Forza 5/6 vs GT6 (See First Post Before Posting)

[Ridox2JZGTE]

That could mean a number of things. The real life driver wasn't the best driver, weather could have not been taking into account on the video games. Does that make the games incorrect? No, it doesnt but at the same time it doesnt make it any more true to life either. You're trying to match times, but the thing is, you are not able to take into account real life discrepancies, on a video game. I dont think you're doing any work for the devs, more so just making cars how you want. Not that it's a problem.

I never said you are a bad driver, I used an example to state that the driver could be miles ahead of you in terms of skill. Still though, the highlighted is what irks me. So you are saying that, even if your car is faster, you'd use the same points of entry, speed, braking points, and match in it's entirety? That just doesnt sound right, at all. You should be driving flat out, at all times.

If I don't use the real life times, what I should use for base line reference ? I often do not just use the time, but also the inboard video of the real lap if available.


For the bold part, have you ever watched my replay that often provided on my replica or my Evo X video ? The pace is not really that slow, it's always flat out in realistic way. If the car is faster after I replicated all stats/specs, then I go with lower tire, and try to match the cornering speed. If I can get close to the cornering speed, then my pacing usually close to flat out, but I also need to be reasonable and brake / gas within realistic limits. I can just keep on gas a bit more and exploit the physics if I want to like in GTA laps, but I don't, I can use ABS1 to brake much later than possible in RL, but I don't. I do not use any assist. If you think that I sand bagging the lap, you have never seen my driving. I also often reduce BB to get reduce braking power.

For the Evo X, I can drive much quicker or go lower tire grip and get close to the real lap, but the pace/braking/exit line won't be the same. It's finding a balance ( tire, specs and pace ), just like game devs build certain car and encounter anomaly ( too quick, too slow or hard to drive or too easy even with accurate parameter ), then what to do, fine tune the actual car physics, tune the tire parameter, the car model values etc. What do you think Kunos do on the AC Yellowbird, they don't simply input real life data, they must have tested it, make tweaks here and there, then build the unique tire model parameter for it. The difference is, they have the freedom as they see fit to make adjustment, I don't

 

[ImaRobot]

For the bold part, have you ever watched my replay that often provided on my replica or my Evo X video ? The pace is not really that slow, it's always flat out in realistic way. If the car is faster after I replicated all stats/specs, then I go with lower tire, and try to match the cornering speed. If I can get close to the cornering speed, then my pacing usually close to flat out, but I also need to be reasonable and brake / gas within realistic limits. I can just keep on gas a bit more and exploit the physics if I want to like in GTA laps, but I don't, I can use ABS1 to brake much later than possible in RL, but I don't. I do not use any assist. If you think that I sand bagging the lap, you have never seen my driving. I also often reduce BB to get reduce braking power.

Flat out in a realistic way? What does that even mean? There's no inbetween, it's flat out or not, and if you are not then you're not replicating tunes, your just replicating times to the T. Which can be done without even having the same stats, really. I just dont understand the process, if all your doing is purposely slowing yourself down if you're to fast.

You're right, I haven't seen your driving. I'm going off exactly what you're saying.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Flat out in a realistic way? What does that even mean? There's no inbetween, it's flat out or not, and if you are not then you're not replicating tunes, your just replicating times to the T. Which can be done without even having the same stats, really. I just dont understand the process, if all your doing is purposely slowing yourself down if you're to fast.

You're right, I haven't seen your driving. I'm going off exactly what you're saying.

Have you ever tried to drive by exploiting the physics flaws ? In GT6, alien drivers got quick by exploiting the physics ( tune and driving ) - I called it game flat out. It's hard to describe by words, but the easy way is for you to build one of my replica and try to match my time, see if you think I'm slowing down and get to know what sort of cars I build. Try the YB and aim to get into 1:05s on CM and no assist, click on quote to go to original post and you can download the replay and view it or use it as a ghost. The review also in the quoted post, it should bring more info on the video I posted.

Auto Motor Und Sport + Sport Auto 1988 RUF CTR Yellowbird Replica

Tuned to Replicate RUF CTR Yellowbird
Comfort Medium​

View attachment 331676​

CAR : RUF CTR "Yellow Bird" '87
Tire : Comfort Medium

Specs 40/60 Distribution - BASE ( Real life )
Horsepower: 462 HP / 469 PS at 6000 RPM
Torque : 407.9 ft-lb at 5000 RPM
Power Limiter at : 100%
Weight: 1222 kg
Ballast : 153 kg
Ballast Position : 18
Weight Distribution : 40 / 60
Performance Points: 522

Specs 38/62 Distribution
Horsepower: 462 HP / 469 PS at 6000 RPM
Torque : 407.9 ft-lb at 5000 RPM
Power Limiter at : 100%
Weight: 1222 kg
Ballast : 153 kg
Ballast Position : 37
Weight Distribution : 38 / 62
Performance Points: 522

