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

[Flaco13]

Just head over to the Tuning subforum and have a quick search for the term 'suspension backwards' to see what I mean. This thread is just an example:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=231359&highlight=ride+height+backwards

Its pretty much agreed by most that ride height adjustments don't have the same effect on a car as they do in real life.

sorry but after reading the whole thread (this time I had the time to do so), I still cannot agree with their theory.

Those guys wanted to prove ride height worked the opposite way it would in real life... yet they failed to prove anything because every time they said having driven a car with lower backs/front they overdid it with some -25 or +25 to 30, without even touching the spring rates and dampers not beeing aware of what that´ll do with a car.

of course it increases (power)oversteering if you put the back -25 when you had stiff springs and dampers before, they go on an insane compression.... they all (I mean ALL) forgot about that fact when they tried to "prove" their suspension backwards theory! It is not true, imo

 

[Sohvakettu]

Unfortunately, in order to experience physics of both games in their full potential, the best possible hardware is really necessary.

For example, older Logitech wheel family uses now very old FF technology and older versions of TouchSense software. Playing GT5 on DFP for example can never provide an actual sensation of the physics, because that wheel just can't transfer all details of physics provided by the game.

Same goes for Fanatec wheels. Unfortunately, only the latest CSR family of wheels are capable of simulating both physics complexity in full.

Please do not take this as an insult, I quoted your posts because you're both referring to the somewhat older wheels and I used your posts as an examples. I was lucky owner of all models of Logitech wheels and many Fanatec models through last decade. But complexity of the wheel support and new SDK libraries of both games are full generation ahead of those older models. I was blown-away by the difference of sensation between my Fanatec GT2 model and CSR Elite in both GT5 and FM4 - and those two models are separated by just one year. However, sensation feels like a different game. Same goes for GT5. And also there is a vast difference once we begin to talk about the brakes and feeling of braking, which is another lengthy subject...

Only partly true. I think you are mixing immersion with the actual physics. The physics are the same regardless of the input/feedback method. To appreciate physics you need to be able to observe how the car handless compared to each game/real life. Good controller do help but it's hardly necessary when you can just observe what the car is able to actually do, not what you feel and think it's doing. Good telemetry would help a lot...

Also comparison to real lap times can be helpful even if it's not be all end all. After all, what can we compare the games to if not the real life performance that is measured among other methods in lap times. There is problems with this of course like: is the track faithfully recreated in the game? How much should the changing conditions of real life affect the result? Who did the lap?

 

[Scaff]

@scaff
Damper (shock absorbers) adjustment is done by 'clicks' and no actually agreement exists as to what a 'click' is.

As such neither GT or FM are right or wrong on that score.

This is what I meant, adjustable in 'clicks' from 1 -12, instead of 10 ok not 100% realistic I agree but its what is done in racing, they´d adjust say 12 expansion 6 compression, In GT you´d do 10 - 5, I mean it´s just better than an NFS-like bar that goes from soft to hard or something

I may not have been clear in my last post, what I meant is that different damper manufacturers use differing ranges, Ohlins have 8 clicks, Tein 16 clicks, Koni 12 , etc. As such the range used by neither GT or FM is inaccurate its simply a way of allowing adjustment across a range.

What neither allow you to do is adjust high and low speed damping separately, which is a shame as its a quite common area of adjustment particularly once you reach race series levels.

That said GT5 is still missing the ability to adjust tyre pressure, caster and brake pressure (the bias adjustment in GT is also still more than a little odd - given that the norm would be a percentage bias to the front or rear with the ability to set pressure seperatly).

The range offered in both titles is also insufficient (while FM4 does offer a slightly wider range for most settings) across a number of the settings, in particular spring rates.

Now while it is better that just having a slider, it has to be said that alone doesn't automatically mean the physics engine behind isn't worth while. Enthusia was a solid sim in its day and still holds its own in some areas and that used sliders for tuning.

sorry but after reading the whole thread (this time I had the time to do so), I still cannot agree with their theory.

Those guys wanted to prove ride height worked the opposite way it would in real life... yet they failed to prove anything because every time they said having driven a car with lower backs/front they overdid it with some -25 or +25 to 30, without even touching the spring rates and dampers not beeing aware of what that´ll do with a car.

of course it increases (power)oversteering if you put the back -25 when you had stiff springs and dampers before, they go on an insane compression.... they all (I mean ALL) forgot about that fact when they tried to "prove" their suspension backwards theory! It is not true, imo

More than that thread exists on the subject and its a lot more that people using only extreme settings.

