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

[Terronium-12]

You seem to be testing something else. Scaff was talking about when a car reaches high speed the car physically lifts due to the aerodynamic effects which in turn makes the steering go very light.

To test it you need a car with a high top speed (150+mph) and a long, flat straight.

Wish that was clarified earlier on as I instantly thought of lift-off oversteer, not aero lift.

 

[Lukeydopeyus]

Any street car can produce lift at high speed, as their high frontal area and body shape would produce low pressure area on itself. Lift are not always felt on the front, most sedan travelling at high speed will have that "light" feel at the rear tires.

Source :

http://www.gmecca.com/byorc/dtipsaerodynamics.html#LiftDownforce

 

[Lukeydopeyus]

I tried 2 cars in GT5 to see if there's any lift effect during high speed run, the cars are Camaro SS 2010, stock, taken from arcade, with no assists, no abs, comfort soft - street tires. The other car is Shelby Cobra 427'66, highly modified, no aero, 748hp, 918 kg, custom transmission, no assists, no abs, comfort soft. The track obviously SS Route X

Both cars around 100 - 180 km/h are still responsive to steer, front tire load decrease slightly compared to when standing still. Above 200km/h steering response gradually decreasing, tried to rock the steering left to right at top speed - Camaro 250+kmh and Cobra 350+kmh - response was diminished tremendously.

Both car also have visibly less front tire load than the rear even when not gaining speed anymore. Steering at this speed is scary, really scary, one tiny mistake, the car will spin out of control as both cars have no aero at all - no downforce, both front and rear.
Is this the effect of front lift, I am not entirely sure ...
The rear tires felt loose at top speed on both cars, that's for sure.
Here are the replays, check them out, my driving skills are not that great

 

[Spagetti69]

Not to be a pain guys but when testing for lift at high speed could you check the Suspension tab.
The back should squat slightly and the front should lift.

I would imagine the contact patch would only reduce very little.
Anyone who has physically lifted a car realises that the body work will raise quite a bit before any tires would leave the ground.


The suspension tab would show a lot more detail as to what is happening with minor increments.

If someone could check this then that would be nice. I'm unable to. I am interested though.

Not sure if GT has this option to check?

 

[Scaff]

I tried 2 cars in GT5 to see if there's any lift effect during high speed run, the cars are Camaro SS 2010, stock, taken from arcade, with no assists, no abs, comfort soft - street tires. The other car is Shelby Cobra 427'66, highly modified, no aero, 748hp, 918 kg, custom transmission, no assists, no abs, comfort soft. The track obviously SS Route X

Both cars around 100 - 180 km/h are still responsive to steer, front tire load decrease slightly compared to when standing still. Above 200km/h steering response gradually decreasing, tried to rock the steering left to right at top speed - Camaro 250+kmh and Cobra 350+kmh - response was diminished tremendously.

Both car also have visibly less front tire load than the rear even when not gaining speed anymore. Steering at this speed is scary, really scary, one tiny mistake, the car will spin out of control as both cars have no aero at all - no downforce, both front and rear.
Is this the effect of front lift, I am not entirely sure ...
The rear tires felt loose at top speed on both cars, that's for sure.
Here are the replays, check them out, my driving skills are not that great

It certainly sounds a lot like very mild lift (akin to the findings of the MkII in FM4).

Gets me thinking, have PD put working aero with downforce on all race cars. Can't get on GT5 until tonight so would anyone be able to see if the GT40 MkIV has adjustable aero as standard, if it does then that answers that one.

In regard to a road car that we can test and should be able to see what affect it has in comparison to the real world I think I may have one.

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/aerodatabaseauditt00.html

2000 Audi TT
Lift:
386 lbs. @ 150 mph

Aero. Balance @ 150 mph:
F: 177 lbs.
R: 209 lbs.

I believe this is in both or as near as damn it in terms of model year (again can't check right now so if anyone is able to confirm this would be great).

