Forza3 Definitive Trailer: AKA Why we are better than GT5 w Pro Racer Testimonials.

[SatansReverence]

RBR didn't have visual tyre deformation, however as it only ever needed to model a single car at any time the vast majority of its resources went on the physics engine (which still to this day is one of the best ever on a console).

The inner working of the physics engine was the same on all platforms and did feature tyre deformation, hell its been hacked and edited to death on the PC version of the game.


Regards

Scaff

So it had the physical aspect calculated etc but not the visual?

 

[Pierced Lead]

You know what I think? I think that Forza 3 devs are only comparing themselves because they are afraid of what GT5 has to offer; it's a smart tactic of PD to not show so much of the game because it just makes the devs of rival simulators scared and curious of what's next in their biggest competitor. GT has a larger user and fan base than any other racing game besides NFS. Comparing their product to GT5 just proves they are uncertain how it will do, that's why they are showing off most of the game's features before it is released (which PD might be taking note of right now ), so people could be more interested in it. But then as usual, PD just shows off some new and big feature of GT5 at TGS and all the crowd's gone wild.

I really don't care of damage, because even damage of FM2 is way off from realistic. What I consider of real damage is that your car should be unable to move after crashing into a wall at 80 mph; the whole front should be crushed, the engine oil should leak, even the back should be pressed a bit because of the impact. So until SimBin, Turn10, PD, Bugbear, Criterion or Codemasters (whose damage I just love in DiRT) can give something that real, I won't consider damage in games having been perfected as real-life, and nor would I want anything less than that in GT5.

 

[Scaff]

So it had the physical aspect calculated etc but not the visual?

Certainly I never saw it visualy on either the PS2 or Xbox version, with the PC version it may well ahve done depending on the spec of machine running it and how you had it set.

RBR was never a game for graphics junkies, it looked good, but never that great.

Lets be honest its not exactly unheard of for physics engine traits to not be displayed fully, Forza itself does a poor job of visually showing roll and heave under load, yet the engine is taking these into account (as can be seen on the telemetry).


Regards

Scaff

 

[SatansReverence]

You know what I think? I think that Forza 3 devs are only comparing themselves because they are afraid of what GT5 has to offer; it's a smart tactic of PD to not show so much of the game because it just makes the devs of rival simulators scared and curious of what's next in their biggest competitor. GT has a larger user and fan base than any other racing game besides NFS. Comparing their product to GT5 just proves they are uncertain how it will do, that's why they are showing off most of the game's features before it is released (which PD might be taking note of right now ), so people could be more interested in it. But then as usual, PD just shows off some new and big feature of GT5 at TGS and all the crowd's gone wild.

You realise it can go in the exact opposite direction yes?

While T10 and such have new and somewhat exciting news to tell people PD have nothing to say which, if you look back at the other games, is what is more likely.

The only things of note GT has ever done between games is add more cars, more tracks and make better graphics. That is it.

 

[yeti]

The only things of note GT has ever done between games is add more cars, more tracks and make better graphics. That is it.

Keep telling yourself that and you can sleep easily...

C.

 

[Zer0]

I think what zer0 means is, forza is only showing off the visual factor of tyre deformation and making a big bruhaha about it, while many game have had it alredy internally in their physics engine without having the visual effect on the tyres.
Just because PD hasn't made a trailer showing off their tyres compressing doesnt mean their physics engine doesnt counter in these factors as we all know that PD hasnt even started giving us any of the features of gt5 let alone telling us how they made their physics engine. tyre deformation wasnt a big deal when other games had it but since forza is showing it off all of a sudden everyone hails it as the new feature to have. its just a marketing gimmick imo.

Exactly, and RBR is an example.

 

[SatansReverence]

Keep telling yourself that and you can sleep easily...

C.

Prove me wrong.

Tell me what new and revolutionary feature was added to any GT games other then GT1 being the first sandbox car game.

 

[hardvibes]

satan what the hell are you doing here if u cant stand gt series?... I know the answer i just want you to say it

 

[dzidza]

Prove me wrong.

Tell me what new and revolutionary feature was added to any GT games other then GT1 being the first sandbox car game.

Tell me Satan, what revolutionary thing did T10 gave us in Forza?

 

[Famine]

satan what the hell are you doing here if u cant stand gt series?... I know the answer i just want you to say it

Who said he can't stand the GT series?

If you think someone is trolling, the best thing you can do is to ignore them. The worst thing you can do is keep responding to them and accusing them of trolling and flaming.

 

[Blitz187]

...PD have nothing to say which, if you look back at the other games, is what is more likely.

I think youre looked at it totally wrong... PD is Japanese... Eastern and Western business/marketing techniques differ GREATLY from each other... So I dont think its that they have NOTHING to say... What it really means is they CHOOSE to say nothing... Japanese business methods do not condone loud mouths or show offs like your friend Dan.... They handle things differently and that aspect gets overlooked most of the time!

 

[hardvibes]

Who said he can't stand the GT series?

