Forza vs GT6 Trailer Comparison

[King1982]

A game that attempts to accurately represent the physical characteristics of racing.

Other games take greater or lesser liberties with physical realities in order to improve the gameplay. A simulator may not.

This is not to say a simulator need be perfect. Simply that the design of the physics elements should be based on trying to replicate reality.

GT and FM attempt to recreate reality as best they can. They don't do as good a job as maybe some of the PC sims, but you can't fault them for trying.

Arcade games such as Burnout deliberately sacrifice realism for a driving experience they perceive to be more enjoyable. That is arcadeness, pursuit of driving experience at the expense of accurate realism.

GT and FM are comparable because they are both aiming to be simulators, and they both aim to simulate a large amount of cars. Things like F1 2013 will not be competitors, because although they may be attempting to simulate racing, they are restricting themselves to one very narrow category of cars.

Apart from being on different consoles, GT and FM are targeting almost exactly the same markets. If they were on the same machine, they would be direct competitors.

That is why we compare them.

Thank you for that wonderfull logic

 

[Squach240]

@ Imari, 👍

What lobby issues? I'm not sure what your talking about. I also never had problems with my game locking up after a couple of races, and I would play for hours.

Interesting. Because it's very well known. My system itself is maintained properly.

It's at it's worst in multi-class hopper. ABC'S to be exact.

 

[ImaRobot]

@ Imari, 👍

Interesting. Because it's very well known. My system itself is maintained properly.

It's at it's worst in multi-class hopper. ABC'S to be exact.

I have had it on rare occasions, but it was never to often at all. I kind of figured it was just my Xbox because of it not happening o often. Although, I usually only play user created lobby's.

 

[CDJW]

You can't compare graphics. GT6 will be the same as GT5. The PS3 can only do so much. Forza 5 is on a brand new console. Wait for GT7 before doing visual comparisons.

 

[Imari]

You can't compare graphics. GT6 will be the same as GT5. The PS3 can only do so much. Forza 5 is on a brand new console. Wait for GT7 before doing visual comparisons.

Well, we *can* compare graphics, it's just totally unfair to GT because they chose not to use the new hardware.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

You can't compare graphics. GT6 will be the same as GT5. The PS3 can only do so much. Forza 5 is on a brand new console. Wait for GT7 before doing visual comparisons.

And hypothetically, if the roles were reversed and T10 had decided to put their newest game on a soon-to-be-replaced system, while PD had a release date scheduled for PS4, I would have to assume GT fans wouldn't dare compare the two games' visuals due to this apparent unfairness, right?

Yeah, didn't think so. Sure, FM5 is going to be on a vastly more powerful system, but the fact of the matter is they are still two games coming out at nearly the same time, for the same genre. They will be compared regardless.

 

[Akira AC]

Seems to be a rather odd comparison, but still people will judge them no matter what.

While I pretty much hate everything that has been shown off about the Xbox One, from my point of view FM5 might very well be the best of the series, trailer (even if CGI) did show some PGR roots that showed a bit in Forza Horizon, and it shows that Playground games have been more and more involved in FM5's development, more people working on the game and that gradual join between T10 and Playground might indicate a new game design from the driving perspective, for the gameplay and how the game is composed.

I sadly can hold my enthusiasm for it given what the Xbox One is shaping to be, and while GT6 seems to be working in exactly the things that needed to be adressed, I still get the sense that it might not be what I hope, the only thing that keeps me interested about it is track editor, but other than that I see little interest on it.

As great as it might be FM5 will not justify an Xbox One purchase for me, so my hopes are shifted in GT6, maybe it will deliver a game experience akin to what older games like GT2 and GT4 delivered.

 

[ReverenceSatans]

Definitely not the case the car is drastically different. In Forza 2 it will do a top speed of just under 200 MPH and sticks to the road very well as it should. On Nurburgring it was near the top of the leaderboard along with the F333 and Audi R10.
In Forza 3 it was not very fast compared to the other R1 cars and in the endurance race the AI driving it would be miles behind the other cars every time. Where on Forza 2 the car way in the back would always be the Toyota GT1.
In Forza 4 the car does 270 mph when tuned for top speed!!! that is 70mph faster and it handles like absolute garbage even when tuned for max grip by far the worst of any R1 in any of the Forza games.

It is not just this car either I have saw the same type of thing with several cars in versions of Forza. The S7 Saleen in Forza 2 was glued to the road thanks to being able to have near 700lbs of downforce on the rear wing but as of Forza 3 the max downforce for that car is like 100lbs and the handling is no where near as good.
The F50GT was a beast on Forza 2 dominating the leaderboards beaten only by R1 cars on most circuts. On Forza 3 and 4 it is a non factor. The same is true for many other cars.

