Gran Turismo Sport vs. Assetto Corsa

[Johnnypenso]

Only few game journalist or youtubers like ISR have played the WIP version of these games to give impressions. Anyways everyone will have different opinion. If you go to official site and going by videos I am putting my money on GTS.

So which journalists and YT'ers have said GTS will be better in every way except sound?

 

[Samus]

Only few game journalist or youtubers like ISR have played the WIP version of these games to give impressions. Anyways everyone will have different opinion. If you go to official site and going by videos I am putting my money on GTS.

Yes opinions differ but I've not heard one person suggest the GTS physics at the stage they played at were class leading (Not that they need to be).

You're putting your money on GTS based on the marketing text and videos on the website? That doesn't seem biased at all.

 

[relativistic]

Yes opinions differ but I've not heard one person suggest the GTS physics at the stage they played at were class leading (Not that they need to be).

You're putting your money on GTS based on the marketing text and videos on the website? That doesn't seem biased at all.

Inside sim racing said it was on a par. Why is it so important for GTS to be seen as inferior? If someone thinks GTS will be better than some other game, why do they need to show proof of what they think will happen in the future? Why don't you have to show proof that it won't be and why cant you just let people think what they like?

 

[TeamCZRRacing]

Inside sim racing said it was on a par. Why is it so important for GTS to be seen as inferior? If someone thinks GTS will be better than some other game, why do they need to show proof of what they think will happen in the future? Why don't you have to show proof that it won't be and why cant you just let people think what they like?

It's not important for GTS to be seen as inferior; most of us here are experienced sim racers who have been at it for years, so if anything, it's important to us for GTS' physics to be as realistic as possible given the limitations of the platform. That's what we want.

Also, welcome to GTP!

 

[Samus]

Inside sim racing said it was on a par. Why is it so important for GTS to be seen as inferior? If someone thinks GTS will be better than some other game, why do they need to show proof of what they think will happen in the future? Why don't you have to show proof that it won't be and why cant you just let people think what they like?

I don't have to show proof of anything because I'm not the one outright stating things like this in response to the thread:

GTS will be a better in all areas except sound

..and even if it is an opinion, it doesn't add anything to the thread unless you quantify it.

 

[FoRiZon]

Dunno. GT and AC are for different market each. GT true competitor would be Forza, while AC would be PCars, rFactor, iRacing, and some others.

Too bad GTSport reduces its car count.

 

[Cowboy]

Too bad GTSport reduces its car count.

But it's for the better.

 

[freedom1104]

Inside sim racing said it was on a par.

can you point out at which mins and secs did ISRTV's john said GTS is on par with AC?

 

[FoRiZon]

But it's for the better.

But its still less cars than all premiums in GT6. Lets hope that Kaz claim about eventual 500 cars is right and bring all GT6 premiums on GTS. I dont want that Corvette Stingray Racer '59 to disaapear

 

[sxh1991]

Depends on what you want.
If you wanna a simulator Assetto Corsa is way better. On the Realistic Track/Physics aspect, Assetto Corsa is one of the best simulator
But if you want a video game...it depends, GTS has a better HUD, better learning curve, better reward system...etc. It's more like a game than Assetto Corsa now.
So really it is not "Which one is better？" The question is which one you want?

 

[Johnnypenso]

But its still less cars than all premiums in GT6. Lets hope that Kaz claim about eventual 500 cars is right and bring all GT6 premiums on GTS. I dont want that Corvette Stingray Racer '59 to disaapear

Less cars than all premiums in GT5 actually, by quite some margin too.

 

[super_gt]

Nurburgring Nordschleife comparison pictures.

Gran Turismo Sport
Real life
Assetto Corsa

Spoiler: pictures

The Nordschleife in GT Sport is very impressive,but some of the curbs in Assetto Corsa are much more accurate.

 

[SynGamer]

Pretty close comparisons. GTS almost looks too saturated compared to AC. For me, I want a simulator that I can still enjoy with a gamepad until I can afford a proper wheel setup. I know GTS will (or at least should) work well with gamepads, but it just doesn't feel like a full product. And the lack of proper damage has been frustrating since GT3 days.

 

[Imari]

Dunno. GT and AC are for different market each. GT true competitor would be Forza, while AC would be PCars, rFactor, iRacing, and some others.

Not any more.

Forza is now in a market all by itself, and GTS has placed itself in a market with AC, pCARS, rF and iRacing. GTS bears far more similarity to those games than to Forza. If it was a new franchise without the GT branding it would immediately be compared to AC and pCARS.

