Forza 4 vs GT5 physics (read the first post before contributing)

[Scaff]

Fair enough, don't lock it. This will be the last time I read this thread, it's just bugging me that we know what Scaff's opinion on the matter is, and anyone who posts otherwise is immediately provided a rebuttal, and asked for videos, specific examples, etc, etc, etc... if its their opinion, its their opinion. We get it. You don't agree. Fine. Move on, you aren't any more correct than the next man (providing they've actually played FM4).

So basically I should not be able to questions other opinions, ask for examples or clarification, nor should I be able to challenge information that is presented as fact if I believe it to be wrong?

Sorry but your not going to find me doing that, I am doing nothing more than anyone else is able to do in this thread, nor have I ever told anyone than an opinion they hold is wrong, I have however stated if I disagree with an opinion.

Information presented as fact I will however challenge in any way I see fit if I believe it to be incorrect, and as long as the AUP is followed I don't really see why you would take issue with that.


Scaff

 

[adeathnote]

And who exactly in this thread has claimed the physics are 100% accurate in either title?

I never said anyone did, did I? Its a simple fact.

I prefer driving, however I don't agree that GT5 "kills forza in actual driving", the extremely basic tyre physics in GT5 alone ruin any hope of that for me.

Last weekend i spent 4 hours racing on forza 4 at my old mans house. And in my OPINION it feels as though going into corners has very little feel to me. Often it feels as if i can not feel the road. Also, the AI is idiotic. Any corner with ANY other cars they are slamming into you not caring about destroying their cars. GT5 is a much more enjoyable DRIVING experience. It's an opinion.

Could you provide an example of this for us to try and recreate, because quite frankly I see it totally the other way.

No, I do not own the game, nor do i have the time to figure this out (or want to). I simply play it when at someones house who has it. I never said I think GT5 is perfect nor do i disagree with your observations of it's physics.

 

[Spagetti69]

No, I do not own the game, nor do i have the time to figure this out (or want to). I simply play it when at someones house who has it. I never said I think GT5 is perfect nor do i disagree with your observations of it's physics.

*Grabs big foam hands*

Duh Duh Duh, another one bites the dust, and another one down and another one down......

 

[Scaff]

I never said anyone did, did I? Its a simple fact.

OK would you mind explaining what you did mean when you said...

Reading through this thread is kind of ridiculous... Physics are not right in either game.

...as it would seem that you read the entire thread and then needed to explain that the physics are not right in either game. The single strongest implication of your sentence is that posts in the thread gave the impression the physics were 'right' in one or both titles and they needed to be corrected.


Now the next part of your post can be broken down a little as it mixes opinion and facts. These are opinions...

Last weekend i spent 4 hours racing on forza 4 at my old mans house. And in my OPINION it feels as though going into corners has very little feel to me. Often it feels as if i can not feel the road.

GT5 is a much more enjoyable DRIVING experience. It's an opinion.

I don't agree with them, but those are the opinions, and as such all I will do is disagree with them. This however....

Also, the AI is idiotic. Any corner with ANY other cars they are slamming into you not caring about destroying their cars.

...is a statement of fact, I don't care if you stick the phrase 'in my OPINION' or 'It's an opinion' on the end of it, its not going to change that. If it can be tested and the results observed then its not an opinion. "I don't like ice cream" is an opinion while "All Ice Cream contains cat hair" is a statement of fact no matter what caveats are added to the claim. If it can be tested and proven or dis proven then its a fact not an opinion.

A single video showing the AI not slamming into you on any corner is all it takes to disprove that.



On the more general note, I would agree with the observation that the the AI in FM4 is more aggressive than is needed, but that has been tempered from previous releases and at the very least the AI will actually race you and each other. Its still needs a lot of work, but for me is preferable to feeling I get from GT5's AI in which they always feel as if they are just around to make up the numbers and slow you down.

I would also like to point out that this is a physics discussion and as such AI doesn't really figure into that.

No, I do not own the game, nor do i have the time to figure this out (or want to). I simply play it when at someones house who has it. I never said I think GT5 is perfect nor do i disagree with your observations of it's physics.

So from the four hours you played it you can't remember a single example of a car feeling like it was on glass? It left such a massive impression on you but you can't recall a single car or corner that would allow us to give it a go?


I'm basing my observations on extensive time with both titles (and every title in the series for both), and historically my bias and preference has always been for the GT series, a subject I have posted on before:

Go back and review my posting history and tell me that I don't historically have a massive GT bias (download my GT tuning guides and when you have read them consider how long it took to test all of that and write it - that's a fraction of my time with GT4, let alone the full series), when you have done so ask why I now have a FM4 bias (and note the 4 its important).

Could it possible be that after hundreds of hours invested in the GT series over more than a decade I simply decided on a whim to say 'screw it I'll just like Forza for a laugh", or possible that I found in FM4 what the GT series is now missing?

I can even tell you what the final straw was in it for me (and its not the tyre model - which as someone who has spent many, many hours working with real world tyre data is strange), its the tuning. I love vehicle dynamics with a passion, every single part of it from the basics to the physics behind it, I loved teaching it, I still keep up to date with SAE and Racecar Engineering publications. I loved that while not perfect I could, in GT1 to 4 apply the basic fundamentals of tuning to cars and they would act roughly as they should do. Along came GT5 and the first thing I find is that for months I can't change gear ratios, only the final drive!!! Then I start tuning cars and all of a sudden real world theory isn't working as it should, and not by a small way, ride height does things it shouldn't, spring and damper rates have gone mad. Don't believe me, take a look at the tuning sub-forums here and see the volume of posts on it. Even more strange are the number of people who are happy to accept it.