Specs 37/63 Distribution
Horsepower: 462 HP / 469 PS at 6000 RPM
Torque : 407.9 ft-lb at 5000 RPM
Power Limiter at : 100%
Weight: 1222 kg
Ballast : 153 kg
Ballast Position : 46
Weight Distribution : 37 / 63
Performance Points: 522


GT AUTO
NO Oil change
Improve Body Rigidity ( INSTALLED ) -MANDATORY
Wheels : Stock
Car Paint : Giallo Modena

View attachment 331674​

Tuning Parts Installed :
Racing Exhaust
Fully Customizable Suspension
Full Customizable Dog Clutch Transmission
Weight Reduction Stage 3



Suspension - RUF Tuned Torsion Bar & Bilstein Damper

Front, Rear
Ride Height: 118 128
Spring Rate: 5.10 7.14
Dampers (Compression): 7 4
Dampers (Extension): 4 8
Anti-Roll Bars: 4 3
Camber Angle: 1.0 2.0
Toe Angle: -0.10 0.05

Alternative Alignment :
Camber Angle: 1.5 2.5
Toe Angle: -0.10 0.20

View attachment 331675​

DOG CLUTCH TRANSMISSION - RUF CTR 5 Speed

Install all power parts
Set Default
Use Default Final
Set Auto Max Speed at 400kmh / 249mph
Adjust each gear :
1st 2.786
2nd 1.600
3rd 1.115
4th 0.828
5th 0.625
6th 0.596 - Ignore for authenticity
Set Final 4.000, OPTIONAL 3.777 Corrected Final to get 211 MPH at 7000RPM


LSD 80% Lock - BASE
Initial Torque : 20
Acceleration Sensitivity: 48
Braking Sensitivity: 24


LSD 80% Lock - Higher Preload - Optional
Initial Torque : 24
Acceleration Sensitivity: 48
Braking Sensitivity: 24

View attachment 331673​

Brake Balance:
5/5 ( personal BB) or for ABS 0 wheel : 4/4, for ABS 1 - feel free to use your preferred brake balance.

Recommended setting for DS3 user :

Steering sensitivity at +1 or +2, all aids off, except ABS 1 ( if not comfortable with ABS 0 ) with 5/5 brake balance as starting point.


Notes :


The RUF CTR Yellow Bird is a legendary tuned Porsche that breaks top speed record for production cars back in the late '80s. Alois Ruf had a different goal than most other Porsche tuner back in the day. He chose to go for less drag, more top speed, lightweight but still offers great handling for a rear engined Porsche. Using non turbo body 930, he developed the engine and twin turbo kit to produce over 469 PS for a low 1.1 Bar of boost, Alois Rud admitted that on the CTR ‘we use very big horses in Pfaffenhausen’, which means 469PS was a modest statement.. The boost level was adjustable up to 1.2 Bar, producing more than 500PS based on Yellow Bird owner reports. 29 examples were built from RUF VIN chassis ( not conversion ), while there are many more CTR built from converted Porsche ( still unconfirmed )

This replica is based on the Auto Motor Und Sport and Sport Auto 1988 Magazine reviews. Test weight was at 1222kg, with several sets of weight distribution included, from 40/60 to 37/63. Some RUF technical books and the door plate on the car itself listed the weight with distribution at 40/60. Alois Ruf also mentioned that he went a great length to improve the balance by moving components from rear to front when possible ( front oil coolers ) and aim for 40/60 distribution. Recent articles mentioned 38/62, more likely from CTR with driver onboard and built from Porsche 930 conversion. FM5 uses 37/63 distribution, which might be plausible if taken from later year Porsche 930 conversion.

Power is set at 462 HP or 469 PS ( stock ), no oil change with body rigidity improvement mandatory as the real CTR has full roll cage.
Suspension of RUF CTR uses torsion bars and Bilstein Damper with 22mm front stabilizer bar and 20mm rear stabilizer bar, specially tuned by RUF extensively at Austrian race tracks Osterreichring and Salzburgring.
The torsion bar rate value has not been confirmed and the values are too low anyway ( can't be reached in GT6 )
I decided to use real life setup already proven at the track.
The spring rate used in this replica is based on Eibach Race Springs at 50 N/mm and 70 N/mm front/rear. The setup was used in real life on 930 Turbo with 1040 dry weight built for Nordschleife track/street ( 500+PS )
Damper, ARB has been tuned to support the weight distribution and spring rate, while camber and toe uses street/mild track Porsche 930 alignment.

The MN P911 RUF CTR tested by Sport Auto has 80% lock LSD, which also replicated with medium preload LSD. RUF offers lower lock 60% LSD as standard fitment on each RUF CTR and BTR sold to the public with 80% lock used on the 1st CTR as option. The high lock LSD might be too much for the usual customer who drive their car daily.

Gearing has been corrected with RUF gear set as offered in their brochure. The 5 speed uses 4.000 final, and the 6th gear in GT6 should not be used. I have also provided optional final at 3.777 to replicate the real life test result at 211mph @7000 RPM ( redline )

The RUF CTR was tuned and tested at Tsukuba, Red Bull Ring, Midfield and Spa. The real life record at Tsukuba in Best Motoring was 1:06.12. Using 38/62 distribution, oil changed build ( 463HP using limiter ), 1222kg, 3.777 Final, the RUF managed 1:05.808 lap on CM tire.