 

[Conquerer]

You can't compare Gran Turismo with a simulator like Assetto Corsa or Project Cars. GT has the wide appeal to casual and hardcore fans and therefore takes a more friendly, more arcadey approach with its physics -- nothing like NFS or that far, but much more forgiving than a simulator like AC/PC to the point that you really can't compare physics. Even FM6's physics are much less forgiving than GT6's and that's also more of a broad appeal game than a simulator, so let's not get carried away by grouping certain games together which are so different.

 

[Samus]

You can't compare Gran Turismo with a simulator like Assetto Corsa or Project Cars. GT has the wide appeal to casual and hardcore fans and therefore takes a more friendly, more arcadey approach with its physics -- nothing like NFS or that far, but much more forgiving than a simulator like AC/PC to the point that you really can't compare physics. Even FM6's physics are much less forgiving than GT6's and that's also more of a broad appeal game than a simulator, so let's not get carried away by grouping certain games together which are so different.

Read the post above you. GT Sport is not like previous GT games at all. It has very little of that casual appeal with promotion focusing on an official FIA motorsport competition.

 

[Conquerer]

Read the post above you. GT Sport is not like previous GT games at all. It has very little of that casual appeal with promotion focusing on an official FIA motorsport competition.

I'm strictly talking about the physics. I highly doubt they'll change the formula so much to the point that it becomes a proper simulator and risks alienating all the fans that have grown up with GT. As Kaz said, the game could've been called GT7 so it appears to be under the same approach regardless of how the game design and competition is structured.

 

[Ameer67]

You can't compare Gran Turismo with a simulator like Assetto Corsa or Project Cars. GT has the wide appeal to casual and hardcore fans and therefore takes a more friendly, more arcadey approach with its physics -- nothing like NFS or that far, but much more forgiving than a simulator like AC/PC to the point that you really can't compare physics. Even FM6's physics are much less forgiving than GT6's and that's also more of a broad appeal game than a simulator, so let's not get carried away by grouping certain games together which are so different.

I understand you're talking about physics, but answer this question: If you were in Joe Casual's shoes, which game would appeal more to you?

Game A
- 150 cars
- 15 tracks
- Serious e-sport racing

Game B
- 1,000+ cars
- 40+ tracks
- Track maker

 

[Conquerer]

Discounting the online aspect of it, since it also exists as an offline game, I don't see how that's much different than Need for Speed Shift's model. Not a whole ton of cars or tracks and focuses mostly on racing cars. No one would be comparing that game to AC/PC.

Perhaps it may be more of a hybrid if I'm to look at it honestly. But all you have to do is play AC/PC or a simulator like that for a minute and take a second to compare the physics to Gran Turismo or even Forza Motorsport and it's a massive difference.

Also, there will be no option on PS4 with 1,000 cars and 40 tracks so GTS becomes the only option for the casual GT fan. Which is why it makes sense for GTS to find somewhat of a middle ground in that area. It'll probably be the most "simulator" a GT game has been but I can't see it taking that big a jump that the physics become completely unrecognizable for GT5/6 fans.

 

[Ameer67]

@Conquerer, I think it's just a natural thing for racing games like these to be compared. What do they all have in common? Cars, closed tracks, and realistic physics. I don't see why they wouldn't be put up against one another.

 

[Samus]

I'm strictly talking about the physics. I highly doubt they'll change the formula so much to the point that it becomes a proper simulator and risks alienating all the fans that have grown up with GT. As Kaz said, the game could've been called GT7 so it appears to be under the same approach regardless of how the game design and competition is structured.

More realistic physics should not alienate anyone, as the website says realistic doesn't equal hard. As long as they offer sufficient driving aids there is no reason they wouldn't move the physics engine on further. It's not like GT6 physics were already a million miles away, it was a pretty solid base and any advancement isn't going to feel wildly different, it's not like we're talking PGR physics moving to AC physics.

 

[Tornado]

I'm strictly talking about the physics.

No, you're talking about physics as it pertains to the entire philosophy of how the games have been designed. That PD deliberately toned down simulated aspects because they were trying to appeal to the widest group as they could.

Even ignoring the "lack of accessibility = realism" fallacy, the curious part about your argument is the idea that they would still deliberately pare back the physics of this game even though they blatantly are not throwing out the same wide net as they have with previous games.

Discounting the online aspect of it, since it also exists as an offline game,

Allegedly.

I don't see how that's much different than Need for Speed Shift's model. Not a whole ton of cars or tracks and focuses mostly on racing cars. No one would be comparing that game to AC/PC.

One is an official partner with the FIA to be used in FIA sanctioned racing events, on top of all of the marketing jargon that spins from the Sony hype machine every time a Gran Turismo game is approaching release; and the other was a game where the developers deliberately tried to downplay how much of a sim the game actually was, to the extent of name checking Gran Turismo saying they didn't want to be compared in terms of realism to it.