My own testing in GT5 was based around seeing how much had changed from my own GT4 tuning guides (see the link in my sig) which run overs a few hundred pages. I'm quite happy to say that based on my own testing that even with minor changes to ride height things are not right.

If this was one or two people saying it then I might accept your point, but its not, take a good look around the tuning threads, give it a go yourself. Something is not right with GT5's tuning.

Only partly true. I think you are mixing immersion with the actual physics. The physics are the same regardless of the input/feedback method. To appreciate physics you need to be able to observe how the car handless compared to each game/real life. Good controller do help but it's hardly necessary when you can just observe what the car is able to actually do, not what you feel and think it's doing. Good telemetry would help a lot...

I would quite agree that a lot can be found from visual analysis and more so from telemetry (and in this area FM gives yo a lot more info than GT), however I don't feel that feel can be totally dismissed as long as any comparison takes into account the limits it imposes.

Also comparison to real lap times can be helpful even if it's not be all end all. After all, what can we compare the games to if not the real life performance that is measured among other methods in lap times. There is problems with this of course like: is the track faithfully recreated in the game? How much should the changing conditions of real life affect the result? Who did the lap?

On this point I disagree, an entire lap (particularly for a large track like the 'ring) contains so many possible variables to make almost any comparison between real and virtual difficult and inaccurate at best.

Smaller sections of track, single corners, 1/4 mile ect, while they still can cause issues, give rise to less variable and as such would be more useful.


Scaff

 

[Sohvakettu]

Then I think we do not disagree (at least not totally ).
The input method isn't all important but feel does matter somewhat. This I agree with you (and Amar to some extent). I also agree that Nordschleife isn't good track for comparison. Like I mentioned there is problems with lap time comparing but I don't think it can be totally ignored if we are trying to replicate performance driving of real life with 'real' cars on 'real' tracks.

I guess this is enough about the methods of analysing the physics though so I go back to lurking as this discussion and both of the games do interest me but I don't unfortunately have experience about the Forza series.

 

[AMS97F1]

So almost exactly the same?

Going by the league standings this year.

No, GT5 is 8 points better then FM4

 

[sik180sx]

This is what i got slipz.

Gt5: Honda nsx-r 2002(completely stock,comfort softs)
0-100= 5.1 secs
0-200= 18.2 secs
Q/m. = 13.3
Top speed = 288.3 km/h (10km run on test course)

Rl: Honda nsx-r 2002
0-100= 4.9 secs
0-200= 18.2 secs
Q/m. = 12.9 secs
Top speed = 280 km/h

The times are very close,and the 0-100 and the quarter mile times might be down due to the way the Gt5 clutch works,having to fully lift the throttle.But take it as you will(also the reason why i used tsukuba is because its the shortest track available in both games)so less variables.

I think that despite all these fancy things forza's physics engine does(i have never once stated i dont like forza,its great,but in my opinion gt5 is better)And all the basic things gt5 does,its funny that,though very close,the slight majority prefer gt5.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

This is what i got slipz.

Gt5: Honda nsx-r 2002(completely stock,comfort softs)
0-100= 5.1 secs
0-200= 18.2 secs
Q/m. = 13.3
Top speed = 288.3 km/h (10km run on test course)

Rl: Honda nsx-r 2002
0-100= 4.9 secs
0-200= 18.2 secs
Q/m. = 12.9 secs
Top speed = 280 km/h

The times are very close,and the 0-100 and the quarter mile times might be down due to the way the Gt5 clutch works,having to fully lift the throttle.But take it as you will(also the reason why i used tsukuba is because its the shortest track available in both games)so less variables.

Hmmm...

Real Life NSX-R 2002
0-100kph: 4.9
0-100mph: 11.2
1/4 Mile: 12.7

GT5 NSX-R 2002 (Completely stock bar an oil change to bring it to proper specs)
0-60mph: 4.746
0-100mph: 11.048
1/4 Mile: 13.245

GT5 NSX-R 2002 (Comfort Softs)
0-60mph: 4.989
0-100mph: 11.344
1/4 Mile: 13.456

FM4 NSX-R 2003
0-60mph: 4.747
0-100mph: 11.068
1/4 Mile: 13.449

I keep thinking there's something very off about the real life 1/4 mile time, since 12's aren't really the domain of a 290hp track-biased vehicle. It's interesting that FM4's times mirror GT's stickier tires on the first two measurements, but the CS tires on the latter; difference in aerodynamic modelling, perhaps?

