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

[Ven0m]

Okay so since I haven't played Forza 4, Are the physics the defining reason that some pick GT5 over FM4? As I see it, Forza has more cars, customization, tracks (better quality tracks such as drag strips), and more people playing it but I have heard that its the driving itself that hinders its "perfection". Without flaming me please. I just am curious if it's worth going out and buying.

 

[King1982]

I'm a little late here, but I thought I would toss in my two cents.

Forza 4 has problems with it's physics... Duh. All sims do. But honestly, if you have played both games, GT5 and Forza 4, extensively, with the same wheel and setup and good settings, etc, and you believe that GT5 has better overall physics, than you are either
A) Lying
B) A serious fanboy
or
C) Don't really know what good physics are

Forza 4 just wins. I'm about as unbiased as there is. I have no history with either franchise. GT5P and Forza 4 were my first games in either series, as I mostly played PC sims before that. Forza is just better at this point. It just is.

I agree. I played all the old Gt games as well as the Fm games. I didn't have a ps3 so i went as far buying one just too play gt5 man was i hyped for that game. During the whole buildup i was playing Prolougue and FM3.
To me the game was massivly dissapointing. The thing with T10 is that when i get hyped they ALWAYS deliver an awesome experience.

The game has a lot too learn about physics from FM4 and even 3 for that matter. Cars dont feel real physics wise.(high speed and lowspeed physics proven exist in gt5)

Just drive on the mulsanne straight on Le Mans. The way a car bounces around in Gt5 is just arcadish. It hops around like it has five wheels on exactly in the middle of the car and four in the corners. To me the game was massivly dissapointing because i was hyped as ****. the thing with T10 is that when i get hyped they ALWAYS deliver an awesome experience.

btw another example of how they deliver.

 

[Spagetti69]

Okay so since I haven't played Forza 4, Are the physics the defining reason that some pick GT5 over FM4? As I see it, Forza has more cars, customization, tracks (better quality tracks such as drag strips), and more people playing it but I have heard that its the driving itself that hinders its "perfection". Without flaming me please. I just am curious if it's worth going out and buying.

If you own an Xbox most definately.
Seeing as you haven't purchased it I suspect you do not own the system.

Do you like GT styled games. If so then you will love Forza. It's similar but the developers inform you of what's going on. Regular updates and a more complete package that holds a stable frame rate. No compromises on that.

The team also seems to be able to hit deadlines and the game features leaderboards etc.

You would need a live subscription though to get the most out of it.

Unfortunately there is almost no maintenance to the servers on Forza as opposed to GT which has regular downtime and speculation of updates.

The unfortunate side effect of this is that you can get online at anytime of the day and jump into a lobby faultlessly.

I hope Forza can copy GT's maintenance mode in future. Lol.

 

[Scaff]

Okay so since I haven't played Forza 4, Are the physics the defining reason that some pick GT5 over FM4? As I see it, Forza has more cars, customization, tracks (better quality tracks such as drag strips), and more people playing it but I have heard that its the driving itself that hinders its "perfection". Without flaming me please. I just am curious if it's worth going out and buying.

For me its quite the opposite, the main reason I prefer FM4 over GT5 is that the physics in FM4 are better, in particular the tyre and suspension modelling.

The driving far from hinders it, but rather is for many the main draw.

 

[Ven0m]

For me its quite the opposite, the main reason I prefer FM4 over GT5 is that the physics in FM4 are better, in particular the tyre and suspension modelling.

The driving far from hinders it, but rather is for many the main draw.

Well, now I'm intrigued, how much are Xboxs going for these days. It's the only game I want for it.

 

[King1982]

Okay so since I haven't played Forza 4, Are the physics the defining reason that some pick GT5 over FM4? As I see it, Forza has more cars, customization, tracks (better quality tracks such as drag strips), and more people playing it but I have heard that its the driving itself that hinders its "perfection". Without flaming me please. I just am curious if it's worth going out and buying.

Fm4 is the game Gt5 should have been imo. Just look at the dlc request threads here on the planet... I loved the old gt games really. But really Forza is where it's at. The cars and physics just feel better and more realistic too me in fm. And everything is consistant, all cars have cockpits and all tracks look great. The car selection is superior.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Okay so since I haven't played Forza 4, Are the physics the defining reason that some pick GT5 over FM4? As I see it, Forza has more cars, customization, tracks (better quality tracks such as drag strips), and more people playing it but I have heard that its the driving itself that hinders its "perfection". Without flaming me please. I just am curious if it's worth going out and buying.