Otherwise the list available with data to hand can be found here:

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/data.html


Scaff

 

[Spagetti69]

If my theory is correct, setting rebound damper the same as spring would highlight this more.

The rear would be acting on the springs and the front would be limited by the rebound damper.

Equaling the springs and rebounds for a straight flat test should show up any front lift.
If my theory is correct.

Remember to put your tune right before leaving the test though lol.

Who knows, might work, just thinking out loud.

 

[Lukeydopeyus]

May I make suggestion for the lift tests, we can use Nissan R390 GT road car as a test bed. Both Forza 4 and GT5 have this car, we can put max downforce on the rear and minimum at the front, then modify the car to at least 550 hp and custom transmission for 340km/h top speed, then we'll see the result.

I did test the car on GT5, Nissan R390 GT road car with a bit over 200km on the clock, high rpm turbos, comfort soft, no abs/assists, custom transmission = 340km/h top speed. I adjusted the rear downforce to 60 max and front at 15 min. To my surprise the car did have some sort of lift at high speed - above 250 km/h, and at over 300km/h the rear tires load goes crazy with that red alert on top speed and front load almost gone. Gonna try with the different downforce - front max, rear min, both max and both min to see the effects. Might post the replays for all of them too if anyone interested

 

[Scaff]

May I make suggestion for the lift tests, we can use Nissan R390 GT road car as a test bed. Both Forza 4 and GT5 have this car, we can put max downforce on the rear and minimum at the front, then modify the car to at least 550 hp and custom transmission for 340km/h top speed, then we'll see the result.

I did test the car on GT5, Nissan R390 GT road car with a bit over 200km on the clock, high rpm turbos, comfort soft, no abs/assists, custom transmission = 340km/h top speed. I adjusted the rear downforce to 60 max and front at 15 min. To my surprise the car did have some sort of lift at high speed - above 250 km/h, and at over 300km/h the rear tires load goes crazy with that red alert on top speed and front load almost gone. Gonna try with the different downforce - front max, rear min, both max and both min to see the effects. Might post the replays for all of them too if anyone interested

The 390 has a serious amount of downforce, we need cars that actively produce lift at speed to test this.

Scaff

 

[shirakawaa]

Wasn't the original Audi TT (in)famous for having too much lift at speed?

 

[Lukeydopeyus]

The 390 has a serious amount of downforce, we need cars that actively produce lift at speed to test this.

Scaff

Oh, my bad, will try with Audi TT on GT5 then, will need to check if I have the car.

I came across this while researching about Audi TT :

"More obviously, all TTs get a small rear spoiler mounted to the decklid in a move aimed at reducing lift on the rear axle at high speeds. The TT has 148 pounds of lift at the rear axle at 125 mph without the spoiler, but only a 53-pound lift when the spoiler is fitted. By comparison, the BMW Z3 coupe generates 64 pounds of lift at 125 mph; the Mercedes-Benz SLK, 104 pounds of lift; and the Porsche Boxster, 68 pounds of lift. The chassis engineers claim they could have solved the problem without the spoiler, but this would have meant a significant increase in understeer at normal speeds, a trait they wanted to avoid. All TTs also get a version of VW's switchable Electronic Stability Program (ESP). "

Taken from the source : http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/we-take-audis-tamed-tt-for-a-spin-first-drive-review

I wonder if the car in GT5 have the same traits as the old Audi TT before the recall.

 

[SUPERSONICpsiii]

Ok, so you posted this on a Gran Turismo fansite and expect the fans to choose between GT5 and FZ4... it isn't going to pan out very evenly

HOWEVER, as hypocritical as this may be, I do agree that GT5 has the beter physics engine...by far

Forza4 is much better, however, when it comes to car variety, car customization, and upgradability.

 

[Samus]

Ok, so you posted this on a Gran Turismo fansite and expect the fans to choose between GT5 and FZ4... it isn't going to pan out very evenly

HOWEVER, as hypocritical as this may be, I do agree that GT5 has the beter physics engine...by far

Forza4 is much better, however, when it comes to car variety, car customization, and upgradability.