Handily enough, hopping in something a bit more pedestrian from the same make:

Real Life Civic Type-R (EK)
0-100kph: 6.8
0-180kph: 26.0

GT5 Civic Type-R (EK) (Oil change, and comes on stock Comfort Softs)
0-60mph: 7.721
0-100mph: 19.508
0-180kph: 24.833 (unfortunately, had to pause to get that, so it's far from exact)

FM4 Civic Type-R (EK)
0-60mph: 6.615
0-100mph: 16.267
0-180kph: 20.403 (!!!)

I suppose following the too-grippy-tire logic, I could've downgraded to Comfort Mediums, but it's obvious I wasn't coming close to the acceleration of the real life car (though that real 180kph number must've had some unfortunate circumstance, since it really is quite slow). Forza certainly seems more in line with real life, until we get to the insanely fast 180kph time. It does seem to make sense when you chart the acceleration, and comparing it to similar real life cars (the Clio 182, for example), the FM4 numbers are probably still slightly too fast, but that real life 180kph number simply has to be an error unless it suddenly lost a cylinder at 170

This has sort of sparked my curiosity about how well GT5 deals with front-drive in regards to acceleration, since it's been getting progressively further away from real life times since GT2. I will investigate further...

I think that despite all these fancy things forza's physics engine does(i have never once stated i dont like forza,its great,but in my opinion gt5 is better)And all the basic things gt5 does,its funny that,though very close,the slight majority prefer gt5.

I think it's safe to say, in many different things in life, what the majority likes most doesn't necessarily reflect which is better . Nevermind that you'd get a very different response if you asked at, say, Forzacentral.

Considering both games hit roughly even numbers (I'll agree), but one is simulating tire physics at a much deeper level while hitting those numbers, I don't understand how someone who is interested in the pursuit of simulation would prefer the one that's happening across those numbers by, comparatively, luck. It's great GT can reflect certain performance parameters, but the fact it doesn't take into account the gigantic amount of variables present in the most important aspect of handling physics (the tires), does make me question how long the basic engine can go on before it needs a complete overhaul.

T10 bringing in Pirelli was, in my opinion, one of the single best decisions they could've made; no matter how much T10, or PD for that matter, want to tinker with their physics engines, I imagine the companies that have been dealing with the math behind these things for decades probably have a bit more knowledge on the subject.

P.S: friendly reminder to follow the AUP a bit closer in regards to grammar and punctuation.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Hmmm...

Real Life NSX-R 2002
0-100kph: 4.9
0-100mph: 11.2
1/4 Mile: 12.7

GT5 NSX-R 2002 (Completely stock bar an oil change to bring it to proper specs)
0-60mph: 4.746
0-100mph: 11.048
1/4 Mile: 13.245

GT5 NSX-R 2002 (Comfort Softs)
0-60mph: 4.989
0-100mph: 11.344
1/4 Mile: 13.456

FM4 NSX-R 2003
0-60mph: 4.747
0-100mph: 11.068
1/4 Mile: 13.449

I keep thinking there's something very off about the real life 1/4 mile time, since 12's aren't really the domain of a 290hp track-biased vehicle. It's interesting that FM4's times mirror GT's stickier tires on the first two measurements, but the CS tires on the latter; difference in aerodynamic modelling, perhaps?

The real life Honda NSX-R do have high 12 secs quarter mile, i managed to find the best motoring video on youtube, Keiichi Tsuchiya drove the car NA2 Honda NSX-R ( which in production from 2002 - 2005) to 12.844 for 1/4 mile



Another video to show the actual real life time record of Honda NSX-R NA2, driven by Keiichi Tsuchiya, the track is Tsukuba.



