FM7 vs. PCars 2 vs. GT:Sport

[Imari]

I for example don't find the game to be graphically top of the class, which these games actually used to be. GT or Forza were always top notch when it came to graphics and sounds (Forza at least soundwise), now we have racing games with better sounds (R3E), better visuals overall (not saying every aspect) (PCars2 or AC on PC on Ultra).

They're about as good as they ever were. FM7 and FH3 are good looking games on PC at Ultra, and I think many would consider them better looking than AC. Personally, I think they're on par with every other major racing game graphically with the exception of GTS, although GTS makes some trade offs to look as good as it does.

There was even a time when Forza and GT physics were regarded as actually good simulator physics. This time is also gone.

Yes and no. They were always second tier simulators at best, even in their prime. Since we're including PC games, there were a lot of PC games that were available through 1995-2005 that had unquestionably better physics, but their popularity was low. The general assessment of their physics was about what it is now; pretty good albeit somewhat simplified.

So what i think is that it's not a problem of the formula of these games, it's a problem of their quality. Competition got bigger and better while Forza has not improved within the formula. GT Sport tried and it was somewhat successful i'd say. But still, people want a real GT game.

Compared to most, FM7 doesn't really have a quality problem. It's not perfect, but it's not Aliens: Colonial Marines, it's not Battlefront 2 with it's aggressively unfriendly design, it's not even really as bad as GT5 1.01 (which most people forget was vaguely horrendous). It doesn't have showstopper bugs, it doesn't lock half the game behind microtransactions or a grind wall, even it's design "flaws" are largely things that are understandable but in practice sub-optimal.

It's a game, it does what it tries to do, it's the seventh iteration of roughly the same game. It's polished but mildly lifeless.

As far as competition, like I said, it doesn't have competition any more. FM7 stands alone as the single title available if you want the caRPG type gameplay. It dominates it's market segment just by existing. Arguably it's market segment isn't that popular any more as people have found other racing types that they find to be more fun (see: Horizon) but there's not really anything else out there that you can buy that does what Forza Motorsport does. At least not in the sense that things like GT5 and FM4 or GT4 and Enthusia were competing with each other.

GTS was mildly successful (but almost certainly less so than Polyphony or Sony would have liked), but it's the iRacing formula not the Gran Turismo one. As successful as that game type may be, and I hope that Polyphony and other companies continue to push it because I think it has potential, it doesn't replace the traditional Gran Turismo gameplay. At best there's mild overlap, but not really. Arguably games like pC2 are closer in spirit to GT6 than GTS is in that at least they're still running the zero-to-hero model.

I agree that the formula could do with a kick to keep going. Horizon was a good idea, and Motorsport wants something similar that will let it keep it's motorsport roots but integrate that investment and sense of place in the world. Other games have tried casting the player as a racing driver or team manager, and it sort of works and sort of doesn't.

Personally, I think it should lean more heavily into the history and knowledge angle. I love it when they have little interviews with motoring personalities while loading. I think rerunning classic races or events is cool. I think you can turn such a game into a great experience by putting more links to real world stuff and using the unique strengths of the video game format rather than turning it into a glorified encyclopaedia like museum cards. Ain't nobody thinks museum cards are good gameplay. Don't show us stuff, let us do it ourselves.

Vision GT was also a good idea in showcasing the future of car engineering, but it was horrendously mishandled. I think if it were more closely defined and managed, it could be both a great advertising opportunity for manufacturers and a great gameplay addition for players. Give the manufacturers a set of costs and constraints for a saleable car design in 2030, have them design it, and then have some content where the cars actually get critiqued in meaningful ways. Don't let them make laser cars, don't let them use unobtainium, don't let them violate the laws of physics. And don't let them see each others designs before putting them in the game, or it turns into a willy-waving contest.

The first few VGTs were good, and then it turned into silliness. I think Turn 10 could take the idea and improve upon it.

 

[CopperySinger]

For all its problems, and there are many, Forza Motorsport 7 is the best Gran Turismo game available.

nah, make no mistake that GTS is the best Gran Turismo game available. Forza has never chosen the direct path of GT. IMO The history of both games have always been about encouraging players to engage and learn. While both games consist primarily of the same things, Forza has more encouraged us to be creative and learn tuning while GT encouraged race craft and to appreciate the beauty of racing. Whether online or offline, take your memories back to the beginnings and give one word each that best describe the first Forza and GT.

 

[Imari]

nah, make no mistake that GTS is the best Gran Turismo game available.

GTS isn't a Gran Turismo in the sense that I mean. I mean the style of game that Gran Turismo popularised and largely dominated from GT1 through GT6. In deference to the fact that Polyphony and Gran Turismo basically created that style of game and made it as influential as it was, I refer to it as a "Gran Turismo game". Call it a caRPG or Pokecars or whatever you like, but you can see what I'm getting at without quibbling about the label, right?

GTS, for all it's good points, is not that style of game. It's more iRacing than GT6.

FM7, for all it's faults, is that style of game. It's the only game remaining that adheres to the same design philosophy and gameplay style as GT1 through 6, Forza Motorsport 1 through 6, Enthusia, Shift 1 and 2, and the like.

 

[F Inferno]

GTS isn't a Gran Turismo in the sense that I mean. I mean the style of game that Gran Turismo popularised and largely dominated from GT1 through GT6. In deference to the fact that Polyphony and Gran Turismo basically created that style of game and made it as influential as it was, I refer to it as a "Gran Turismo game". Call it a caRPG or Pokecars or whatever you like, but you can see what I'm getting at without quibbling about the label, right?

GTS, for all it's good points, is not that style of game. It's more iRacing than GT6.

FM7, for all it's faults, is that style of game. It's the only game remaining that adheres to the same design philosophy and gameplay style as GT1 through 6, Forza Motorsport 1 through 6, Enthusia, Shift 1 and 2, and the like.

I don’t think Forza was ever equal to GT in the CarPG stakes. No license tests to prove you have the skill/speed for higher class events, no tuning of your starter car to make it able to compete in higher class events and earn more money because you couldn’t afford anything better.

GT actually created a story in itself with how you got attached to certain cars which you built your way up to. Take for example the Mitsubishi GTO Twin Turbo, I’m sure lots of people know that car because it was great for grinding money on the test track oval early in the game. Or the infamous game breaking Pikes Peak Escudo.

Forza has never done that, much as I thought Forza 1 was a better game than GT4 it never incited the same emotional attachment. Forza is more just about getting a ton of money to buy cars and then if you want to race online and be competitive you’re stuck using the same 10 or so cars which are overpowered.

GT couldn’t really carry on with the same mould just as Forza cannot, by GT4 that formula had already got old, GT4 was just a copy paste of GT3 with a ton more events and is actually the only GT I haven’t completed because I just got bored of it.

 

[Imari]

I don’t think Forza was ever equal to GT in the CarPG stakes.

That's a personal opinion. At the very least it was in the same ballpark, and T10 have openly admitted that it was inspired by Gran Turismo. In terms of design there's a lot to commend Forza for. I'd say by Forza 3 and 4 you could make a strong argument that either Gran Turismo or Forza was the superior game.

No license tests to prove you have the skill/speed for higher class events, no tuning of your starter car to make it able to compete in higher class events and earn more money because you couldn’t afford anything better.

