD or T10 would make a better pizza. There's just no connection. GT Academy is great, and I fully support what it's doing, but using it to say GT is the most realistic sim is just stupid.

 

[Luminis]

You are still missing the point, they (Sony-Nissan) GIVES YOU THE CHANCE. being recruited is a different story, those people that won GT_Academy were not recruited by Ferrari or Mclaren, where they?. If there was a 1% chance the Mclaren would recruit you there is a 1000% chance that you will win the GT_Academy(This would be mainly because your skills would be unbelievable), both are on a different ballpark. The same can be said for you'r comparison.
My point still stands so: If i was to fire the game up now, what does the GT Acadamy change about it? What does it provide due to the GT Acadamy if I was to play it this instant that other games couldn't?

Until Forza, iRacing and Need for speed produces real world racers the answer to your question would be yes. If they can't prove GT wrong then they need not be mentioned.

Why would it be yes? Maybe I should have been more specific; I think of the GT Academy and GT5 as two different things. Yeah, you need GT5 to get into the GT Acadamy, which, in turn, might make you a pro driver. Does that mean it was GT5 that honed your skills to that point?

Also, to compare which game prepares you better, you'd have to take two driver who are identically bad before playing either game, then have them play different games and see who's doing better.

My point is that you cant prove whether it does or doesn't. I agree totally that iracing would yield just as many and more real drivers as GT5 if they did the same type of competition. As far as the console racers I don't think you can say either way without them actually testing that theory.

Actually that's precisely my point. You can't tell which game makes you a better race driver in real life solely from playing said game, thus, I don't think it is a valid point when comparing the quality of GT5 and another game, be it Forza or otherwise.

GT Academy is great, and I fully support what it's doing, but using it to say GT is the most realistic sim is just stupid.

That's what I'm trying to say, in a nutshell.

 

[Bogie 19th]

If we are going to go out on a hypothetical limb and say that GT5 produced a real life racer because Sony paid for a competition for marketing purposes, then I guess we could say that iRacing, Race Pro, Dirt and Forza probably have produced racers, and we just don't know it, because it wasn't advertised.

Thought provoking. Marketing makes you a racer.

 

[Luminis]

Thought provoking. Marketing makes you a racer.

Marketing can make you everything

Make believe indeed.


As Jeremy Clarkson would put it:
And on that bombshell... I'm going to bed. Good night, gentlemen.

 

[Daverytimes]

I thought you had some good points, until I read this:

FM, NfS, iRacing etc don't produce racing drivers because they don't try to. You can't say that GT Academy proves GT is more realistic, because there is no GT Academy equivalent in other games. You're basically saying that because other games chose not to have an official competition to promote a sim driver to a real driver that the physics in those games aren't as good. There is absolutely no correlation between the two. None.
You don't know if FM or NfS would produce a better driver because they don't even try to. Just like we don't know whether PD or T10 would make a better pizza. There's just no connection. GT Academy is great, and I fully support what it's doing, but using it to say GT is the most realistic sim is just stupid.

I never mentioned anything about physics, at this point we all have established that a vast majority of PC Sim's are superior (in physics) to GT5, this is because both have been tested and proven. I responded to this: "The GT Academy doesn't prove that GT5 prepares you for real racing any better than Forza, iRacing or Need for speed" if non of those racers have produced even one racer he has no right to assume that "GT5 doesn't prepare you any better". It's an assumption with no basis (though mine is too).

Why would it be yes? Maybe I should have been more specific; I think of the GT Academy and GT5 as two different things. Yeah, you need GT5 to get into the GT Acadamy, which, in turn, might make you a pro driver. Does that mean it was GT5 that honed your skills to that point?

Also, to compare which game prepares you better, you'd have to take two driver who are identically bad before playing either game, then have them play different games and see who's doing better.


Actually that's precisely my point. You can't tell which game makes you a better race driver in real life solely from playing said game, thus, I don't think it is a valid point when comparing the quality of GT5 and another game, be it Forza or otherwise.


That's what I'm trying to say, in a nutshell.

You are only looking at the negatives, many (And i mean MANY) who made it past the second round were all seasoned GT players (Many have been playing since GT3). Everyone that made it to the finals were seasoned GT players, so i don't understand your point. Your making it sound like GT contributed nothing much to their skills, all of them drove their first cars in GT and they have been driving virtual cars ever since. Almost none of them has ever been to a track and if they have never gone and raced on a track where else did you think their experience came from?

