Gran Turismo 6 general Physics Discussion(as well as video)

[Cote Dazur]

I have been enjoying the demo with it off, have to do all the braking in straight line for the most part, and left foot braking with the L2 deep into corner apex, the braking physics is greatly improved, the tires felt more like rubber with brake modulation, try it on the GTR TT Also ABS 1 still give that added stability, but it might be due to the 5/5 BB with it off.

(

I hear you, tried it also, but to me, ABS off without proper brake balance has no interest.
I will reserve my judgment on how improve the braking feeling is, as there is not much to feel with ABS on to start with.
See you on the tracks Ridox.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

I hear you, tried it also, but to me, ABS off without proper brake balance has no interest.
I will reserve my judgment on how improve the braking feeling is, as there is not much to feel with ABS on to start with.
See you on the tracks Ridox.

I'll be in the Deadnuts lounge during the week, driving lap after lap, tuning + practice

Have anyone tried the draft physics yet ? I gave several tries at Grand Valley Reverse Race with 370Z, it seems the demo has slipstream effect at high - feels like GT5

 

[Ills1999]

Haven't watched the particular video, but not at all. In GT5 there are missing turns (yep), no bumps and the layout itself isn't exactly the same.

Really? I've been there a couple of times and the layout looks spot on to me.

 

[Zathra5_]

I like how people still try to use that video as definitive proof of how good Laguna is in GT5 when it does nothing to actually prove it. How about several of those track landmarks (most notably every bridge on the track) being in completely different places? The runoffs on the main straight being nothing alike? The Rahal straight using the old layout that is at least 10 years out of date?


Or any of the other problems with the layout brought up in that thread you just linked to. But this is off topic for this thread in the first place.

Probably because people try to use Laguna Seca as an example of how bad GT can get a track wrong. The main difference between driving Laguna Seca on GT and iRacing is not the track, it's not the green grass, it's not the position of a bridge, it's not the runoffs, it is the physics. So I'm not not really concerned with the green grass or the position of the bridge or the runoffs. I am concerned with the physics.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I hear you, tried it also, but to me, ABS off without proper brake balance has no interest.
I will reserve my judgment on how improve the braking feeling is, as there is not much to feel with ABS on to start with.
See you on the tracks Ridox.

Could be just me, but I think the brakes in the Demo with ABS on do have better feel than they did in GT5. Nothing like with ABS off for sure, having ABS on in GT5 was kind of like autopilot when cornering, but in the demo you can still alter brake pressure to balance out braking and front end grip more effectively, something that was a very muted effect in GT5. It's subtle but I'm convinced it's there.

 

[Morgoth_666]

The way the heat system seems to work is that what you see on the screen is a "surface" temperature. Presumably that's why it heats and cools so quickly.

As the experiments you guys have performed show (and I've done it too), there IS another heat sink behind the surfaces. When that heat sink gets hot enough, it slows down the cooling of the surface.

This is frankly a pretty massive step up from the nearly non-existant heat system in GT5. If you push hard enough around Silverstone, you can get the tyres up to a level where it certainly feels like you have less grip. It takes half a dozen laps, but it does happen. If you back off, it will eventually come back.

Without telemetry and/or more cars to test I'm not sure how much more it's possible to read into the system. But it's one of the changes I'm most impressed by. It appears to be a decent heat management system.

Now, hopefully in the final game they have inside/middle/outside display temperatures as well, and it will be up with the current state of play.

Since I tend to run long sessions without restarting, on the "free-run" events I did notice my tires gradually heating up and staying that way on the graphic in just the way you described. I didn't immediately notice it making a major difference in grip(at least when I was staying smooth and on-line) but I didn't make a point of studying it hot vs initial since I was only concerned with learning the tracks and the demo's "feel" on my one afternoon I had with the demo. I thought I was probably losing some grip once when they were the most yellow they reached, but couldn't really confirm if that was in my head or not and they settled back down a bit after I did.

If it works well it will be a nice improvement after GT5 having virtually non-overheatable tires for sure. The only time I ever managed to overheat my tires to the point of being visible on the graphic and degrading performance was in the A-Spec FGT event at Monaco and then only once out of several runs. I'm also not sure how I did it(could be patch-related I suppose) as I've driven plenty hard and done a fair bit of sliding around unintentionally as well as a few burnouts and have never seen it again, the tires just go back to normal right after the slide stops. I also think some people may have been reading the tires turning red as showing overheating when that mainly just was showing slippage -- assuming my memory is correct, the one time I did overheat them the box around the tires didn't change color like it does when you slide, just the tires inside it turned red(the same way that they turn darker blue when cold but the box stays white).

