Gran Turismo Sport vs. Assetto Corsa

[Tornado]

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.

Well, if we're cherry picking:

Drive down a long straightaway with pretty much any car in GT6. Try the same in any other sim that has the same car, including GT5.

 

[gtracedriver1]

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.

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

There are few people who have played both the games and moreover these games were WIP. So most of us can only judge via videos and track record. Based on my observation only the hand animation in cockpit and sound are better in AC. I expect both the game to get around 80-85 score in reviews. Having said that I do not care about reviews or youtubers. Only I can judge when one I like more and that is what matters to me rather than people on internet.

 

[Samus]

There are few people who have played both the games and moreover these games were WIP. So most of us can only judge via videos and track record. Based on my observation only the hand animation in cockpit and sound are better in AC. I expect both the game to get around 80-85 score in reviews. Having said that I do not care about reviews or youtubers. Only I can judge when one I like more and that is what matters to me rather than people on internet.

So based on you watching videos the only two things you judge to be better in AC are hand animations and sounds? Just by watching videos you've judged that the physics in GTS are better, and absolutely everything else? How have you done that, exactly?

 

[freedom1104]

So based on you watching videos the only two things you judge to be better in AC are hand animations and sounds? Just by watching videos you've judged that the physics in GTS are better, and absolutely everything else? How have you done that, exactly?

He basically just said he judge to decide which he like more only. Its his opinions :3

Anyway . Sorry to disappoint you @gtracedriver1

So I finally tried a GTS build today, at the Australian GT Academy qualifier. Here's my impressions, taken from the GTA thread:

I rushed back home and immediately drove the same car-track combo in GT6 to compare.

IMO, GTS is pretty underwhelming. Graphics look good but the physics are only marginally improved over GT6. I think GT5 to GT6 is a bigger leap than GT6 to GTS tbh. Lift off oversteer is more pronounced (entry to Paddock Hill and Dingle Dell is especially tricky). Previously you can only get lift off oversteer if you turn ABS off in GT6, but GTS with ABS on you also get it. Corner exit throttle management is also more sensitive, coming out of Druids you can just floor it in GT6 but I had to catch a slide a couple times in GTS. Aside from that, mid corner behaviour is pretty much the same. Engine braking behaviour is also the same. Disappointingly, I can feel a hint of the "Ridge Racer" style braking exploit still present in the physics. Going into Stirlings bend I can get an extra rotation using this. No, it's not as bad as 2015 GT Academy (Round 2 was also GT-R GT3 at Brands), but it's still there.

Wheel FFB I can't comment much because I have a G25 at home so it's not a direct comparison. I have to say the T300 doesn't impress me that much. It's smoother but it doesn't give any extra info that my G25 already provides. Maybe it's just the FFT settings though. I run FFT 10 at home and everything just feels stronger. GTS feels flaky and numb by comparison. Again, could just be the wheel so don't take this as gospel.

Sounds are slightly improved. They provide headphones so I don't know how much that improves things. The basic sound of the GT-R is the same, but the turbo BOVs are very pronounced on lift off and downshifting. Oddly I don't think the real car has those sounds, but it does make the game less sterile.

AI wise they seem to be more aware of surroundings. Still pretty slow though. In the 2 lap pre-quali I started last and got to 3rd by the end of lap 1, and passed the 1st place guy just at the finish line. I made 2-3 mistakes in that race. Could be just the difficulty is put on Easy, but with PD, I gave up on AI a long time ago. Damage is also non-existent. Same bumper car affair of past games.

I think that's all I can glean from the short experience. I'm doing this to get a feel for GTS and the T300 more than GT Academy Sad to say I'm not really impressed. I'll probably still get GTS but it'll be more for the photomode Scapes more than the actual driving. After comparing with GT6 I also did a few laps in AC with the same combo, and the difference in physics and FFB is just from another world.