I prefer FM4 to GT5 simply because in the areas that matter to me its a better sim, to be blunt the standards vs Premiums has never bothered me, the crappy menus are just a part of GT for me, the car wash, the oil change. None of these bother me at all. However when the tuning starts to get lost then I start to wonder, and when something else comes along that does allow me to tune (and in a way that reflects the real world), has a pretty good tyre model, with a solid frame rate then its going to appeal.

My choice is an informed one, one based on what appeals to me, so yes a bias exists, but I can explain and track the changes in mine and I think that gives me a degree of informed and balanced credibility. Can you say the same?

You opinions and factual statements are something I would like to discuss (which is kind of the point of a discussion forum), true opinions I will never dismiss, but I may disagree with. Factual claims (dressed up as opinion or not) I always have an interest is testing and discussing the result.

To be a little blunt about it you seem to not want a discussion but rather to simply state your position and have no one comment on it, if that's the case you need a blog, because that's never going to happen here.

I also have to question how much experience you have with FM4, as I'm fairly certain that should someone make similar statements about GT5 with a handful of hours on the title it would raise question marks for you.


Scaff

 

[Tvensky]

LOL, I recommend to leave this thread right about now!

 

[adeathnote]

OK would you mind explaining what you did mean when you said...



...as it would seem that you read the entire thread and then needed to explain that the physics are not right in either game. The single strongest implication of your sentence is that posts in the thread gave the impression the physics were 'right' in one or both titles and they needed to be corrected.


Now the next part of your post can be broken down a little as it mixes opinion and facts. These are opinions...





I don't agree with them, but those are the opinions, and as such all I will do is disagree with them. This however....



...is a statement of fact, I don't care if you stick the phrase 'in my OPINION' or 'It's an opinion' on the end of it, its not going to change that. If it can be tested and the results observed then its not an opinion. "I don't like ice cream" is an opinion while "All Ice Cream contains cat hair" is a statement of fact no matter what caveats are added to the claim. If it can be tested and proven or dis proven then its a fact not an opinion.

A single video showing the AI not slamming into you on any corner is all it takes to disprove that.



On the more general note, I would agree with the observation that the the AI in FM4 is more aggressive than is needed, but that has been tempered from previous releases and at the very least the AI will actually race you and each other. Its still needs a lot of work, but for me is preferable to feeling I get from GT5's AI in which they always feel as if they are just around to make up the numbers and slow you down.

I would also like to point out that this is a physics discussion and as such AI doesn't really figure into that.



So from the four hours you played it you can't remember a single example of a car feeling like it was on glass? It left such a massive impression on you but you can't recall a single car or corner that would allow us to give it a go?


I'm basing my observations on extensive time with both titles (and every title in the series for both), and historically my bias and preference has always been for the GT series, a subject I have posted on before:



You opinions and factual statements are something I would like to discuss (which is kind of the point of a discussion forum), true opinions I will never dismiss, but I may disagree with. Factual claims (dressed up as opinion or not) I always have an interest is testing and discussing the result.

To be a little blunt about it you seem to not want a discussion but rather to simply state your position and have no one comment on it, if that's the case you need a blog, because that's never going to happen here.

I also have to question how much experience you have with FM4, as I'm fairly certain that should someone make similar statements about GT5 with a handful of hours on the title it would raise question marks for you.


Scaff

All i can say is GREAT! and move along... i don't have time for this. I'm glad you do.

Wait, Really? He needs a blog? He HAS to defend every statement he makes with data? This is a forum... for... a... VIDEO GAME! Good god!

I really wish someone else would lock this thread. Seeing as every post is being cut apart and sorted as to what is a fact and an opinion according to one person.

 

[thelvynau]

Really? He needs a blog? He HAS to defend every statement he makes with data? This is a forum... for... a... VIDEO GAME! Good god!

I really wish someone else would lock this thread. Seeing as every post is being cut apart and sorted as to what is a fact and an opinion according to one person.

If a moderator doesnt think this thread should be closed why should it be?

All I see is scaff showing the ins and outs of what is wrong in both games followed by an opinion that forza is better.

Its all well and good having a opinion but you need to show everyone why you have that opinion otherwise it loses any credibility.

If you want this topic closed my suggestion is pm another mod to review the thread.

 

[CDJW]

I find the comment about cornering being unrealistic in F4 vs. GT5 pretty hilarious. F4 has an incredible tire model, selection and tire deformation model which you can actually feel when cornering (despite Microsoft's inferior force feed back methods). GT5 has NONE of these. I think my only reason for enjoying GT5 a bit more is the superior steering wheel selections and force feedback feeling. I may change my mind if I ever get the new Fanatec Forza Elite wheel though. It's supposed to be superior for GT5 as well.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Fair enough, don't lock it. This will be the last time I read this thread, it's just bugging me that we know what Scaff's opinion on the matter is, and anyone who posts otherwise is immediately provided a rebuttal, and asked for videos, specific examples, etc, etc, etc... if its their opinion, its their opinion. We get it. You don't agree. Fine. Move on, you aren't any more correct than the next man (providing they've actually played FM4).

There are plenty of members here who will just as staunchly hold their ground as Scaff, and typically with far less empirical weight behind them (when it moves away from opinions). Perhaps not in this particular thread (or at least, not at this time), but it does go both ways.

Shift 2 has no bearing in this discussion. It has 'video game' physics, and an even worse FFB engine. I foolishly purchased this title in hope that it would be a good sim, and it just wasn't. Graphics looked good, that was about it. I think I played it for about an hour, haven't touched it since.