Time is 1:05.477, max speed at last corner : 173.745 km/h
Tires : Bridgestone Potenza RE070 - comfort soft or medium maybe ? in GT5
The NSX-R was very stable on every corner exit, Tsuchiya managed to apply full throttle quite early if compared to the game, so either the game is not that accurate - both Forza4 and GT5, or the driver/player could not do it as good as Tsuchiya-san

 

[sik180sx]

Considering both games hit roughly even numbers (I'll agree), but one is simulating tire physics at a much deeper level while hitting those numbers, I don't understand how someone who is interested in the pursuit of simulation would prefer the one that's happening across those numbers by, comparatively, luck. It's great GT can reflect certain performance parameters, but the fact it doesn't take into account the gigantic amount of variables present in the most important aspect of handling physics (the tires), does make me question how long the basic engine can go on before it needs a complete overhaul.

T10 bringing in Pirelli was, in my opinion, one of the single best decisions they could've made; no matter how much T10, or PD for that matter, want to tinker with their physics engines, I imagine the companies that have been dealing with the math behind these things for decades probably have a bit more knowledge on the subject.

P.S: friendly reminder to follow the AUP a bit closer in regards to grammar and punctuation.

Yep,i agree completely and it's true what they say,those that have both games are the true winners.Honestly to me gt5 just feels more lively than forza in the FFB department,but i stiil want another xbox so i can have the best of both worlds.

@ Ridox
Bridgestone RE070 are a high performance passenger tyre.

P.S. Was my grammer that bad?

 

[Flaco13]

I may not have been clear in my last post, what I meant is that different damper manufacturers use differing ranges, Ohlins have 8 clicks, Tein 16 clicks, Koni 12 , etc. As such the range used by neither GT or FM is inaccurate its simply a way of allowing adjustment across a range.

What neither allow you to do is adjust high and low speed damping separately, which is a shame as its a quite common area of adjustment particularly once you reach race series levels.

That said GT5 is still missing the ability to adjust tyre pressure, caster and brake pressure (the bias adjustment in GT is also still more than a little odd - given that the norm would be a percentage bias to the front or rear with the ability to set pressure seperatly).

The range offered in both titles is also insufficient (while FM4 does offer a slightly wider range for most settings) across a number of the settings, in particular spring rates.

Now while it is better that just having a slider, it has to be said that alone doesn't automatically mean the physics engine behind isn't worth while. Enthusia was a solid sim in its day and still holds its own in some areas and that used sliders for tuning.






More than that thread exists on the subject and its a lot more that people using only extreme settings.

My own testing in GT5 was based around seeing how much had changed from my own GT4 tuning guides (see the link in my sig) which run overs a few hundred pages. I'm quite happy to say that based on my own testing that even with minor changes to ride height things are not right.

If this was one or two people saying it then I might accept your point, but its not, take a good look around the tuning threads, give it a go yourself. Something is not right with GT5's tuning.





I would quite agree that a lot can be found from visual analysis and more so from telemetry (and in this area FM gives yo a lot more info than GT), however I don't feel that feel can be totally dismissed as long as any comparison takes into account the limits it imposes.




On this point I disagree, an entire lap (particularly for a large track like the 'ring) contains so many possible variables to make almost any comparison between real and virtual difficult and inaccurate at best.

Smaller sections of track, single corners, 1/4 mile ect, while they still can cause issues, give rise to less variable and as such would be more useful.


Scaff

Regarding the dampers, it would´ve been too confusing to implement all kinds of different dampers into a game.

I thought its about how realistic it "feels" for one... A feeling you cannot messure!

So, regarding the ride height issue, after doing 200 miles on GT´s Top Gear Track in a Merc C63 testing, I honestly addmit that I was wrong , but really it only has an backwards effeckt on the heights adjustment, anything else works the way it should

 

[Scaff]

Regarding the dampers, it would´ve been too confusing to implement all kinds of different dampers into a game.

I'm not asking for different makes of damper, simply the ability to adjust (for race dampers) high and low speed bound and rebound seperatly. After all it has been done before in console sims (RBR and Race Pro spring to mind) so I don't see why GT and FM don't allow it.

I thought its about how realistic it "feels" for one... A feeling you cannot messure!

I agree you can't measure it, but we certainly can discuss it and replicate it.

So, regarding the ride height issue, after doing 200 miles on GT´s Top Gear Track in a Merc C63 testing, I honestly addmit that I was wrong , but really it only has an backwards effeckt on the heights adjustment, anything else works the way it should

Thanks for taking the time to test it, now you are right that ride height does seem to be the major issue with GT5 tuning in regard to reversed settings (others may well argue that point with you however).

