- 612
- Italy
tyre model seems also a bit improved 😂
Gran Turismo 7 Physics
- Thread starter Shingo_civic
- 6,197 comments
- 500,719 views
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,464
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
IndeedWe’re just gonna have to wait and test everything ourselves, as usual
- 29,983
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
I look forward to @Scaff's review on his youtube channel https://m.youtube.com/channel/UCJJcD0uBOwkW7uJaYFMJ8Nw
Last edited:
- 3,384
- Las Vegas
- dawko-san
- 3,384
- Las Vegas
- dawko-san
- 50,950
- Australia
- SpacedustDaddy
I get what you mean. ACC have a very nice sound to Time braking and shifting.
- 13,867
- Adelaide
- Neomone
This requires the assumption that the camera is linked directly to the suspension, and in exactly the same way in both games with no ability for the developer to tweak the level of camera movement.
That seems like a bit of a stretch, because in any PC game that offers this sort of camera movement there's also an option to scale it or turn it off. Without knowing how Polyphony has scaled the sensitivity of the camera movement, it's very hard to read anything into the suspension systems simply based on how the camera moves.
If you really wanted to know, you could probably figure it out. Do a frame by frame in a braking zone, figure out the deceleration and measure exactly how the camera is moving. Compare to the exact same car undergoing the same deceleration in GTS and see what's happening. It's not going to be absolutely conclusive, but it's a lot better basis for an argument than just going well CLEARLY you can tell the difference and if you can't then you must be STUPID. You can't tell the difference just from looking, that's confirmation bias. That you think that you can is a bit of a red flag.
- 571
- Italy
Again suspension behaviour looks improved a lot looking at the Lambo and how it bounces,on GTS this behaviour was almost inexistent especially on tracks with flat surface like Tokyo Expressway
- 3,384
- Las Vegas
- dawko-san
- 11,806
- Marin County
I wonder if the apparent visual differences could be driven by a faster physics refresh rate. Does anyone know if GT7 is running a faster refresh rate than previous games?
- 2,234
- MI
No, there is no way possible if GT7 is going to run on PS4. GTS already was taxing as it was. Track and car LOD's had to pop in and out right before your eyes. Tons of objects and lighting needed to be omitted or changed just for rain and wet tracks to work.
Visuals have little to do with the physics refresh rate seeing as in games like ACC, it's being refreshed more than 400 times per second. You just can't see that.
FPV MIC
Premium
- 4,296
- Australia
- GT-MIC
Your talking PC though, ACC wouldn't be running 400hz on PS4
. It's only received the update from 300hz for PC recently so there's no way it's doing 400hz on console. I think we're still on v1.7.2 or something like that.I'm really looking forward to the PS5 versions of both of these games.
- 11,806
- Marin County
Theoretically, the car would be reacting to more of the environment if the refresh rate is higher. If you have a 1HZ refresh rate, to push things to the extreme, and are driving at 200mph, the car is only going to react to the environment once every 90 meters! You would definitely not see much reaction to track bumps at that speed. There is probably an upper limit to how perceivable this is, but I think that is probably around 1000hz - which would mean an update every 9cm at 200mph. I think cars tend to feel more "active" in both ACC and pCARS (as in, I feel like they respond a lot more vividly to the road and the suspension feels like its doing a lot more) compared to GT or FM/FH so surely some part of that is the higher refresh rate...of course it could be something else. Cars in GT and FH/FM series have always had this kind of "water bed" feel to me where they don't feel like they are riding on physical springs but rather some sort of generalized/homogenous damping...it's hard to describe. pCARS feels a little too springy by contrast like the dampers don't work properly. ACC feels the most natural.
I should clarify that I've only played pCARS & ACC on PC, not on console.
Last edited:
- 2,234
- MI
Right, they feel like they are riding on marshmallows and everything is floaty. That is the syndrome of consoles not being able to process the physics rate as fast. PC3 suffers from that as well. Then you fire up rF2 and the feeling is magical compared to consoles. PC2 on console is not the same as PC2 on PC, no matter what anybody tells you. It feels way more alive and the custom FFB files transform it into being a completely different game. Very smooth. ACC, AMS2, rF2 these are just in different leagues. You're just not going to get the feel of ACC and the look of GT7 in the same game. Something has to give. That's why console guys complain about the look of ACC and the feel of Gran Turismo. It's physics against looks.
Personally I wish that Gran Turismo would compromise more towards feel instead of trying to make everything so pretty, but that's just me. People say rF2 doesn't look good. I've had some of my best races in rF2. I wasn't too concerned about the way it looks when you're immersed in something that feels like that.