The license tests are arguably one of the worst thought out pieces of design in GT. As far as tuning the low level cars, are you playing the same Forza? Of course you can. That's what all the tuning parts, engine swaps and aero are for. There's no Stage 4 turbo, but that's probably for the best as they were mostly daft. The upgrades in Forza games are much better than that in GT6, the last GT with serious tuning.

Forza has never done that, much as I thought Forza 1 was a better game than GT4 it never incited the same emotional attachment. Forza is more just about getting a ton of money to buy cars and then if you want to race online and be competitive you’re stuck using the same 10 or so cars which are overpowered.

That's your emotional experience. Other people will find it to be the other way around, but fundamentally the gameplay and design of early GTs and FMs are very, very similar.

Personally, I'm enjoying working through the single player campaign of FM7 very much, as it reminds me a lot of working through the original GT1 campaign. I don't feel like I need a ton of money to buy cars, I take what I get when I want it. I have a few cars that I build up and enter in multiple series and those are the ones that I consider "my" cars. It's the same as GT, you eventually end up with too many cars but there's still a handful that feel like they have a personal attachment.

As far as racing online, that's pretty much like every other multiplayer game (and real life). It'd be nice if there was good balance, but I think with 700 cars that's a sacrifice that you make going in. It's unrealistic to expect balance on that level. It's my understanding that even GTS has problems with balance and that has cars that can't be modified.

GT couldn’t really carry on with the same mould just as Forza cannot, by GT4 that formula had already got old, GT4 was just a copy paste of GT3 with a ton more events and is actually the only GT I haven’t completed because I just got bored of it.

Kind of.

See, the problem with GT5/GT6 and the current problem with FM6/FM7 is that they're not progressing much. There are people who want to play that type of game, but they don't want to play the same game as they did ten years ago. Just as arcade racers have progressed from NFS to Ridge Racer to Burnout to Horizon, people who like caRPGs want to see some evolution of the formula. Just because the games haven't progressed doesn't mean that they can't. That's what people like me would like to see. Take what's good, and find a new spin on it that will make it fresh.

Yes, I'm aware that it's harder than it sounds.

GTS unfortunately isn't a refinement of the formula, it's throwing it out completely and trying something else (namely, iRacing). That's an option, but it sucks for those that like the general style of old Gran Turismo. I don't need another super serious online racing game. I have lots. I could do with a really good car ownership sim. What would be great is two of them trying to push each other to new heights of excellence.

 

[Northstar]

Forza has never done that, much as I thought Forza 1 was a better game than GT4 it never incited the same emotional attachment.

I have no problem getting attached to certain cars in Forza, even with the removal of the Affinity system.

Forza is more just about getting a ton of money to buy cars

And GT isn't?

Take for example the Mitsubishi GTO Twin Turbo, I’m sure lots of people know that car because it was great for grinding money on the test track oval early in the game. Or the infamous game breaking Pikes Peak Escudo.

That's what you said in the exact same post. Grinding has always been a common theme in GT to the distaste of fans since running the same race in the same car over and over isn't exactly fun no matter how the combo may look on paper. I also don't fondly remember any car used for extensive grind sessions, in fact it's the polar opposite, I tended to avoid them for the rest of my time playing the game.

and then if you want to race online and be competitive you’re stuck using the same 10 or so cars which are overpowered.

Every game that tries to shoehorn several different items with different attributes into a single class has this problem, it's not even limited to racing games.

 

[F Inferno]

That's a personal opinion. At the very least it was in the same ballpark, and T10 have openly admitted that it was inspired by Gran Turismo. In terms of design there's a lot to commend Forza for. I'd say by Forza 3 and 4 you could make a strong argument that either Gran Turismo or Forza was the superior game.



The license tests are arguably one of the worst thought out pieces of design in GT. As far as tuning the low level cars, are you playing the same Forza? Of course you can. That's what all the tuning parts, engine swaps and aero are for. There's no Stage 4 turbo, but that's probably for the best as they were mostly daft. The upgrades in Forza games are much better than that in GT6, the last GT with serious tuning.



That's your emotional experience. Other people will find it to be the other way around, but fundamentally the gameplay and design of early GTs and FMs are very, very similar.

Personally, I'm enjoying working through the single player campaign of FM7 very much, as it reminds me a lot of working through the original GT1 campaign. I don't feel like I need a ton of money to buy cars, I take what I get when I want it. I have a few cars that I build up and enter in multiple series and those are the ones that I consider "my" cars. It's the same as GT, you eventually end up with too many cars but there's still a handful that feel like they have a personal attachment.

As far as racing online, that's pretty much like every other multiplayer game (and real life). It'd be nice if there was good balance, but I think with 700 cars that's a sacrifice that you make going in. It's unrealistic to expect balance on that level. It's my understanding that even GTS has problems with balance and that has cars that can't be modified.



Kind of.

See, the problem with GT5/GT6 and the current problem with FM6/FM7 is that they're not progressing much. There are people who want to play that type of game, but they don't want to play the same game as they did ten years ago. Just as arcade racers have progressed from NFS to Ridge Racer to Burnout to Horizon, people who like caRPGs want to see some evolution of the formula. Just because the games haven't progressed doesn't mean that they can't. That's what people like me would like to see. Take what's good, and find a new spin on it that will make it fresh.

Yes, I'm aware that it's harder than it sounds.

GTS unfortunately isn't a refinement of the formula, it's throwing it out completely and trying something else (namely, iRacing). That's an option, but it sucks for those that like the general style of old Gran Turismo. I don't need another super serious online racing game. I have lots. I could do with a really good car ownership sim. What would be great is two of them trying to push each other to new heights of excellence.

Sure in the same ballpark but their approaches were very different, Forza forced you to change cars more often because of it’s restrictions whereas GT had a more natural progression because it either got to a point where it was costing too much to upgrade your car or the limits of your car were being reached. It has restrictions but they weren’t usually the determining factor in why you would switch because you got far less money early on.

GT to me is much more like a traditional JRPG, you’ve gotta grind it out on low level fodder until you can get better gear and then it starts snowballing until you get to a point where you’re just unbeatable.

What I loved about Forza which GT just sucks balls at is the A.I providing some decent racing which since they started using online Drivatars and boosting their speed in all cars by impossible amounts to match leaderboard times has actually become one of its weaker points which is a real shame.

I personally always loved the license tests and it’s a one of my favourite things in Assetto Corsa too even though a number of them I can only scrap bronze medals. What aspect of it do you think was bad, locking of content for those not fast enough? I can sort of understand why that would bother some but if you can’t complete the license tests then for me I’m of the mindset you need to get better and understand how to drive otherwise the faster cars will be even more uncontrollable for that person.

Current Forza just hands out cars like candy, the only reason I felt like I needed money was to buy the specials and even then it gives money so easily which is fine by me these days, I actually prefer the PCars/AC way of having everything unlocked to drive from the start, not sure I could do the same grind of old again and dintbreally have the time. The careers of Forza 3 & 4 were the start of the move away from GT and closer to the PCars calendet if anything and that Event List in Forza 4, damn that thing was the most boring thing ever to complete and I didn’t play Forza again until 7. That along with Halo 4 literally killed my desire to play console exclusive sequels which changed nothing and I switched to PC.