My quick laptime comparisons (4 laps each, stock car settings, driving options as close as I can remember):
GTS 1.26.9xx (RS)
GT6 1.24 (RH), 1.22 (RS)
AC 1.28 (RS on low fuel)

Anyway, I just ran 6 laps total, with a new wheel, in an unfamiliar cockpit, and I don't know how old this build is. But safe to say GTS isn't going to be a huge jump in terms of physics. Disappointing, but not totally unexpected

Which is why it's a shame the GT series has never featured all the major tracks and cars shown in the show. Same with Initial D, though worse since the GT series only has a standard car (86) and no tracks of that series.



To be fair, in previous years players did heavily abuse the physics as well. The top Silverstone times were basically Mario Kart, sliding all over the place.



Last week I got to try out a GT Sport build, in Chile. I know it's not finished and all, but here are my impressions:
- The Nordschleife is gorgeous. That one alone makes GT Sport be one of the best looking console games ever released, alongside Doom 4.
- The new Miata is gorgeous and fun to drive.
- The new NASCAR short circuit is hopelessly boring in single player, which is something not likely to improve, and is completely flat (no bumps). The latter could improve in later builds. It had more details than at the first event and maybe in multiplayer it could be a fun time.
- The game has clear performance issues, especially in the newer tracks. Some months ago it was reported here that those were very much minor, but in person at least I -a old school FPS player- could immediately tell in the newer tracks the game never ran at stable 60 FPS, alike how GT5 and GT6 ran. Those are still clearly in development, but had to mention it.
- Not impressed with the physics. I didn't get to go to the menus to check what assists were enabled, but with a wheel the game felt like yet another console "simcade". Could throw a variety of cars in unrealistic ways, at very very high speeds, and they would correct themselves.
- I can't really judge the sounds. Only listened to them through a crappy headphone, in a noisy environment.

Now that EDF 4.1 is on Steam, I don't think I'm going to buy a PS4 just to play GT Sport. I mean, the build that I tried was better than GT6. However, it was nowhere near as good as say iRacing (best racing) or Assetto Corsa (best physics). Therefore, now that GT Sport will lose the usual advantage the GT series had, which was the huge amount of content, then there's no real reason for me to get a console when I could play better similar games on the PC, that have a similar amount of content yet with better physics, multiplayer racing, likely better sounds and whatnot.

So, if I had a PS4 it'd be a must buy, due to the great graphics in certain tracks and the fact it's part of the GT series. But since I don't, I won't get it unless it gets stellar reviews, which I don't think it's going to get them based on what I've tried.

 

[gtracedriver1]

So based on you watching videos the only two things you judge to be better in AC are hand animations and sounds? Just by watching videos you've judged that the physics in GTS are better, and absolutely everything else? How have you done that, exactly?

I have clocked more than 300hrs on GT6 and probably on GT5 as well which is more than anyother racing game. I said GTS will be better in most areas to AC. I expect GTS to be one of the best if not the best game. I have not played any previous game made by AC dev.

 

[Conquerer]

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.

I find it very difficult to agree with that statement. Within the first 10 seconds of playing PCars (with a controller) I was completely dumbfounded as to how to drive at a respectable pace without spinning out every few seconds or even completing a single lap without having an issue at essentially every corner -- let alone driving at a pace anywhere near I'm capable of in Gran Turismo. So I cannot agree with you and find it ridiculous to even suggest they are the same.

I'd even argue Forza Motorsport is far more of a simulator than the last few GTs have been. I played GT all my life up to 6, but when I jumped on Forza 6 for the first time I felt like I was rightfully learning that you can't just throw your car into corners and jump kerbs without extreme weight shifts and losing control. Driving a car at high speeds is scary and you need to respect what it and you are capable of, and that just doesn't translate as much in GT. When I play GT, I don't worry about driving like a maniac and over pushing the car because I find it's not very difficult to control, but in FM I have to respect what the car can actually do without losing it. GT6 just doesn't have that level of realism, and I'm talking about FM6 by comparison. PCars and other true simulators are a whole new ballpark.

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?

