cuco33, not trying to interrupt the exchange between you and Scaff but there's a couple of things that I'd like to ask you.
1. How do you account for the assertion by Car and Driver that GT5's handling is realistic whereas Forza's isn't?
2. Not attacking you or your experience but in an anecdotal example, such as the one you've given from the guy on the other forum, what were the ccontrols? Did he use a controller? Did he use a wheel? Did he have a bias?
See if you simply read through this thread, there's examples of such a high level of bias that it tips over into outright dishonesty and it clearly proves why you must remain skeptical of any anecdotal evidence. .
I know that bias exists in all of us but those who drink the koolaid need to put it down from time to time and really look at things from an unbiased point of view. I'm not here to argue which one is the most bestest sim out there because I'll just point my finger to the PC. I've been a long time GT and Forza fan. I've owned every GT title since the 1st one (I skip on Prologues... not a fan of Prologue's existence anywhere in the world) and owned FM2 and FM3 on launch day (got FM1 post launch).
1. First and foremost, why is Car & Driver even doing a game article with the typical Forza 3 vs GT5 comparison? Jumping in for more site traffic? But to answer your question, could be anything really... Even his opinion? It's 1 person's article on C&D's site, not really proof that everyone at C&D would say the same, even if he nailed it or if his bias affected his writeup. I never hold anything, neither article nor review, as the end all be all. The writer of that article is apparently young (compared to the older C&D staff), finishing school, and just started this past September (if my quick google search is right).
But reading that article it tells me he's a big GT fan, nothing more. I mean look at his comments.. "Almost sinfully—due to an exclusive licensing deal with Microsoft—GT5 lacks even a single factory Porsche", last I checked it was EA who had the exclusive Porsche license, not MS, and it cries as a Sony/GT fanboy being pissed off that PD doesn't have Porsche in the game (I am one of those who REALLY wants Porsche in GT games and will be day 1 DLC buyer if that comes true). Then the very next paragraph he talks about GT's visual damage as being very realistic (pre patch mind you)
has he seen the warped car damage images or was he looking at videos?!? All it takes is 1 (note: I don't care for visual fluff in a sim's damage system, it's all about the affects to performance if an incident occurs). Another one, "Forza might feel slightly less realistic than GT5..." slightly less realistic than GT5 (which is my overall thoughts) NOT unrealistic you said. Then this one, "Forza’s physics engine, however, does not feel as comprehensive, as if it were using the one that was employed in Gran Turismo 3 A-spec or GT4 (10 years or so ago!)." Really?! comparing Forza 3 to GT3/4???? I think Forza 1 was better than those!
They even went in and did some time trials (didn't mention using wheel/controller, but based on the very last line I'm guessing he used a controller) but what stood out most was they only did 3 laps. In only 3 laps I can be off by over a second at Laguna Seca. Had he put in 10, 30, an hour... then I'd see the point they were getting at but 3? That's the absolute minimum acceptable quantity when doing any statistical comparison.
I've read articles, interviews, seen videos, read amateur (and semi-pro) racers' comments who have experienced the titles that said similar to C&D just as they've said opposite. When I hear things from real race drivers saying how real something feels, and I think it feels real, I'm happy because it's kind of by default a great sim. Most people should try the core PC sims out there when comparing Forza and GT physics though. You'll notice how close they can be as well as how far off they can be. In the end, these are still games of which follow a simulation route. They both have pros and cons.
2. He used a wheel. No bias. 2-3 years tracking his real car and a bunch of time playing the games is all that he needed to make those comments. Does it tell me GT5's physics are wrong? No, it tells me maybe PD didn't get the car data for the R32 right. He did seem to be a bigger fan of the GT franchise than Forza. It's like I was getting at. You'll have the basic physics engine and then the car's data plugged into the code. If that car data isn't good, then you're going to have a car that doesn't drive as well as it should. Kind of like one of the GT5 Volvos I read on these boards is 400kg (900lb!) heavier. If you owned this particular Volvo in real life, you might notice it being more of a sluggish pig (straights or twisties) than in real life. I think insidesimracing does it right by reviewing the cars from games rather than the games themselves in their top sim cars. The best racing sim can yield unrealistic driving if the car data isn't to par. It might run on excellent physics engine but a car that oversteers in real life might understeer drastically in game and that makes it feel unrealistic. I also doubt that either game would nail everything down if pro race drivers came out testing the cars they raced in real life in these games.
Personally, the physics of both games are very close. Like I mentioned, both have pros and cons when compared to each other. GT5's in my book is a little bit better, but not worlds like many would imply.
I lurk here more than I post, but it's time to leave work
I'll try to be back later, and Scaff, I'm with you man... I really wished braking performance was affected simply by driving over doing it, like in real life. But my own experience with my cars I've modified (including friends' who did similar) have yielded significantly better braking from brake upgrades we've done. Far too many cars have undersized/under-engineered braking systems because it's cheaper for them. I could brake fairly hard or simply slam the brakes (car has ABS so no lock up, brakes modulated as you'd expect) and the upgraded system stopped much sooner than standard brakes. If I had the stickiest tires, I'd stop better with the upgraded brake system as well, also based on experience. My car is heavy as hell and from factory has undersized brakes so stopping issues was the 1st thing I noticed the 1st week of owning the car. I almost got into a bad fender bender but thanks to my upgrades I lucked out by mere inches, something I would not want to experience with stock brakes. Now if a performance car has properly engineered brakes in place, then I can see where upgrading this won't factor as much and it's all about the tires. Poor brake systems are rampant in the auto industry, simply due to costs. If auto manufacturers can pass the minimum requirement with the smallest brake system tested, guess what the standard in a car's brakes will be from the manufacturer? I think what these brake manufacturers like StopTech, Brembo, Stasis, etc are getting at is what happens when you have sufficient (or overpowered) brakes in place to lock the wheel, which obviously it then goes to the tire compound to actually stop. That I'll agree with you all day, every day. It's why you don't see dual calipers on cars because your wheels will easily lock up and you're at the mercy of the tire sticking to the road. I wouldn't want to be at the mercy of poor brakes not stopping well enough in an event though, and is why after a week of owning my car I sought after a brake upgrade.