It has as much bearing on this discussion as Kaz' race-driver moonlighting. Which was all my point was meant to address (and I realize you are not the person who brought his real life experiences up, was just using it as an example).

Yeah, pretty much. That is what makes every driving sim - lets say you have the most realistic physics model that software can provide - but no FFB engine - who would play that game? GT2, LFS, and iRacing all have really good physics, but what really makes them engaging is your ability to feel what the car is doing - there is a reason people (like me) drop $1000 or more into their wheel setup, because we need that tactile sensation to be more engaged, more involved in what the car is doing - physics might make the handling more realistic, but without the FFB, they're nothing. It could be argued that you could have crappy physics, but a stellar FFB engine and have a decent driving game. You can't have that reversed, it won't be satisfying. Not implying the FM4 has a crappy FFB engine, it just isn't as good as GT5 - In my OPINION.

So a game with terrible physics would still be a more enjoyable drive if it had stellar FFB? Well, like you said, opinions... but I can't see that flying for a lot of people. It "makes" it for you, and in that case, great, I suppose GT5 is more suited to your personal tastes then. I know I'd rather some sort of roughly-equal amount of focus on both FFB and the physics themselves, but if push came to shove, I'd prefer slightly more realistic physics to better FFB programming. Obviously, going to either extreme would be pretty poor, too. But, again, diff'rent strokes.

I'm not trying to "prove" anything. But it seems every single time someone (who's played both games, mind you) says an opinion contrary to Scaff's, he is asking for exactly that - prove him wrong. Over and over again. We already know his opinion, he's stated it numerous times - there is no PROVING one game is better than the other, but he seems to be attempting to accomplish just that - he is attempting to prove everyone who disagrees with him wrong, and that is my problem.

Asking for more info to back up peoples' comments on the physics of either game is hardly trying to prove them wrong. Again, flipping the situation around - if a member popped into a thread about GT's physics, specifically, just to say that it "is arcade-like" or "has no feeling" or "makes all cars feel like they're on ice", you can bet members will question this. Or, in FM4's case, we run into the odd dual criticisms (just in the past few pages) of some people saying FM4's corner speeds are too fast (compared to GT5, which somehow immediately makes FM4 unrealistic), but then others saying there's no grip.

I'll also add that despite all of these issues, Scaff has never once told people to stop liking one game for another. We all have our preferences, and there is nothing wrong with that. I prefer console racing to things like iRacing, for example, despite knowing how they fall short in the physics department. He is attempting to disprove erroneous views on Forza's physics - but at the same time, he (and I, for that matter) won't deny when GT does do things right, or even better than Forza. Personally, that's why I'm very happy I own both.

FWIW, I think FM4 is a more complete game. It isn't crap. The car customization alone makes it worth the price of admission (for me, it was buying an Xbox 360 purely for this game, so that's what I'm saying here). The tracks are great, and I for one do NOT think the cars drive like their on glass. The tire modeling is better. But weight transfer and FFB are two HUGE parts to racing simulation, and in this regard, GT5 does both things better - IN MY OPINION. And you'll not convince me otherwise.

Hey, I'm in the same boat - hopped on the 360 train solely for FM4, and I've only got one other game for the system - FM3 came with it in a bundle . I'll agree on all that, with exception to weight transfer; I feel FM4 translates that far better than GT5.

All i can say is GREAT! and move along... i don't have time for this. I'm glad you do.

Wait, Really? He needs a blog? He HAS to defend every statement he makes with data? This is a forum... for... a... VIDEO GAME! Good god!

I really wish someone else would lock this thread. Seeing as every post is being cut apart and sorted as to what is a fact and an opinion according to one person.

Please do not double-post, especially if it's to quote a very large post twice only to respond with a few lines - I've fixed it.

He doesn't need a blog - but if anyone expects their thoughts to be stated without any chance of responses that oppose them, a message board probably isn't the ideal medium for that, I'm sure you'd agree.

...

One thing I've been finding between the two games lately, since I've been playing FM4 online more often, is the differences between their physics with regards to car-on-car collisions. I'm not entirely sure which is more realistic, because I certainly haven't been in any similar situation in real-life (and it's not easy to glean a lot of info from race footage), but basically: both will simulate a PIT manoeuvre quite well, but light taps while side by side have more of an effect on the steering in FM4. It's strange - I find FM4 vehicles to feel like they have more weight to them, whereas GT5 cars all feel light in comparison, but racing online in GT, I can receive small to medium sized bumps from racers and my car will stoically stay its path, provided neither car was too far ahead or behind. In FM4, I've had cars swerve into me from only a few feet away, and I will have to fight to keep my car on the pavement. It certainly feels like T10 has considered this, but I'm curious not only about its realism, but how others' experiences with this aspect of the engine have gone.

 

[thelvynau]

To be honest I dont see what scaff is doing as bad.

He has provided ways of testing certain physics attributes and added facts not many people know.

 

[Scaff]

All i can say is GREAT! and move along... i don't have time for this. I'm glad you do.

This is a discussion board, if someone posts something that I would like to comment on, discuss or ask for more information then I will do. As every single member here can do.

What I do find interesting is that you keep coming back despite saying your done with the thread and the discussion, what I find concerning is that you are happy enough to invest the time is saying why you think I should not be allowed to reply but don't have the time to discuss the content of the thread and points raise in it.

I understand that its easier to target the person making a point that it is to address the points they are making, particularly when they clearly show that your 'facts' are not what they seem.

