- 963
- United Kingdom
.What the ** is this ad hominem horse**?
Last edited:
.What the ** is this ad hominem horse**?
Labelling something you disagree with as "ad hominem" is extreme alt-right agitator 101, way to out yourself buddy.
lol’dLabelling something you disagree with as "ad hominem" is extreme alt-right agitator 101, way to out yourself buddy.
Wut? The phrase has literally been around for thousands of years. Using it correctly does not say anything about anyone's political ideology.Labelling something you disagree with as "ad hominem" is extreme alt-right agitator 101, way to out yourself buddy.
Never heard of that phrase ever… I am completely confused.Wut? The phrase has literally been around for thousands of years. Using it correctly does not say anything about anyone's political ideology.
On the other hand, you trying to use it to pin a label on him instead of addressing the argument is incredibly ironic. It's like ad hom inception.
No.Labelling something you disagree with as "ad hominem" is extreme alt-right agitator 101, way to out yourself buddy.
911s look like they should be really slidey, right? I haven't played GTS but it sounds like the same problem FH has...rear biased cars feel like they have no weight over the rear, instead of most of the weight. It feels like a deliberate choice to make them feel like a caricature of a drifting RR car all the time rather than an honest representation/simulation. I would really love to know what is truly going on under the hood of the GT and Forza engines. I think there is some fundamental simplification of how the tires interact with the road in both titles versus more "authentic" (oh boy, this is gonna trigger some folks) simulations like AC/ACC/PCARS/rfactor etc. When I'm playing AC it definitely feels, to me, like the front tires themselves are actually controlling the trajectory of the car - it feels natural. GT and F/FH titles always feel like there is a generic "X-axis" force vector acting on a "Y-axis" fulcrum that is merely tuned to make a pastiche of the expected car behavior. Then suspension and other elements are modeled on top of this. It can look somewhat real and even feel decent, but it never feels natural to me. At least this was very clearly how GT1-GT4 worked. GT5 onwards has felt a little more nuanced, but I don't think the fundamental physics are even as advanced as Mafia or GTA even if the resulting driving mechanics appear more true to life.I did some snow driving the other day. You know there’s an issue when a early 90’s Porsche 911 handles almost identically to my Tacoma in 6-8” of snow
Be careful with that. Some may not, but there are professional drivers and the like on here. And for those who are adult enthusiasts, it's really not that hard to take your daily driver to a track day for a few hundred dollars. Or just find a quiet piece of road, even though that's neither particularly safe or particularly legal.Very few of us have driven ANY cars IRL at the limit. Who are we to say what a car at the limits feels like??
That's largely an FOV thing. If the field of view is not matched to the size of your screen and how far you're sitting from it, the sense of speed can be very disorienting. Gran Turismo's FOV is generally too high for any reasonable setup, and so you get this weird thing where it looks like you're going slow but you're actually not. This is something that has been known about Gran Turismo for a long time, and it's not getting fixed until they decide to give us an FOV slider in the settings.Furthermore, I think there is something wrong with how the game visualizes the concept of speed. There’s been numerous times where “visually”, it looks like I’m going 20mph through a slow corner…. But I look at my dash, and discover the m doing almost 50. No matter some of these cars are handling messes in corners!!
Be careful with that. Some may not, but there are professional drivers and the like on here. And for those who are adult enthusiasts, it's really not that hard to take your daily driver to a track day for a few hundred dollars. Or just find a quiet piece of road, even though that's neither particularly safe or particularly legal.
If you were talking about all Gran Turismo players then maybe, but of people who care enough to come to GTP and post about the game I think you'll find that there are more than "very few" who have driven a car to at least the limits of their personal skill. If you're into racing games and you have a car, it's just a thing that comes naturally.
Besides, there are plenty of simulators out there that are accepted to be pretty good approximations of reality, and so experience in those counts for something. A lot of the people that take sim racing seriously enough to actually have an informed opinion about the physics will have also driven some other sims as well.
That's largely an FOV thing. If the field of view is not matched to the size of your screen and how far you're sitting from it, the sense of speed can be very disorienting. Gran Turismo's FOV is generally too high for any reasonable setup, and so you get this weird thing where it looks like you're going slow but you're actually not. This is something that has been known about Gran Turismo for a long time, and it's not getting fixed until they decide to give us an FOV slider in the settings.
It's actually a really odd feeling when you go to transition from Gran Turismo to a "correct" FOV, because while your ability to judge braking distances and speed suddenly gets much better it feels somewhat surreal because it's not what your brain expects in a game.
Kinda-sorta-I guessBe careful with that. Some may not, but there are professional drivers and the like on here. And for those who are adult enthusiasts, it's really not that hard to take your daily driver to a track day for a few hundred dollars. Or just find a quiet piece of road, even though that's neither particularly safe or particularly legal.
If you were talking about all Gran Turismo players then maybe, but of people who care enough to come to GTP and post about the game I think you'll find that there are more than "very few" who have driven a car to at least the limits of their personal skill. If you're into racing games and you have a car, it's just a thing that comes naturally.
Besides, there are plenty of simulators out there that are accepted to be pretty good approximations of reality, and so experience in those counts for something. A lot of the people that take sim racing seriously enough to actually have an informed opinion about the physics will have also driven some other sims as well.
That's largely an FOV thing. If the field of view is not matched to the size of your screen and how far you're sitting from it, the sense of speed can be very disorienting. Gran Turismo's FOV is generally too high for any reasonable setup, and so you get this weird thing where it looks like you're going slow but you're actually not. This is something that has been known about Gran Turismo for a long time, and it's not getting fixed until they decide to give us an FOV slider in the settings.