Updated : Changed 40/60 spec as base based on test review against Assetto Corsa and real life data. Added optional LSD with higher preload and alternative alignment with higher camber and more rear toe in.


Special Review by @Lewis_Hamilton driving both GT6 version replica and Assetto Corsa and 1080/60 fps video of the lap at Spa on both GT6 replica and Assetto Corsa Yellow Bird :

Ok, so I've ran some laps of the 38/62 weight distribution set up in GT6, and then hopped on to AC (both games running at the same time). Tried some laps at default LSD (40%), and at 80%. There's also the option for 60% which I haven't tried.

Initial impressions are that GT6 is both too slippery and grippy at the same time, if that makes any sense whatsoever, and I'm wondering how much of this comes down to GT6's track grip settings, broken camber physics and pandering to the casual players. Between the two games, I matched the same time of day, ambient temps and weather conditions (50% GT6 / mid-heavy cloud cover AC), and in AC I set the track to optimum conditions - which is the equivalent of a whole field of cars that have rubbered in the track for many laps. The reason why I've picked this rather than a none rubbered in track that's slick and slippery is because the YB in AC would be even slower. Interestingly, the look of the lighting/atmosphere in both is very similar.

As for the car:
In GT6 with 38/62 WD, the back end steps out both more frequently, easily and by much greater angles, but at the same time, it is still holding higher cornering speeds and is easy to recover, not once did I spin or go flying off the track. In AC, both with 40% and 80% LSD, the car feels more stable/planted but has lower cornering speed ability. 80% feels too safe to me however. The biggest difference is that in AC, you only need about half of the momentum of the weight shifting around at the rear in order to put the car in a situation where it is impossible to save and you end up facing the wrong way, no matter how quickly you react, what you do with the pedals or steering wheel. If you try and shift the weight around quickly, it's going to spin every time, where in GT6 it turns into an angled drift which you can save.

Another thing I noticed is that there is more wheel spin in AC - coming out of any corner in 2nd gear - despite GT6 being on the 2nd least grippy set of tyres. To match AC in this regard and cornering speeds, I think you would have to go down to CH tyres. In my opinion the problem is when you do that on GT6, it starts to feel like you're driving in the wet, you just don't have that feeling of connection with the road. Trying to match what I was doing in GT6 either resulted in going wide or the rear coming around despite initially being at much lower slip angles than GT6, but I have always complained about this issue for lord knows how many years, GT6 is just too forgiving and allows you to be far too aggressive, that's just how the physics are. Over all, lap times in GT6 were 4-5 seconds quicker around Spa. I'd test around Tsukuba but I don't think the Tsukuba that's been modded by whoever in AC is of high enough quality, at least Spa is fully modeled and laser scanned by Kunos.

I'm going to give the 40/60 WD set up a go now, I reckon that will help match the two games closer together, so that there's less weight on the rear causing more wheel spin in 2nd, and so that the rear isn't swinging around so wildly and easily. Braking without ABS on both is pretty similar, you can feel the bite and lock up much better in AC (a result of the game physics and not the cars), but importantly the actual braking distances and point of lock up is closely matched.

So after the first test, I think CH tyres in GT6 will get the games to perform similar laps times and cornering speeds, but I don't think they'd be anything you could do to match the feeling you have in AC of driving a real car simply because it is much more advanced and has a lot more grunt to pull it off (hardware wise).

Please don't think I am criticizing your replica, by GT6 standards it feels great and you've done a great job, it's GT's physics that are letting it down rather than the car itself. If I drive in GT6 the same way I have to in AC then both feel more similar, it's when you come to pushing lap times that GT exposes it's flaws. I'll give you some more feedback on the other 40/60 WD and will probably try "stock" 43/57 as well.



Good news! It's a new Dacia Sandero!

Ok so I've tried out the 40/60 distribution and also bumped up the rear BB to 6. Did about 15 laps on GT6 and then jumped into AC, increased the tyre pressure but dropped it down to "Green" track settings (about medium grip out of all the options, takes a while for the track to come in). Within 5 laps I was just 5 hundredths off my lap time in GT6.

The 40/60 WD helps to match the AC versions corner entry understeer, tyre slip in 2nd gear and cornering speeds. There were differences here and there, and I also find it harder to get the line right in AC (need to fiddle with controller settings), but over all, the lap times are nearly identical. In GT6 I also had a couple of rear end snapping and off track moments like I did in AC when trying to drive both the same way. GT6's version still has a looser rear end, and it's still easier to regain control, but the behaviour of the car is much closer. Now if only GT had a tyre model, I bet you could get them to react very similar indeed, with the main differences being how the cars feel to drive due to the different physics engines.