I’d say the main reason Forza’s not balanced is because the upgrade system simply doesn’t work. They keep playing with the PI each game but fundamentally it’s flawed and creates ridiculous power cars. Their solution in 7 was simply to lock it all down which has annoyed most people, I’ve not actually tested it online yet to see how successful it was but judging by the leaderboards not very.

I’d have to say my favourite of the recent racing games was the first GRID that games career was gold and the way smoke kicked up, damage, atmosphere and everything else captured racing perfectly. If they could learn from anything that game would be it.

 

[F Inferno]

I have no problem getting attached to certain cars in Forza, even with the removal of the Affinity system.



And GT isn't?



That's what you said in the exact same post. Grinding has always been a common theme in GT to the distaste of fans since running the same race in the same car over and over isn't exactly fun no matter how the combo may look on paper. I also don't fondly remember any car used for extensive grind sessions, in fact it's the polar opposite, I tended to avoid them for the rest of my time playing the game.



Every game that tries to shoehorn several different items with different attributes into a single class has this problem, it's not even limited to racing games.

Yes but most of the cars you get attached to are leaderboard cars for racing online, although I guess that depends how you played them. Forza being one of the first online racing games meant that was one of its killer features for me. You switched between cars a lot more often so remembering things was harder for me.

This is the thing I find curious everybody complains about grinding and most games have it and yet when I game doesn’t people complain it has no real purpose or goals and it’s boring.

 

[Northstar]

Yes but most of the cars you get attached to are leaderboard cars for racing online,

Nope. One of the funnest things to do in my mind is see how far up the leaderboard/grid you can get oddball cars. Granted naturally some of my favorites happen to be leaderboard cars (Alfa 33), but I tend to only use them in single player.

although I guess that depends how you played them.

Isn't that pretty much the point of a sandbox game? You can always go with the popular choice or just do what you find more enjoyable.

This is the thing I find curious everybody complains about grinding and most games have it and yet when I game doesn’t people complain it has no real purpose or goals and it’s boring.

The problem is developers usually either go to one extreme or the other instead of finding the happy middle ground where you have to work for some things but you don't have to make it a full day task of doing something tedious to get there.

 

[limepie]

There was even a time when Forza and GT physics were regarded as actually good simulator physics. This time is also gone.

Agreed. Most poeople don't think of these games as having great physics with Pcars, AC, I-racing etc out in the world.

Warning, semi-rant coming:

The thing is, most people are wrong. Pcars, AC and iracing are all more difficult than Forza and each certainly have more realistic racing ideas and modes than Forza (see: no qualifying in Forza) but as far as their actual physics go? Well. Those games are more difficult. Those games try to simulate more things. But the end result is either less realistic (P-cars completely ignoring physics beyond the limits of traction) or simply more difficult.

If we're just talking physics engines, i don't really think there's a big difference between how realistically the cars in Forza and GT move and the ones in Assetto Corsa move. I do think Rfactor 2 is a tiny tiny tiny step ahead of those other ones, but i think p-cars is a little less realistic. There is almost nothing between them though.

But i think lots of gamers who maybe haven't raced a car on a track assume that because a game is difficult, its more realistic. That is not the case in my opinion. And my opinion has been formed by lots of seat time in an (admittedly very slow) race car, racing in wheel to wheel traffic, as well as a fair amount of experience drifting my street car. There are plenty of reasons to think Pcars, AC and iracing are more realistic, but physics shouldn't be one of them.

 

[ImaRobot]

Yes but most of the cars you get attached to are leaderboard cars for racing online, although I guess that depends how you played them. Forza being one of the first online racing games meant that was one of its killer features for me. You switched between cars a lot more often so remembering things was harder for me.

I myself actually stood away from the leaderboard cars as much as possible. Like mentioned the oddball cars, and anything typically expected to be slower are things I used most.

 

[Imari]

Sure in the same ballpark but their approaches were very different, Forza forced you to change cars more often because of it’s restrictions whereas GT had a more natural progression because it either got to a point where it was costing too much to upgrade your car or the limits of your car were being reached. It has restrictions but they weren’t usually the determining factor in why you would switch because you got far less money early on.

Hmm. I think you've got a bit of selective memory going on there.

http://gran-turismo.wikia.com/wiki/Gran_Turismo_6/Event_List

There are an awful lot of races with restrictions that don't really overlap very well. You need to buy multiple cars pretty early in order to get anywhere. GT5 is worse.

I personally always loved the license tests and it’s a one of my favourite things in Assetto Corsa too even though a number of them I can only scrap bronze medals. What aspect of it do you think was bad, locking of content for those not fast enough? I can sort of understand why that would bother some but if you can’t complete the license tests then for me I’m of the mindset you need to get better and understand how to drive otherwise the faster cars will be even more uncontrollable for that person.

The part of them that was bad was that an awful lot of them were entirely pointless. Nobody needs to learn to brake to a stop, and they definitely don't need to do it three times. Learning to turn a gentle curve is pretty dubious.

I'm on board with tests/events that actually teach something or involve some skill, but that was maybe half of them at best. The rest were awful time wasting to pander to the original poorly designed tests. I'd prefer some real tests to demonstrating passing or defending manoeuvres, or tyre/fuel management (I know they've tried this, it wasn't good but they tried).

Don't assume that the players are morons that need to be run through half an hour of instructions about how buttons work, it's poor design.

I’d say the main reason Forza’s not balanced is because the upgrade system simply doesn’t work.

Of course it doesn't. 700 cars. Seriously, what system could you possibly have that would even start to produce a balanced result?

I’d have to say my favourite of the recent racing games was the first GRID that games career was gold and the way smoke kicked up, damage, atmosphere and everything else captured racing perfectly. If they could learn from anything that game would be it.

Grid 1 was good. Grid Autosport I liked also.

The thing is, most people are wrong. Pcars, AC and iracing are all more difficult than Forza and each certainly have more realistic racing ideas and modes than Forza (see: no qualifying in Forza) but as far as their actual physics go? Well. Those games are more difficult. Those games try to simulate more things. But the end result is either less realistic (P-cars completely ignoring physics beyond the limits of traction) or simply more difficult.

The thing is, you're wrong.

Project CARS, AC and iRacing are all demonstrably superior physics simulations than GTS or FM7. You may like how the tier two sims feel personally, but they're less accurate.

There are plenty of reasons to think Pcars, AC and iracing are more realistic, but physics shouldn't be one of them.

Yeah, no. Would you like to give an example of where GTS or FM7 get it right and neither pCARS, AC or iRacing do?

 

[F Inferno]

I think because in Forza 1 I got heavily into the leaderboards it probably shaped how I played them. Until the leaderboard wipe I was ranked 2nd on the Autocross and I think 6th or so in the overall leaderboards, when I wasn’t racing I was hunting on the Autocross, I feel like the top guy was Derek something or maybe I’m remembering wrong but I was getting closer and closer to taking the top spot.

What I loved about that though was you could just go to the leaderboards and use the top persons tune/car and then try and outdrive them. As soon as they made it possible to stop people using them my tuning skills are non-existent and I stopped being able to compete, plus the fact in FM2 and PGR3 for that matter I didn’t know about the shift glitch. I’m still a little salty at one if the guys I raced with all the time who didn’t say a word about it to stay ahead of me .