You don't see the difference there?

 

[Conquerer]

I think some of you are assuming I'm attacking GT here for not having super realistic physics, and that's not what I'm doing at all. I actually love GT's physics as they are and prefer them over a super sim, but if you're going to pit them up against a true simulator then there's a big difference in how accessible these games are to the average gamer.

I never claimed PD specifically dumbed down the physics at all. You're creating a new imaginary argument that's not my point. They either made them the most realistic they could and that's just how they come off, or they made a slight compromise to make it more accessible -- not dumbing them down but just not punishing the driver as much for being too aggressive. I'm talking about aggressive throttle while cornering/accelerating, aggressively driving over kerbs and throwing you car into the corners -- something GT has never punished you for nearly as much as a simulator would. Again, this is not a bad thing at all but instead a good thing for a wider appeal since super sims are more niche based games.

So before getting super defensive here, understand all I'm saying is that GT has more of a wide appeal than a game like AC. GTS perhaps moves the closest GT has ever been in that direction, but I don't think it's far enough to truly compare on the physics level, which is so integral to the entire game. You can compare them if you want but I'm just saying I feel they're two different animals. GT still doesn't even have damage anywhere near a sim (or even FM) so that's another aspect of it as well. Again, not attacking GT -- just pointing out facts in its fundamental difference to a true racing sim.

 

[Samus]

I think some of you are assuming I'm attacking GT here for not having super realistic physics, and that's not what I'm doing at all..

No it's you saying that the two shouldn't/can't be compared because they're different games. In the past this was correct, just as you couldn't truly compare GT to Project Cars. They were offering very different things but were being the operative word, with GT Sport the three games are trying to offer something very similar, and that means they definitely can and should be compared.

 

[Conquerer]

No it's you saying that the two shouldn't/can't be compared because they're different games. In the past this was correct, just as you couldn't truly compare GT to Project Cars. They were offering very different things but were being the operative word, with GT Sport the three games are trying to offer something very similar, and that means they definitely can and should be compared.

Fair enough. Personally, I think we should wait and see before we put GTS in that category given how GT has been in the past. It appears to follow more of a sim structure than the traditional GT model and I'm sure the physics will be more advanced than GT6's, but I think it's a little premature to escalate it into sim territory just yet.

 

[Samus]

Fair enough. Personally, I think we should wait and see before we put GTS in that category given how GT has been in the past. It appears to follow more of a sim structure than the traditional GT model and I'm sure the physics will be more advanced than GT6's, but I think it's a little premature to escalate it into sim territory just yet.

It's in that category by default, the game is what it is so it will be open to comparison to AC. Do I personally think GTS physics will be as good? No I don't, but it's fair for comparison IMO. As @Imari said if you removed the name from this game and called it anything else, it'd be compared to other racing sims, not Forza or GT1-6. It's a focused motorsport game promising to "promote the rebirth of motorsport" in it's marketing spiel.

 

[mister dog]

Dunno. GT and AC are for different market each. GT true competitor would be Forza, while AC would be PCars, rFactor, iRacing, and some others.

Too bad GTSport reduces its car count.

That would have been true before when GT was still a car collecting/ tuning game. With GTS i'm not so sure anymore where it falls exactly, but one could say its direct competitor with regards to gameplay format is now iracing.

 

[potvinsuks]

I think some of you are assuming I'm attacking GT here for not having super realistic physics, and that's not what I'm doing at all. I actually love GT's physics as they are and prefer them over a super sim, but if you're going to pit them up against a true simulator then there's a big difference in how accessible these games are to the average gamer.

I never claimed PD specifically dumbed down the physics at all. You're creating a new imaginary argument that's not my point. They either made them the most realistic they could and that's just how they come off, or they made a slight compromise to make it more accessible -- not dumbing them down but just not punishing the driver as much for being too aggressive. I'm talking about aggressive throttle while cornering/accelerating, aggressively driving over kerbs and throwing you car into the corners -- something GT has never punished you for nearly as much as a simulator would. Again, this is not a bad thing at all but instead a good thing for a wider appeal since super sims are more niche based games.

So before getting super defensive here, understand all I'm saying is that GT has more of a wide appeal than a game like AC. GTS perhaps moves the closest GT has ever been in that direction, but I don't think it's far enough to truly compare on the physics level, which is so integral to the entire game. You can compare them if you want but I'm just saying I feel they're two different animals. GT still doesn't even have damage anywhere near a sim (or even FM) so that's another aspect of it as well. Again, not attacking GT -- just pointing out facts in its fundamental difference to a true racing sim.