I've saved a replay on each game. Driving style and lines will probably look quite different, but the particular lap replays I saved had a mere 0.03 difference.


I tested with the 4.000 final drive, the gearing was pretty much spot on so I didn't fiddle with it. I stuck with CM tyres, increasing the tyre pressure and ambient temp by 2 celsius in AC helped to make the car faster in AC. I tried to drive both the same, I fell behind in GT6 after Eau Rouge because the rear was sliding, but managed to catch up the gap at Bruxelles with a more aggressive exit that only GT6 would allow, from there on, both laps are almost identical, even the gear changes. I tried to keep the upshift time equal in GT6, as the YB in GT6 can upshift instantly, whereas in AC the game simulates this better. Basically I let go of the throttle for the same amount of time that I would in my real life car when "giving it the beans".

Though I agree that adding more camber would have helped adjust the lap time, I think it would have made the car too slippery, GT6 already feels like it's on ice when you've just come from AC, there is so much difference in the feeling even if both cars are doing the same thing. Anyway here's the video, split screen 1080p/60.

View attachment 331698 View attachment 331677 View attachment 331678 View attachment 331679​

 

[ImaRobot]

Have you ever tried to drive by exploiting the physics flaws ? In GT6, alien drivers got quick by exploiting the physics ( tune and driving ) - I called it game flat out. It's hard to describe by words, but the easy way is for you to build one of my replica and try to match my time, see if you think I'm slowing down and get to know what sort of cars I build. Try the YB and aim to get into 1:05s on CM and no assist, click on quote to go to original post and you can download the replay and view it or use it as a ghost. The review also in the quoted post, it should bring more info on the video I posted.

Unfortunately I can not, the last GT I played was GT5. Either way, I dont exploit any flaws, I'm just driving, like you. Its not exploiting if your just playing the game the way you naturally would. If you're altering your braking, acceleration, and turn in points because they end result doesnt match, rather then driving flat out taking the fastest line, wouldn't that count as sand bagging?

For fun though, I'd like to try out the Yellowbird on FM5, and see what happens. What are some track times you have that I can try to do on FM5? Spa, Bathurst, Infenion, Laguna Seca, Nurburgring are the tracks I believe both games share.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Unfortunately I can not, the last GT I played was GT5. Either way, I dont exploit any flaws, I'm just driving, like you. Its not exploiting if your just playing the game the way you naturally would. If you're altering your braking, acceleration, and turn in points because they end result doesnt match, rather then driving flat out taking the fastest line, wouldn't that count as sand bagging?

For fun though, I'd like to try out the Yellowbird on FM5, and see what happens. What are some track times you have that I can try to do on FM5? Spa, Bathurst, Infenion, Laguna Seca, Nurburgring are the tracks I believe both games share.

Trust me, I do not alter my gas/brake or line if the result don't match, I am not that kind of guy, why do you think I never use ABS in GT6. I take the ideal line, clean and fastest possible if I were to take it for real ( with much less fear ) Here's the Evo X video also uploaded by lewis_hamilton_ but driven by me. I only saw the real lap a few times, and just drive with my own pace.



For the YB, At Spa, about 2:51/52s if I remember correctly , you can try with same gearing, weight and distribution, not sure about others. I haven't driven it at bathurst or nurb as I spent much of the time at Tsukuba Why don't FM5 have Tsukuba, it was on FM4, it's an iconic track

 

[RacerPaul]

I'm not quite sure why we're comparing GT6 to FM5 anyway, they're a gen apart

No comparison, FM5 ftw

 

[Johnnypenso]

I simply disagree on the bold part, if that route is taken by game makers, then all hope is lost for accurate simulation. The most important part is to have the car accurately made with as much parameter as possible simulated. Then it's up to the physics engine to deliver the experience. GT6 is not perfect, if I have the YB on driveclub it would also be replica, but with different fidelity ( arcade handling ). I used the term replica to signify the purpose of the setup being made.

You disagree on the bold part, because you quoted it out of context. In context, I'm clearly saying that technical specifications only have meaning if they play out in the game. You can put all the accurate technical specs into DriveClub or Ridge Racer that you want to, the end result is that the car is going to drive with the same generic physics model that all cars in the game drive with. Massive grip, massive oversteer, massive slip angles etc. Obviously Gran Turismo is not in the same category as those games, but IMO, neither is it in the same category as AC or PCars is almost certain to be. Hence my original point, that while the specs on paper can be identical, the same car in different games is only close on paper and insofar as the physics allow them to be. You do the best you can in GT, your handicap is the game and it's physics.

So, AC YB only have one tire ? GT6 is limited in tire model, it has several level of tire grip level to cater casuals and easier to play with.

It has, IIRC, 3 tires, but only one purports to represent the grip of the original tire, the 80's street tire. In game that's what it's called, or something close to that. The other tires are I believe, modern street tires and modern semi-slicks, both of which have much more grip than the original tire.