However the question remains as to why this has not been fixed and what affect it could have on other tuning factors such as aero. To screw up something of this nature, after the nonsense of not being able to adjust individual gear ratios for six months after release doesn't fill me with confidence.

Why have we (the fans of the series) had to discover this and why do we still, over a year after release, have to 'correct' for it in tuning.


It does open an interesting avenue of testing however, as a member over in the GT vs FM thread (see link at the top of the page) raised a discussion point regarding an old FM2 glitch and if its still present in FM4.

The glitch involved using some very extreme suspension settings and it will be interesting to see how both FM4 and GT5 deal with these kind of setting.



Scaff

 

[Flaco13]

I'm not asking for different makes of damper, simply the ability to adjust (for race dampers) high and low speed bound and rebound seperatly. After all it has been done before in console sims (RBR and Race Pro spring to mind) so I don't see why GT and FM don't allow it.

👍

I agree you can't measure it, but we certainly can discuss it and replicate it.

replicate it will lead to people arguing with messurements they made, lol. but ok, it´s cool

Thanks for taking the time to test it, now you are right that ride height does seem to be the major issue with GT5 tuning in regard to reversed settings (others may well argue that point with you however).

However the question remains as to why this has not been fixed and what affect it could have on other tuning factors such as aero. To screw up something of this nature, after the nonsense of not being able to adjust individual gear ratios for six months after release doesn't fill me with confidence.

Why have we (the fans of the series) had to discover this and why do we still, over a year after release, have to 'correct' for it in tuning.


It does open an interesting avenue of testing however, as a member over in the GT vs FM thread (see link at the top of the page) raised a discussion point regarding an old FM2 glitch and if its still present in FM4.

The glitch involved using some very extreme suspension settings and it will be interesting to see how both FM4 and GT5 deal with these kind of setting.



Scaff

No need to thank me for that, it was a lot of fun anyway. It went from: me thinking "this can´t be right" to "oh man, they could be right" "no way" "damn, it´s true" he he. It got me thinking maybe they did that because higher rear looks cool!??

Or I´m beeing naive!

Yep I´m gonna have a look at that discussion

 

[Scaff]

👍



replicate it will lead to people arguing with messurements they made, lol. but ok, it´s cool




No need to thank me for that, it was a lot of fun anyway. It went from: me thinking "this can´t be right" to "oh man, they could be right" "no way" "damn, it´s true" he he. It got me thinking maybe they did that because higher rear looks cool!??

Or I´m beeing naive!

Yep I´m gonna have a look at that discussion

Feel free to take a look, he's a link:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=6946221#post6946221



Scaff

 

[rexc]

I think one issue to take into account (to a degree) is that Forza 4 is the second iteration of the game on this generation of console, while for GT5 it is their first full game.

Undoubtably Forza learned a lot from 3 dealing with this generation of graphics, multiplayer online etc, so it is not surprising that with 4 they have been able to concentrate a bit more on things like improving the accuracy of the tyre physics etc

With GT5 it has pretty much been all new ground for them, except what they learned from Prologue, and building the online side alone was obviously a huge step up from GT4. Think about the other areas of moving to this generation of console that would have dominated development meetings and it is perhaps understandable that some things like the nuances of the physics modelling didn't quite get the attention they deserved.

I think we can remain confident however that Kaz remains committed to the Gran Turismo series being a 'real driving simulator', and significant improvements should come with GT6 to remedy those shortcomings, now that things like the online environment have been put in place for the series and lessons learned.

 

[Exorcet]

I think one issue to take into account (to a degree) is that Forza 4 is the second iteration of the game on this generation of console, while for GT5 it is their first full game.

Undoubtably Forza learned a lot from 3 dealing with this generation of graphics, multiplayer online etc, so it is not surprising that with 4 they have been able to concentrate a bit more on things like improving the accuracy of the tyre physics etc

With GT5 it has pretty much been all new ground for them, except what they learned from Prologue, and building the online side alone was obviously a huge step up from GT4. Think about the other areas of moving to this generation of console that would have dominated development meetings and it is perhaps understandable that some things like the nuances of the physics modelling didn't quite get the attention they deserved.

I think we can remain confident however that Kaz remains committed to the Gran Turismo series being a 'real driving simulator', and significant improvements should come with GT6 to remedy those shortcomings, now that things like the online environment have been put in place for the series and lessons learned.