 

[F Inferno]

Hmm. I think you've got a bit of selective memory going on there.

http://gran-turismo.wikia.com/wiki/Gran_Turismo_6/Event_List

There are an awful lot of races with restrictions that don't really overlap very well. You need to buy multiple cars pretty early in order to get anywhere. GT5 is worse.



The part of them that was bad was that an awful lot of them were entirely pointless. Nobody needs to learn to brake to a stop, and they definitely don't need to do it three times. Learning to turn a gentle curve is pretty dubious.

I'm on board with tests/events that actually teach something or involve some skill, but that was maybe half of them at best. The rest were awful time wasting to pander to the original poorly designed tests. I'd prefer some real tests to demonstrating passing or defending manoeuvres, or tyre/fuel management (I know they've tried this, it wasn't good but they tried).

Don't assume that the players are morons that need to be run through half an hour of instructions about how buttons work, it's poor design.



Of course it doesn't. 700 cars. Seriously, what system could you possibly have that would even start to produce a balanced result?



Grid 1 was good. Grid Autosport I liked also.



The thing is, you're wrong.

Project CARS, AC and iRacing are all demonstrably superior physics simulations than GTS or FM7. You may like how the tier two sims feel personally, but they're less accurate.



Yeah, no. Would you like to give an example of where GTS or FM7 get it right and neither pCARS, AC or iRacing do?

I didn’t actually play GT6 so can’t comment on that I actually just meant GT1-3. I did play GT5 which was a nice breath of fresh air from 6 years of Forza so I overlooked a lot of things but manybe grind in that game was obscene.

You have played online though and see how retarded a lot of drivers are. I think some people really do need to learn what the brake does. Although more seriously GT was my first foray into the sim racing world aged 11 which got me hooked and understanding the basics was really quite helpfu coming from arcade racing games.

I actually like all the Grid’s even 2, Codemasters just know their racing games. F1 was only let down by the bugs but the actual racing when it worked was great. The extreme rubber banding A.I in 2 and Autosport though put them below the first game which wasn’t as obvious with the A.I cheating. Plus grinding through all the events to win them all again with Ravenwest is 100hrs of my life I’m not getting back!

 

[Northstar]

I didn’t actually play GT6 so can’t comment on that I actually just meant GT1-3.

The first 4 Forza's had very similar career modes to the early GT games (pro events were just class based championships). They started out using just general settings and as you progressed the requirements made the available cars fewer and fewer. They only went away from that format with FM5 when they went to a car class based structure.

 

[Imari]

I didn’t actually play GT6 so can’t comment on that I actually just meant GT1-3. I did play GT5 which was a nice breath of fresh air from 6 years of Forza so I overlooked a lot of things but manybe grind in that game was obscene.

Gran Turismo 1 through 3 aren't really any different.

http://johnsgtspace.blogspot.com/2010/11/races-of-gran-turismo-1.html

With a B License you have:
Sunday Cup
FF Car
FR Car
4WD Car
Lightweight

That's at least 3 cars to do the 5 championships, 4 if you don't overlap lightweight with one of the others.

Let me boot up FM7 and have a look at the first set of races:
Hot Hatch (1000)
Trophy Trucks (1000)
Polaris RZR (1000)
Historic Road Racing (1000)
Rise of the Supercar (1000)
Open Wheel Legends (1000)
Seeker Open (1000)
Ken Block Gymkhana (250)
Limo Bowling (250)
High-Speed Chase (250)

I believe you need 2500 points to get through this. The three 250 pointers you're given cars for. Seeker Open has no restrictions. You can literally get through the first "licence" in FM7 with one car.

Can we put to bed this idea that Forza forces you into different cars more that GT? They both do it to some extent, they're games based around large car lists so it's in their interest to try and expose the player to as much of their hard work as possible. But FM7 does it less than GT1, and if I recall the early career structure in GT really didn't change much for GT2 and 3. Sunday Cup, FF, FR, 4WD are pretty staple early GT races.

You have played online though and see how retarded a lot of drivers are. I think some people really do need to learn what the brake does. Although more seriously GT was my first foray into the sim racing world aged 11 which got me hooked and understanding the basics was really quite helpfu coming from arcade racing games.

Not on FM7 I haven't played online because I'm not a masochist. Yes, I'm sure it's bad. Most console racers are. The only places I've found consistently clean racing is private lobbies (regardless of game) and iRacing. That's why I value the single player modes in games like FM7, because that's what I buy it for.

But you can't seriously think that people actually don't know what the brake does. They know. They don't need a lesson. They just choose not to use it. Having a license doesn't change any of that. It's just annoying to the people who would use the brake in an online session.

I understand the feels for GT, my introduction to the joys of online racing was GT5 and then GT5. I still think GT5 is a great little game (it's not really that good). There are good things you can do with licences or tests to help people. But there's nothing you can do about people who would rather ram than race. At best you can use a system like GTS or iRacing to pack them all together and hope they enjoy ramming each other from behind.

I think the best use of "licences" would be to develop track knowledge. Have a small set of tracks associated with a B licence, and let players get familiar with those. Introduce a few more with the A licence. And so on. That way players are getting some repeated exposure to the same tracks early on, and the track selection expands slowly so that they're not swamped. The test for the next level is mastery of those tracks, which means that those of us that already know can just go an smash them. That would include places to pass, different lines in the dry and wet, optimal lines, outright pace, etc.

That's the sort of knowledge that would be helpful to those actually trying to get better, particularly if the game can include good feedback as to where you're going wrong and how you can correct yourself. Ghosts, replays and telemetry are a good start. Again, GT does this a bit, it just gets kind of buried under the dross.

 

[th3o]

They're about as good as they ever were. FM7 and FH3 are good looking games on PC at Ultra, and I think many would consider them better looking than AC. Personally, I think they're on par with every other major racing game graphically with the exception of GTS, although GTS makes some trade offs to look as good as it does.

Here is how i approach visuals for racing games and i will explain why i feel that set on ultra on PC PCars2 and AC look 'better' than FM7 on PC or GTS on the PS4 Pro (although i admit GTS is a very hard competitor). I am playing all these games on a UHD HDR OLED TV.

When it comes to racing games the most important thing for me visually (not talking physics here at all) is the coherence of the graphics, meaning: is there a discrepancy between car models, texture work, environment such as vegetation or buildings and overall lighting, but also what about the shaders, ambient occlusion reflections etc.
So i look at the game and first of all decide whether or not it looks 'whole' or are there areas which stick out like a sore thumb in comparison to other areas. And i have to say that maybe with the exception of FH3, iRacing and R3E all 'current' racing games (FM7, GTS, PCars 2, AC, rFactor2) feel somewhat incoherent as they have areas where the game takes a bit of a hit visually. I assume that is mostly due to resource saving, so every game will cut down visuals in areas where they feel it's okay to do so. In the case of iRacing and R3E, they run on older engines and look overall sort of outdated and discrepancies between say car models and tracks are not very obvious due to the older engine.