I'm not quite sure why we're comparing GT6 to FM5 anyway, they're a gen apart

No comparison, FM5 ftw

Because they aren't a generation apart, they were released within days of each other. It was PD's choice to go PS3, T10 made a different choice and that same choice was available to GT, after all they had 3 years to work on the game after the release of GT5, more than enough time IMO, to release what we got in GT6, in a PS4 version.

 

[FastFurious77]

I much prefer the way cars drive and handle and react in Forza 5 / Forza Horizon 2 to say Gran Turismo. The only thing Forza needs to improve upon is when you brake from high speed and accelerate from stand still. The sound and wheels spin and and movement of the car needs to feel more realistic and the sound needs to be more in sync with the slowing down, acceleration and movement of the wheels. Forza 5 is much better than Forza 4 and Forza 4 was worse when it came to cars when it came to this problem. GT6 just feels like all cars are too easy to drive and feels like an arcade game now. GT5 when it first released felt much more like a proper sim and not an arcade way of handling. Cars feels better to drive in Forza Horizon 2 than what GT6 cars feel like to drive. I can't bring myself to play GT6 because of appalling handling. It's like a game for a child. Its like all cars are go karts and go round corners too well, and its appalling sounds on all cars. I'm sure Forza simulates a lot more things deep down in the tire and physics model than GT6 physics engine.

 

[Benny44]

Ok, so I've waited until I got some serious playing time in with FM5 before posting on here. Everyone, of course, has a bias, and I'm no different...I've been a GT fan since GT1 and I've had a hatred for MS for many years. Anyway, I played Forza casually off and on until Forza 4. I spent hours on that game and as much as I hate to say it, I don't know if I've had more fun with a racing game. Played a bit of GT5, but it just didn't capture my attention as much as FM4. When GT6 came out, I played it a lot. When updates came out, the game got a lot better. People complain a lot about the game, but I think that it is hands down the best racing game of the PS3/360 era. I know the physics aren't perfect (especially collisions ), but I think they are pretty accurate for the most part. The night time/weather effects are quite well done, especially considering the hardware. To me the game just feels epic, and there are very few games that have that feel for me.
Onto Forza 5. Turning the game on, playing the first race, the game is gorgeous. Found my favourite little car (Alfa GTA) and began racing to save up for my dream car, the P1. At first it had a Forza 4 feel to it, only taking me a couple hours to get enough money for it (as opposed to the month and a half of saving up enough money for my 20 mil Jag in GT6).
I enjoyed driving the P1, and the sounds are definitely better than GT6, not even close. My favourite part of FM4? The clubs. They are what started me with online racing. I was very disappointed they didn't include that. My next massive disappointment is with the number of cars, or lack thereof. 90% of the cars I want are DLC. I am a classic car fan, and T10 have left me to pay my hard earned $$ to buy these cars. My top 10 cars I want to drive in the game (P1 aside) are all DLC. Seems to me like they are targeting people that like older cars...not coincidentally either, at least in my opinion - they are usually the people with a little more $, because they are usually older.
As I've progressed further, there seem to be more deficiencies. I tried to sell a $350,000 car I bought because it just wasn't as good as I thought. Guess what? It is pointless, because you don't get money for it. VERY greedy move by T10, and it just put me off on the game.
People always point to Forza's AI as being much better. It's awesome if you like crash up derby. The cars stay in a pack, except the 1 or 2 lead cars. It leaves you trying to get through a pack of racers who drive 2 and 3 wide, leaving you no room to pass except by making contact. It would be ok except for the fact they have to go 10 mph around a turn, leaving the lead cars to make a safe getaway. If somehow you've managed to get into 3rd or 4th place without taking damage, you are then left to chase down a leader car/pack. When you do, there is always one car, who has probably already slowed you down earlier, that catches you and would rather crash both of you than allow you to be in front of him. GT6 AI is not very good either, I just don't think Forza's aggressive AI is any better.
I think if you put GT6 and Forza head to head, it shouldn't be a contest. But it is. Physics are pretty decent in both games, but after playing both quite a lot, I would say GT6 is a little better. I can't tell you exactly why I feel that way, I'm not an engineer or mechanic. It's just that I feel the weight of the car a little more, feel the body roll, and I'm just not getting that in FM5. Don't get me wrong, I think the physics are close and FM5 does a lot of things very very well. It's just that I think GT6 does them a little bit better.
For me the bottom line is this - FM5 looks better, sounds better, and of course the damage is way way better. Putting both in front of me, I would grab GT6. I love cars, and I love the sheer amount in GT6. Even if you took the standard cars out of the game, GT6 has way more cars, way more tracks, handles better (IMO), has day/night cycles, weather and doesn't make you pay an extra cent for cars that you want. How FM5 got way better reviews I have no idea. It's prettier and more accessible, but it just feels a bit shallow to me.

 

[Zer0]

How FM5 got way better reviews I have no idea. It's prettier and more accessible, but it just feels a bit shallow to me.

Don't worry, that wasn't what hapenned. Your review is pretty much like many others.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-one/forza-motorsport-5
http://www.metacritic.com/game/playstation-3/gran-turismo-6

 

[Benny44]

Ah...I just read IGN and Gmespot.