And no this has nothing to do with this drivers lack of ability to drive them if anything I am much better now than before it is simply that the cars are that much different.

In GT6 I expect the general performance of the cars to be the same as the were in GT5 and GT4. Basically you know what to expect in GT and in Forza it is a roll of the dice.

I'm sorry but this needs to be addressed.

The 962c was a car designed for pre chicane Le mans. A track where top speed was by far the biggest requirement. To run at top speed you need to be aerodynamic. To be aero dynamic you can't have a lot of downforce. If you haven't got downforce you won't turn well.

FM2 and 3 both had the 962c very wrong in allowing it turn corner as well as modern LMP cars. FM2 because the R1 cars were balanced with each other which is why very few of them had a realistic top speed.

FM3 because the same ideas were kept but they did allow them to run closer to their top speeds.

FM4 is by far the most correct of the 3. It shouldn't handle anywhere near as well as a modern LMP car but it should be very fast down the straights.

And by the same token, the Sauber C9 and Mazda 787B shouldn't be anywhere near as good as they currently are in FM4.

 

[Scaff]

I'm sorry but this needs to be addressed.

The 962c was a car designed for pre chicane Le mans. A track where top speed was by far the biggest requirement. To run at top speed you need to be aerodynamic. To be aero dynamic you can't have a lot of downforce. If you haven't got downforce you won't turn well.

FM2 and 3 both had the 962c very wrong in allowing it turn corner as well as modern LMP cars. FM2 because the R1 cars were balanced with each other which is why very few of them had a realistic top speed.

FM3 because the same ideas were kept but they did allow them to run closer to their top speeds.

FM4 is by far the most correct of the 3. It shouldn't handle anywhere near as well as a modern LMP car but it should be very fast down the straights.

And by the same token, the Sauber C9 and Mazda 787B shouldn't be anywhere near as good as they currently are in FM4.

The 962c also raced on a lot of other tracks and had a quite frankly stupid amount of downforce and could be adapted to a wide variety of tracks via aero configuration.

This is born out by its aero figures:

High downforce configuration:
Max L/D:
2971 lbs. @ 150 mph, with 675 lbs. of drag
4278 lbs. @ 180 mph, with 972 lbs. of drag
5281 lbs. @ 200 mph, with 1200 lbs. drag

Aero. Balance @ 200 mph:
F: 1796 lbs. (34%)
R: 3485 lbs.

Lift-to-drag ratio: 4.40:1
Coefficient of lift: -2.655
Reference area: 1.806 meters square

Max Downforce:
3141 lbs. @ 150 mph, with 785 lbs. of drag
4523 lbs. @ 180 mph, with 1131 lbs. of drag
5584 lbs. @ 200 mph, with 1396 lbs. drag

Aero. Balance @ 200 mph:
F: 1619 lbs. (29%)
R: 3965 lbs.

Lift-to-drag ratio: 4.00:1
Coefficient of lift: -2.8
Reference area: 1.806 meters square
Source - http://www.mulsannescorner.com/aerodatabasejoestporsche962.html

It which downforce far exceeds its weight (850 kilos or 1873lbs), and please keep in mind that the 962c was far from a one-trick pony in that regard (which is why it was still winning races in the min '90s).

For comparison a more modern LMP1 car such as the 2000 Panoz LMP1 produced:
High downforce configuration:
Downforce:
2400 lbs. @ 150 mph, with 716 lbs. of drag
3456 lbs. @ 180 mph, with 1031 lbs. of drag
4266 lbs. @ 200 mph, with 1273 lbs. of drag

Lift-to-drag ratio: 3.35:1

Low downforce configuration:
Downforce:
2000 lbs. @ 150 mph, with 615 lbs. of drag
2880 lbs. @ 180 mph, with 886 lbs. of drag
3556 lbs. @ 200 mph, with 1093 lbs. of drag

Lift-to-drag ratio: 3.25:1
Source - http://www.mulsannescorner.com/aerodatabasepanozlmp00.html

As you can see the 962 actually produces more downforce in both low and high configurations (due in part to the closed cockpit in comparison to the open LMP1 Panoz.

Getting accurate info more up to date than that is very rare, however Audi did once slip up with the 2010 R15, which was calculated as running 934 lbs drag and 3727 lbs. downforce for a L/D of 3.99:1. Now we have no way fo knowing from that one if its high or low downforce config, but what it does show is how effective the aero package on the 956 and 962 were.
Source - http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsnov10.html






I strongly suggest that you get a copy of in-car 956 (the fore-runner to the 962) if you think they were not capable of high-downforce.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41W9HQN16RL.jpg


That's one of the laps without commentary, but the whole DVD discusses the ground effects and downforce on the car.