It's been fairly even up to this point. So, are you going to explain why you think GT5 has the better engine 'by far' or just be the stereotypical GT5 fan with no reasoning. I hope you've actually played Forza 4 as well.

 

[Scaff]

Wasn't the original Audi TT (in)famous for having too much lift at speed?

Oh, my bad, will try with Audi TT on GT5 then, will need to check if I have the car.

I came across this while researching about Audi TT :

"More obviously, all TTs get a small rear spoiler mounted to the decklid in a move aimed at reducing lift on the rear axle at high speeds. The TT has 148 pounds of lift at the rear axle at 125 mph without the spoiler, but only a 53-pound lift when the spoiler is fitted. By comparison, the BMW Z3 coupe generates 64 pounds of lift at 125 mph; the Mercedes-Benz SLK, 104 pounds of lift; and the Porsche Boxster, 68 pounds of lift. The chassis engineers claim they could have solved the problem without the spoiler, but this would have meant a significant increase in understeer at normal speeds, a trait they wanted to avoid. All TTs also get a version of VW's switchable Electronic Stability Program (ESP). "

Taken from the source : http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/we-take-audis-tamed-tt-for-a-spin-first-drive-review

I wonder if the car in GT5 have the same traits as the old Audi TT before the recall.

The TT in both is almost certainly going to be the post modification model, its easy enough to tell anyway, if its got the spoiler on the back its post modification.

Ok, so you posted this on a Gran Turismo fansite and expect the fans to choose between GT5 and FZ4... it isn't going to pan out very evenly

HOWEVER, as hypocritical as this may be, I do agree that GT5 has the beter physics engine...by far

Forza4 is much better, however, when it comes to car variety, car customization, and upgradability.

Would you mind expanding on exactly why you believe GT5 has the better physics by such a degree, if it is such a large margin then I'm sure demonstrable examples should be easy for you to provide.


Scaff

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Yep, the '00 TT in GT5 is the spoilered model. The V6 model is essentially the same between both, FWIW.

Some quick searching tells me the Alfa 8C has negative lift, so that's out. There's bound to be other cars that would work... The Jag E-type?

 

[another_jakhole]

Ok, so you posted this on a Gran Turismo fansite and expect the fans to choose between GT5 and FZ4... it isn't going to pan out very evenly

HOWEVER, as hypocritical as this may be, I do agree that GT5 has the beter physics engine...by far

Forza4 is much better, however, when it comes to car variety, car customization, and upgradability.

:thumbs up:

The FM vs GT thread is in the Forza section on GTPlanet. It should be in both sections. It's like a "conspiracy".

 

[Spagetti69]

:thumbs up:

The FM vs GT thread is in the Forza section on GTPlanet. It should be in both sections. It's like a "conspiracy".

Serious much?

The physics debate is in the GT section as it happens.
Physics is after all GT's strongest suit apparently.

Don't read much into other peoples opinions as long as your happy.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

:thumbs up:

The FM vs GT thread is in the Forza section on GTPlanet. It should be in both sections. It's like a "conspiracy".

No point having the same topic twice. That one was created there first, and as it is in the Forza section of a GT fansite, it tends to keep the majority of people out who only have played one of the titles, who still feel the need to somehow manage to compare the two.

Of course, it doesn't completely eliminate it...

 

[another_jakhole]

No point having the same topic twice. That one was created there first, and as it is in the Forza section of a GT fansite, it tends to keep the majority of people out who only have played one of the titles, who still feel the need to somehow manage to compare the two.

Of course, it doesn't completely eliminate it...

What I mean is that I think it should be the same link to the same thread, because I for one, am almost never in the Forza section. I'm not speaking for everyone, but I can only guess how many people don't ever go there as well. The number of biased votes in this poll is an example of how the majority of people who post in the "FM vs GT Thread" could be more biased towards FM.