What we've seen has been on PS5 anyways, they could have bumped it up. We'll know in a few months I guess.
Personally I wish that Gran Turismo would compromise more towards feel instead of trying to make everything so pretty, but that's just me. People say rF2 doesn't look good. I've had some of my best races in rF2. I wasn't too concerned about the way it looks when you're immersed in something that feels like that.
What we've seen has been on PS5 anyways, they could have bumped it up. We'll know in a few months I guess.
- 2,234
- MI
Oh yes you do. Do you fool around with PC's at all? I like to build them myself. You most certainly will not get all the FPS if you run a 3090 with a bottle neck processor and the opposite holds true as well. The experience is a sum of the parts used. While a GPU makes graphics better, a CPU makes processing better, they rely on each other.
- 1,925
- United States
Games can have bottlenecks but that doesn't change the fact that CPUs are responsible for physics and GPUs are responsible for graphics. RF2 looks like crap because they don't have the time or talent to make it look better. You could absolutely have better graphics in that game without sacrificing physics.
FPV MIC
Premium
- 4,296
- Australia
- GT-MIC
Yep, they both compromise differently. I just hope ACC (PS5 version) doesn't have to because of the PS4 like GT7 will have to. Hopefully we'll be able to at the very least have PS5 only lobbies so we can take full advantage of these games. We pretty much already know the FIA stuff for GT7 will be compromised
.
Last edited:
- 50,950
- Australia
- SpacedustDaddy
I guess the way the new PS5 is updating way before PS4, may be an indication. Similar to a pc update over consoles. Of course I don’t know this as fact.Yep, they both compromise differently. I just hope ACC (PS5 version) doesn't have to because of the PS4 like GT7 will have to. Hopefully we'll be able to at the very least have PS5 only lobbies so we can take full advantage of these games. We pretty much already know the FIA stuff for GT7 will be compromised
- 13,867
- Adelaide
- Neomone
This is only true in a very broad ELI5 sense. Anybody who knows anything about how physics and graphics are actually done would be hesitant to simplify it that much to an audience of adults.
For example, Sony made a big fuss about the PS4's capability for "GPU Compute" when it was released, basically the ability to get the GPU doing more traditional mathematical work leveraging the GPUs ability to do huge amounts of parallel computations. That's pretty useful for a physics simulation and many games have used it as such. There's middleware like PhysX that was designed specifically for this purpose. On PC it generally gets referred to as GPGPU, and it's really good for running certain types of calculations that are very useful for simulations.
And as CPUs have gotten more cores and become more multi-threaded they've also become more capable at contributing to parts of graphics workloads where appropriate, although there's usually more than enough other stuff for a CPU to be doing. Especially in a console, where the CPU traditionally isn't especially powerful.
So in real life, yeah, there are some tradeoffs that can be made. It's not graphics = 100% GPU, physics = 100% CPU. You can use part of your GPU power to run your physics. You could use part of your CPU power to take the load off your GPU if you wanted, but you probably wouldn't.
As a developer this is part of the choice that you make when building your game - given that some of your hardware is essentially fungible, how much resources do you allocate to each subsystem (graphics, physics, AI, netcode, etc.)? How much overlap do you allow hoping that maximum output from all subsystems won't be required at the same time? How do you allocate priority among those subsystems when there is more than 100% demand, and how do they perform with less than optimal hardware availability?
What he said was not wrong - Polyphony could absolutely use more GPU Compute to improve the physics tick rate at the expense of graphics if they wished. That may or may not be desirable, the graphical hit might be huge for a marginal increase in physics fidelity and therefore not actually an improvement to the game. But probably not, it would probably still look just fine and the driving fidelity would be much improved. ACC is probably the best example of roughly what this would look like in practice.
That's a design choice, and one that Polyphony probably won't make because they know that the majority of their users can't tell the difference between 60Hz and 300Hz physics tick rate. They're not serious sim racers, they're playing on controller from the couch and they don't much care about physics fidelity as much as they care about physics verisimilitude. The majority of their users will notice graphical differences though, so that's where they put the majority of their hardware capability to work. It's the smart choice for the game that they're making.
- 16,166
- Melbourne
- ScottPuss20
- CheetahsMeow
- 8,015
- GTP_Royalton
It's crazy how the physics still have legacy quirks from 20+ years ago.
It's so cringy watching the nose of the cars pivot back and forth through high speed corners. The laughable collision physics. PD can afford to be lazy about such things because they have no legitimate competition.
GT with ACC physics would be a dream come true
Similar threads