 

[King1982]

 

[Northstar]

The (not really)scary thing is that in 5 years we will be looking back at FM4 and saying how crappy it looks compared to the newer games on the XB3/PS4.

 

[HAL20XX]

I remember reading the reviews for the original Gran Turismo and the reviewer saying just how life-like it was (and I thought the same). Some people even mistook the replays for an actual real life race.

It's strange to think that we're at a point where the biggest limiting factor in graphics is the uncanny valley.

 

[ReverenceSatans]

The 962c also raced on a lot of other tracks and had a quite frankly stupid amount of downforce and could be adapted to a wide variety of tracks via aero configuration.

This is born out by its aero figures:

High downforce configuration:
Max L/D:
2971 lbs. @ 150 mph, with 675 lbs. of drag
4278 lbs. @ 180 mph, with 972 lbs. of drag
5281 lbs. @ 200 mph, with 1200 lbs. drag

Aero. Balance @ 200 mph:
F: 1796 lbs. (34%)
R: 3485 lbs.

Lift-to-drag ratio: 4.40:1
Coefficient of lift: -2.655
Reference area: 1.806 meters square

Max Downforce:
3141 lbs. @ 150 mph, with 785 lbs. of drag
4523 lbs. @ 180 mph, with 1131 lbs. of drag
5584 lbs. @ 200 mph, with 1396 lbs. drag

Aero. Balance @ 200 mph:
F: 1619 lbs. (29%)
R: 3965 lbs.

Lift-to-drag ratio: 4.00:1
Coefficient of lift: -2.8
Reference area: 1.806 meters square
Source - http://www.mulsannescorner.com/aerodatabasejoestporsche962.html

It which downforce far exceeds its weight (850 kilos or 1873lbs), and please keep in mind that the 962c was far from a one-trick pony in that regard (which is why it was still winning races in the min '90s).

For comparison a more modern LMP1 car such as the 2000 Panoz LMP1 produced:
High downforce configuration:
Downforce:
2400 lbs. @ 150 mph, with 716 lbs. of drag
3456 lbs. @ 180 mph, with 1031 lbs. of drag
4266 lbs. @ 200 mph, with 1273 lbs. of drag

Lift-to-drag ratio: 3.35:1

Low downforce configuration:
Downforce:
2000 lbs. @ 150 mph, with 615 lbs. of drag
2880 lbs. @ 180 mph, with 886 lbs. of drag
3556 lbs. @ 200 mph, with 1093 lbs. of drag

Lift-to-drag ratio: 3.25:1
Source - http://www.mulsannescorner.com/aerodatabasepanozlmp00.html

As you can see the 962 actually produces more downforce in both low and high configurations (due in part to the closed cockpit in comparison to the open LMP1 Panoz.

Getting accurate info more up to date than that is very rare, however Audi did once slip up with the 2010 R15, which was calculated as running 934 lbs drag and 3727 lbs. downforce for a L/D of 3.99:1. Now we have no way fo knowing from that one if its high or low downforce config, but what it does show is how effective the aero package on the 956 and 962 were.
Source - http://www.mulsannescorner.com/newsnov10.html






I strongly suggest that you get a copy of in-car 956 (the fore-runner to the 962) if you think they were not capable of high-downforce.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41W9HQN16RL.jpg


That's one of the laps without commentary, but the whole DVD discusses the ground effects and downforce on the car.

Interesting read.

I still doubt the 962C would handle anywhere near as well as a modern LMP1 (i.e less than 5 years old) simply due to advancements in chassis, suspension and aerodynamic designs.

Where did this one come from? I haven't seen it before.

 

[King1982]

Interesting read.

I still doubt the 962C would handle anywhere near as well as a modern LMP1 (i.e less than 5 years old) simply due to advancements in chassis, suspension and aerodynamic designs.



Where did this one come from? I haven't seen it before.

Follow the white rabbit...

Edit: from the Xbox One website, i was actually surprised i found a new one before E3.
It looks stunning imo

 

[Scaff]

Interesting read.

I still doubt the 962C would handle anywhere near as well as a modern LMP1 (i.e less than 5 years old) simply due to advancements in chassis, suspension and aerodynamic designs.
.

Oh I quite agree, my main point was in regard to the mistaken comment made that the 956/962/962c was not a high downforce car, which is quite clearly not true.