As others have said; physics-wise, I actually prefer Forza, not GT, and jumping back and forth between them more lately thanks to GT Academy has really put into focus why that is. Forza doesn't have more cars, but it arguably has the better list for your average enthusiast, especially if you're willing to buy the DLC packs. I purchased a Season Pass with no real experience with the series before FM4 (only about two weeks of FM3, as it came with my system), based on the strength of the FM3 DLC car lists, and I've been very happy with the packs. I'll also be picking up the Porsche pack as soon as the discount VIP version is available.

Customization definitely goes to Forza, especially with engine swaps and the obvious big draw: livery editor. Forza is less of a Pokemon-style gotta-catch-em-all game: all cars are available off the bat if you have the cash, and you can still test drive any of them in Arcade Mode. Technically, you only ever need one of any model of car since you can load numerous setups and paint jobs as you need them. No hunting for a desired car for weeks. The community features are also better: leaderboards on every track, for every class. A real auction house. Storefronts. I'm sure you've read

Tracks are a matter of opinion: the Nurburgring is better in GT5, more realistic and accurate. But taking it and Spa out of the equation, I prefer the rest of FM4's track list, with Road America, Road Atlanta, and Infineon being my three most-driven tracks. GT5 does have the benefit of track DLC, though.

The only thing off with your post is that no, Forza doesn't have more people playing it. Sales aren't even half of GT5's, and some of the most-used leaderboards don't have the sort of numbers something like GT Academy has brought in (though that isn't an entirely accurate comparison, since GTA doesn't require GT5). Oh, and if you're so-inclined, GT's photomode is better. That's a source of frustration for me .

Sorry for the long-winded reply (especially as it's somewhat off-topic), but hope that helped.

 

[avens]

it has to be said that assetto corsa is going to have the best Nordschleife, as it should be laser scanned just like their other tracks.

@venom: I play GT5 every 2 months or so because now I can't be arsed to use my wheel on the pc, since I don't own a wheel stand (could use some plans btw), and due that it doesn't work on the 360 even though I own one and have the game (g27).
I fully understand forza4 is better than gt5 in every single aspect, as also are some pc sims, but I need to use a wheel.

 

[Kamdoon]

Source - http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/62B9C15AB7B9819EC12579BB0041AC9F/$FILE/2012%20FIA%20WTCC%20Sporting%20Regulations%20V%208.03.pdf

The FIA define the track as being set by the track line boundary.

Scaff -- Dumb question, but I have been following your, erm, discussion. The above link you posted: what is that for? I mean, does the FIA have rules for drawing maps of the courses? It seems to be instructions for CAD drawing or something. I'm just curious to know why they would need to publish that, and who would use it. I'm assuming it isn't for video-game producers (of course I could be wrong).

BTW, I don't know racing that well, but I do know logic, and my money is on you in this argument.

 

[DaveS1138]

It wasn't a counter, it was a request to actually acknowledge the thread in question and that I was not alone in finding this to be the case.

I must have been confussed since you replied...

I simply provided a counter to a claim that this issue doesn't exist, when a number of participants in the GTA have encountered it.

Did you provide a counter or not? Perhaps it's you that is confussed and not me?

I utterly fail to see what is wrong with me supplying a link to information that shows others have experienced the same thing. It was not offered of proof of anything other that me not being the only person to experience it.

There is nothing wrong with supplying a link......just in your suggestion that a majority of people thinking something shows that it is therefore true......very ammusing coming from somebody making the point in a thread where he is arguing AGAINST the majority view. If you cant see the irony of that then obviously you will be unable to understand the point I am making.

So I didn't post any information on why corner cutting should not be allowed based on real world regulation?

Oh wait:

I have no interest in you having provided proof or not. That is not the point I am making.

Nor did I explain why from a physics point of view why the car in question should not be able to do this?

Oh, wait:

I have no interest in you having provided proof or not. That is not the point I am making.

This is also a discussion that SA likes to have and he is more than aware of my view on the grass on both and why I believe this occurs:

Again.......

Oh and the bit I highlighted comes from Saidur Ali stating quite clearly that the grass in GT5 can speed you up

My approach to the grass in GT5 and FM4 has always remained consistent, both are poor and both are poor for different reasons (which I have repeatedly over a number of thread covered), Saidur however has changed tact in regard to this matter. You wish to raise issue with my posts then do it based on the position I have consistently and clearly outlined, however I would expect you to question the other side of the debate with the same voracity.

and again......