Is it possible for the tires to get too cold in the demo if you remain parked for a while? I only remember them starting at what seemed to be optimum and heating up from there or returning to there when I backed off. I would hope they have the full range from cold-good-hot but of course there is no wear in the demo so we're possibly not seeing the full system(in whatever state it currently is) yet.


EDIT: I did notice the slipstream seemed pretty powerful in the short time I spent behind the silly bots.

I also was actually going to run with ABS on because PD's inability to use a believable default brake bias until I saw someone else in my list that was not. So I figured I might as well leave it off, I'll never be top-time material anyway.

It's not undriveable with ABS off but still fairly difficult and you must be giving up time by not being able to use all the brake the fronts can handle when late in long brake zones or when trailing into corners. That said, I didn't find it immediately simple to beat my non-ABS time in the one test I turned it on for(which it was in GTA2012 though I came very close to matching my time when I tried later without ABS). That could be as much to do with my driving as with a less "magical" abs.

The other odd thing is how completely different the GT-R felt. In GT5 even with the brake bias at 7f-2r any GT-R spins almost instantly with virtually any brake while turning even the tiniest bit, yet in the demo even if I was hard on the brake it didn't seem any more likely to spin than the 370s, almost seemed less so.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Could be just me, but I think the brakes in the Demo with ABS on do have better feel than they did in GT5. Nothing like with ABS off for sure, having ABS on in GT5 was kind of like autopilot when cornering, but in the demo you can still alter brake pressure to balance out braking and front end grip more effectively, something that was a very muted effect in GT5. It's subtle but I'm convinced it's there.

The way the ABS system works is still the same, unless with the wheel/pedal you can feel braking force pulsating ( visually indicated on the red brake bar on the HUD ) when the brake pedal mashed in ( just like in real life system ). It might be more due to the revamped tire and suspension model - weight transfer and lateral grip + grip loss on loaded tires being more progressive.

I wished PD simulate several types of real life ABS system, 3 channel, 4 channel, etc ( no more adjusting ABS level ). Right now it feels like a perfect EBD systems that works like an invisible force.

 

[Cote Dazur]

Could be just me, but I think the brakes in the Demo with ABS on do have better feel than they did in GT5. Nothing like with ABS off for sure, having ABS on in GT5 was kind of like autopilot when cornering, but in the demo you can still alter brake pressure to balance out braking and front end grip more effectively, something that was a very muted effect in GT5. It's subtle but I'm convinced it's there.

It very well could be there, I would not be the best to be able to judge, as I have not used ABS on in GT5 for a very long time.
Also, I trust your judgement, as you have demonstrated to me so often in the past how good you are judging how the cars behave and translate that knowledge in some fantastic tune.👍

 

[Zer0]

I like how people still try to use that video as definitive proof of how good Laguna is in GT5 when it does nothing to actually prove it. How about several of those track landmarks (most notably every bridge on the track) being in completely different places? The runoffs on the main straight being nothing alike? The Rahal straight using the old layout that is at least 10 years out of date?


Or any of the other problems with the layout brought up in that thread you just linked to. But this is off topic for this thread in the first place.

And I like how people compare GT5 to other games and when some don't agree they reply again with their full arguments and then act as being off topic to hide any positives to other dead thread far from the initial discussion.

I don't know what are you talking about the marks being in different places or nothing alike. I guess you know that marks changes within the time right? GT4 track is accurate to the day wich was replicated by PD (accurate does not mean perfect). Nurburgring track is "wrong" because other completely different reasons. Not comparable except if you want to excuse a goofy modeled track in your favourite game with GT5 because Laguna don't look exact as the one you play in that game.

This is the Laguna Seca of GT5: (except the year station)



What is so wrong?...

And the differences have not been drastic since the years, just minimal. The proof is that the driving inputs with a wheel are nearly the same that in other games using laser scaned tracks. Layout and virtual distances are good.



If that is an example of a "wrong" track in GT5 even at lows I'm very happy with how accurate PD have recreated their tracks!