 

[VXR]

A lot of negatives for Forza 5 seemed to come from the content level.

 

[RacerPaul]

A lot of negatives for Forza 5 seemed to come from the content level

It's the only complaint I have. It drives very well and looks spectacular imo

 

[Ialyrn]

@Benny44 I respect your opinion on how you find FM5, and I understand your points. Just want you to know that before you read the rest of the posting.

Now don't get me wrong here about the drivatars, as I have had the occasional bump from them; and I have admittedly bumped into them also. The reason for me sometimes bumping them isn't because they are aggressive in their driving, but because they are so damn slow around the track. So slow in fact, that 9 times out of 10 I will leave them behind on the very first lap. They are just not a challenge. I have found however that they have improved over time, they do seem a tad quicker then they used too; but not by much. Obviously the drivatar system is based in learning, so this isn't really a surprise.
The problem with this however, is that the lower you go down in the difficulty settings for the drivatars; the more stupid they are. But even on the unbeatable difficulty I have seen drivatars drive right off the track at the end of a long straight, which is insane. This happened a lot more back on day one than it does now however. Regardless of this, they are still rather competent at getting around the track more often than not; and more so than on day one.


Me vs Forza 5 unbeatable Drivatars on X1/FM5 release day.


And just to show on a tighter track also, as Road Atlanta is fairly open after all.


As you can see in these videos, and both from the release of the game. It is possible to have a very clean race against the drivatars.

As for the lack of cars and tracks in FM5, would you really honestly want T10 to do what PD did with GT5 and port over inadequate 3d models for the cars and tracks?

In this particular situation, T10 did the best thing they could. I personally fell out with the GT series because of the standard models in GT5, they just didn't look right on the PS3. I can forgive a dev for quite a few things, but not been outright too lazy to remodel everything for a new generation of more powerful consoles. Not when there was a 5 year gap between GT4 and GT5. Even now they are on about keeping the standards for GT7, PD have far more issue than T10 do. At least T10 is willing to make the hard choice in this regard, and still managed to keep their usual 2 yearly release schedule for Forza Motorsport. Mainly because they started FM5 before FM4 even hit release, according to what they have said publicly on the matter anyway. FM6 by rights should be back up to FM4's levels of content when it releases, if it isn't, then there would be something quite wrong at T10.

As for not getting credits from selling a car to the game in FM5, it is what it is. It was a stupid thing to do it like that, but overall it doesn't really affect things. It is so easy as it is to earn credits in FM5 anyway.

Which car was it by the way? Just curious, as it is possible it could have had a bad build on it.

@Zer0 A fair amount of reviews are faked, both the good and the bad ones. Even big companies will not be above doing this, and I personally wouldn't go by them; or meta critic for that matter. The only thing that really matters with a video game, is how we feel about it once we have actually played it ourselves. We can not make up our minds based on the text or voice of someone else. The only issue with this however, is it is fairly hard to have a go on a game now without actually buying it. I used to love visiting the likes of blockbuster for game rentals, as it gave me the chance to play it before buying. Blockbusters, at least in the UK anyway, would often discount the price of the rental if the full game was purchased when returning said rental. Without really been able to rent any more, it does make it fairly expensive to try a game for ourselves now. So I can see why people are going by the reviews more and more, I personally just ignore them. If I buy a game and I don't like it, I just sell it on. Not that I have the cash to spare on what I see as a bad game however. This is the reason I pick up the vast majority of multiplats on PC though, as I can buy them at a far cheaper price. Sometimes I buy at release, which is still cheaper than buying the console version; some I even got for free with pc hardware such as WatchDogs. Most I wait till I can buy them for something like £10, unless I have played and liked previous versions in a franchise.

 

[Benny44]

@lalryn it was an Alfa ...5C I think. The newest one, the only one other than the GTA that is not DLC. It probably had more to do with racing it in A class as I've tried different builds on it. I personally don't mind the standards in GT6 but I am probably in the minority there(or at least less vocal group). I drive with bumper view though, so I don't see my own car and don't pay that close of attention to the other cars, only looking for ways around them.
I've actually quit Forza career mode for now. I seem to get nailed, usually from behind, in every race. I have no idea why the drivatar is going 90 mph at the top of the corkscrew, but it is annoying. Every corner I hear bumping and banging by a lot of the cars. The game does have it's strong points though. It's just not my favourite game.

 

[Ialyrn]

it was an Alfa ...5C I think

Ah, you mean the Alpha 8C? It is in B-class by default, so it should be usable in A-class; at least against the drivatars. I will take a look at it and see what is what with it, not a car I have personally used in FM5.

 

[Benny44]

Yeah, that's it...the 8C. Not much of an Alfa fan, am I? It needs to be perfectly straight before you can even look at the gas pedal. I am not a good tuner haha.

 

[UKMikey]

I'm not much of a tuner either which is why I leave tuning and painting my cars to people who are good at it which is one definite advantage of FM5 over GT6.