Physics don't care about how many games you released for a console. If GT's aero model is anything to go buy, PD didn't care about breaking ground in physics.

 

[Spagetti69]

I won't quote the whole Thread but Forza is on its 3rd iteration this gen. GT did half a game before 5.

Going by the logic of its the first time it can only get better. (Some thing I agree with).
Livery editor, Damage full online leaderboards and such will probably make there first appearance in 6/7. Something I'm not overly confident they will get right first time.
Would live to be proven wrong. Won't get any hopes up though.

 

[MetalJet]

It's really hard to say which is "better". They are different, but I don't see a huge difference. I could get used to Forza 4.

One of my friends has XBox only and has all the Forza games. I raced him 4 laps on the Nur in a lower powered car (not by much) and beat his best lap time on my last lap. The car acted similar to GT5 time trial setup, so I was able to get used to it pretty quick. We raced with full mechanical damage, so we were both trying not to crash. Both of our cars made it through in one piece.

Anyway, to me, I don't think there is enough difference in the physics for a Forza driver to have a problem in GT5 or vice-verca. I can go from one game to the other and drive well on both.

 

[McLaren]

Physics don't care about how many games you released for a console. If GT's aero model is anything to go buy, PD didn't care about breaking ground in physics.

To go along with that, GT has a 8 year start on the Forza franchise & you would think in those 8 years, PD would have a bit more understanding of how to develop their physics engine beyond what it is now. Then again, 8 years should be enough for them to recognize proper car sounds as well.

 

[rexc]

Forza is on its 3rd iteration this gen.

Ah yes, you are right, I'd forgotten Forza 2 was on the 360 as well. So 4 is their 3rd effort on this console. No wonder they've got it pretty well polished by now.

It says something for doing more rapid iterations and improving as you go, rather than just trying to do one perfect iteration, and perhaps falling a little short.

 

[SUPERSONICpsiii]

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.

The only things that set me back from the FZ4 physics are how badly the drifting physics work in the game (especially compared to GT5) and how the FZ4 physics engine is based off of speed and energy, not COMPLETELY on realistic driving. Not to mention that (even if this changes anything significantly) Yamauchi of Polyphony Digital, the originator of Gran Turismo, and possibly the first real driving simulator, actually RACES cars and utilizes the physics he uses on the track, the others at Turn10 go off of what mathematics and physics taught them alone (which isn't a bad thing i guess )

in short, FZ4 is more for the approachable, entertaining aspect of racing. GT5 goes for a simulator that TEACHES people to race, with GTAcademy as proof of this

 

[Exorcet]

FZ4 physics engine is based off of speed and energy, not COMPLETELY on realistic driving.

What does that even mean?

Turn10 go off of what mathematics and physics taught them alone (which isn't a bad thing i guess )

It's not only not a bad thing, it's a good thing. Math is all you need. Racing experience might help you create a more convincing race enviroment (ie, realistic race entry, rules, qualification procedures, etc), but GT doesn't really have that.

in short, FZ4 is more for the approachable, entertaining aspect of racing. GT5 goes for a simulator that TEACHES people to race, with GTAcademy as proof of this

GT teaches people how to drive, but not really how to race. Racing the AI is terrible, and there isn't even qualification. Many of the factors that go into tire compound choice don't exist in GT, and the tuning is so strange that people wonder if it's backwards. There are a very minimum in terms of on track rules/hazards (no flags, no penalties, lack of mechanical damage except online) From what I've seen from F4, I'd rather learn to drive on that game. Though neither teaches you too much about racing.

 

[Tornado]

Yamauchi of Polyphony Digital, the originator of Gran Turismo, and possibly the first real driving simulator

No.


By no conceivable standard except maybe "First Game to put 'Real Driving Simulator' on the box" is this an accurate statement. It simply is not.

 

[sailworksman]

Since I have maxed out GT5 (to my standards anyway-1200 cars, 20mil in the kitty etc. etc.), I've been hitting the track on Forza 2, 3 and 4.

With many hours building a few cars, I can say at first, the physics are a bit different that GT5 as mentioned here in this forum. But, having said that, I have a few cars now that will stick to the tarmac like glue in Forza 4.

It seems that tuning cars in Forza needs way more attention to get the realistic feel like GT5. I am using the XBox 360 steering wheel as well (sponge under the brake pedal), which when set up right along with your car, it does feel great and the fun factor rises considerably.