Wait, Really? He needs a blog? He HAS to defend every statement he makes with data? This is a forum... for... a... VIDEO GAME! Good god!

No and I'm beginning to wonder why this is such a hard concept for you to grasp.

A simple breakdown.

Opinion - Post away and people will discuss
Fact - Post away but be expected to back it up with evidence if asked
Opinion posted as fact - gets treated as fact

As I've already mentioned simply putting 'in my opinion' or similar after a factual statement doesn't make it an opinion and it will be treated as such.

This is a discussion board and as such if you post on it (be in opinion or fact) then expect it to be discussed. It really is that simply and if its a concept that any member doesn't like then. they are free to either just read the posts or not reply when they are quoted.

However to make a factual claim like:"Also, the AI is idiotic. Any corner with ANY other cars they are slamming into you not caring about destroying their cars." and to then not expect a rebuttal is frankly naive.

The very nature of this thread (and this should be clear even from reading selected posts) is an active debate and factual points raised are dissected, if your not willing for that to happen to your posts then don't post in it. Its also far from the only post of this type that is currently going here at GTP, nor is it anything new, the Evolution vs Creation thread has been like this for years.

You've been here less that a month as a member and I would strongly suggest that you get to grips with how the discussions run here at GTP, as throw away comments don't get you far, we expect members to be able to actively participate in debate if they enter into it (that is after all your choice to enter into it).

I really wish someone else would lock this thread. Seeing as every post is being cut apart and sorted as to what is a fact and an opinion according to one person.

You can wish that someone would close the thread all you like, its not going to happen and moaning that comments made are discussed and analysed on a discussion forum is strange to say the least. The fact is that I'm not the only one that is doing this, but for some weird reason you have chosen to target me in this regard.

Now I am going to pop my mod hat on for a moment and be rather blunt, you are dragging this thread off topic because you seem to have an issue with me replying to and discussing the on-topic content of this thread. That will stop right now, if you think my conduct is breaking the AUP then take it up with a member of the Admin team or the site owner.

I am however not breaking the AUP at all, but it would seem that in the absence of a willingness to discuss the topic issues you would rather take issue with me and in doing so drag the thread off-topic. These are both AUP issues.


Scaff

 

[CDJW]

Slip: Forza 4 is A LOT more realistic with regards to accidents and collisions. I've been in twelve of them so I should know. The only unrealistic part is the repair costs in game. lol.

 

[F40LM]

FM4 is not a driving simulator and GT5 is, so of course GT5 would feel more real in terms of driving!

 

[Scaff]

Slip: Forza 4 is A LOT more realistic with regards to accidents and collisions. I've been in twelve of them so I should know. The only unrealistic part is the repair costs in game. lol.

It still has a long way to go, terminal damage is unfortunately pretty much ruled out but I would at the very least like to see tyres blow-out and panel loss put in place.

FM4 is not a driving simulator and GT5 is, so of course GT5 would feel more real in terms of driving!

That will be why GT5 doesn't model tyre deformation or allow tyre pressure to be changed or take into account differing contact patch size or PMI when dealing with lateral G.

And adeathnote actually questions why I post!!!!


Scaff

 

[Spagetti69]

FM4 is not a driving simulator and GT5 is, so of course GT5 would feel more real in terms of driving!

I am going to assume that you have taken the Box art literally. Forgive me if you haven't however.

Red bull ,contrary to popular belief does not actually give you wings. Never jump from a roof after drinking some.

Fairy cakes are safe to eat. No Fairys were harmed whilst manufacturing them.

Chocolate fingers are not taken from chocolate men. Fish fingers fall into this category also.

Welsh rarebit is not a Cardiff virgin. It's actually cheese on toast.

Be careful though. Smoking can kill you and carrots can help you see in the dark but there not advertised as such.

Cheers.

 

[BLACK86]

I really don't know then if this is realistic but why can the Zonda Cinque accelerate out of 2nd or 3rd gear, full power applied with no progression in throttle and still accelerate like it is planted like some fan car? It is almost like the physics are scripted somewhat as you can only light up the tyres from standing start in say 1st gear with a sports or supercar and only R class cars can break traction in higher gears

Are you actually aware of how much down-force that thing generates? It can produce up to 750kgs of downforce and corner at around 1.45g!!! That's over half the cars curb weight and as a result it will corner like that at speed. Have you ever actually driven a car that generates true downforce at speed?

Hi

When you say speed at what speed are you talking about? since saidur is talking 2nd and 3rd gear speeds im assuming you are talking about those speeds? but i always thought strong downforce was created at much higher speeds.

Actually just had a look at wiki and those exact figures 750kg/1.45g are there, however this is generated at a speed of 186mph which is not 2nd/3rd gear speeds obviously.

So your reply is not really fitting for saidurs question, unless you mean this car creates alot of downforce at very high speeds so at 2nd/3rd gear speeds it will create enough downforce to stop the wheels spinning?

 

[Scaff]

Hi

When you say speed at what speed are you talking about? since saidur is talking 2nd and 3rd gear speeds im assuming you are talking about those speeds? but i always thought strong downforce was created at much higher speeds.

Actually just had a look at wiki and those exact figures 750kg/1.45g are there, however this is generated at a speed of 186mph which is not 2nd/3rd gear speeds obviously.

So your reply is not really fitting for saidurs question, unless you mean this car creates alot of downforce at very high speeds so at 2nd/3rd gear speeds it will create enough downforce to stop the wheels spinning?

A few quick observations (in a hurry - sorry).