With the right tune you can shave seconds off your lap times and leave those bumping Drivatars in the dust.

 

[Ialyrn]

Yeah, that's it...the 8C. Not much of an Alfa fan, am I? It needs to be perfectly straight before you can even look at the gas pedal. I am not a good tuner haha.

The car is a bit of a handfull stock, that is for sure. But by putting race suspension and anti-roll bars on, it is a massive improvement; and that is without any settings adjust or any other upgrades besides race brakes. With a bit of a tune on, I was able to gain a top 1000 time with it in B-class on the ring. With a little more work on the suspension and a little more time, I could probably get it easily into a top 800 time on the LB in B class. The car by rights should work rather well in A-class, so I will have another play around with it later and built it up in A-class. First things first though, I need to sort out my dinner lol.

 

[Zer0]

I look at it like this: GT6 manages these sorts of things while hitting something between 40 and 60 fps, with 16 cars on track, and fairly simple weather. Even with all Premium cars in the field, it doesn't really dip below that.

The One is massively more powerful than the PS3, and T10 has a fair amount of time invested in the console by now. I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that they'll nail this target, even with 24 cars on track. I wouldn't doubt we'll see some pretty drastic LOD changes to try to manage it, too.

You should look at the same developer efforts in the previous games to guess how things will evolve in this. Hardware alone don't make games (developers efforts and talent do) or with your reasoning FM5 would have dynamic time, night and weather without discussion.

PD is one of the most experimental developers today, they went in the past generation as far to research many technical features that are not standard even today in many more powerfull hardware than PS3. They don't priorize a locked framerate to the point to discard new features. They are allowed to expend more time researching and building a game than most of the developers. etc. T10 is just the contrary, a very conservative developer, they priorize a locked framerate and are very timid over new features. They have a shorter timeline to work. etc.

I agree that T10 should acomplish at least what PD did in the last gen but they are very different developers with a very different mentality and a very different comfort zone to work, not taking the same risks. GT7 will probably show this more clearly.

 

[Speedster911]

You should look at the same developer efforts in the previous games to guess how things will evolve in this. Hardware alone don't make games (developers efforts and talent do) or with your reasoning FM5 would have dynamic time, night and weather without discussion.

PD is one of the most experimental developers today, they went in the past generation as far to research many technical features that are not standard even today in many more powerfull hardware than PS3. They don't priorize a locked framerate to the point to discard new features. They are allowed to expend more time researching and building a game than most of the developers. etc. T10 is just the contrary, a very conservative developer, they priorize a locked framerate and are very timid over new features. They have a shorter timeline to work. etc.

I agree that T10 should acomplish at least what PD did in the last gen but they are very different developers with a very different mentality and a very different comfort zone to work, not taking the same risks. GT7 will probably show this more clearly.

How did PD find their way into this discussion? They're not even on the current-gen map!

Forza and PCARS are currently leading the console sim brigade.. try again next year!

Just kidding.

 

[RacerPaul]

How did PD find their way into this discussion? They're not even on the current-gen map!

Forza and PCARS are currently leading the console sim brigade... try again next year!

Just kidding

Kidding or not, it's true. PD/GT are a gen behind. That's piddle-poor when you consider that GT is Sony's in-house flagship driving game

Say what you like about Forza 5, it made it to the launch of the X1. I admit it was diluted to do so. Sony and PD absolutely should have a GT title on the PS4 by now

 

[ImaRobot]

You should look at the same developer efforts in the previous games to guess how things will evolve in this. Hardware alone don't make games (developers efforts and talent do) or with your reasoning FM5 would have dynamic time, night and weather without discussion.

PD is one of the most experimental developers today, they went in the past generation as far to research many technical features that are not standard even today in many more powerfull hardware than PS3. They don't priorize a locked framerate to the point to discard new features. They are allowed to expend more time researching and building a game than most of the developers. etc. T10 is just the contrary, a very conservative developer, they priorize a locked framerate and are very timid over new features. They have a shorter timeline to work. etc.

I agree that T10 should acomplish at least what PD did in the last gen but they are very different developers with a very different mentality and a very different comfort zone to work, not taking the same risks. GT7 will probably show this more clearly.

That's the problem, they don't seem to know where to draw the line. To know when to far is to far. That is not an accomplishment. I agree though, they did push boundaries, and unfortunately they just didn't have the hardware to be able to keep up with what they needed.

Locked framerate should be the most important thing to worry about in a racing game where every little movement matters(That's partly why PCars bothers me.) Still, with this introduction to FM6, they seem to be doing exactly what you say they are not doing. Introducing new features. What I find weird about you is that you say how they should be doing this and that, and when they do actually get around to doing it, your switch it around to "oh they won't know how to do it properly." What's your angle?

 

[Zer0]

Still, with this introduction to FM6, they seem to be doing exactly what you say they are not doing. Introducing new features. What I find weird about you is that you say how they should be doing this and that, and when they do actually get around to doing it, your switch it around to "oh they won't know how to do it properly." What's your angle?