>>But this is off topic for this thread.<<

 

[JerseyDriverSS]

What i noticed in the above video is that the iracing track has bumps and life to it and the gt track was glass smooth. And any simulator worth anything should have very similar steering inputs for a certain track regardless wether its laser scanned or not. If they don't there are major problems.

 

[another_jakhole]

What i noticed in the above video is that the iracing track has bumps and life to it and the gt track was glass smooth. And any simulator worth anything should have very similar steering inputs for a certain track regardless wether its laser scanned or not. If they don't there are major problems.

First of all, true, but that video was made two months before the first major physics overhaul done through the Spec 2.0 update and with it came a better FFB system. Not to mention, the cars in replays or even just driving it still look stale in GT5. The difference(s) will be more noticeable when we have a GT6 video.

As for the rest of your post,...ohhh boy.

 

[JerseyDriverSS]

First of all, true, but that video was made two months before the first major physics overhaul done through the Spec 2.0 update and with it came a better FFB system. Not to mention, the cars in replays or even just driving it still look stale in GT5. The difference(s) will be more noticeable when we have a GT6 video.

As for the rest of your post,...ohhh boy.

oh boy. whats so hard to comprehend about that. 2 games that use 900 degree wheels on the same track one laser scanned one isn't. Regardless of ones inaccuracies (i butchered that spelling) the steering inputs should be very similar. Personally in that video i didn't notice anything drastic form one to the other (except the bumpiness).

And in case anyone wants to know i think gt5/gt series is the worst sim racing game on a console presently. Nothing about 5 or 6's physics mimic any sort of realism whats so ever. But thats just my humble opinion. And notice i said consoles.

 

[Zathra5_]

What i noticed in the above video is that the iracing track has bumps and life to it and the gt track was glass smooth. And any simulator worth anything should have very similar steering inputs for a certain track regardless wether its laser scanned or not. If they don't there are major problems.

If you actually go back and forth between the two, you'll see that the bumps and track changes are in GT but are harder to see since the textures on the track surface look smoother. Turn 2 is off camber but I find it much easier to spin on iRacing. The bump in the turn going up the hill towards the corkscrew is there but in iRacing you have to be much more careful with your inputs. The second last corner is on camber but it seams to stabilize the cars in iRacing more. Maybe these differences will be less with GT6s new physics and the NTMv5(?) in iRacing.

 

[Tornado]

And I like how people compare GT5 to other games and when some don't agree they reply again with their full arguments and then act as being off topic to hide any positives to other dead thread far from the initial discussion.

I wasn't aware my name was "avens," "Zathra5_," "another_jackhole," "ReveranceSatans," or even "FyreandIce" from the thread that I linked; and thus that I was the one who started making full arguments comparing GT5 to other games over an issue that has pretty much nothing to do with physics anyway. My only contribution to the discussion was saying that matching laptimes was meaningless in terms of physics discussion when major flaws are overlooked in the process (which prompted another_jackhole to bring up the topic of track accuracy in the first place) before the discussion actually started; and pointing out that the video you posted comparing the three games had a couple obvious flaws in it, finally linking to a discussion where that video and several others were discussed.


In the future I'll keep in mind that I am all of those members as well. I will touch on just one little thing, though:

I don't know what are you talking about the marks being in different places or nothing alike. I guess you know that marks changes within the time right?

Bridges (not the shadows, but the actual physical structure) move 30 feet down the track in response to time changes?

Nurburgring track is "wrong" because other completely different reasons. Not comparable except if you want to excuse a goofy modeled track in your favourite game with GT5 because Laguna don't look exact as the one you play in that game.

blah blah Forza's inaccurate Nurburgring is worse blah blah even though that's irrelevant to what I was saying blah blah.

This is the Laguna Seca of GT5: (except the year station)



What is so wrong?...

Again, I'm pretty sure I linked to the exact starting point of an extensive, multiple page discussion about the various intricacies of the track's modelling and deficiencies in GT5's version of it; much of the discussion centering around the video you posted as the definitive proof that it was fine.