Firstly he is massively overstating the issue, because even on the demo (which I will come to in a minute) you can't go full throttle in it in 2nd gear with zero issues. Not exactly the only time he has done it, given that he also said "RWD cars with high horsepower have the traction and understeer behaviour of a low BHP FWD hatchback." which is also nonsense.

Secondly he is referring to the demo, which is hardly representative of the currently version of FM4, its also not possible to check exactly what tyres the car is fitted with in the demo (pop a set of RS on a Zonda in GT5 and let me know how it corners).

Finally while you don't get full downforce until the car approaches 186mph, its going to be generating downforce from around 60/70mph which will have an effect.

Give the same thing a go in the full title and let me know if you think it corners unrealistically.


Scaff

 

[atiger]

I am going to assume that you have taken the Box art literally. Forgive me if you haven't however.

Red bull ,contrary to popular belief does not actually give you wings. Never jump from a roof after drinking some.

Fairy cakes are safe to eat. No Fairys were harmed whilst manufacturing them.

Chocolate fingers are not taken from chocolate men. Fish fingers fall into this category also.

Welsh rarebit is not a Cardiff virgin. It's actually cheese on toast.

Be careful though. Smoking can kill you and carrots can help you see in the dark but there not advertised as such.

Cheers.

I agree with everything you say, and indeed smoking is very bad for the health. However carrots do not improve night vision, it's a commonly believed urban myth.

Evidence - http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/10/26/1392430.htm

 

[thelvynau]

Erm the topic certainly has changed to the extreme.

 

[Spagetti69]

I agree with everything you say, and indeed smoking is very bad for the health. However carrots do not improve night vision, it's a commonly believed urban myth.

Evidence - http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2005/10/26/1392430.htm

Bah you got me in the carrots, although vitamin A does help with sight.

My son thinks they do do that's all that matters

OT for a moment, the driving on Glass myth is an interesting one. Carried over from F3.

Let's say you ran a bath and asked 100 people to test the temperature. 50 say it's too hot, 50 say it's too cold.
From those figures I would say the temps are spot on. What's this got to do with Forzas tire models? I hear you ask.

Well for every too Slippy tire comment you can guarantee that a person will say there too grippy.
(it's true, loads have said it).
Leads me to believe that T10 have struck a happy medium with the tire model.

PD tire model is almost like adding a turbo, downforce, engine mods all in one.
The time gained per lap by using the arcade race softs is silly in my opinion.

T10 have modelled a better way of doing it.
Very slight traction gained between tire widths of the same compound.
A more advanced gain if changing up a compound. (you do risk jumping up a class via PI, this helps to keep cars equal in competition.
Basically a better version all around.

GT's biggest downfall in online competitions is that they haven't got a decent way of classifying the cars. A major issue that they will have to address at some point or other.
Possibly a contributing factor as to why there is no leaderboards. That would really highlight the class issues. Although oddly it would provide PD with valuable info.

Before anyone says about Forzas class issues I'm fully aware of them. Its a hard thing to balance out. Hell in real life motorsports their always tinkering with regulations to try and stop certain advantages. Just ask Jason Plato about those pesky Turbo cars that plagued him last season.

I'm not sure if any of that was OT to be honest lol.

 

[Conza]

You know what I've decided? Firstly, the only people qualified to answer this question are;

A. Completely impartial
B. Expert racing car drivers with experience on all forms of engine and drive configurations
C. People who've played both games under as near as possibly conditions (using controllers twice or wheels twice preferably).

I only qualify for part C, with the least favourable scenario of controllers both times, so while I think GT5 does virtually everything better (other than there are about a dozen cars, especially many Ferrari's, in FM4 that I wish were in GT5), except for scenery, and possibly campaign mode.

What is the point to this anyway? Let's pretend we get someone who can analysis how the cars drive, what the physics engines are actually doing, ect ect and we discover that FM4 is slightly ahead - are we going to petition PD to re-invent their engine for GT6? That's unlikely, they can tweak with it, as we've seen in multiple instances, but discovering and or debating, which game has the best physics engine is quite a moot point, if you have both consoles, chances are you can afford both games, and possibly steering wheel/s for them too, and if you can't, because you only have one of the consoles, get that game and deal with its faults.

Those are my two cents, I like FM4, but I love GT5, and if I had to say with my limited experience driving FF, FR and 4WD cars, GT5 does it better, but I'm a layman, as are no doubt, most of you.

 

[GT5_X2010]

Well GT5 has physics that change for online/offline etc which is bad. Also, flipping your car is near impossible. And in online it is impossible. I would like this changed.

But I have played Forza 4 and I PREFER GT5 physics but wish they put in nice features in the online. I mean whats better than going four wide into a corner? Going four wide into a corner with two or three cars barrel rolling over the top of you

 

[Scaff]

You know what I've decided? Firstly, the only people qualified to answer this question are;

A. Completely impartial
B. Expert racing car drivers with experience on all forms of engine and drive configurations
C. People who've played both games under as near as possibly conditions (using controllers twice or wheels twice preferably).

Let see how I stack up:

A. Completely impartial - No one is
B. Expert racing car drivers with experience on all forms of engine and drive configurations - I'm not an expert race car driver, but I have worked in the motor industry for most of my life with near two decades in training and six of those running product launches, teaching vehicle dynamics and driving skills. In the course of which I've logged hundreds of hours on track and proving grounds
C. People who've played both games under as near as possibly conditions (using controllers twice or wheels twice preferably). - Played every release of both series, as well as the majority of PC sims as well. Oh and with all interface devices.