I have (as illustrated above) done no such thing.

It is exactly what you did....

His comment was

I’m only really talking about the Leaf example, acceleration is slower when on grass.

to which you replied.

And as the thread I linked to shows, plenty of people disagree with you.

You got lazy and tried to shut him up with "plenty of people disagree with you so you are wrong and should shut up now......"

As I said if you cant see the irony in somebody posting that in a thread where they have spent months arguing AGAINST the majority opinion then you will never understand the point I am making.

I've not ignored that at all, rather I have now twice clearly explained by both your accusation is invalid (I've clearly addressed the points raised) and inaccurate unless 100% of the 82% have played both GT5 and FM4.

You have however totally ignored this very point twice now.

My accusation is not invalid you are just choosing to dismiss it, either because you are looking for something more complex than the simple point I am making or else because you dont like what it says.

My accusation is simply that you are saying that if the majority of people disagree with somebody then they are wrong.....what else can you mean when you say.

And as the thread I linked to shows, plenty of people disagree with you.

What other point can you be trying to make when your only counter is that "plenty of people disagree with you."

I'm also pointing out the irony of somebody claiming this who has spent months arguing AGAINST the majority opinion in the very thread he made the point in.

Nor have I ever claimed otherwise or used as 'proof'.

To be blunt you appear to have not bothered to read my entire contribution to the discussion before jumping on an invalid point.

No I have not read your entire contribution to the discussion since it has nothing to do with the point I am making.......yes I did jump on your invalid point to show you just how invalid that point was.



If you think that somebody is wrong just because "plenty of people disagree with you" then that is a very poor argument.....

But to use that as a counter in a thread where you have argued for months that the majority opinion is wrong is hillarious irony.

My point is that simple.

 

[Tornado]

You got lazy and tried to shut him up with "plenty of people disagree with you so you are wrong and should shut up now......"

As I said if you cant see the irony in somebody posting that in a thread where they have spent months arguing AGAINST the majority opinion then you will never understand the point I am making.

Here. Let me help you with something:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Read that. Then perhaps you can understand how much of a waste of server space this entire tirade of yours has been. Though if you seriously have the gall to say this:

yes I did jump on your invalid point to show you just how invalid that point was.

Then perhaps you shouldn't bother.

 

[Exorcet]

The original claim by saidur was based on his experience. Scaff simply showed that people have had different experience.

There isn't any irony or hypocrisy.

In response to Ven0m, Forza for physics, tuning, and livery. GT for online options and graphics. I've only played Forza 4 demo though, so I'm not too sure about the online options in game. I owned Forza 3.

 

[nofxmike06]

In response to the original question of "which game has superior physics?" I answer this:
GT5. Why? You may ask. Well, FIRST
I own Forza Motorsport 4 and Gran Turismo 5.2.06(both with latest updates)

Now my point:

Gran Turismo 5 on its default settings and Forza Motorsport 4 on its default settings are about the same. I challenge you to try each game on default and then try each game with ALL ASSISTS OFF and difficulty settings of ANY KIND turned all the way up. This must include the settings on select tracks for instance: Eiger Nordwand Short Track (Reverse) has the additional settings Tire Grip Reduction: Real and Fuel Consumption/Tire Wear: On.

 

[Exorcet]

In response to the original question of "which game has superior physics?" I answer this:
GT5. Why? You may ask. Well, FIRST
I own Forza Motorsport 4 and Gran Turismo 5.2.06(both with latest updates)
Gran Turismo on its default settings and Forza on its default settings are about the same. I challenge you to try each game on default and then try each game with ALL ASSISTS OFF and difficulty settings of ANY KIND turned all the way up.

I'm sure a lot of people voting for Forza have done this. I certainly have. Also, difficulty has nothing to do with it, only realism setting do, and assists should not have to be turned off as having realistic assists would be a plus.

 

[Scaff]

Scaff -- Dumb question, but I have been following your, erm, discussion. The above link you posted: what is that for? I mean, does the FIA have rules for drawing maps of the courses? It seems to be instructions for CAD drawing or something. I'm just curious to know why they would need to publish that, and who would use it. I'm assuming it isn't for video-game producers (of course I could be wrong).