To everybody: I haven't voted on this poll, because I've never played FM4.

In the "FM vs GT Thread", we can at least add some discussion to the thread without having played it by talking about what we DO know. I'm pretty sure I've posted in there a total of two times. From the start, it was obvious how difficult it was to not be "cornered" when there were mostly people there that prefer FM.

Fair would be to include the same thread's link on both, the Forza and GT sections. Same idea for this poll except that the GT section is the "default" section of GTPlanet, meaning that most people from both sides come here anyway. I'm going to have to be a bit bold and say that I don't think it's right if it stays in the Forza section only.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

What I mean is that I think it should be the same link to the same thread, because I for one, am almost never in the Forza section. I'm not speaking for everyone, but I can only guess how many people don't ever go there as well. The number of biased votes in this poll is an example of how the majority of people who post in the "FM vs GT Thread" could be more biased towards FM.

Not really. Like I said, since this is a GT fansite, the vast majority of us came here because of that series. For those of us who frequent the FM4 section, we have experience with both titles. A poll such as this, if put up in the FM4 section, might see FM4 taking the lead, but there's a lot of other factors at play there. For example, who's to say people wouldn't travel over there just to vote GT? I mean, the OP states "only if you've played both games" here, and you know that can't be the case for every single one of those votes already.

Comparing this to, say, an "FM4 vs GT5 physics" poll at the official FM.net forums, yes, I'd agree that there'd be similar bias to what this poll will show.

To everybody: I haven't voted on this poll, because I've never played FM4.

Solid 👍

In the "FM vs GT Thread", we can at least add some discussion to the thread without having played it by talking about what we DO know. I'm pretty sure I've posted in there a total of two times. From the start, it was obvious how difficult it was to not be "cornered" when there were mostly people there that prefer FM.

You mean just like the pack mentality that exists in this section against all non-GT games?

True, there can be discussion in that thread without having played FM4, but it's limited to things like the car list, the feature list (livery editor, in-depth tuning, etc), but the more contentious issue - physics - can only really be discussed with hands-on. And it's a sore spot for many people - the whole "Forza is arcade, GT is sim" attitude still exists, for example, despite plenty of evidence that not only is Forza on par with GT in that department, it's actually surpassed it in ways.

Fair would be to include the same thread's link on both, the Forza and GT sections. Same idea for this poll except that the GT section is the "default" section of GTPlanet, meaning that most people from both sides come here anyway. I'm going to have to be a bit bold and say that I don't think it's right if it stays in the Forza section only.

The link idea, I can definitely get behind 👍

I see no reason to fully move that thread over here though - it would cause more problems than it would solve, and as Scaff made it over there, I fully respect the reasons behind that.

 

[another_jakhole]

Not really. Like I said, since this is a GT fansite, the vast majority of us came here because of that series. For those of us who frequent the FM4 section, we have experience with both titles. A poll such as this, if put up in the FM4 section, might see FM4 taking the lead, but there's a lot of other factors at play there. For example, who's to say people wouldn't travel over there just to vote GT? I mean, the OP states "only if you've played both games" here, and you know that can't be the case for every single one of those votes already.

Comparing this to, say, an "FM4 vs GT5 physics" poll at the official FM.net forums, yes, I'd agree that there'd be similar bias to what this poll will show.



Solid 👍



You mean just like the pack mentality that exists in this section against all non-GT games?

True, there can be discussion in that thread without having played FM4, but it's limited to things like the car list, the feature list (livery editor, in-depth tuning, etc), but the more contentious issue - physics - can only really be discussed with hands-on. And it's a sore spot for many people - the whole "Forza is arcade, GT is sim" attitude still exists, for example, despite plenty of evidence that not only is Forza on par with GT in that department, it's actually surpassed it in ways.



The link idea, I can definitely get behind 👍

I see no reason to fully move that thread over here though - it would cause more problems than it would solve, and as Scaff made it over there, I fully respect the reasons behind that.