That you blew off the link as just being an attempt by me to stifle what was never an on topic discussion in the first place, and one that I also wasn't the one to actually start, just reinforces the fact that you'd rather just get in a few jabs then play the victim card when told to knock it off instead of actually discussing the topic in the relevant location (that, again, I linked to; and is hardly a "dead thread" to begin with, nevermind how you've felt fit to link similarly old discussions as proof yourself. Curious that you can find all of those threads that apparently strengthen your position to continue an off topic discussion in a physics thread, but you can't find any of the threads or discussions that you've suddenly vacated mid-argument when you were questioned only to bring them up again later in a different topic).

If that is an example of a "wrong" track in GT5 even at lows I'm very happy with how accurate PD have recreated their tracks!

And I have little doubt that you'd be happy with PD's recreation of Laguna Seca if it looked like this:



So...

>>But this is off topic for this thread.<<

And with that we've gone back to how matching laptimes somehow means something; meaning we're full circle. At least that's sorta related to physics.


Both of the videos in that thread were also brought up in the discussion I linked to, by the way.

 

[Samus]

First of all, true, but that video was made two months before the first major physics overhaul done through the Spec 2.0 update and with it came a better FFB system. Not to mention, the cars in replays or even just driving it still look stale in GT5. The difference(s) will be more noticeable when we have a GT6 video.

As for the rest of your post,...ohhh boy.

Are you suggesting Spec 2.0 added bumps to the tracks? Well it didn't and Silverstone, a brand new track to game is the same, glass smooth.

 

[sems4arsenal]

I think PD should really start to Laser Scan.Regarding Physics there was several updates to the Physics engine by time in GT5 ,if they keep up the same trend GT6 will only get better by time .

PD please nail the A.I and the sounds and you've got yourself a happy camper.

 

[Griffith500]

Are you suggesting Spec 2.0 added bumps to the tracks? Well it didn't and Silverstone, a brand new track to game is the same, glass smooth.

But we know why that is, the resolution of the data collection isn't high enough to capture that kind of variation. Laser scanning is the most effective method of getting too much data (to use in an in-game model) and giving you the ability to filter out the stuff that doesn't make a difference (according to some arbitrary - for the real world - threshold, at least) and leaving in the stuff that does. If you don't even capture that fine detail, you've got no chance of getting it in your game, unless you have lots of experience with the track, or reliable data from some other means - both of those latter two should be true for the Nordschleife in a GT game.

But, we can't have everything - in an ideal world, we'd have molecular-level reconstructions of the tracks in every game and be done with it. As it happens, I can deal with most of the track-related inaccuracies in games these days. Laguna Seca was my favourite track in Indy Car Racing, incidentally.

 

[Samus]

But we know why that is, the resolution of the data collection isn't high enough to capture that kind of variation. Laser scanning is the most effective method of getting too much data (to use in an in-game model) and giving you the ability to filter out the stuff that doesn't make a difference (according to some arbitrary - for the real world - threshold, at least) and leaving in the stuff that does. If you don't even capture that fine detail, you've got no chance of getting it in your game, unless you have lots of experience with the track, or reliable data from some other means - both of those latter two should be true for the Nordschleife in a GT game.

But, we can't have everything - in an ideal world, we'd have molecular-level reconstructions of the tracks in every game and be done with it. As it happens, I can deal with most of the track-related inaccuracies in games these days. Laguna Seca was my favourite track in Indy Car Racing, incidentally.

I know why the bumps aren't there, I was just wondering why he bolded the point about the track being flat in JerseyDriver's post and then said it was before the spec 2.0 update, as if that changed anything.

 

[JerseyDriverSS]

I really don't understand how anyone can praise the physics in this demo. I've never driven anything that rewarded stabbing the brake pedal to the floor to rotate the car rather then threshold braking and modulating your throttle input other then maybe my tag kart that shouldn't be the best way to drive a car. You know the saying you can't polish a turd. Well some of you may get what I'm saying.

 

[Samus]

I really don't understand how anyone can praise the physics in this demo. I've never driven anything that rewarded stabbing the brake pedal to the floor to rotate the car rather then threshold braking and modulating your throttle input other then maybe my tag kart that shouldn't be the best way to drive a car. You know the saying you can't polish a turd. Well some of you may get what I'm saying.

I think a lot of people are noticing the visual differences more than the actual change in feel. That's not to say there isn't a change, there is, but I believe the visuals are more than the feel.