Without going too much into detail here is why i think that AC or PCars2 look to me(!) better overall (emphasis on overall, that means ofc there are areas in the other games that might be better looking than in the games i favor more):

The most important aspect that makes or breaks my immersion in a racing game visually are not necessarily the models or the textures. What catches my eye first is the lighting model, shaders, ambient occlusion used, the quality of reflections and last but not least visual car movement (body roll).
In all these areas i feel that FM7 is behind AC, PCars 2 and GTS. Yes, FM7 can look great in some after-rain, low sun conditions, but as soon as you have mid day races or races with cloudy weather, the game looks actually pretty flat when compared to AC or PCars2. These two give you because of their better handling of the aspects i just listed a more visceral feeling and natural look. Yes the track environments and here and there some textures may really not look that good in AC or in PCars2 compared to FM7, but because of the things that give the games the visual 'depth' i feel that AC and PCars2 shine more. FM7 and GTS need certain conditions to shine which is a low sun (for the HDR to kick in in GTS) or low sun+wet surface or raining conditions (FM7). But the other two games look mid day better and do also a very good job in low sun conditions. I actually think that the sun source looks better in AC and PCars 2 than in FM7 and GTS. In both of them the sun looks a bit muted, wheres in PCars2 or AC you get the feeling that it actually can blend you.
Especially when it comes to the 'depth' of the car models i feel that FM7 lacks some shaders and good reflections on the cars surrounding the player. Especially when you drive behind a car the back of the car looks matte. Also in the replays the cars move a bit odd in FM7 and while on track in front of you they look a bit too stiff in their movements. The car movement in general is handled better by the other three games i think.

Okay, i will stop here. I hope i gave a good explanation why i think that FM7 is graphically a bit disappointing to me. Unfortunatelly actually, because i feel that they could've implemented all these things if they wanted to, it's probably just that the console hardware could not handle it and they did not want the game to look much better on the PC. I get that. After all, the game was developed for the XBox One and X and the Win10 version was just a port with maybe better Antialiasing if you choose to have it in. But regarding the rest, it's on ultra settings identical to the X version. And i can see that also in the resources needed: PCars2 on Ultra Settings in 4k, low sun, wet surface 20 cars, the GTX 1080Ti can't keep 60fps. Whereas no matter what happens in FM7, i have like 45% headroom with everything maxed out and 8XMSAA

 

[Imari]

Here is how i approach visuals for racing games and i will explain why i feel that set on ultra on PC PCars2 and AC look 'better' than FM7 on PC or GTS on the PS4 Pro (although i admit GTS is a very hard competitor). I am playing all these games on a UHD HDR OLED TV.

When it comes to racing games the most important thing for me visually (not talking physics here at all) is the coherence of the graphics, meaning: is there a discrepancy between car models, texture work, environment such as vegetation or buildings and overall lighting, but also what about the shaders, ambient occlusion reflections etc.
So i look at the game and first of all decide whether or not it looks 'whole' or are there areas which stick out like a sore thumb in comparison to other areas. And i have to say that maybe with the exception of FH3, iRacing and R3E all 'current' racing games (FM7, GTS, PCars 2, AC, rFactor2) feel somewhat incoherent as they have areas where the game takes a bit of a hit visually. I assume that is mostly due to resource saving, so every game will cut down visuals in areas where they feel it's okay to do so. In the case of iRacing and R3E, they run on older engines and look overall sort of outdated and discrepancies between say car models and tracks are not very obvious due to the older engine.

Without going too much into detail here is why i think that AC or PCars2 look to me(!) better overall (emphasis on overall, that means ofc there are areas in the other games that might be better looking than in the games i favor more):

The most important aspect that makes or breaks my immersion in a racing game visually are not necessarily the models or the textures. What catches my eye first is the lighting model, shaders, ambient occlusion used, the quality of reflections and last but not least visual car movement (body roll).
In all these areas i feel that FM7 is behind AC, PCars 2 and GTS. Yes, FM7 can look great in some after-rain, low sun conditions, but as soon as you have mid day races or races with cloudy weather, the game looks actually pretty flat when compared to AC or PCars2. These two give you because of their better handling of the aspects i just listed a more visceral feeling and natural look. Yes the track environments and here and there some textures may really not look that good in AC or in PCars2 compared to FM7, but because of the things that give the games the visual 'depth' i feel that AC and PCars2 shine more. FM7 and GTS need certain conditions to shine which is a low sun (for the HDR to kick in in GTS) or low sun+wet surface or raining conditions (FM7). But the other two games look mid day better and do also a very good job in low sun conditions. I actually think that the sun source looks better in AC and PCars 2 than in FM7 and GTS. In both of them the sun looks a bit muted, wheres in PCars2 or AC you get the feeling that it actually can blend you.
Especially when it comes to the 'depth' of the car models i feel that FM7 lacks some shaders and good reflections on the cars surrounding the player. Especially when you drive behind a car the back of the car looks matte. Also in the replays the cars move a bit odd in FM7 and while on track in front of you they look a bit too stiff in their movements. The car movement in general is handled better by the other three games i think.

Okay, i will stop here. I hope i gave a good explanation why i think that FM7 is graphically a bit disappointing to me. Unfortunatelly actually, because i feel that they could've implemented all these things if they wanted to, it's probably just that the console hardware could not handle it and they did not want the game to look much better on the PC. I get that. After all, the game was developed for the XBox One and X and the Win10 version was just a port with maybe better Antialiasing if you choose to have it in. But regarding the rest, it's on ultra settings identical to the X version. And i can see that also in the resources needed: PCars2 on Ultra Settings in 4k, low sun, wet surface 20 cars, the GTX 1080Ti can't keep 60fps. Whereas no matter what happens in FM7, i have like 45% headroom with everything maxed out and 8XMSAA

I tend to agree that I prefer overall consistent visuals. It's the one thing that drops GTS for me, the cars look incredible but the environments often look less so.

But clearly you can see why it's swings and roundabouts. You and I might prefer more consistent games, but it's not like GTS or FM7 look bad. They're built around a different graphical paradigm and they're very successful at it. Other people may prefer them, and there's not really much in the way of objective evidence to say that they're wrong. They're all at the level where they're close enough that you pick what works for you.

Hence why I say the graphics are about as good as they ever were. The console sims were never head and shoulders above what was available on PC graphically, but they do have a different style thanks to the hardware. Some people prefer that. Others don't.

But I think it's an exaggeration to say that FM7 isn't top class graphically when Forza used to be. It didn't. It was OK, just like Gran Turismo was.

 

[th3o]

You and I might prefer more consistent games, but it's not like GTS or FM7 look bad. They're built around a different graphical paradigm and they're very successful at it.

The console ... have a different style thanks to the hardware.

I completely agree. In fact i really liked FM4 the most graphically when it came out, despite it being 720p.

 

[limepie]

The thing is, you're wrong.

Project CARS, AC and iRacing are all demonstrably superior physics simulations than GTS or FM7. You may like how the tier two sims feel personally, but they're less accurate.



Yeah, no. Would you like to give an example of where GTS or FM7 get it right and neither pCARS, AC or iRacing do?

Ehh, you and I may just have different standards by which we judge physics.

But the easiest example by far is pcars' ridiculous behavior over the limits of traction. I've recovered more slides than I can remember irl, but in pcars, get any sort of decent angle on a stockish car and you're going to be a passenger. You can also still feel the last vestiges of the grid games in the pcars physics engine, the cars want to "bounce" as they lose traction, rather than have a smoothly slide across pavement. Very weird.