BTW, I don't know racing that well, but I do know logic, and my money is on you in this argument.

Yes the FIA does have rules for track design and the drawings that go with them, with modern F1 tracks they are quite strict in regard to elevation changes, run-off areas, etc.

The advantage behind this information being published is that the rules for the maps have the track edge clearly defined on them, and these have to match the actual track boundaries.

While I'm sure video games designers make use of them, they are mainly in place to ensure that track changes are recorded and available to all teams.

In response to the original question of "which game has superior physics?" I answer this:
GT5. Why? You may ask. Well, FIRST
I own Forza Motorsport 4 and Gran Turismo 5.2.06(both with latest updates)

Now my point:

Gran Turismo 5 on its default settings and Forza Motorsport 4 on its default settings are about the same. I challenge you to try each game on default and then try each game with ALL ASSISTS OFF and difficulty settings of ANY KIND turned all the way up. This must include the settings on select tracks for instance: Eiger Nordwand Short Track (Reverse) has the additional settings Tire Grip Reduction: Real and Fuel Consumption/Tire Wear: On.

You seem to have stopped short of making an actual point here, I would imagine that the vast majority who have played both have done exactly what you suggest, I certainly have and have to say it makes no difference.

Even under these conditions GT5 falls short in regard to tyre and suspension modelling, in particular the tyre model is its main weakness.

 

[DaveS1138]

Here. Let me help you with something:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Read that. Then perhaps you can understand how much of a waste of server space this entire tirade of yours has been. Though if you seriously have the gall to say this:






Then perhaps you shouldn't bother.

tirade?

I simply make an observation that I think somebody made a lazy argument which was amussingly ironic given the thread he made it in and you describe that as a "tirade"

Perhaps you should have looked that one up instead......

 

[Furinkazen]

I'll wade in here with the subject of the Mulsanne straight at Le Mans. Lucas Ordonez said that the bumps on the Mulsanne are near spot-on in an interview with Autosport IIRC.

 

[Scaff]

tirade?

I simply make an observation that I think somebody made a lazy argument which was amussingly ironic given the thread he made it in and you describe that as a "tirade"

Perhaps you should have looked that one up instead......

I think perhaps you should actually read all I have posted in regard to 'grass' in both titles before you continue with the lazy accusations, because I getting rather tired of it.

I'll wade in here with the subject of the Mulsanne straight at Le Mans. Lucas Ordonez said that the bumps on the Mulsanne are near spot-on in an interview with Autosport IIRC.

No-one is disputing the track accuracy in GT5 (even if the source in this case is not exactly impartial - he's unlikely to not toe the party line), its more how the cars react to that track that is the subject under discussion.

 

[nofxmike06]

"You seem to have stopped short of making an actual point here"

Sweary rant removed

 

[DaveS1138]

I think perhaps you should actually read all I have posted in regard to 'grass' in both titles before you continue with the lazy accusations, because I getting rather tired of it.

As I said I am not posting anything about the content of the debate. Just the lazy way you tried to end it......which as I said I thought was amussingly ironic given the thread you made it in goes directly against the argument you made.

Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[thelvynau]

I have been following this thread for a while and have some observations regarding these games (even though I have already posted some)

I own both games and play both regularly I have alot of fun with both games but without the knowledge of car physics I have a problem explaining what im feeling in both games so I'll do my best.

In some races if I'm leading I like to throw the cars around the corners for a bit of fun i find this is more rewarding and fun in forza than gt5 some people have said the physics in forza are floaty our like on ice I'm not sure how they see it that way could anyone explain that? I just want to understand.

 

[Scaff]

"You seem to have stopped short of making an actual point here"

Sweary rant removed

Have a two day ban.

You posted without actually making a point at all, a request for you to state yours never deserves abuse and posts of such a nature will not be tolerated here.

 

[Scaff]

As I said I am not posting anything about the content of the debate. Just the lazy way you tried to end it......which as I said I thought was amussingly ironic given the thread you made it in goes directly against the argument you made.

Nothing more, nothing less.

It wasn't an end to the discussion at all, it was a request for SA to actually read the opinions of others, at no point did I attempt to end it with that comment.

I didn't say anything of the sort and to be honest the only person who seems to believe that is yourself, please don't try and assign a 'position' to me that I was not making.

That you have clearly misunderstood what I said I don't have an issue with, that you keep banging on about it when I have repeatedly stated that was not what I said I do have an issue with.