It's actually a really odd feeling when you go to transition from Gran Turismo to a "correct" FOV, because while your ability to judge braking distances and speed suddenly gets much better it feels somewhat surreal because it's not what your brain expects in a game.
Well the thing about real world physics is that they're constant. Not that a 50,000lb vehicle is exactly comparable to a sports car, but I don't think you need the most sportiest car out there to be able to determine how cars with certain drivetrains handle and drives. Whether its FF, FR, MR, or RR, you should be able to add to a discussion as long as you understand the differences, and what is actually happening when you're driving. Sure a direct 1:1 comparison to the exact car in question would definitely be helpful, but we're talking about overall physics, not particularly an exact vehicle. Your 0.02 isn't exactly useless as long as you understand those differences, I feel.I still think the VAST MAJORITY of us on this site have ever driven a car near the limit for any length of time. Heck, I drive 50,000lb emergency apparatus at very, very fast speeds. Probably within 5% of their limit at times. Been doing it for years. But I have zero to give on how a sports car handles on the limit. I race dirt bikes at a very high level off duty. Within 1% of their limit probably. However, the only dirt bikes I can comment on how they should - or should not handle at their limit would be KTM 2 strokes. Anything else, I just don't know, because I don't exclusively ride those
AmateurI've crashed three times on a motorcycle, riding beyond the limit in corners. Who can beat me there?
(And of course sliding around in a car without ABS...)
I'm pretty sure that was said in sarcasm rather than being proud about it.Amateur
It's also not something to be proud of. I know I'm not now I'm old enough to release how stupid I was back in the day.... this is including some of my track day falls, but mostly for my dangerous street riding (and driving for that matter)
Hah, yeah, you're right. The first years after receiving my driver's license, being Rossi, you know, not understanding street surface and cold tyres...Amateur
It's also not something to be proud of. I know I'm not now I'm old enough to release how stupid I was back in the day.... this is including some of my track day falls, but mostly for my dangerous street riding (and driving for that matter)
Yep, know it well... balls are bigger than brain syndromeHah, yeah, you're right. The first years after receiving my driver's license, being Rossi, you know, not understanding street surface and cold tyres...
Haven't even been close to crashing for the last ten years - maturity and technique training.
Right, and that's you talking about your experience. No worries, you know best what you feel you are and aren't competent to have an opinion on.Kinda-sorta-I guess
I still think the VAST MAJORITY of us on this site have ever driven a car near the limit for any length of time. Heck, I drive 50,000lb emergency apparatus at very, very fast speeds. Probably within 5% of their limit at times. Been doing it for years. But I have zero to give on how a sports car handles on the limit. I race dirt bikes at a very high level off duty. Within 1% of their limit probably. However, the only dirt bikes I can comment on how they should - or should not handle at their limit would be KTM 2 strokes. Anything else, I just don't know, because I don't exclusively ride those
Some of us have.Very few of us have driven ANY cars IRL at the limit.
Here's the interesting thing, physics means that for many situations you don't actually need to have experienced it first-hand.Who are we to say what a car at the limits feels like??
100% agree, GTS not having FoV adjustment in this day and age is absurd and needs to be resolved for GT7, as having to use VR to get it right makes no sense at all (as almost every other title on the market allows you to adjust FoV).Furthermore, I think there is something wrong with how the game visualizes the concept of speed. There’s been numerous times where “visually”, it looks like I’m going 20mph through a slow corner…. But I look at my dash, and discover the m doing almost 50. No matter some of these cars are handling messes in corners!!
100% agree, GTS not having FoV adjustment in this day and age is absurd and needs to be resolved for GT7, as having to use VR to get it right makes no sense at all (as almost every other title on the market allows you to adjust FoV).
FOV sliders are rare in console games because increasing it lowers performance. With VRR coming to PS5 a few dropped frames likely won't be noticeable if you have a compatible TV though.I get the feeling that it is the same false reasoning that FOV sliders aren't available in Warzone on consoles. Except in that case it's more so Raven/Activision straight up not caring and a lot more insidious reasoning then GT, which is simply not giving a **** about an actually important feature.
And oddly enough, developers that do have it seem to get it going well regardless of that little tidbit. That's because it's within their design decision.FOV sliders are rare in console games because increasing it lowers performance. With VRR coming to PS5 a few dropped frames likely won't be noticeable if you have a compatible TV though.
Well yes, that's true in the strictest sense.FOV sliders are rare in console games because increasing it lowers performance. With VRR coming to PS5 a few dropped frames likely won't be noticeable if you have a compatible TV though.
I didn't mind the stock FOV initially, but once I got into Vanguard, and then had to switch back to warzone, it just throws me off for sure. I use 100 in Vanguard, so it's a pretty large difference to default. It's one of the reasons why I don't really enjoy Warzone at the moment, and that's only because Vanguard is the first COD I had since MW. It also affects how I interact with the sensitivity settings.With Warzone, the lack of a FOV slider actively hinders console players. I don't agree with that (I've been running the stock 80 FOV for COD since the option cropped up in Cold War, and it certainly didn't stop me from having a high elim/death ratio in multiplayer) but there is no denying there is a dichotomy of sight and potential performance between a large chunk of the Warzone playerbase being on PC and being able to run high FOV, and console players who are stuck with no option to change FOV since Warzone, ultimately, still runs off MW19's client. (Even though there is precedence on splitting WZ from MW19's client. But I digress.) Fans have been crying for FOV on consoles since it's ultimately there. Raven and Activision haven't given it.
Nope, quite the opposite, it's far too wide for most by default.I didn't realize GTS suffered from a particularly narrow FOV.