@Conqueror. Just wanted to say that I respectfully disagree with some of the things you have said.

On the physics aspect. The general consensus has been that some of the other sims like i-racing, R-Factor, AC and even PCARS have much better physics. I've played all of these sims, except for AC and I believe that if you run GT6 with no aids, they're practically the same. Quite frankly, in certain scenarios, I can argue with you that GT6's physics on certain cars are more realistic then P-Cars.... For example. Take the Formula Renault 3.5 in P-Cars and go wide onto the grass and get back onto the track quickly. Try the same thing with the FGT in GT6 with no aids then talk to me.

Also, you say that "you don't think that it's far enough to be compared on a physics level", but yet you talk about the physics of GTS taking "a simcade approach." Really? Have you played it yet?

Finally, I'm not trying to pick on you, because the things you have stated are things we've heard a zillion times through the airwaves over the past couple of years at ad nauseum. However, the ONE thing that really bugs me is, when advocates of "Real Sim Racers" clamor for "vehicle damage" in a Sim, to properly call it a "true sim." This is beyond a doubt, the furthest thing from the truth.
I'm sure everyone would agree, that the most sophisticated, advanced and expensive sims in the world, are the sims that pilots and astronauts use. wether it's a sim for an Airbus a330, a Boeing 767 or the Space Shuttle at NASA. Do you actually think, that when they crash, you see exploding fuel tanks from under the wings, or feathers hanging from the broken cockpit glass? NO! If you're going nose in, the planes nose cone literally sits flat on the surface, pauses, and that's it! No fire, no explosions no body parts, no screaming. True Sims, are there to teach you how to drive/fly, NOT for eye candy.

 

[Johnnypenso]

@Conqueror. Just wanted to say that I respectfully disagree with some of the things you have said.

On the physics aspect. The general consensus has been that some of the other sims like i-racing, R-Factor, AC and even PCARS have much better physics. I've played all of these sims, except for AC and I believe that if you run GT6 with no aids, they're practically the same. Quite frankly, in certain scenarios, I can argue with you that GT6's physics on certain cars are more realistic then P-Cars.... For example. Take the Formula Renault 3.5 in P-Cars and go wide onto the grass and get back onto the track quickly. Try the same thing with the FGT in GT6 with no aids then talk to me.

Also, you say that "you don't think that it's far enough to be compared on a physics level", but yet you talk about the physics of GTS taking "a simcade approach." Really? Have you played it yet?

Finally, I'm not trying to pick on you, because the things you have stated are things we've heard a zillion times through the airwaves over the past couple of years at ad nauseum. However, the ONE thing that really bugs me is, when advocates of "Real Sim Racers" clamor for "vehicle damage" in a Sim, to properly call it a "true sim." This is beyond a doubt, the furthest thing from the truth.
I'm sure everyone would agree, that the most sophisticated, advanced and expensive sims in the world, are the sims that pilots and astronauts use. wether it's a sim for an Airbus a330, a Boeing 767 or the Space Shuttle at NASA. Do you actually think, that when they crash, you see exploding fuel tanks from under the wings, or feathers hanging from the broken cockpit glass? NO! If you're going nose in, the planes nose cone literally sits flat on the surface, pauses, and that's it! No fire, no explosions no body parts, no screaming. True Sims, are there to teach you how to drive/fly, NOT for eye candy.

While it may be true that PCars off track performance isn't up to par, it's only an isolated element of the game and has no bearing on the physics while on track which is where most of us are concerned.

 

[Imari]

Discounting the online aspect of it, since it also exists as an offline game, I don't see how that's much different than Need for Speed Shift's model. Not a whole ton of cars or tracks and focuses mostly on racing cars. No one would be comparing that game to AC/PC.

Because NFS: Shift focused heavily on customisation. It was essentially a modern Gran Turismo 1. You could race mod cars, change all sorts of bit, design your own liveries and so on.

The difference in the games is not the amount of content. It's what they're trying to do. Gran Turismo Sport is trying to be a motorsport simulator, one that focuses on the skill of driving rather than the cars. That's what differentiates it from Shift or Forza or old style Gran Turismo where a big part of the game is buying the car you want and tuning it to your liking.

On the physics aspect. The general consensus has been that some of the other sims like i-racing, R-Factor, AC and even PCARS have much better physics. I've played all of these sims, except for AC and I believe that if you run GT6 with no aids, they're practically the same.

They are not. Sorry. Gran Turismo may have isolated incidents where it happens to perform well, but there are too many obvious flaws in the GT6 physics system for it to be at the level of AC, rF, and iR.

Hopefully these are addressed for GTS.