As you say the fastest way to get a 370Z around a track is still to use the brakes to slide the car into a straighter line and plow through the corner. Just look at the top times around Maggott's/Becketts. Pretty comical that's the fastest way.

 

[Griffith500]

I know why the bumps aren't there, I was just wondering why he bolded the point about the track being flat in JerseyDriver's post and then said it was before the spec 2.0 update, as if that changed anything.

What bumps were there were more noticeable after the tweaks to the suspension model that came with 2.0. Especially visually. The same is true of this demo. What's more important: that the bump is precisely modeled, or that the car behaves properly over what bumps there are? I'm not saying PD are there yet, but I think we know where the priority should be.

 

[another_jakhole]

Are you suggesting Spec 2.0 added bumps to the tracks? Well it didn't and Silverstone, a brand new track to game is the same, glass smooth.

"What i noticed in the above video is that the iracing track has bumps and life to it and the gt track was glass smooth." That's what JerseyDriver said.

I mentioned how GT5 looks stale to this day after bringing up what the FFB and physics update Spec 2.0 brought and I added the fact that the GT6 demo shows us how the animations look more dramatic in many ways that GT5 doesn't. Did I somewhere suggest/imply that the FFB system in the GT6 demo reacts like it would in real life? (I have to say it now before THAT gets targeted since there has been an advancement in the FFB system, but only apparent that it is in some areas)

So no, I wasn't suggesting that an update changed the surface of a track. I suggested that there were imperfections with all the things I've JUST MENTIONED, and with the Spec 2.0 remark, I implied there's always more room for improvement. If only I clarified the point I was making and made it more obvious?

But we know why that is, the resolution of the data collection isn't high enough to capture that kind of variation. Laser scanning is the most effective method of getting too much data (to use in an in-game model) and giving you the ability to filter out the stuff that doesn't make a difference (according to some arbitrary - for the real world - threshold, at least) and leaving in the stuff that does. If you don't even capture that fine detail, you've got no chance of getting it in your game, unless you have lots of experience with the track, or reliable data from some other means - both of those latter two should be true for the Nordschleife in a GT game.

But, we can't have everything - in an ideal world, we'd have molecular-level reconstructions of the tracks in every game and be done with it. As it happens, I can deal with most of the track-related inaccuracies in games these days. Laguna Seca was my favourite track in Indy Car Racing, incidentally.

On that note,
wasn't GT5's GT Academy '12 made using the data of an already coded program that had one track and eight cars? It was over 3gb so three times the size of the GT6 demo, which currently has four track layouts/locations and seven variations with five cars. Let's not forget that Silverstone's full layout is set during 3 or 4 times of the day.

Basically, what I'm saying is, how?

 

[Samus]

Well indeed but they don't all need to be precisely modeled. There are quite a few "famous" bumps and uneven parts of race tracks and most of them do not seem to be mapped at all.

Hopefully PD eventually do move towards laser scanning in future, I've not seen any evidence they've started yet unless Silverstone was laser scanned but the bump data not fully used for PS3.

"What i noticed in the above video is that the iracing track has bumps and life to it and the gt track was glass smooth." That's what JerseyDriver said.

I mentioned how GT5 looks stale to this day after bringing up what the FFB and physics update Spec 2.0 brought and I added the fact that the GT6 demo shows us how the animations look more dramatic in many ways that GT5 doesn't. Did I somewhere suggest/imply that the FFB system in the GT6 demo reacts like it would in real life? (I have to say it now before THAT gets targeted since there has been an advancement in the FFB system, but only apparent that it is in some areas)

So no, I wasn't suggesting that an update changed the surface of a track. I suggested that there were imperfections with all the things I've JUST MENTIONED, and with the Spec 2.0 remark, I implied there's always more room for improvement. If only I clarified the point I was making and made it more obvious?

But what's that got to with the tracks being ice smooth without bumps. The FFB might have been improved but if the surface still doesn't have the bumps, which is what he mentioned, then what does it matter?

On that note,
wasn't GT5's GT Academy '12 made using the data of an already coded program that had one track and eight cars? It was over 3gb so three times the size of the GT6 demo, which currently has four track layouts/locations and seven variations with five cars. Let's not forget that Silverstone's full layout is set during 3 or 4 times of the day.

Basically, what I'm saying is, how?

How what? The 2012 GTA game had a lot more than one track.