I only qualify for part C, with the least favourable scenario of controllers both times, so while I think GT5 does virtually everything better (other than there are about a dozen cars, especially many Ferrari's, in FM4 that I wish were in GT5), except for scenery, and possibly campaign mode.

I disagree and as such would like to know why you think GT5 has a better physics engine (which is what this thread is about) when it has the following issues:


GT5 Physics Issues

• Tyre and suspension modelling very, very basic
• Lateral g managed by a simple increment factor when changing tyres
• Absence of any torque effect to front or rear wheels from a standing start (possible issues with suspension and tyre model)
• Suspension tuning counter to real world logic
• Lift off oversteer almost non-existent

All of which to me are rather serious issues and the majority of which are modelled to one degree or another in most of its competitors.

What is the point to this anyway? Let's pretend we get someone who can analysis how the cars drive, what the physics engines are actually doing, ect ect and we discover that FM4 is slightly ahead - are we going to petition PD to re-invent their engine for GT6? That's unlikely, they can tweak with it, as we've seen in multiple instances, but discovering and or debating, which game has the best physics engine is quite a moot point, if you have both consoles, chances are you can afford both games, and possibly steering wheel/s for them too, and if you can't, because you only have one of the consoles, get that game and deal with its faults.

You could ask what the point is of any discussion on this site given that criteria.

However we do know that PD visits the site (site staff have discussed GT with him, PD staff and Sony staff in the past and I'm sure may well do so in the future) so it may also have a bearing on future releases.

Oh and then the minor issue of countering widely inaccurate statements that some members make like this:

I appreciate the 'with all due respect' part. rFactor and iRacing are primitive (yes, imo) compared to GT5, graphics, physics, car selection, value for money, all of which pale in comparison to GT5, GT5s only problem - it's on a console not a PC.

GT5 has no rivals on the PC.

Oh wait that was you.

Those are my two cents, I like FM4, but I love GT5, and if I had to say with my limited experience driving FF, FR and 4WD cars, GT5 does it better, but I'm a layman, as are no doubt, most of you.

Given my quite extensive experience driving road, track and race cars of all configurations I disagree.

GT5 was good at release and certainly better that FM3 was in terms of physics, however FM4 moved the game on a lot further in regard to tyre modelling, load transfer and suspension modelling. FM4 still has a way to go in comparison to some of the PC sims around, but compared to GT5 it comes ahead for me.


Scaff

 

[Lukeydopeyus]

I've worked most of my adult life within the motor industry and I still do. That includes time spent in product testing and training, I've taught driver development and vehicle dynamics for manufactures, in addition I've managed the training for the launch of over a dozen vehicles. During this time I've personally driven about 50% of the volume models sold in the EU and a fair amount of the niche stuff as well, in the process logging hundreds of hours on track and proving grounds around the UK and Europe.



The opinions I offer on physics and vehicle dynamics are my opinions, but they are also based on an understanding of the actual physics involved, how real cars behave on real tracks and how that relates to the titles being discussed.
I'm not an expert race car driver, but I have worked in the motor industry for most of my life with near two decades in training and six of those running product launches, teaching vehicle dynamics and driving skills. In the course of which I've logged hundreds of hours on track and proving grounds.
Given my quite extensive experience driving road, track and race cars of all configurations I disagree.

Scaff

I have been following the discussion here for quite a while and I'm pretty baffled by the sheer numbers of posts that don't really contribute to the topic and so far nobody have provided counter evidence to what Scaff have provided about the the physics in GT5 and FM4.

Along the way, I have encountered several statements written by you, Scaff about your background at work and experiences. These statements, sooner or later will invite others to ask for evidence, after all, anyone can say such thing and might get away with it.

I'm curious to these statements which have been written several times in other posts, and all are used to demonstrate or should I say to support your opinions and facts, strangely nobody in my knowledge within this forum has ever question if the things said were true. Facts are facts, if they are truly proven then there will be no need to add with these statements regarding experiences at work or whatever, they don't add more weight to said opinions or facts.

Being a race driver, a professional in motor industry, extensive knowledge of vehicles or a test driver IRL will not make others take every words in without any slight consideration, well not for me. I don't look at certain person's background or their expertise as a measure for what's valid or not, as long as the opinions are objective and the facts are proven, that is it.

I am saying this as I have known several people in the past - not in this forum by the way, who have made false or glorified statements regarding their experiences and expertise or work hoping to gain support and in the end I knew the truth and the truth hurts. I just knew that something was off, and some curious digging brought about the truth. Several other members of that forum felt bad and left with disgust. I hope it won't happen again here.

So let's forget or at least discount about anyone's work experiences, expertise or whatever when discussing other's opinions or facts, they certainly won't add any weight or contribute to the topic. Confirm the facts stated in the discussion, acknowledge them, they are entitled to it. Any opinion about the physics of the games in topic are each to their own, and though sometimes I disagree or agree to them, i don't fuss about it, we are all different any way

Last words, Scaff, those facts that you have posted and demonstrated via videos, I do agree with them, as they are proven, GT5 do have serious issues in this department, PD have serious catching up to do in GT6. I've played FM4 at a friend's place couple of times, with hand controller, I can still distinguish the differences with GT5 quite easily and what have been posted here about the pros and cons regarding the physics are true until proven otherwise. Anyone up for the challenge ?

 

[Scaff]

I have been following the discussion here for quite a while and I'm pretty baffled by the sheer numbers of posts that don't really contribute to the topic and so far nobody have provided counter evidence to what Scaff have provided about the the physics in GT5 and FM4.