?? He did, even amar got pissed for what he said

 

[Famine]

I looked through all his posts - even the longer ones - and can only see him saying he prefers Forza to GT which, as far as I'm concerned, is a statement of preference and not "I can't stand GT".

I mean, he's wrong but he's entitled to that preference.

So, rather than telling him he shouldn't be here and he's a troll and he's only here to flame/provoke flaming, how about you do him, yourself and this thread a favour and ignore him.


Incidentally, we're also www.forzaplanet.net

 

[amar212]

incidentally, we're also www.forzaplanet.net

???

 

[sejtur]

So, Satansreverence, why do you prefer FM3 over GT5? I'm just curious, and I don't want to read this whole thread.

 

[Da-Bomber]

He probably only has a 360.

 

[SatansReverence]

Tell me Satan, what revolutionary thing did T10 gave us in Forza?

If memory serves,

It brought arcade style upgrades, simulation physics and livery editors together in one game.

Completely changed the way online racing is played with auction houses, tournaments and more.

Gave damage to 200+ cars in the original, 300+ in number 2 and now damage to 400+ cars.

It gives PC quality simulations to Console gamers as said by unbiased reviewers of racing sims.

Brings all types of players together wether they be hardcore sim racers, creative painters or just casual car enthusiasts.

There is more but I can't be bothered to go on.

So, now list what GT has done that is new and/or revolutionary.

Oh and if I remember correctly Forza 1 was the first game that let you train the A.I yourself.

 

[Scaff]

If memory serves,

It brought arcade style upgrades, simulation physics and livery editors together in one game.
That does depend entirely if you agree that the original Forza actually broke the mould in terms of simulation physics for a console, to be honest I would be more than happy to agree on the livery editor side of thing but the other two are very debatable.

Completely changed the way online racing is played with auction houses, tournaments and more.
More than happy to agree with this and its an area that the GT series needs to learn from.

Gave damage to 200+ cars in the original, 300+ in number 2 and now damage to 400+ cars.
The number of cars is totally irrelevent, fact of the matter is the TOCA series was doing damage on consoles long before Forza and arguable better.

It gives PC quality simulations to Console gamers as said by unbiased reviewers of racing sims.
Now that is working on the assumption that Forza (as in the original) is amore accurate sim that GT3 (which I would question) and also forgetting Enthusia, which released before FM. Not to mention Richard Burns Rally which released in 2004.

Brings all types of players together wether they be hardcore sim racers, creative painters or just casual car enthusiasts.
Most hardcore sim racers were quite dissapointed by the original Forza, hell most hardcore sim racers dismiss console titles (with the exception of RBR) full stop.

There is more but I can't be bothered to go on.

So, now list what GT has done that is new and/or revolutionary.

Oh and if I remember correctly Forza 1 was the first game that let you train the A.I yourself.

What has GT done.

Well arguably it started the whole sim for a console genre off, it certainly was the first to offer a wide range of cars from Kei models up to full race spec.

It offered road and rally in a single package.

It put in place a good solid photomode system.

It offered a range of true endurance races.


Regards

Scaff

 

[Ranko_SD]

If memory serves,

It brought arcade style upgrades, simulation physics...

This is the biggest joke I have ever read on gtplanet, didn't bothered to read the rest, you made my day with this one

 

[WolfRacer543]

This is the biggest joke I have ever read on gtplanet, didn't bothered to read the rest, you made my day with this one

If you didn't bother reading the rest why bother replying

 

[SatansReverence]

What has GT done.

Well arguably it started the whole sim for a console genre off, it certainly was the first to offer a wide range of cars from Kei models up to full race spec.

It offered road and rally in a single package.

It put in place a good solid photomode system.

It offered a range of true endurance races.


Regards

Scaff

I wasn't talking about just FM1.

The number of cars was extremely relevant.

No other game (specially sandbox style) could have damage for 200+ cars.

Yes, the damage model on TOCA may have been better but it did it with not even half the cars of Forza 1. Being able to do that with liscence restrictions is what makes it special.

Calling something a simulator and being a simulator are two VERY different things. While GT 4 has questionable handling physics and laughable collisions, A.I and no damage while the original Forza was much better in all aspects and much more like a simulator then Forza 2 comes along and widens the gap.

Also, Forza 2 is what got alot of hardcore PC sim racing fans to buy a console game.

Then concerning GT1 being the first console "simulator" (still not a simulator to this day with GT5) I would more call it a sandbox racing game which as I stated further up it was the first one to do that.

I thought PGR2 had a full photo mode but I must be mistaken.

Also, other games prior to GT had endurance racing.

 

[Zathra5_]

Actually, tire deformation modelling plays a big part in the physics.

Without it you cannot correctly calculate the contact patch or the load on the tires.

Also, camber without tire deformation means nothing because you only want high camber to maintain the contact patch though corners. This was one of the problems with Forza 2 where increasing camber on circuits decreased grip because you had a lesser amount of rubber on the road.

Thank you SatansReverence. By your logic, GT5P has tire deformation (and I'm assuming earlier versions as well) since increasing camber does increase grip. Of course adding too much will decrease grip as well. So why did it take so long for Forza to get tire deformation?