Oh and I will make the next bit very simple, do not ever post something like this:

You got lazy and tried to shut him up with "plenty of people disagree with you so you are wrong and should shut up now......"

...which clearly implies you are quoting me and I will refer it to another mod as an AUP violation. I never stated anything even close to that, yet you are trying your best to make it appear as if I did. Do not misquote anyone, the AUP is quite clear that this is unacceptable and it also clearly indicates that you seem to wish to try and assign a position to me that I have never held.

It would appear that you have read a single line of my contribution to this discussion and rather than clarifying what I meant by it you have simply decided for me, rather a bold imposition and when I have stated that was not even close to what my meaning was you have simply stuck you fingers in your ears. To be 100% clear, your interpretation of what I have posted is wrong, I have stated as such repeatedly now and would ask that you actually take that on board.

 

[Exorcet]

some people have said the physics in forza are floaty our like on ice I'm not sure how they see it that way could anyone explain that? I just want to understand.

I'd think that's their interpretation of the suspension/tire modeling. GT5's is a lot more dead than Forza 4's. In Forza, it seems that the cars can skitter around the track and their tires/suspension behave accordingly and change the grip of the car on the road. Sliding GT in feels like a static block brushing along a perfectly flat surface. The car isn't really bouncing around on its suspension and the tires are probably super rigid.

In other words, the floaty feel of Forza is probably more accurate.

 

[thelvynau]

I'd think that's their interpretation of the suspension/tire modeling. GT5's is a lot more dead than Forza 4's. In Forza, it seems that the cars can skitter around the track and their tires/suspension behave accordingly and change the grip of the car on the road. Sliding GT in feels like a static block brushing along a perfectly flat surface. The car isn't really bouncing around on its suspension and the tires are probably super rigid.

In other words, the floaty feel of Forza is probably more accurate.

I guess that makes sense but would that be a negative for forza? I don't see it that way.

 

[Exorcet]

Well, if people think that GT is more realistic, they might conclude that the things that differ between GT and Forza are just Forza inaccuracies. It basically comes down to who knows what.

For example, last time I was regularly on GT5, I saw a lot of "realistic" rooms that used the high draft setting, which is very unrealistic. I assume that those people just mistakenly thought that high was the real setting.

 

[thelvynau]

So realistic depends on a persons point of view? I can see that happening.

 

[Scaff]

So realistic depends on a persons point of view? I can see that happening.

Part of the issue I have found is when people assign 'real' to a sim title and then measure everything against that, I've seen it happen over the years with just about every sim released, but GT5 does seem to have more than its fair share.

Its why most of us in this thread look at how sim title compare to real world physics and vehicle dynamics, that is after all the only 'real' baseline to use.

 

[DaveS1138]

It wasn't an end to the discussion at all, it was a request for SA to actually read the opinions of others, at no point did I attempt to end it with that comment.

I didn't say anything of the sort and to be honest the only person who seems to believe that is yourself, please don't try and assign a 'position' to me that I was not making.

That you have clearly misunderstood what I said I don't have an issue with, that you keep banging on about it when I have repeatedly stated that was not what I said I do have an issue with.

And yet again you resort to the majority must be right argument......and again I think that is amussingly ironic given you are making it in a thread where you have spent months debating that the majority are not right.

Oh and I will make the next bit very simple, do not ever post something like this:



...which clearly implies you are quoting me and I will refer it to another mod as an AUP violation. I never stated anything even close to that, yet you are trying your best to make it appear as if I did. Do not misquote anyone, the AUP is quite clear that this is unacceptable and it also clearly indicates that you seem to wish to try and assign a position to me that I have never held.

If I had wished to quote you I would have quoted you directly as I have in EVERY other post in this debate. However if you wish to throw threats around I will take that as a suitable point to end the debate. I made the point I wished to, it's a pity you couldn't take it for the amussing observation it was meant as and instead decided to blow it up into something more....

I would suggest that you are perhaps a little too invested in this debate to see that not everybody posting is looking for a fight.

 

[thelvynau]

Part of the issue I have found is when people assign 'real' to a sim title and then measure everything against that, I've seen it happen over the years with just about every sim released, but GT5 does seem to have more than its fair share.

Its why most of us in this thread look at how sim title compare to real world physics and vehicle dynamics, that is after all the only 'real' baseline to use.

Ok granted what I'm trying to find out is how throwing a car around a track in forza is considered not realistic our driving on ice.