I get what you're saying, but even I couldn't find the Forza section right away. It took me more than a second to realize where it could have been even though I had seen it before.

Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?


Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?

That's what I constantly got when I was first there. Up until then, I didn't provide sources or links because I knew what I knew and spewing lies isn't "efficient" when having a discussion. People know now that I provide "evidence" ALL the time. I never claim anything, unless I know it to be true. If I'm unsure, I usually say to correct me.

I mention this because without any support on my side, I was constantly CORNERED for knowing a lot more than most of those people knew about GT. If it were on both sections, I wouldn't feel like I could never go back because of how strong most of those people came off. All on one page, I got more than a just a few (I'm thinking 8) "Do you have any evidence to back up that claim?". If I had to source everything, then I'd waste a lot of time trying to find every interview, whether it's in text or video, to prove what I stated. It's truly unfair and I shouldn't have had to have needed to source every little thing.


in July 2011, one sentence in one of my first posts in that thread.

So far Forza can't be used as experience as well as GT5 can be used.

That's one thing I said that warranted bogie to ask for "evidence". My "evidence" was in the same post he quoted of mine explaining using some examples that include: FM3's Nurburgring didn't have bumps, the roads were widened, and the permanent driver aids that FM3 was said to have. Those were all in one post and he still had to ask.

I've sourced what I've stated so many times already that I've memorized where a lot of information is at. You'll be doing GTPlanet, a GT fan-site, a great disservice () if that thread is only kept in the Forza section.

If someone lies and then it's proven that they've been lying, would that then provide them with an infraction? That's the only thing that'll keep people from intentionally lying. Isn't that good enough? If that isn't enough, then how is it fair to me?...again :sad-face: lol

Also, not everything can be sourced. That's another problem in that situation that I was experiencing.


Yes, off-topic. Sorry guys/gals.

 

[Tornado]

I'd rather that thread didn't get flooded with people posting nonsense in it just to start fights like Scaff has to deal with all the time in this one. It already happens in the other one, but at least with it being out of the way it is much more rare; and this thread has the benefit of being much more objective so those kinds of posts can be silenced.

 

[another_jakhole]

Warnings and Infractions. That's all that can be done. If it's blatant that someone's intentionally doing wrong by posting nonsense, then it's necessary to give them warnings/infractions.


Oh yeah, then Jordan should hire more Mods. lol

Seriously, those type of arguments about GT5's workforce are so useless and are used by the same people all the time. Where's their "evidence" that it'll improve GT in a positive way? It's kind of obvious how it's beneficial having more workers, but how about the negatives? It's too much work on our parts and too much of going on the defence, or whatever the word I should use is.

 

[Scaff]

Fair would be to include the same thread's link on both, the Forza and GT sections. Same idea for this poll except that the GT section is the "default" section of GTPlanet, meaning that most people from both sides come here anyway. I'm going to have to be a bit bold and say that I don't think it's right if it stays in the Forza section only.

I don't agree that the thread should be in the GT5 section at all, we have a physics discussion here and the general thread over in the Forza section (to be honest it could be the other way around).

However a link I have no issue with and its now done, I've had to sticky it or it would fall off the first page by the end of the day (links are not lifted by new posts). I've also done the same to this thread, that way both are easy to find for anyone interested.

However if this results in a mass of poor quality flame bait hitting the thread then the link gets deleted.

in July 2011, one sentence in one of my first posts in that thread.


That's one thing I said that warranted bogie to ask for "evidence". My "evidence" was in the same post he quoted of mine explaining using some examples that include: FM3's Nurburgring didn't have bumps, the roads were widened, and the permanent driver aids that FM3 was said to have. Those were all in one post and he still had to ask.

I've sourced what I've stated so many times already that I've memorized where a lot of information is at. You'll be doing GTPlanet, a GT fan-site, a great disservice () if that thread is only kept in the Forza section.