Along the way, I have encountered several statements written by you, Scaff about your background at work and experiences. These statements, sooner or later will invite others to ask for evidence, after all, anyone can say such thing and might get away with it.

I'm curious to these statements which have been written several times in other posts, and all are used to demonstrate or should I say to support your opinions and facts, strangely nobody in my knowledge within this forum has ever question if the things said were true. Facts are facts, if they are truly proven then there will be no need to add with these statements regarding experiences at work or whatever, they don't add more weight to said opinions or facts.

Being a race driver, a professional in motor industry, extensive knowledge of vehicles or a test driver IRL will not make others take every words in without any slight consideration, well not for me. I don't look at certain person's background or their expertise as a measure for what's valid or not, as long as the opinions are objective and the facts are proven, that is it.

I am saying this as I have known several people in the past - not in this forum by the way, who have made false or glorified statements regarding their experiences and expertise or work hoping to gain support and in the end I knew the truth and the truth hurts. I just knew that something was off, and some curious digging brought about the truth. Several other members of that forum felt bad and left with disgust. I hope it won't happen again here.

So let's forget or at least discount about anyone's work experiences, expertise or whatever when discussing other's opinions or facts, they certainly won't add any weight or contribute to the topic. Confirm the facts stated in the discussion, acknowledge them, they are entitled to it. Any opinion about the physics of the games in topic are each to their own, and though sometimes I disagree or agree to them, i don't fuss about it, we are all different any way

I have provided information on my background in a number of threads and posts over the years and one other member of staff actually works for the US side of the company I currently work for (and as such we have discussed a number of issues of that nature via PM).

A large amount of the work I currently carry out is subject to NDA's and I also have my own privacy to maintain, however I am more than happy to provide what details I can to any member of staff who will then verify it for you if you wish.

Example would include contact details for my current job role (which is UK training manager for a worldwide DMS and Automotive consultancy company), details of training material and content I have produced and delivered and material that could only have been obtained via these roles.

I hope you understand why I am unable to publicly post this information, but will be more than happy to have it authenticity verified by a member of staff of your choice.

I would also add that I have only mentioned my past experience (that I can recall) when it is relevant to the discussion, as I'm sure you would agree it most certainly is here. I actually wish we could just deal with the physics alone however it sometimes happens that its the last thing people actually want to do, preferring to distract in any way they can and throwing in massive caveats about who can and can't discuss a topic. All of which is a bit odd as what someone does has zero bearing on how the physics of the real world work and our ability to compare what happens in any title with that.

My background doesn't change for a second the issues GT5 has with full throttle launches or FM4 has with lift-off oversteer not being as strong as it should be, however plenty of people would rather maintain that distraction rather than simply get to grips with the physics of the real world and see how the two titles stack up against it.

Last words, Scaff, those facts that you have posted and demonstrated via videos, I do agree with them, as they are proven, GT5 do have serious issues in this department, PD have serious catching up to do in GT6. I've played FM4 at a friend's place couple of times, with hand controller, I can still distinguish the differences with GT5 quite easily and what have been posted here about the pros and cons regarding the physics are true until proven otherwise. Anyone up for the challenge ?

That's all I want do, actually test the various elements of the two titles to see what they do well and what they need to improve on. The rabid 'XXX does nothing wrong and is the greatest sim ever and don't you dare say otherwise' posts do nothing but distract from that and personally I would like to see the back of them. However they don't break the AUP so all I (and others) can do is address them as and when they appear. Unfortunately as this is a predominately GT based site the majority of posts of that nature do have GT5 in place of the XXX, which can lead to an impression of me and other just having a 'pop' at GT5. However a review of my posting history over the years will very quickly reveal that is not the case.


Scaff

 

[ch3ng]

I have to agree with Scaff.

I think some people dont know the differents Between "realistic physics" and "i enjoy the physics the Most"

Well both Games have their advantage and disadvantage if we Talk about physics.

 

[Lukeydopeyus]

I have provided information on my background in a number of threads and posts over the years and one other member of staff actually works for the US side of the company I currently work for (and as such we have discussed a number of issues of that nature via PM).

A large amount of the work I currently carry out is subject to NDA's and I also have my own privacy to maintain, however I am more than happy to provide what details I can to any member of staff who will then verify it for you if you wish.

Example would include contact details for my current job role (which is UK training manager for a worldwide DMS and Automotive consultancy company), details of training material and content I have produced and delivered and material that could only have been obtained via these roles.

I hope you understand why I am unable to publicly post this information, but will be more than happy to have it authenticity verified by a member of staff of your choice.

I would also add that I have only mentioned my past experience (that I can recall) when it is relevant to the discussion, as I'm sure you would agree it most certainly is here. I actually wish we could just deal with the physics alone however it sometimes happens that its the last thing people actually want to do, preferring to distract in any way they can and throwing in massive caveats about who can and can't discuss a topic. All of which is a bit odd as what someone does has zero bearing on how the physics of the real world work and our ability to compare what happens in any title with that.

My background doesn't change for a second the issues GT5 has with full throttle launches or FM4 has with lift-off oversteer not being as strong as it should be, however plenty of people would rather maintain that distraction rather than simply get to grips with the physics of the real world and see how the two titles stack up against it.



That's all I want do, actually test the various elements of the two titles to see what they do well and what they need to improve on. The rabid 'XXX does nothing wrong and is the greatest sim ever and don't you dare say otherwise' posts do nothing but distract from that and personally I would like to see the back of them. However they don't break the AUP so all I (and others) can do is address them as and when they appear. Unfortunately as this is a predominately GT based site the majority of posts of that nature do have GT5 in place of the XXX, which can lead to an impression of me and other just having a 'pop' at GT5. However a review of my posting history over the years will very quickly reveal that is not the case.