A thing to remember is that games are faking literally everything. It doesn't matter how much stuff you take into account if you get the feeling of driving wrong, because ultimately that's the entire goal. You can say you've simulated track temperature or have a better model for a Detroit locker but none of that matters if the ultimate experience doesn't feel like driving at the limits.

AC is much much better imho, but it's still a little too twitchy beyond the limits, I don't have enough experience in Iracing to make that call, it might be better, honestly I think rfactor 2 does the best job of any game I've played, but there's like a papers width of difference between these titles and your average forza/gt when it comes to simulating how cars move when being raced.

That said, if you're judging physics simulations on ambition rather than results, I will not argue the superiority of pcars/ac/iracing/rfacror2 etc.

 

[Imari]

Ehh, you and I may just have different standards by which we judge physics.

I'm judging it compared to reality. How about you?

But the easiest example by far is pcars' ridiculous behavior over the limits of traction. I've recovered more slides than I can remember irl, but in pcars, get any sort of decent angle on a stockish car and you're going to be a passenger. You can also still feel the last vestiges of the grid games in the pcars physics engine, the cars want to "bounce" as they lose traction, rather than have a smoothly slide across pavement. Very weird.

You can't catch a slide in PC2? Interesting. I find it easier in PC2 than in FM7.

You should also know that SMS didn't make Grid. That would be Codemasters. You may be thinking of Shift, but I think if you go back and play Shift again you'll realise just how far away from PC2 that physics engine is.

A thing to remember is that games are faking literally everything. It doesn't matter how much stuff you take into account if you get the feeling of driving wrong, because ultimately that's the entire goal. You can say you've simulated track temperature or have a better model for a Detroit locker but none of that matters if the ultimate experience doesn't feel like driving at the limits.

It's a simulation, not the real world. Of course it's "faking" everything. The point is to have a simulation that behaves like the real world.

AC is much much better imho, but it's still a little too twitchy beyond the limits, I don't have enough experience in Iracing to make that call, it might be better, honestly I think rfactor 2 does the best job of any game I've played, but there's like a papers width of difference between these titles and your average forza/gt when it comes to simulating how cars move when being raced.

I'm still only hearing a lot of subjectivity. I'm totally on board with the "harder is not necessarily more realistic" idea, but to me things like PC2/AC/iRacing are not actually harder than something like FM7. They respond for better to my natural driving reflexes. Forza and Gran Turismo require a certain amount of learned adaptation.

I even tried this on my non-gamer dad once. He found GT6 and FM4 basically undrivable, but he was fine in iRacing. He's a keen driver and knows his understeer from his elbow, and the console sims just didn't react the way he expected from years of experience. Single anecdotal data point I know, but this is what I've seen.

Too twitchy beyond the limits isn't really a useful way of describing it. My MX5 can either be beautifully controllable beyond the limit or snap and spin depending on the conditions. I've had both. Add into this driving cars that you may be less familiar with and without the benefit of the good old fashioned buttocks-accelerometer and twitchy seems like what you'd expect in real life too. I'd expect twitchy if I were to take a race car out on track and try to push it in real life.

That said, if you're judging physics simulations on ambition rather than results, I will not argue the superiority of pcars/ac/iracing/rfacror2 etc.

Sigh.

I asked for actual things that the sims do wrong. You apparently have a lot of feelings about this but little in the way of something that someone else could look at objectively and say "yes, you're right, that's not correct as to how it works in the real world".

Remember how Gran Turismo used to not be able to do donuts? That's an example of the simulation failing to capture real behaviour correctly. I'm sure that the sims have some of these. By definition they're only sims so they can't be getting everything right. But they feel pretty good to me, a lot better than FM7 and the little bit of GTS I've played. Hell, you can look at footage of GTS on a dirt track and see that it's not right.

 

[limepie]

You can't catch a slide in PC2? Interesting. I find it easier in PC2 than in FM7.

Weird! I can catch little ones, but big, full on oppositelock, not a chance. Its just a tank slapper into a spin. That's what made me return the game, about an hour of messing around with the stock mustang with a controller, followed by about an hour of messing around with it with a wheel. But again, i'm talking intentional levels of oversteer here, not little stuff.

You should also know that SMS didn't make Grid. That would be Codemasters. You may be thinking of Shift, but I think if you go back and play Shift again you'll realise just how far away from PC2 that physics engine is.

*facepalm* yeah i meant Shift and Shift 2. Those games had a very noticeable 'bounce' effect when you'd slide that is barely perceptible still in Pcars 2 and was still pretty obvious in Pcars 1.

It's a simulation, not the real world. Of course it's "faking" everything. The point is to have a simulation that behaves like the real world.

I'm still only hearing a lot of subjectivity. I'm totally on board with the "harder is not necessarily more realistic" idea, but to me things like PC2/AC/iRacing are not actually harder than something like FM7. They respond for better to my natural driving reflexes. Forza and Gran Turismo require a certain amount of learned adaptation.

I even tried this on my non-gamer dad once. He found GT6 and FM4 basically undrivable, but he was fine in iRacing. He's a keen driver and knows his understeer from his elbow, and the console sims just didn't react the way he expected from years of experience. Single anecdotal data point I know, but this is what I've seen.

Anecdotal, however i'm basically saying the opposite with nothing by my own anecdotal experience, so fair enough!

Too twitchy beyond the limits isn't really a useful way of describing it. My MX5 can either be beautifully controllable beyond the limit or snap and spin depending on the conditions. I've had both. Add into this driving cars that you may be less familiar with and without the benefit of the good old fashioned buttocks-accelerometer and twitchy seems like what you'd expect in real life too. I'd expect twitchy if I were to take a race car out on track and try to push it in real life.

I'll try to explain it better, there's a level of precision required by Assetto Corsa that i think is unrealistically unforgiving, if only just so. Now, that may make for rewarding gameplay, but i'd reckon a stock 1M is more forgiving in real life than it is in that game. I've admittedly never driven a stock 1M at its limits, but its a little more difficult to control in AC than any car I have driven at the limits, from that era in real life. But really, i'm picking nits with AC. Functionally i think that game has incredibly good physics.

Off topic random MX5 rant time: Those are ****ing great cars. All my life i've kind of avoided liking them, mostly because i'm a contrarian asshole or whatever, but a couple of years ago i had the opportunity to drive a very clean, extremely OEM first gen (1.8L.) I didn't go anywhere in it, other than the parking lot at my work, but hot damn! Within 30 seconds i was testing its limits and getting little slides going around the (mercifully empty) parking lot i was in. I've been dailying a 350Z for like a decade now and would absolutely not have the confidence to do that in my car in that situation (empty lot, but still not particularly big and had islands on it.) Partly that's just the miata's relative lack of grip, but also its because that car is as good and communicative as everyone says it is. I am now 100 percent certain that i will own one at some point in my life. Spectacularly good car.

I asked for actual things that the sims do wrong. You apparently have a lot of feelings about this but little in the way of something that someone else could look at objectively and say "yes, you're right, that's not correct as to how it works in the real world".

I think this is actually kind of my point. Its all fake, there's nothing objectively correct or incorrect about any racing game. If someone went out to design the next Mario kart but failed miserably and the end result felt more like real life than anything else on the market.....that would be a great racing sim. Even if that wasn't the intention.