As I said, I don't think they'll make a far enough jump from what they've been doing in GT5 and GT6 to the point that it's suddenly a full sim style like PC/AC. I don't know what it'll be like so I'm making that assumption just as some others are assuming it will be sim-like.

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.

Ok well, I wasn't talking about eye candy. Crash into a wall at a high speed and you drive away no problem in Gran Turismo. In a simulator you'll destroy your transmission and maybe lose a wheel. In those same NASA or Boeing simulators you speak of, if you crash it's over -- you fail. There are consequences to your inability to keep the thing straight. Whether it's modelled or not in a sim, crashes have extreme consequences on your ability to continue racing, whereas in GT it's really not even a factor. It's still bumper cars tbqh. And if we're talking about realism then there's a real problem there.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

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.

Bolded for emphasis.

I think that's generally the issue with GT6: it can be quite realistic, but only in specific instances. I wouldn't necessarily say that's a fault, but more a part of the game's design: Polyphony's dealing with 1200+ cars, so naturally some are going to feel more right than others. Personally, I find the two polar opposite drivetrains to be the ones that are the least satisfactory: FF and RR cars.

In GT6, you can have a 30hp Subaru sharing the track with a 2700hp four-wheeled peacock featuring "technology that hasn't been invented yet". The physics engine has to accommodate both of these, and games with a smaller, less-diverse car list have less outliers that are likely to highlight whatever weaknesses the physics engine has.

FM6 has run into a similar problem recently, with the BMW Isetta and Mercedes Race Truck representing two extremes.

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.

The major difference here is that vehicle damage is a pretty integral part of racing. In a flight simulator the goal is, as you said, to teach one how to fly: you're not jockeying for position on the landing strip (at least, I hope not!).

In a large number of motorsports, you're sharing the track with multiple other drivers in other cars. There are consequences to coming into contact with them and the environment.

Suggesting that a lack of damage in a racing game is nothing more than eye candy is like suggesting injuries or fouls in a basketball or soccer game are only there for the same thing.

I have clocked more than 300hrs on GT6 and probably on GT5 as well which is more than anyother racing game. I said GTS will be better in most areas to AC. I expect GTS to be one of the best if not the best game. I have not played any previous game made by AC dev.

Yep, sounds like a regular model of unbiased observation.

 

[freedom1104]

I have clocked more than 300hrs on GT6 and probably on GT5 as well which is more than anyother racing game. I said GTS will be better in most areas to AC. I expect GTS to be one of the best if not the best game. I have not played any previous game made by AC dev.

Who are you to judge if you haven't even tried both ?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Who are you to judge if you haven't even tried both ?

He said he's basing it on Youtube videos. But of course can't provide any YT'ers that have said what he's saying

 

[freedom1104]

He said he's basing it on Youtube videos. But of course can't provide any YT'ers that have said what he's saying

I do not care about reviews or youtubers. Only I can judge when one I like more and that is what matters to me rather than people on internet.

Biasing for their preference is alright for me. Its their own's opinion i get that. But in the process of praising their own prefer game/franchise, they do not need to discredited other title.


I also can say something, "Mario Kart is the best racing game in the world, way better than GT. I said Mario Kart will be better in most areas than GTS. I expect Mario Kart to be one of the best if not the best game. "

Of cause the above statement its just a joke. Joke to remind someone how twisted they are.

 

[Scaff]

@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.

I've played both GT6 and PCars extensively and on balance Pcars is a far more detailed and competent sim that GT6 is, as is every other sim you have mentioned in that list.

Now GT6 has over the course of the time its been out improved the physics in quite a few ways, for example it now does simulate torque steer from a stranding start, but only for MR cars in any remotely realistic way (every other drivetrain is still way off). Pcars on the other had does simulate this across all drivetrains (not perfectly but far better than GT6 manages, and AC takes it a step further one).