 

[Ranko_SD]

If you didn't bother reading the rest why bother replying

I just had to say that his comments are laughable for me, and I don't know how someone can take his comments seriously...

 

[Grant U. Rismo]

This is the biggest joke I have ever read on gtplanet, didn't bothered to read the rest, you made my day with this one

If you're going to discount the fact that the FM series aims to be a sim racer just like the GT series, I think you've just won the "biggest joke" post of this forum. We're not comparing GT to GRID or NFS here...sheesh!

Anyways, I don't see why this thread even exists (though the MODs probably have debated this already so don't mind my view).

Anyone who's followed both games knows that they both have their pros and cons. There isn't going to be a definitive racer...there's gonna be two VERY kick ass racing games this Fall.

 

[SatansReverence]

Thank you SatansReverence. By your logic, GT5P has tire deformation (and I'm assuming earlier versions as well) since increasing camber does increase grip. Of course adding too much will decrease grip as well. So why did it take so long for Forza to get tire deformation?

Forza 2 does have SOME tire deformation physics, lower tire pressures make the car float on its tires but some parts weren't calculated (or calculated properly) which made camber ineffectual and you could view the real-time telemetry and see the tire direction and rim direction were not always the same.

Also, tire deformation modelling compared to just tire deformation physics is a huge leap.

I just had to say that his comments are laughable for me, and I don't know how someone can take his comments seriously...

Just like it is laughable for me to hear anyone call a game with no damage, really bad A.I, bad looking physics and "rubber band" i.e burnout style collisions a simulator.

Seriously the only difference between burnout and GT5's (which kaz himself says is going to be representetive of the actual GT5 game) collisions is in GT5 when you ram a car you slow down to what speed they where going.



Merged double posts - I've asked you not to do this before - use the edit button. - Scaff

 

[sejtur]

I just had to say that his comments are laughable for me, and I don't know how someone can take his comments seriously...

Yea, it seems that for him, opinion is a fact. You can say it is your opinion, and then say it is a fact that it is your opinion, but not saying something like it is a fact that the GT physics are laughable. Others may disagree. But then he just chooses another subject and tells his opinion about it, wrapped up as facts.

 

[Scaff]

I wasn't talking about just FM1.

The number of cars was extremely relevant.

No other game (specially sandbox style) could have damage for 200+ cars.

Yes, the damage model on TOCA may have been better but it did it with not even half the cars of Forza 1. Being able to do that with liscence restrictions is what makes it special.

The problem here is that Forza didn't get around all the licencing issues at all, the series has to date (no one can say 100% with FM3) featured differeing levels of damage depending on the manufacturer in question. With Ferrari being the most obvious example.

Calling something a simulator and being a simulator are two VERY different things. While GT 4 has questionable handling physics and laughable collisions, A.I and no damage while the original Forza was much better in all aspects and much more like a simulator then Forza 2 comes along and widens the gap.

The original Forza had a deeply flawed physics model, particualrly in regard to FWD cars and barrier collisions, thing did improve for FM2 but its still a long way from being a true sim itself.

Forza has also always suffered in regard to aspects of track design, as someone who has driven the Nurburgring I can catagorically state that the Forza version is very inacurate, being far too wide.

Also, Forza 2 is what got alot of hardcore PC sim racing fans to buy a console game.

I would love to see you qualify that one, I could just as easily make the same claim in regard to Enthusia, which came out before the original Forza.

Then concerning GT1 being the first console "simulator" (still not a simulator to this day with GT5) I would more call it a sandbox racing game which as I stated further up it was the first one to do that.

Name a better sim at the time the original GT came out that was avaliable on a console?

The GT series is far from a perfect sim, however the exact same thing can be said about the Forza series, it still to this day has some serious issues with its physics engine. Now if GT5 and FM3 resolve these issues for teh respective franchises we can only currently speculate.

I thought PGR2 had a full photo mode but I must be mistaken.

That would be PGR3.

Also, other games prior to GT had endurance racing.

True, but none came close to the range and length or them.



Regards

Scaff

 

[Grant U. Rismo]

Forza 2 does have SOME tire deformation physics, lower tire pressures make the car float on its tires but some parts weren't calculated (or calculated properly) which made camber ineffectual and you could view the real-time telemetry and see the tire direction and rim direction were not always the same.

Also, tire deformation modelling compared to just tire deformation physics is a huge leap.

Actually FM2 didn't have deformation, it did have calculations based on the size of your tire sidewall. Which is somewhat related but its not tire deformation physics.

Lower tire pressure did affect the sidewall size and slip angle but it didn't go into the same sort of deformation you see in PC sims.

Also as a response to your other post, Kaz confirmed that you can turn rubber banding off in GT5.

 

[Blitz187]

Also as a response to your other post, Kaz confirmed that you can turn rubber banding off in GT5.

And it is ALWAYS off in expert class events online

 

[SatansReverence]

Also as a response to your other post, Kaz confirmed that you can turn rubber banding off in GT5.

It should never happen let alone be optional.