If someone lies and then it's proven that they've been lying, would that then provide them with an infraction? That's the only thing that'll keep people from intentionally lying. Isn't that good enough? If that isn't enough, then how is it fair to me?...again :sad-face: lol

Also, not everything can be sourced. That's another problem in that situation that I was experiencing.

To be fair that bit was a discussion over in a few posts, the one that started the longer discussion was:

Visual damage model could only have been so sensitive. That's not PD's fault, especially considering the damage model is more precise than Forza's.

To be fair I would expect that statement to need to be clarified and evidence provided .

Yes, off-topic. Sorry guys/gals.

Now the links to here:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=209534

is in place we can get back on topic.


Scaff

 

[BWX]

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 ............

............... 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 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 found this interesting.
Funny how everything is top secret. So the ''two decades in training and six of those running product launches, teaching vehicle dynamics and driving skills'' was at a company that teaches driving skills? You teach driving skills? What type of driving skills? Like how to operate a car stereo or drive fast around the Ring?

So you must work at a performance driving school if it has anything to do with driving physics when pushing a car to it's limits. "I'm not an expert race car driver, but''

But what? But, it's a secret? You can't divulge ANYTHING because everything you did was under a Non Disclosure Agreement? Wow. That's weak.

How many people have you trained in ''driving skills'' that would make you an expert in car handling physics? Just wondering. It all seems so sketchy to me.

 

[Famine]

I found this interesting.

It all seems so sketchy to me.

Just for quick reference, if anything Scaff has said about his work life was unverifiable or able to be shown to be false he wouldn't be a member of staff.

You'd be amazed how many things are covered by NDAs or equivalents. Even basic work contracts will include clauses that prevent you from being too specific about some of your roles and duties. This can be a bit of a pain when you're looking for work and you're building a resume (or cv) because you literally cannot say some things you've done - and if you do, potential employers will wonder why that wasn't covered by a NDA and if they can trust you... This means that anyone prone to a bit of netstalking will get a very incomplete picture.

Knowing more than a couple of people in the industry, it's fairly standard employer behaviour.

If you have any specific questions:

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.

 

[Scaff]

I found this interesting.

Don't believe everything you get sent and certainly don't assume its the full picture. Its amazing how much you can find out just from someone's PSN. Doesn't mean you know them at all and certainly doesn't mean its complete.

Now as Famine as outlined, NDA's and discretion are key to any industry, in particular one an individual still works in. However I am happy to cover a few more details:

Funny how everything is top secret. So the ''two decades in training and six of those running product launches, teaching vehicle dynamics and driving skills'' was at a company that teaches driving skills? You teach driving skills? What type of driving skills? Like how to operate a car stereo or drive fast around the Ring?

Mainly freelance for a range of manufacturers, but then directly for a manufacturer. Designing, developing, delivering and running product launch training. This often included the fundamentals of vehicle dynamics (and I have not claimed to have taught it at a higher level than that) and driving skills.

So would that include how to operate a stereo, yes in terms of product launch material of course it would, as well as developing a five point walk-around (I assume you of course know what that is), sales proposition, market placement and comparisons against key competitors.

In terms of driving it would have been a mixed of sales route development and planning (for road biased cars and 'daily drivers') and track and b-road driving for performance orientated products (with made use of tracks - mainly Silverstone and Brands Hatch in the UK) and proving grounds (mainly TRL and MIRA).

So you must work at a performance driving school if it has anything to do with driving physics when pushing a car to it's limits. "I'm not an expert race car driver, but''

What a leap. Have I ever claimed to have worked for a performance driving school? I have attended a few and have also sub-contracted a few.

Manufacturers train both importer and dealership staff in driving skills if it relates to the product, be it safety related (ABS vs non ABS car control or high speed braking stability for example) and track driving skills.

The content was developed by the training team with assistance from the technical trainers, vehicle design and engineering teams and sub-contracted drivers. It was managed by the training team and delivered by the training team and sub-contracted trainers and drivers.

But what? But, it's a secret? You can't divulge ANYTHING because everything you did was under a Non Disclosure Agreement? Wow. That's weak.

