- 963
- United Kingdom
Last edited:
Gran Turismo 7 Physics
- Thread starter Shingo_civic
- 6,193 comments
- 498,077 views
Silver Arrows
(Banned)
- 4,715
- Brandon, MB
- Silver-Arrows21
I'm sorry, what?
- 1,736
- Willow Springs
- schlafhund
lol’d
- 13,865
- Adelaide
- Neomone
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.
- 4,117
- United States
GT isn’t a simulation game, and the physics don’t represent much from a simulation standpoint.
That said, hopefully the physics get better.
From what I’ve experienced with GT:S, the cars just have too much grip or slide around.
To me, it lacks any middle grounds or smooth finesse, it’s either on or off, and that leads to strange and over aggressive, non-punishing driving behavior you see online.
My guess is that this is due to the lack of a proper tire model.
If you watch the GT:S Esports drivers, you can notice this clearly. It’s almost as if tire slip angle and scrubbing is non existent.
That said, hopefully the physics get better.
From what I’ve experienced with GT:S, the cars just have too much grip or slide around.
To me, it lacks any middle grounds or smooth finesse, it’s either on or off, and that leads to strange and over aggressive, non-punishing driving behavior you see online.
My guess is that this is due to the lack of a proper tire model.
If you watch the GT:S Esports drivers, you can notice this clearly. It’s almost as if tire slip angle and scrubbing is non existent.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,445
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
No.
No its not, and if you continue to simply make things up in the absence of an actual rebuttal the AUP is going to start coming into play.
Silver Arrows
(Banned)
- 4,715
- Brandon, MB
- Silver-Arrows21
I'm legitimately impressed. Calling me alt-right for simply pointing out that the argument that was quoted made no mention about sim racing being bigger then the Premier League.
And not bothering to comment on anything else my post said.
And not bothering to comment on anything else my post said.
- 11,805
- Marin County
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.
- 2,418
- The failed experiment entitled “California”.
I agree with all of this.
I have trouble believing that some of these cars handle this poorly in real life. However, Being the pessimist that I am…. And whenever there’s a problem I always look inward, I leave this out there food for thought.
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??
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!!
I have trouble believing that some of these cars handle this poorly in real life. However, Being the pessimist that I am…. And whenever there’s a problem I always look inward, I leave this out there food for thought.
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??
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!!
- 13,865
- Adelaide
- Neomone
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.
- 11,805
- Marin County
I would also say that you don't exactly have to be a hero to drive a car to it's limit, especially if its a more humble car and especially in the rain.
I drove my Mazda2 to it's understeery limit many times in the rain. It came on progressively and it was easily controllable with a lift.
The Boxster is quite neutral but if you push it really hard it starts to understeer, especially when you apply the throttle. You can actually feel the weight transferring off the front and the car has way too much traction (265 tires and 180lbs-ft torque) to produce wheelspin, even without an LSD. Even without any slip angle though, you still do get a rotation sensation because of the MR configuration. It's a lot of fun.
- 444
- Sweden
I'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...)
(And of course sliding around in a car without ABS...)
- 2,418
- The failed experiment entitled “California”.
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
But, on the second part. I whole heartedly agree. To test my theory, I plugged in my PSVR yesterday and went TT'ing. I was A FULL SECOND AND A HALF off my best times!!! No matter what, I couldn't get any faster!! I think the reason is what you were eluding to. With my perspective actually being placed in the driver seat of my Gr.3 458, I felt like I was flying around the track.... and in turn, adjusted my driving as such. It felt unnatural to be going as fast as I was..... and I still had a second and a half to find!
Perspective truly is everything
Last edited:
- 14,434
- Los Angeles, CA
- Lma_robot
- lImaRobotl
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.
Last edited:
FPV MIC
Premium
- 4,290
- Australia
- GT-MIC
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)
- 14,434
- Los Angeles, CA
- Lma_robot
- lImaRobotl
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)
- 444
- Sweden
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)
Haven't even been close to crashing for the last ten years - maturity and technique training.