 

[Kreepnslayer]

Some dude with a blog is hardly "The Source". Especially when he's pretty much over exaggerating his behind off during the whole "review". What was his one sentence, he got hit head on numerous times only for his sides to get damaged and nothing else, that's the biggest crock of *insert what you like here* I've heard in my life. The version I have you get jacked up where you're supposed to get jacked up. Now I HAVE taken a car in GT5 on Monza and went HEADLONG into the cement barriers in the first turn and suffered absolutely ZERO damage.

Forza 3's damage is calculated in degrees (0-100) of damage whereas GT5 is levels. Those slight degrees of damage in Forza is what makes races online. Is the damage bad enough to pit or can you deal with it? How much damage those the other guys have? etc. GT5 isn't as refined. It's like "None, annoying, pretty bad, bad and must pit now bad" There's no fine degrees of how bad the damage is.

Again, GT5's damage may be some superior stuff in theory and once they can get everything worked out like they want it may show it and FM3 might be faking it all day long but as of this moment Forza's faking the funk exceptionally while GT5 is dutifully doting.

From what I remember GT5's damage is in no way running "superior stuff". The way it seems to me is that the damage system calculates the number of impacts rather than the intensity.

When we were running our 100 lap races around Daytona we were all bump drafting. The first time we did it I managed to avoid all the accidents. But by the end the trunk of my NASCAR was stuffed practically into the backseat and was insanely crooked to boot. This was just from bump drafting.

The whole game feels like a big smoke and mirrors show. Once the smoke starts to thin out though, you REALLY notice that it's all just trickery.

Not that Forza is without flaws, but as far as damage, "real" consequential damage, they at least try to do a good job. It's not as pretty, but it's better than GT5.

 

[t.o.]

Like i said before take a look at the front page, many of the competitors that made it to the finals were never racers (Of any kind {kart included}) Mentioning Lucas will not change the fact that others that made it to those final stages never drove competitively.

That really doesn't mean much at all. Somebody had to get to the finals and to be honest if GT5 was this great Pro Race developer than shouldn't this game have perfected the competitors who were racers that didn't make it (the racers you're making an assumption the non racers beat out)

PS: Alot of pro athletes (basketball, football, baseball etc.) stars excel at their profession in real life but alot of them suck at the video game version of their said profession. Why, because it's just not the same.

From what I remember GT5's damage is in no way running "superior stuff". The way it seems to me is that the damage system calculates the number of impacts rather than the intensity.

When we were running our 100 lap races around Daytona we were all bump drafting. The first time we did it I managed to avoid all the accidents. But by the end the trunk of my NASCAR was stuffed practically into the backseat and was insanely crooked to boot. This was just from bump drafting.

The whole game feels like a big smoke and mirrors show. Once the smoke starts to thin out though, you REALLY notice that it's all just trickery.

Not that Forza is without flaws, but as far as damage, "real" consequential damage, they at least try to do a good job. It's not as pretty, but it's better than GT5.

You know what we saw during those races. Like you said, once the smoke cleared we're all like "HUH?". How many times our cars were mangled in GT5, we go in get the mechanicals fixed, get back out on the track with aero shot to hell and yet we're catching guys who cars are so clean they looked like they just got out the livery shop.

Damage is bad and aero doesn't exist.

 

[zr1chris]

PS: Alot of pro athletes (basketball, football, baseball etc.) stars excel at their profession in real life but alot of them suck at the video game version of their said profession. Why, because it's just not the same.

Racing with a wheel and pedals is a little more realistic than playing basketball, football or baseball with a pad. I think you used a really bad example.

 

[t.o.]

Racing with a wheel and pedals is a little more realistic than playing basketball, football or baseball with a pad. I think you used a really bad example.

No I used a great example. Most sports game you got way more advantages than the guy out there on the actual turf. You can see everything for one.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Or, I can expect it to grow/evolve minimally at best just as everything else in GT seems to.

Then why include it at all? I don't wanna hear that "It's better than nothing" lame excuse either, because fact of the matter is it isn't.

In a downpour? I think not.

If by affected you mean "drives really, really slow and switches to tires they don't need" then yes, they're affected.

You can't create formal racing leagues unless you do it the hard way. As I said - archaic.