Scaff

Don't worry about giving your own details to public Scaff, I am not going to invade other's privacy just for the sake of a discussion in a forum. I acknowledge the good will on your part, and elaborating briefly about your job. That alone shows that you are true to your words:tup:.

I know that I might have been intrusive for being curious, please bear with me and I am really sorry if I any words that I posted earlier might have been uncomfortable for anyone to read.

Now regarding GT5 and FM4, when I look at the replay of cars going in FM4, I get that weird feeling, the way the tires and the body the car moves while interacting with the road surface, it looked too busy - is there a word for this ? oh well, too sensitive to road surface ? While in GT5, the cars look so firmly grounded and less drastic movement, even on a low powered cars with soft suspension going in hard in a corner. These can be observed and compared on Top Gear Test Track, for example using De Lorean DMC, in which GT5 only has the standard car version.

Using stock cars with no mod, I did a couple of laps on both games, with the hand controller, GT5 car in cockpit and replay visually felt more firm and planted - weight transfer wise with less dive and suspension movement compared to FM4. In Forza 4, the Delorean DMC has that dive/squat during hard braking, exiting corner, and to certain degree suspension movement that visually gives impression that the road is bumpy on a smooth surface on Top Gear Test Track, this is more pronounced inside the cockpit view, but to my taste, is a bit too much. Maybe it's just me, or has anyone felt the same ? Any opinion is greatly appreciated ...

All I know about Delorean DMC is that it is a sports car, which surely has firmer spring and damper than most people mover like Corolla or Yaris.
Here are videos to see what I mean :

In real life :


Watch when the driver took both cars in a zig zag pattern and cornering fast, the car has a firm suspension and less movement than in FM4 ...


In GT5 :


Bad capture video, but I hope this is okay,


In FM4 :


The car suspension movements are not that visible, except during braking and exiting corner hard,maybe the player in the video is using wheel, but when I use a controller, my driving wasn't that smooth, the car looks too busy compared to my run in GT5

Based on my observation, FM4 seems to be a bit exaggerated in suspension movements or should I say amplified ? While in GT5, suspension movements are bit sterile, or lacking real world dynamics, that zig zag part on the real life video sums it up pretty well

 

[Conza]

Let see how I stack up:

A. Completely impartial - No one is
B. Expert racing car drivers with experience on all forms of engine and drive configurations - I'm not an expert race car driver, but I have worked in the motor industry for most of my life with near two decades in training and six of those running product launches, teaching vehicle dynamics and driving skills. In the course of which I've logged hundreds of hours on track and proving grounds
C. People who've played both games under as near as possibly conditions (using controllers twice or wheels twice preferably). - Played every release of both series, as well as the majority of PC sims as well. Oh and with all interface devices.

I disagree and as such would like to know why you think GT5 has a better physics engine (which is what this thread is about) when it has the following issues:


GT5 Physics Issues

[*]Tyre and suspension modelling very, very basic
[*]Lateral g managed by a simple increment factor when changing tyres
[*]Absence of any torque effect to front or rear wheels from a standing start (possible issues with suspension and tyre model)
[*]Suspension tuning counter to real world logic
[*]Lift off oversteer almost non-existent


All of which to me are rather serious issues and the majority of which are modelled to one degree or another in most of its competitors.

You could ask what the point is of any discussion on this site given that criteria.

However we do know that PD visits the site (site staff have discussed GT with him, PD staff and Sony staff in the past and I'm sure may well do so in the future) so it may also have a bearing on future releases.

Oh and then the minor issue of countering widely inaccurate statements that some members make like this:

Oh wait that was you.

Given my quite extensive experience driving road, track and race cars of all configurations I disagree.

GT5 was good at release and certainly better that FM3 was in terms of physics, however FM4 moved the game on a lot further in regard to tyre modelling, load transfer and suspension modelling. FM4 still has a way to go in comparison to some of the PC sims around, but compared to GT5 it comes ahead for me.

Scaff

You stack up poorly, and I'm getting sick of your constant harassment.

GT5 > FM4 🤬, and I 🤬 if you agree or not, no one can 'prove' either game has superior physics. I stand by that GT5 has no rivals on the PC.

 

[Tornado]

harassment.

If you don't want your statements to be challenged, stop making them. Simple as. It isn't "harassment" when people keep responding to your uninformed-looking posts when you keep making them.

 

[BLACK86]

A few quick observations (in a hurry - sorry).

Firstly he is massively overstating the issue, because even on the demo (which I will come to in a minute) you can't go full throttle in it in 2nd gear with zero issues. Not exactly the only time he has done it, given that he also said "RWD cars with high horsepower have the traction and understeer behaviour of a low BHP FWD hatchback." which is also nonsense.

Secondly he is referring to the demo, which is hardly representative of the currently version of FM4, its also not possible to check exactly what tyres the car is fitted with in the demo (pop a set of RS on a Zonda in GT5 and let me know how it corners).

Finally while you don't get full downforce until the car approaches 186mph, its going to be generating downforce from around 60/70mph which will have an effect.

Give the same thing a go in the full title and let me know if you think it corners unrealistically.


Scaff

I have not got forza 4 unfortunately, will be getting it likely so can test out the zonda then, will probably just take a corner in 2nd holding it at mid revs, then foot down coming out of the corner and see what happens, corner will be sharp enough to push the tail out.