The online play is a blast too (as long as the racers are clean), as its nice to race on tracks that GT5 does not have, not to mention tons of cars that GT5 does not have as well.

I recommend Forza for any of you hardcore racing sim fans. Using a wheel is the best way to go though, forget the controller!

 

[camelia]

From what i'v seen forza 4 looks alot like NFS shift 2. correct me if im wrong.

yup they look similar, I do not like these games, I deleted both of them (Rented at Blockbuster)

 

[Patrick]

Just because they look similar doesn't mean they feel similar.

 

[Spagetti69]

They don't really look similar. One is at 60fps the other is 30. Night and day.

 

[Samus]

The only things that set me back from the FZ4 physics are how badly the drifting physics work in the game (especially compared to GT5) and how the FZ4 physics engine is based off of speed and energy, not COMPLETELY on realistic driving. Not to mention that (even if this changes anything significantly) Yamauchi of Polyphony Digital, the originator of Gran Turismo, and possibly the first real driving simulator, actually RACES cars and utilizes the physics he uses on the track, the others at Turn10 go off of what mathematics and physics taught them alone (which isn't a bad thing i guess )

Do you know what physics are? Science and maths. Plus even if Kaz was a professional racing driver (which he isn't) it means very little. Plenty of games in the past have had professional racing drivers helping them (Forza 4 included) and they haven't always created great physics. Look at F1 2010/1, aided by Anthony Davidson but the physics are still far off, cars in the game lapping so much faster than reality.

in short, FZ4 is more for the approachable, entertaining aspect of racing. GT5 goes for a simulator that TEACHES people to race, with GTAcademy as proof of this

GT Academy as proof of what? Just because Forza doesn't have a competition like that it doesn't suddenly mean their physics can't teach someone the basics of driving.

 

[Scaff]

The only things that set me back from the FZ4 physics are how badly the drifting physics work in the game (especially compared to GT5) and how the FZ4 physics engine is based off of speed and energy, not COMPLETELY on realistic driving.

How are the physics off when you are drifting, your going to need to explain this as you seem to be implying that drifting has a different set of physics to the rest of how a car work dynamically.

Oh and GT5 is certainly not based completely on realistic driving either, the tyre model alone is evidence of that.

Not to mention that (even if this changes anything significantly) Yamauchi of Polyphony Digital, the originator of Gran Turismo, and possibly the first real driving simulator, actually RACES cars and utilizes the physics he uses on the track, the others at Turn10 go off of what mathematics and physics taught them alone (which isn't a bad thing i guess )

Now aside from the Kaz invented the driving sim nonsense we once again have this myth that GT5 has better physics because KAz races and no one at T10 does.

Meet Gunnar Jeannette, you may not have heard of him however he's been racing in the ALMS for ten years and has competed at LeMans seven times (oh and was the youngest ever finisher).

As well as being a professional racing driver (a term I use specifically as Kaz is not) he's also a consultant for T10.

http://forzamotorsport.net/en-us/WIR_7-8/
http://www.gunnarjeannette.com/about-2

in short, FZ4 is more for the approachable, entertaining aspect of racing. GT5 goes for a simulator that TEACHES people to race, with GTAcademy as proof of this

Does the Academy use nothing but GT5 to select a winner?

Nope, the GT5 events are to a large degree a competition to select a group of people who may be suitable to be trained as a driver, the actual selection and training takes place entirely on the circuit. Please don't mistake it for what it is, a very well run marketing exercise.

yup they look similar, I do not like these games, I deleted both of them (Rented at Blockbuster)

I don't agree that they look similar and they certainly don't feel even remotely similar and for the core topic of this thread they are not even close in terms of physics.


Scaff

 

[OneN1ghtStand]

Good idea, I updated the OP.

You should of put it on
http://forums.forzamotorsport.net/forums/default.aspx
That's the most popular forum for forza, would create ww3

 

[OneN1ghtStand]

I recommend Forza for any of you hardcore racing sim fans. Using a wheel is the best way to go though, forget the controller!

I played forza 1,2,3 not 4 yet, under the tags of llxcamxll, PpR Furious, iCam v1, TDR ZeroCool. Over those 3 games combined I would of had around 100 150 hot lap records, and sold 40 000 plus tunes on the forza 3 shop front... All with the controller.