I'm personally looking forwards to the next generation of consoles. No more consoles limited to 256mb system ram and 256mb VRAM to try and do 1080p gaming at 60FPS with. What my concern is that PD have less than half the employees working for them than Turn 10. Turn 10 said they had something like over a 100 people working just on the cars. That is worrying in that PD whole team is maybe just the size of the car modelling people working for Turn 10. Encouraging thing is PD just got opened up a new development studio, so they might be looking to expand the team. I hope so anyway.

It is good for time trialling / practice for some people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPGLNQByaio&feature=player_embedded
I'm sure there are other people also making use of this feature so I think it is better than nothing.

Not a downpour hence the smiley.

GT does have decent online features such as ability to share created tracks, gift cars, share cars, high quality voice chat, log feature to see what others are doing in the game, B-Spec remote races. This is really only the beginning of good things to come.

That really doesn't mean much at all. Somebody had to get to the finals and to be honest if GT5 was this great Pro Race developer than shouldn't this game have perfected the competitors who were racers that didn't make it (the racers you're making an assumption the non racers beat out)

PS: Alot of pro athletes (basketball, football, baseball etc.) stars excel at their profession in real life but alot of them suck at the video game version of their said profession. Why, because it's just not the same.

The competition restricts quite a lot on real life racers. The casual racer would get in however who has not got much racing experience. It shows that people with primarily gaming experience can beat people who have more racing experience. The latest EU GT Academy winner beat a person who drifts to progress to be one of the finalists and he is only 19 so shows how much gaming skill can transfer to reality.

(g)not have an existing competition driving contract with any motor sports team, body, agent or management company that conflicts with his/her ability to accept the Prize;

(h)not previously held a National A or superior MSA license or equivalent in another FIA recognised ASN;

(i)not have competed in a national level Karting Championship for more than two full seasons; or

(j)not have competed at the Race Camp Stage (or equivalent or similar stages) in any previous GT Academy competition.

The judges who are usually well known drivers / people in motorsport are impressed with the skills of most of the people in the finals. I think most have not driven a car fast around a track before but the gaming skills allow them to do so well straight off.

 

[Daverytimes]

No I used a great example. Most sports game you got way more advantages than the guy out there on the actual turf. You can see everything for one.

The only feedback that you don't receive from a proper rig is G-force(and some balls of steel in some cases), every other input (Although not 100%) are an accurate representation of what you would be doing on Race-day. Racing with a wheel and pedal is on a whole different ballpark than say Lebron playing on a pad, if he had a true to life input method (for the game) he would destroy anyone new to the game.

 

[FyreandIce]

words

The funny thing is, your original argument was about GT5 having more precise damage compared to FM3 (can't really compare against FM4 now can we?) yet all you have tried to prove is that GT5's damage is "in real time" and have not once shown a shred of evidence that GT5's damage is more precise then FM3's...

I know for a fact that light scrapes in FM3 just amount to some missing paint and maybe a bigger panel gap here or there while a decent hit will result in major deformation of panels. The damage while limited is very precise from the minimal amount to it's maximum amount.

 

[buggs1a]

I'm curious about the physics of Forza 2 and 3 and gt5.

First, what exactly are physics in a car game and what makes it realistic?

Second:
Is it physics when you use a controller and tap left or right to steer?

The reason I ask this is because I hate this about force and love it about gt5. I think Forza sucks how yer driving on an ice road compared to gt5.

Example.
When turning in Forza or tapping left or right the car acts like its on ice. It really sucks. In a turn you barely tap the thumbstick or pad say left or right and when you let go the car keeps sliding like its on ice. I freaking hate this about Forza.

In gt5 when you tap and stop the car steers and doesn't keep sliding or turning when you let go. Much better and more real.

 

[FyreandIce]

In gt5 when you tap and stop the car steers and doesn't keep sliding or turning when you let go. Much better and more real.

I really don't think you know what "real" is.

This belongs in the Forza vs GT thread any how.

 

[t.o.]

I'm curious about the physics of Forza 2 and 3 and gt5.

First, what exactly are physics in a car game and what makes it realistic?

Second:
Is it physics when you use a controller and tap left or right to steer?

The reason I ask this is because I hate this about force and love it about gt5. I think Forza sucks how yer driving on an ice road compared to gt5.

Example.
When turning in Forza or tapping left or right the car acts like its on ice. It really sucks. In a turn you barely tap the thumbstick or pad say left or right and when you let go the car keeps sliding like its on ice. I freaking hate this about Forza.

In gt5 when you tap and stop the car steers and doesn't keep sliding or turning when you let go. Much better and more real.