 

[Exorcet]

It is not just this car either I have saw the same type of thing with several cars in versions of Forza. The S7 Saleen in Forza 2 was glued to the road thanks to being able to have near 700lbs of downforce on the rear wing but as of Forza 3 the max downforce for that car is like 100lbs and the handling is no where near as good.

The S7 was insanely fast for a road car in FM3. I have no idea what you're talking about.

Also in GT4, it has rear tires made of butter and a 53% front weight bias and zero downforce. Even if GT is more consistent, it's probably also more horribly wrong.

I'm also not too bothered with cars flip flopping around a bit. Getting a car just right is harder than getting general car characteristics right. Forza gets the latter at least. GT struggles with it.

 

[Chippy569]

nvm goes in the other thread

 

[whereSTheFUhd]

umm there were only 2 cars in the trailer Let's hope not the last thing I need is some stupid AI commentary while I am trying to drive

Not much other than it showed a new track and a classic rally car The exciting part. It is going to be available very soon and it will work on my existing hardware.

Fm5 on the other hand requires new Console, possibly new wheel and pedals and may even need to pay extra for each driver in the house.

So when GT7 comes out, are you going to deride it for having to require a new console?

GT6 final cost will be about $60 and you can play online for free
FM5 could be closer to $1000 and you can play online for $60 a year per person

I like the sound of GT6 better

They have done away with the Xbox Live Family Gold Subscription and will allow multiple accounts under one Xbox Live Gold Subscription. So it should cost under $60 (that's retail MSRP, below which it is readily available) for an entire family. Granted, free access to multiplayer service on PSN is much more compelling.

[...] The only way I consider FM5 is if they support the existing Fanatec Wheels that worked on the 360 and even then it will take a back seat to GT6 which will be getting all of my attention for a while. [...]

Clearly, you've already made up your mind...

 

[Aqua F1]

I personally think if FM5 isn't recognizably better compared to GT6 it would be rather embarrassing considering the hardware different.

 

[Joey D]

I personally think if FM5 isn't recognizably better compared to GT6 it would be rather embarrassing considering the hardware different.

Early games on new consoles never look as good as they should since the developers don't really know how to optimize it yet. If Forza 6 doesn't look any better though whenever it comes out, then you're right, it won't look too good for T10.

 

[phillgt2002]

Early games on new consoles never look as good as they should since the developers don't really know how to optimize it yet. If Forza 6 doesn't look any better though whenever it comes out, then you're right, it won't look too good for T10.

I can't believe people don't take these sorts of things into consideration.

 

[hobanator24]

In the GT6 trailer I see old cars. Many of them 20+ years old, executing boring corners in a very boring fashion. In the Forza trailer I see the P1, one of the newest and most exciting cars in the world. The newest car in the GT6 trailer is a 4 door electric car by Tesla.

Polyphony Digital just doesnt get it. Forza does

And of course Forza looks many many times better, as expected.

Older cars are always better & always will be. The GT6 had 4 classics. The Dino, Alpine, Lamborghini & Audi. The rest were all new cars. The Tesla, Alfa & GT-R are all 2013 cars. If you look closely, you can see a 2014 Corvette. As for the others, such as the Mercedes SLS & the Light Car Company Rocket, they are only a few years old. Your entire argument is invalid.

 

[ch3ng]

I personally think if FM5 isn't recognizably better compared to GT6 it would be rather embarrassing considering the hardware different.

Not even close. FM5 looks alot better.
I have to say it's a unfair comparison, because the Xbox is more powerful.

 

[King1982]

Not even close. FM5 looks alot better.
I have to say it's a unfair comparison, because the Xbox is more powerful.

I agree.

 

[Shirrako]

Updated the first post with some information and the E3 2013 Trailer Comparison.

 

[King1982]

Updated the first post with some information and the E3 2013 Trailer Comparison.

Imo the GT6 trailer looks impressive because of the vistas, but the FM5 one takes the cake for me.👍

 

[Soulbaker]

The Forza 5 E3 trailer looks terrible compared to GT6. it's like comparing a child's board game to a simulator, that song in the FM5 trailer made me mute the video. only thing saving Forza 5 is the advantage of Xbox One over PS3.

 

[Imari]

The Forza 5 E3 trailer looks terrible compared to GT6. it's like comparing a child's board game to a simulator, that song in the FM5 trailer made me mute the video. only thing saving Forza 5 is the advantage of Xbox One over PS3.

Well that sure seems like a rational, unbiased opinion.

 

[HAL20XX]

You heard it here. Forza 5 is only a 60-second trailer, not a full game.

 

[VanquishedFox]

Edited