Not sure why you say that, this reply was directly to you and before any sort of Forza 6 details were known:

And for reference, I'm waiting for some sort of weather or dynamic time in FM6 and I'm expecting 60 locked frames all the time, what I'm not expecting are those features being available everywhere and being of a very high quality except if they restrict many other things when are running. This time they need those characteristics in FM6, no more excuses, or will be not good for the series.

 

[ImaRobot]

Not sure why you say that, this reply was directly to you and before any sort of Forza 6 details were known:

Why I say that is in the very last sentence in the post you quoted me on. You ask for these features and always talk about how PD had them for so long. Yet a leak comes around talking about them being introduced, and you switch around to "oh well PD did it for longer so they have experience, T10 doesn't so they wont do it right." You aren't looking for a resolution, you are looking for more ways to praise PD and put down T10, like always.

 

[GranTurismo guy]

Kidding or not, it's true. PD/GT are a gen behind. That's piddle-poor when you consider that GT is Sony's in-house flagship driving game

Say what you like about Forza 5, it made it to the launch of the X1. I admit it was diluted to do so. Sony and PD absolutely should have a GT title on the PS4 by now

Pd realease game, people say unfinished

Pd take more time, people say it should be out

 

[ImaRobot]

Pd realease game, people say unfinished

Pd take more time, people say it should be out

Are those comments unjustified? I understand that the frustration with the Track creator, that sounds like a great feature, so I understand why people are complaining on that.

I don't recall if GT6 was delayed, although in the case of GT5, I would say that was more then enough reason, no?

 

[Zer0]

Why I say that is in the very last sentence in the post you quoted me on. You ask for these features and always talk about how PD had them for so long. Yet a leak comes around talking about them being introduced, and you switch around to "oh well PD did it for longer so they have experience, T10 doesn't so they wont do it right." You aren't looking for a resolution, you are looking for more ways to praise PD and put down T10, like always.

And that is because I specifically asked you in the other thread what were you expecting in FM6 regarding those features. A detailed answer not a vague answer.

For example: 1080/60 with all cars on track with weather and dynamic time? on all tracks? or predefined selectable scenarios in some tracks? ("heavy rain at noon", etc) what sort of weather quality at 60fps, similar to FH2, better or worse? what sort of dynamic time, complete with dynamic shadows over all the track elements or half/half still with backed textures? are you expecting dynamic weather and time or fixed features? the same number of cars at once in dry tracks than in weather and night tracks? realistic 24h races progression? less than 1080p resolution?, etc.

What I was discussing in the past was the complexity of implementing a full real-time weather and dynamic graphic model in FM6 over the existing FM5 base (backed graphics), the troubles involved, restrictions, development time, etc. Maybe you are expecting the same quality that I'm expecting in those features and would not be need to discuss everytime about the same.

 

[ImaRobot]

And that is because I specifically asked you in the other thread what were you expecting in FM6 regarding those features. A detailed answer not a vague answer.

Not talking about that what so ever.

For example: 1080/60 with all cars on track with weather and dynamic time? on all tracks? or predefined selectable scenarios in some tracks? ("heavy rain at noon", etc) what sort of weather quality at 60fps, similar to FH2, better or worse? what sort of dynamic time, complete with dynamic shadows over all the track elements or half/half still with backed textures? are you expecting dynamic weather and time or fixed features? the same number of cars at once in dry tracks than in weather and night tracks? realistic 24h races progression? less than 1080p resolution?, etc.

Well all has been confirmed to be at what your asking it to be at, so why not wait and see instead of switching your argument from wanting it, to them not being able to achieve it, even though they've said they can. I'm sure you believed PD, without a doubt, that they'd have 60fps when they introduced these features. Did they achieve that? If they can fall just short of that on old hardware, whats stopping you from thinking that T10 can't on superior hardware?

Oh, is it because, like you say, Pd has more experience in the area, because they've done it longer? That doesn't mean jack, really. Their experience didn't seem to produce the best product now, did it?

Also, you bring up comfort zones in the past, yet now they've seem to break out of those zones and now you still hold that against them.

What I was discussing in the past was the complexity of implementing a full real-time weather and dynamic graphic model in FM6 over the existing FM5 base (backed graphics), the troubles involved, restrictions, development time, etc. Maybe you are expecting the same quality that I'm expecting in those features and would not be need to discuss everytime about the same.

I'm not concerned with what you wrote in the past concerning that, as all the stuff you asked for is being implemented now. I'm specifically going off what you just wrote just recently, after news of the features that You asked for are being implemented. You wanted them, but as soon as they are introduced you turn right around and say they wont be able to do it. You are here solely to put a publisher down, regardless how much you pretend that you want them to get better.


Let me ask you something. If these all get implemented and Framerate drops happen, what are you going to do and say? Are you going to complain? If so, then why dont you do the same for PD?

 

[nocturnalgrey]

I know I am new to this website but why is PDI and Gran Turismo being discussed in Forza 6 thread?