There's nothing "real" about tapping a stick to control a car. One implementation may be more to your liking than another just as another person will feel the complete opposite of what you feel. If you want to judge control get a wheel, until then you're just "playing a game" when using a pad. And we already have a thread for this.

 

[buggs1a]

I know what is real in that when I drive and steer and let go I don't keep sliding like Forza.

Forza is just terrible how it steers compared to gt5. Sadly I doubt any Forza will be better.

I like Forza but can't stand how it feels like I'm on ice compared to gt5.

But no this isn't about Forza vs gt5. I just added that to ask about physics.

 

[Parker]

I used a wheel for both games, so I won't comment on the pad part.

After playing both games for hundreds of hours, I think GT5 has a far better physics engine that FM3, which is to be expected since FM3 was released a long time before GT5. The cars in GT5 behave more realistically (based on my personal real life experiences, at least) and the driving as a whole seems better. That being said, Forza still has a great physics engine, but I feel like a lot of the road cars have far to much grip. Not a big deal but something I've noticed.

I hope FM4 raised the physics bar even higher than GT5 (and judging from the videos, physics has been massively improved over 3) but even if they aren't up to GT5 standards the game will still be extremely enjoyable. Hopefully the A.I. gets improved too, because the AI in both Forza and GT is laughable. I play on Hard AI with no assists in FM3 and have no competition at all, same goes for GT5 without the difficulty setting, obviously.

Like FyreandIce already stated, this actually should have gone in the FM vs. GT thread, but so expect it to get locked or moved soon.


Parker

 

[buggs1a]

Ok.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I actually have to agree with the OP to an extent since I too have used the wheel for FM3 and GT5. When I've tuned my cars with full racing suspension it tends to have a lot more oversteer no matter which way tune obviously one tunning has less than the other. However, too much oversteer than what seems realistic, even when I've forced some oversteer in real life I can control it when I lightly drive the car; in Forza it's quite different. I ran a test to see if I just suck at tunning or maybe my setups were less aggressive than I thought and so I proceeded to drive in a more docile and aware fashion to have better control yet I still had oversteer issues mid way through corner and coming out of harpins with light acceleration movement. Now this is quite different with GT but still somewhat noticeable yet far more controllable I feel. Now I've had this issue a long time with FM and has been one reason I tend not to play it much when a GT game is around. This is my take on it though, yet I could obviously be wrong in the way I set things up or ran a default setting.

 

[t.o.]

As far as console racing goes Race Pro is THE benchmark to which all other console racers should be judged. Race Pro is made by the PC Sim makers SIMBIN using the Lizard Engine and based off GTR. Forza's cars seem closer to Race Pro's than GT5's.

 

[Parker]

As far as console racing goes Race Pro is THE benchmark to which all other console racers should be judged. Race Pro is made by the PC Sim makers SIMBIN using the Lizard Engine and based off GTR. Forza's cars seem closer to Race Pro's than GT5's.

I didn't find Race Pro's physics to be all the amazing, to be honest. Now the racing was is a different story, and I wish Forza and GT would have actual racing rules, with flags, disqualifications, QUALIFYING, and whatnot.


Parker

 

[t.o.]

I didn't find Race Pro's physics to be all the amazing, to be honest. Now the racing was is a different story, and I wish Forza and GT would have actual racing rules, with flags, disqualifications, QUALIFYING, and whatnot.


Parker

Funny, I found the physics to be a slice of heaven. Still one of my all time favorite games.

 

[Luminis]

You are only looking at the negatives, many (And i mean MANY) who made it past the second round were all seasoned GT players (Many have been playing since GT3). Everyone that made it to the finals were seasoned GT players, so i don't understand your point. Your making it sound like GT contributed nothing much to their skills, all of them drove their first cars in GT and they have been driving virtual cars ever since. Almost none of them has ever been to a track and if they have never gone and raced on a track where else did you think their experience came from?

So, what you're saying is "Hey, there's GT Acadamy, so GT is a better sim than iRacing, rFactor, Live for Speed, Race Pro and whatever else." Did I get that right?

Anyways, on the bolded part: I don't know, and I suspect you don't, either. Could've been any other sim game that helped there, as well, unless you can prove they've played GT5 exclusively.
I would assume, for example, that the GT Acadamy Race Camp and the driver training that's part of the GT Acadamy helps a wee bit to gather the experience needed to drive a car during a race.
So, GT Acaday itself proves that it is not only playing GT that prepared them for actualy racing, and I would suspect that a lot of driver trainign happens inbetween GT Acadamy and the GT4 races the winners participate in.