FPV MIC
Premium
- 4,290
- Australia
- GT-MIC
Yep, know it well... balls are bigger than brain syndrome
Last edited:
- 13,865
- Adelaide
- Neomone
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.
As far as the experience of the general population goes, you might be right but it's not a particularly useful thing to say. The people posting here are individuals. If you try to apply this to an individual, you're ignoring whatever their experience is over this generalised view of the overall population that you've come up with, a view that may or may not be correct.
That's why I say to be careful with this - because it's a very short road to dismissing the opinions of pretty much everyone in the thread not because what they say is incorrect, but because you think that statistically it's unlikely that they have the experience or skills to have a relevant opinion. You could be right in any specific case, but the etiquette tends to be that unless someone is making an absolutely outrageous claim or there's significant reasons to think that they're full of **** then we just believe them and let the conversation carry on.
If you think someone is wrong, say why you think they're wrong. If you think they're making an appeal to authority or experience that they don't have, call it out. But don't dismiss "the vast majority" of posters just because you think statistically they're unlikely to have sufficient experience to have an opinion. That's just shutting down conversation.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,445
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Some of us have.
Here's the interesting thing, physics means that for many situations you don't actually need to have experienced it first-hand.
Take (once again) the old issue of GTS and it rattle on understeer, even if you have never driven a car before you can see from a SAT vs Lateral Force graph that what should happen is steering getting heavier as grip builds, and then the steering getting lighter as peak grip is achieved and then exceeded.
While it's great if it's something you have experienced yourself, doing so isn't a requirement for knowing and understanding what should be occurring in this case.
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).
Last edited:
Silver Arrows
(Banned)
- 4,715
- Brandon, MB
- Silver-Arrows21
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.
- 1,925
- United States
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.
Silver Arrows
(Banned)
- 4,715
- Brandon, MB
- Silver-Arrows21
Well yes, that's true in the strictest sense.
But in the example given, there is precedence. Black Ops Cold War had an FOV slider (and that game still ran on ID Tech 3, hilariously) and Vanguard also has an FOV slider within it's own garden. Even Battlefield 2042 and Battlefield 1/V, which is more in-depth a game then any COD game will ever be at its most intense point, has FOV sliders on console, and usually without too much performance loss. Yes, even on last gen hardware.
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, and likewise, playing Warzone for the period of time that I did I didn't exactly feel at that much of a disadvantage and simply needed to learn the game and it's foibles) 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.
But that's not the issue here, simply an example. GT7 could absolutely offer an FOV slider to increase the sense of speed from the hilariously slow standard that is present in GT Sport where 150 MPH feels like 25. They could also without question work on it and not have any sort of noticeable performance hit, considering all that one sided work on graphics (to the detriment of every other element) could also make things run smooth considering their desire to hit 60 FPS at all costs. But they won't work on it, because Polyphony does not care about it, even though it could help the player base immensely in the long run, and they are surely intent on adding one for PSVR2 support. That, or Kaz has some sort of bat**** auteur's vision about how people need to suffer through slow sense of to experience cars better or something.
Last edited:
- 14,434
- Los Angeles, CA
- Lma_robot
- lImaRobotl
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.
That, and I wish they would offer the same 120HZ boost to Warzone that you get in the newer games.
A higher FOV only reduces the amount of frustum culling, rendering some more things that are already in front of the camera but would be just outside of frame at a narrower FOV. If that causes significant performance issues, a game must have a very tight rendering budget with no wiggle room. It's a basic, fundamental function of a 3D camera -- its lens, all but literally.
I didn't realize GTS suffered from a particularly narrow FOV. That would drive me nuts, because I only have a single 27" and I depend on a "standard" wider FOV with simulated peripheral vision to gauge braking distances and how much speed I'm carrying into a bend, with or without a wheel. A too-narrow fixed FOV makes a title unplayable.
I didn't realize GTS suffered from a particularly narrow FOV. That would drive me nuts, because I only have a single 27" and I depend on a "standard" wider FOV with simulated peripheral vision to gauge braking distances and how much speed I'm carrying into a bend, with or without a wheel. A too-narrow fixed FOV makes a title unplayable.
Similar threads