 

[another_jakhole]

I think a lot of people are noticing the visual differences more than the actual change in feel. That's not to say there isn't a change, there is, but I believe the visuals are more than the feel.

As you say the fastest way to get a 370Z around a track is still to use the brakes to slide the car into a straighter line and plow through the corner. Just look at the top times around Maggott's/Becketts. Pretty comical that's the fastest way.

I don't get it?

There are A LOT of times that the Stig has the car looking unstable during the fastest lap times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Ko9kzyqW-l8#t=471s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YXFSVoVqhYw#t=466s

There have a been so many other times.

 

[JerseyDriverSS]

I think a lot of people are noticing the visual differences more than the actual change in feel. That's not to say there isn't a change, there is, but I believe the visuals are more than the feel.

As you say the fastest way to get a 370Z around a track is still to use the brakes to slide the car into a straighter line and plow through the corner. Just look at the top times around Maggott's/Becketts. Pretty comical that's the fastest way.

They must be. I mean I can make it work I did last year, but man its just so dumb to drive that way. I may just throw in the towel rather then do lap after lap trying to slide the car perfectly through every turn. That's basically what this completion boils down to. With so many other good games out there and having a good PC now its not really worth it.

 

[JerseyDriverSS]

I don't get it?

There are A LOT of times that the Stig has the car looking unstable during the fastest lap times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Ko9kzyqW-l8#t=471s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YXFSVoVqhYw#t=466s

There have a been so many other times.

Fastest lap times compared to what though? Some half ass actors or the hosts?

 

[Samus]

I don't get it?

There are A LOT of times that the Stig has the car looking unstable during the fastest lap times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Ko9kzyqW-l8#t=471s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YXFSVoVqhYw#t=466s

There have a been so many other times.

watch a replay of a top 10 driver going through that section and tell me it's anything comparable to what happens to the stig there. They're purposely forcing the car into a drift through the whole sequence of corners.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I really don't understand how anyone can praise the physics in this demo. I've never driven anything that rewarded stabbing the brake pedal to the floor to rotate the car rather then threshold braking and modulating your throttle input other then maybe my tag kart that shouldn't be the best way to drive a car. You know the saying you can't polish a turd. Well some of you may get what I'm saying.

A lot of that has to do with the poorly designed ABS system and conversely, a basically undesigned non-ABS brake system. ABS in GT5 seems to be an on/off switch in spite of it's 1-10 scale. Ideally ABS 1 would still allow lockup to a great degree and provide the best available braking at the cost of inconsistency while ABS 10 would be similar to what we have now which is pedal to the floor just about any time but at the cost of less efficient braking.

 

[another_jakhole]

Fastest lap times compared to what though? Some half ass actors or the hosts?

To quote myself, "ohhh, boy." Edit - Seriously, what the hell is up with you? Edit 2 - Go drink your chocolate milk (even though I like chocolate milk too!).

watch a replay of a top 10 driver going through that section and tell me it's anything comparable to what happens to the stig there. They're purposely forcing the car into a drift through the whole sequence of corners.

That's just it though. They're going to be using racing tires. The Sports Hard tires on the tuned 370z aren't grippy enough for a "serious" race in the real world in a GT3 or even GT4 race (GT3 is faster, right? ) and the stock 370z using Sports Hard tires actually seems normal in a serious race since they're overly grippy for that car in the real world on the road. The Top Gear fastest laps are done with cars that use their default tires. Except I heard on here they used softer tires on a Porsche or something like that, but that's beside the point.


Edit 3 - I should say, this isn't to justify how the fastest laps are being done in GT Academy or to protect the name of GT Physics. But if anything, it's about pointing out that getting a car to slide or become unstable here and there doesn't mean "SLOW". Another thing that should be addressed is that there are no consequences for driving all out on a virtual track nor are you being confronted by the way the car's ABS functions. In some/most cases, I can even say that the matching of tires in the virtual world to ones in the real world is a factor. Well, unless PD has a great system in store for us that means +1,200 will have their stock tires available when you use the default tires given to us. Example: GT86 with Sports Hard tires, seriously?

 

[Samus]

What are you talking about? Who is going to be using racing tyres? The problem isn't that they're losing grip, they're breaking traction on purpose through the corner entry. That shouldn't be the quickest way through a corner no matter what tyres you're using. I really don't know what you're rambling on about.