The inverse is also true, you can devise systems to have the most rigorous simulation of automobile behavior possible, but if it doesn't feel like driving, you haven't made a successful simulation. The point is to fool human beings, not meet an objective set of criteria.

So my argument does leave me open to you essentially saying "well, if its all subjective, both myself and my dad think Pcars 2 is subjectively more realistic"

To which i would have to respond "fair point" because it is one.

But usually when i hear people complaining about the physics of GT/Forza they're not saying "it doesn't feel to me like driving a real car" they're saying "its not realistic for not including all the different types of LSD's/different track temps etc. etc."

I dunno. Maybe that's a strawman, but "it doesn't feel right" is weirdly a much more powerful argument to me, simply because of the nature of 'simulations'

Remember how Gran Turismo used to not be able to do donuts? That's an example of the simulation failing to capture real behavior correctly. I'm sure that the sims have some of these. By definition they're only sims so they can't be getting everything right. But they feel pretty good to me, a lot better than FM7 and the little bit of GTS I've played. Hell, you can look at footage of GTS on a dirt track and see that it's not right.

I do remember that! Oh man, that was GT4. I was so mad at that game. For a while, the even numbered GT games always had more cars and worse physics. GT1 > GT2 physics, GT3 > GT4 physics. 5 and 6 bucked the trend for me, i thought both were fine physics wise.

But i'll definitely give you GT sport on dirt. Dirt is hard, i'm not sure any game has really really done dirt correctly, but also i feel less qualified to talk on that front. I've bombed some gravel roads in the 350Z, its fun, it likes to slide, but honestly i'm no Ogier, when it comes to the soft stuff. Which is not to say i'm a Lewis Hamilton either, but i've had considerable experience on pavement, vs no formal experience on dirt.

 

[Imari]

Weird! I can catch little ones, but big, full on oppositelock, not a chance. Its just a tank slapper into a spin. That's what made me return the game, about an hour of messing around with the stock mustang with a controller, followed by about an hour of messing around with it with a wheel. But again, i'm talking intentional levels of oversteer here, not little stuff.

TL;DW, you can slide cars around in PC2 with stock setup, but with the generally sticky tyres and racing setups it's going to be difficult. It's doable if you're a good drifter, but not trivial. Which seems kind of like what I would expect, at least from my attempts to drift in real life. It's not as easy as it looks.

If you tune the car towards drifting, it's not really that hard even if you suck. Which would tend to suggest that it's less about there being something faulty with the game and more than their standard setups are simply not design to drift. Which they're not.

I think this is actually kind of my point. Its all fake, there's nothing objectively correct or incorrect about any racing game. If someone went out to design the next Mario kart but failed miserably and the end result felt more like real life than anything else on the market.....that would be a great racing sim. Even if that wasn't the intention.

The inverse is also true, you can devise systems to have the most rigorous simulation of automobile behavior possible, but if it doesn't feel like driving, you haven't made a successful simulation. The point is to fool human beings, not meet an objective set of criteria.

The point is to fool human beings by meeting an objective set of criteria. There is an objective goal for a simulation; to replicate reality perfectly. Obviously that's unachievable, but it's an objective criteria. It can be objectively measured whether the car performs in the same way as a real car. It can be objectively measured whether the car gives feedback in the same way as a real car.

There are a number of areas where simulations are largely not able to give appropriate feedback, like G-forces. In these situations the games either ignore the feedback or use other methods of feedback to communicate it, like the additional "fake" effects that you get through the FFB. Preference for these is subjective, because there's no real life equivalent to objectively measure these against.

I dunno. Maybe that's a strawman, but "it doesn't feel right" is weirdly a much more powerful argument to me, simply because of the nature of 'simulations'

And I think you're delving a little too deep into the "it's all in our heads anyway" pool. A simulator has an objective goal and it's success at that can be objectively quantified. Because of the current state of simulation, they also include subjective elements that aim to replace things that are currently unable to be simulated, and this is where your "feels right" comes from. But it's honestly not really that big a part of the experience. Correct physics and FFB provide an astonishingly accurate and natural driving experience.

5 and 6 bucked the trend for me, i thought both were fine physics wise.

They were fine but not great. Both still had significant problems.

Dirt is hard, i'm not sure any game has really really done dirt correctly, but also i feel less qualified to talk on that front.

Dirt is hard, but several games have managed to do dirt to a level that I would definitely label as "correct". Certainly good enough that if you know what it feels like to drive hard on dirt then it will feel natural.

I believe Richard Burns Rally is still considered the king of rally simulations, despite being very old. It's hard, but driving fast on dirt is really quite hard. If you want something that doesn't look like it's from 2005, then Dirt Rally is a very, very competent simulation. I'm told Sebastien Loeb Rally Evo has great physics as well, but I haven't played it myself.

iRacing has dirt ovals, and they are remarkable. It's worth trying them if you can. It's a driving experience unlike anything else.

 

[limepie]

TL;DW, you can slide cars around in PC2 with stock setup, but with the generally sticky tyres and racing setups it's going to be difficult. It's doable if you're a good drifter, but not trivial. Which seems kind of like what I would expect, at least from my attempts to drift in real life. It's not as easy as it looks.

If you tune the car towards drifting, it's not really that hard even if you suck. Which would tend to suggest that it's less about there being something faulty with the game and more than their standard setups are simply not design to drift. Which they're not.

This is, if I'm being honest, the crux of the issue I have with the Pcars 2 in particular. Even in a 100 percent stock car (modern mustang) I couldn't drift, or even do something as basic as a big 2nd gear donut/slide. I have attempted this in real life with a decent list of cars that were not set up to drift. the only one that was difficult was a Mercury xr4ti due to extreme turbo lag and a removed power steering pump. That one took me 3 or 4 attempts to hold a slide. More success than I had in two hours of pcars 2.

In real life you do not need to "set a car up" to drift. The standard setup on a stock car works fine as long as the car is rwd and has a little power. If I couldn't drift a formula style race car, I'd be fine, but the game fails here really badly in a way AC and others do not.

Something that is second nature to me in real life works wonderfully well in every other sim (just about) but doesn't work in this one particular game.

 

[F Inferno]

This is, if I'm being honest, the crux of the issue I have with the Pcars 2 in particular. Even in a 100 percent stock car (modern mustang) I couldn't drift, or even do something as basic as a big 2nd gear donut/slide. I have attempted this in real life with a decent list of cars that were not set up to drift. the only one that was difficult was a Mercury xr4ti due to extreme turbo lag and a removed power steering pump. That one took me 3 or 4 attempts to hold a slide. More success than I had in two hours of pcars 2.

In real life you do not need to "set a car up" to drift. The standard setup on a stock car works fine as long as the car is rwd and has a little power. If I couldn't drift a formula style race car, I'd be fine, but the game fails here really badly in a way AC and others do not.

Something that is second nature to me in real life works wonderfully well in every other sim (just about) but doesn't work in this one particular game.

I believe the stock setups are geared towards racing and people complain about a lot of them, however the actual physics are fine.

 

[Imari]

This is, if I'm being honest, the crux of the issue I have with the Pcars 2 in particular. Even in a 100 percent stock car (modern mustang) I couldn't drift, or even do something as basic as a big 2nd gear donut/slide. I have attempted this in real life with a decent list of cars that were not set up to drift. the only one that was difficult was a Mercury xr4ti due to extreme turbo lag and a removed power steering pump. That one took me 3 or 4 attempts to hold a slide. More success than I had in two hours of pcars 2.