What GT5 does, though, is enable people to take part in the process to enrole in thr GT Acadamy, but that still doesn't make GT5 a better simulator. People who are going through GT Acadamy just don't go get picked up from their couch and get stuffed into a GT4 race car and get told to win the race. Appearently, they go to the real life driver's training (which basically is what the GT Acadamy is in the first place) anyways, and you're acting like all that makes them perform well in their races is the GT Acadamy.

Also: Let's say I wanted to buy a BMW M3 or a Audi RS5. Now, with the Audi comes an invitation to take my car to a track day and the winner of said track day will receive a driver's training to participate in Audi's DTM program. Does that make the Audi RS5 a better car?

The funny thing is, your original argument was about GT5 having more precise damage compared to FM3 (can't really compare against FM4 now can we?) yet all you have tried to prove is that GT5's damage is "in real time" and have not once shown a shred of evidence that GT5's damage is more precise then FM3's...

👍

 

[buggs1a]

No one has even tried to answer my questions from my first post. I'm just saying, not mad or anything lol.

What exactly are race game physics like in gt5 and Forza? And is what I talk about physics?

I thank all of you. Very much.
Joe.

 

[JJ72]

No one has even tried to answer my questions from my first post. I'm just saying, not mad or anything lol.

What exactly are race game physics like in gt5 and Forza? And is what I talk about physics?

I thank all of you. Very much.
Joe.

not really, its a combination of physics, input device, control calibration, car setup and a lot of stuff.

Until one day you hook up a controller to a real car and driving it remotely on your sofa you are not going to make an actual comparison.

Way too variables are in this situation and it is impossible to say one symptom equals good/bad physics.

 

[FyreandIce]

I know what is real in that when I drive and steer and let go I don't keep sliding like Forza.

So you're saying in real life you can correct a slide by simply returning the wheel to center?

Again, you don't know what "real" is if you think that.

 

[GumShoe]

I think GT Academy is a great idea, it's optional, so for those that want to try, go ahead

But, you could attach it to ANY relatively realistic racing game and the 'player' is going to be just as prepared. Someone who excels in GT Academy is generally going to have good coordination and reflexes anyway (otherwise an unhealthy obsession), something that translates to real life.

Someone who has never driven a car, but is good at GT5, is going to get a shock when they hop in a real car for the first time and try to set the same times, and they certainly won't be competitive in racing. I would hazard a guess that with or without GT5/GT Academy, the same winners of GT Academy could still be as successful given the chance, but would just take longer to learn the tracks.

On the topic of damage being allowed by manufacturers, here's an article specifically about that:

http://www.el33tonline.com/past_editorial/2011/3/23/el33tonline_exclusive_interview_with_stephen_viljoen

I also recall one of the SMS staff mentioning that they were able to progress damage by pointing to other games that got away with it, i.e. Blur:

http://www.xcastonline.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=220:blur-devs-explain-inclusion-of-licensed-car-damage-think-need-for-speed-is-playing-catch-up&catid=39:news&Itemid=104

Hope that helps clear up the damage limitations a bit. It may well be that GT including Ferrari and Lamborghini etc was what held them back, they chose no damage over damage for only x amount of cars (ironic given the split in premium/standards we see now )

 

[GumShoe]

No one has even tried to answer my questions from my first post. I'm just saying, not mad or anything lol.

What exactly are race game physics like in gt5 and Forza? And is what I talk about physics?

I thank all of you. Very much.
Joe.

What you are talking about is 'feel.'

The physics are the mathematical calculations the game engine is performing in response to your inputs to the virtual car.

The physics includes all sorts of things. If you want the long version of what the physics engine is trying to portray, try reading the following article (skip through it to get an idea if it's going over your head, it's very technical):

http://phors.locost7.info/contents.htm

On top of all that, racing 'sims' can try to simulate other things like damage to body panels/mechanical damage, wear, temperature, wind, weather. When you really think about it these games do a mighty impressive job with all they already simulate in real time.

The results of all these calculations, combined with force feedback, provide the 'feel' that you get when playing the game.

How many of these things are simulated is different between each game, and often how well the game does just comes down to how well those calculations are transferred through the controller to you (regardless of things being left out/wrong). And it is a point of much contention, as a better physics engine (i.e. Shift 2) doesn't always mean a better 'feel.'