Please feel free to provide public details of every single customer you have dealt with including full and frank details of all contract negotiations, the costs involved and the results.

I'm sure they will be overjoyed and congratulate you on your now long and illustrious career within your chosen industry.

If you knew even the first basics of the motor industry and how it operates (details on introductory course on the motor industry which I currently run and am happy to provide to any member of staff to verify) you would understand just how seriously NDAs are taken and exactly what breaking one would do to any hope of remaining in the industry.

Hell I'm a Sony Beta tester and I take the NDA for that seriously enough and my job doesn't depend on that.

How many people have you trained in ''driving skills'' that would make you an expert in car handling physics? Just wondering. It all seems so sketchy to me.

Have I ever claimed to be an expert in car handling physics?

No I have stated that I have taught the fundamentals of vehicle dynamics, I am far from an 'expert' (of which it would be interesting to see how you define that), but do I believe it qualifies me to discuss the basic level of physics console and PC sims operate under? Yes I do. Then again anyone with the willingness can learn enough about vehicle physics to discuss what is going on in the average sim.

I can go into this much detail without breaking an NDA and as I have already said:

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.

What I find "so sketchy" is that you are quite happy to give credence to a disgruntled ex-member but not take me up on a clear offer.

Screw it - I'm done with this messing about - 200+ meg of documentation provided to Famine and Jordan.


Scaff

 

[sik180sx]

What is it with Forza not letting you go faster than 435 km/h,that is one difference between the two i have never worked out

 

[Scaff]

i have played the forza 4 demo a while ago but i didn't like it i had to start with a stupid peugeot 107 and i couldn't even win becouse the first car was a toyota prius with 120hp i mean like how stupid is that?

The Forza 4 demo doesn't have a 107 in it or a Prius?

However starting with a small daily driving has always been a trait of both the Forza and GT series.

in gt5 i had as a first car the sls stealth becouse i pre-ordered and i had the collectors edition i could even win races with cars that are a lil slower so i think if they made forza a bit easyer i would like it more

I have to say that I find FM4 throws cars and money at you much, much more readily than GT5 does.

but physics whize gt5 rules unless when you talk about damage ofcourse lol. so my vote is gt5

How does GT5 rule physics wise?

Could you please provide a few examples.


Oh and when you post also follow the AUP, including this part:

You will not use “textspeak” (“r”, “u”, “plz”, etc.) in your messages. Decent grammar is expected at all times, including proper usage of capital letters.

Regards

Scaff

 

[Spagetti69]

What is it with Forza not letting you go faster than 435 km/h,that is one difference between the two i have never worked out

What's that in MPH around 300mph? I'm not sure. Anyhow if you can't get above that it's because of the limits of the car I suppose.

Not sure about the top speed in GT. reading track X threads I think people are hitting 600kph. What's that ? Maybe 450mph or there abouts.
Now that's something I don't understand.

Disclaimer. Figures I've provided are approximate guesses. I don't care what the top speed is. Im not bothered.

 

[sik180sx]

What's that in MPH around 300mph? I'm not sure. Anyhow if you can't get above that it's because of the limits of the car I suppose.

Not sure about the top speed in GT. reading track X threads I think people are hitting 600kph. What's that ? Maybe 450mph or there abouts.
Now that's something I don't understand.

Disclaimer. Figures I've provided are approximate guesses. I don't care what the top speed is. Im not bothered.

It's around 270 mph,give or take 1 to 2 mph.
600 km/h is around 400 mph,see those 400 mph speeds they are doing is with slipstream set to strong,and boost on,so they can stick together.
Without assistance and tyre wear on and such i got 520 km/h(325 mph)which sounds realistic,considering you have 1600 HP and only weighing in at 550kg,but in forza 4 i have fully tuned veyron supersport (1460 HP)i can't recall the weight(i know it's under 1800 kg) that won't do more than 438 km/h,and that is drafting a mate of mine.

That is what i don't understand.