Well, at least we've finally got a data point. Be right back, I'm going to boot up PC2 and attempt to drift the modern mustang with stock settings. I shall report back on success or failure, but I'll be surprised if I can't drift it within two hours and I'm very much not a drifter.

Edit: Well, I don't know what to tell you. It works fine for me.

It admittedly wasn't working very well until I discovered that I had the driver assists on Authentic, which in the Mustang means Stability Control and low Traction Control. After that I could drift about as well as I can in any simulation. That is to say, I can get it drifting, but I have a bit of trouble judging speeds for corners and straightening up at the right time. But that's user error, not the simulation. I got a couple of clean drifts, so someone who sucked less than I do should be able to do it consistently.

As far as a 2nd gear donut, I stopped, revved it up and dropped the clutch in 2nd and did a big donut. Flooring the throttle in 2nd always got the back to step out with pretty much any steering angle at all.

Are you sure that you don't have assists blocking you like I did? The Mustang is a big floppy beast so it can be tough to control through the slide if you're not smooth (I'm not smooth), but there's absolutely nothing stopping you getting the tail out. If anything, it's ridiculously tail happy and you have to be very careful with the accelerator. As expected from a 400+hp muscle car.

It gets easier to drift if you put less tyre on it, but it's doable even with semi-slicks. I was largely tooling around with hards/P Zeros, because that felt about right for what a driver in real life would have on that sort of car. It gets really easy to drift in All Weathers, which aren't exactly an unreasonable choice either.

 

[limepie]

Well, at least we've finally got a data point. Be right back, I'm going to boot up PC2 and attempt to drift the modern mustang with stock settings. I shall report back on success or failure, but I'll be surprised if I can't drift it within two hours and I'm very much not a drifter.

Edit: Well, I don't know what to tell you. It works fine for me.

It admittedly wasn't working very well until I discovered that I had the driver assists on Authentic, which in the Mustang means Stability Control and low Traction Control. After that I could drift about as well as I can in any simulation. That is to say, I can get it drifting, but I have a bit of trouble judging speeds for corners and straightening up at the right time. But that's user error, not the simulation. I got a couple of clean drifts, so someone who sucked less than I do should be able to do it consistently.

As far as a 2nd gear donut, I stopped, revved it up and dropped the clutch in 2nd and did a big donut. Flooring the throttle in 2nd always got the back to step out with pretty much any steering angle at all.

Are you sure that you don't have assists blocking you like I did? The Mustang is a big floppy beast so it can be tough to control through the slide if you're not smooth (I'm not smooth), but there's absolutely nothing stopping you getting the tail out. If anything, it's ridiculously tail happy and you have to be very careful with the accelerator. As expected from a 400+hp muscle car.

It gets easier to drift if you put less tyre on it, but it's doable even with semi-slicks. I was largely tooling around with hards/P Zeros, because that felt about right for what a driver in real life would have on that sort of car. It gets really easy to drift in All Weathers, which aren't exactly an unreasonable choice either.

Interesting.

This sounds nothing like my problems with the car. I had problems not overrotating on my corrections. Like trying to drift in Forza with simulation steering on. Getting angle was easy, recovering without finding yourself in a tank slapper was next to impossible. I don't think it was any of the assists, because that was kind of my first thought too when playing the game. Its possible i was on the wrong tires, but to my memory I just grabbed the stock car, tried to drift for 2 hours on california highway and then returned the game on steam while i could still get a full refund.

Sigh.

I'll head to a friends house and give the game another try sometime and get back to you. Maybe they've updated it? Maybe i'm tripping?

 

[limepie]

Here's a video that more or less illustrates my problem with the game.

He starts out with some nice low angle stuff and Pcars 2 holds up fine. But when he actually tries to throw some angle at it towards the end of the video, it all turns pear shaped.

 

[Wolfe]

@limepie -- Not every single car in PCARS2 is equal in terms of being appropriately controllable (or accurate to reality) in my experience. Smaller team, smaller budget...not exactly as much polish as with a GT or Forza title. Actually, a handful of cars that were a total mess at launch have since been fixed or at least improved, whatever the problem was (eg. the OMSE RX Lite, which used to be a violent overcorrecting top but is now the easiest to drive of all the rallycross cars).

With a controller (DS4 on PS4), I can drift several cars in PCARS2 all day long -- the GT86 and 300SL stand out to me as being gratifying for taking corners sideways -- while others, like the Rocket Bunny GT86, C7 Corvette, or the purpose-built-for-drifting Radbul, are pretty much a lost cause.

The physics engine has its weaknesses, but I don't think that's to blame so much as the setups and maybe other back-end parameters for certain cars -- particularly when it comes to analog stick steering on a controller, which has also been tweaked more than once since PCARS2's launch.

 

[Imari]

Interesting.

This sounds nothing like my problems with the car. I had problems not overrotating on my corrections. Like trying to drift in Forza with simulation steering on. Getting angle was easy, recovering without finding yourself in a tank slapper was next to impossible. I don't think it was any of the assists, because that was kind of my first thought too when playing the game. Its possible i was on the wrong tires, but to my memory I just grabbed the stock car, tried to drift for 2 hours on california highway and then returned the game on steam while i could still get a full refund.

Sigh.

I'll head to a friends house and give the game another try sometime and get back to you. Maybe they've updated it? Maybe i'm tripping?

Here's a video that more or less illustrates my problem with the game.

He starts out with some nice low angle stuff and Pcars 2 holds up fine. But when he actually tries to throw some angle at it towards the end of the video, it all turns pear shaped.

I feel like the goalposts just shifted. We've gone from "I can't drift or even do a donut" to a video of a guy drifting but saying that there's something odd about it.

As I said, I'm not a drifter so I wouldn't say I could judge what drifting pretty much any car should feel like. Maybe that's one of PC2s weak points, maybe it's just that car. If you watch some of Extra Miles other videos like this:



...he seems much more positive. He seems to know his stuff with regard to drifting, and he even took the time to review a video of the real car drifting beforehand. That would tend to support the idea that the underlying physics are at least capable of simulating correct behaviour, and it's just that the Mustang isn't implemented in-game correctly.

That's not implausible, there are at least two parts to the car simulation: the physics engine and the numbers that are fed into it from the car data. If you get either one of them wrong, the car will feel wrong to drive. If they got the Mustang car data wrong, it will feel wrong. It's also technically possible to have a "wrong" physics engine and car data that is "wrong" in just the correct way to give you a correct result. But less likely, especially over multiple cars.

How many cars have you actually tried to drift in? There are known cars in pretty much every sim that I'm aware of that are of lesser quality or have errors in their simulation. Is this one of those (as @Wolfe suggests), or is this actually a fundamental flaw in the physics simulation of PC2? Did you just get unlucky and pick some of the worse cars in the game for the behaviour that you were looking for?



Maybe that's all it is, some cars are OK, some kind of suck. It wouldn't be the first game to have that. But that's more of a car data problem than a simulation problem. The Chaparral laser powered monstrosity doesn't make GT6 a worse sim just because it breaks any number of laws of physics.