GT6's aero model is simply wrong, non-abs braking is off and locks up far to easily with almost no modulation (and when its on ABS also acts as an EBD system making brake balance changes totally unrealistic), the tyre model is still far too basic as is the suspension model, lift-off oversteer doesn't do what it should (Pcars is a better, but still not right and AC on PC is damn good), rain and damp tracks are simply a change in grip multiplier and tuning is basic and the effects of changes watered down. That's without looking at the whole pile of wrong that is found in the loose surface physics). I can keep going if you like?

Oh and comparisons of two different cars! Please.

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?

I've played PCars (a lot) and racked up a good couple of hours on GTS (at the Copper Box) so given your above criteria you have no reason to argue with the following.

GTS is better than GT6, but its still not better than PCars or AC (on PC I will let you know in regard to PS4 next week). Oh and I did use the exact same car and track in both, Renault RS01 at Brands Hatch.

Oh which means unless you think that GTS is a step back from GT6, that GT6 is not on par with PCars and AC, etc.

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.

Now aside from not being a like for like comparison you are simply wrong.

While true flight sims do not replicate damage caused by a crash (because its always considered terminal) they most certainly do simulate "vehicle damage". How do you think they train pilots on how to manage engine fires, bird strike, decompression?

In a sim because these form of vehicle damage and mechanical failures (which is damage) are a core part of both real flight sims and pilot training.

Now aside from not being a like for like comparison and simply being wrong, you have also ignored they fact that contact happens in racing and given that GTS wants to include rally its a rather important part of it. In point to point rally vehicle failure through damage is a core part of the challenge to the driver (and you will not finish a stage without some form of damage - simply from the environment you are operating in) and in rallycross its actually a form of motorsport in which contact is permitted!

This is what happens when something as simple as a bonnet (hood) pin fails, bonnet (hood) ripped off and smashed the front screen and back screen of this Elan at a race event I was at this Saturday just gone (Classic Car Club Race meeting at Thruxton).

 

[gigio79]

Hello end welcome!
Here we are going to compare both games,graphics/physics/photo mode,everything you can think of.
Let's the battle begin

How can you compare a game coming out in december?

 

[super_gt]

How can you compare a game coming out in december?

I know it's a little early but people are already comparing both games in other thread with off topic posts,this why I made this thread.The tendency people to compare the two games will become even stronger after the release of Assetto Corsa next week.

december

Release date:18 November 2016

 

[Scaff]

How can you compare a game coming out in december?

Some are able to compare early builds of GTS (myself for example) and everyone can compare feature set, tracks, cars etc. in general terms until both are out.

Members are already doing so in other threads, so this dedicated thread makes sense, and as has been said next Friday that is only going increase when AC hits the PS4.

While I've had a go at AC on PC, I certainly will be comparing it to the GTS build I played once my copy of AC unlocks at midnight next Thursday.

 

[syntex123]

That is a 63 Impala.Oh right you drive what. Nice try though. Son I've driven way to many cars to mention. Owened a ton of cars. If I actually see a game that replicates what is real,I'll let you know.

Oh wow. And how is this relevant to simulations?
Open your eyes. There are plenty of games replicating real things. GTA for example.

 

[nocturnalgrey]

I was expecting this thread to be jumping after that exclusive AC footage was shown on the front page.

 

[freedom1104]

Some are able to compare early builds of GTS (myself for example) and everyone can compare feature set, tracks, cars etc. in general terms until both are out.

Members are already doing so in other threads, so this dedicated thread makes sense, and as has been said next Friday that is only going increase when AC hits the PS4.

While I've had a go at AC on PC, I certainly will be comparing it to the GTS build I played once my copy of AC unlocks at midnight next Thursday.

so how was AC ?

 

[CarreraGT]

From the videos I've seen, the sound in GT Sport still appears to be a total embarrassment, and I'm guessing the AI will be the same.

Looking forward to picking up AC this weekend, less excited about GTS dropping some time later this year (maybe?)...

 

[gtracedriver1]

I have watched more AC videos, to me it looks like the gfx got downgrade? Also not sure about driver animation with a controller now it is not looking natural. Sounds are really loud compared to GTS which some how are always muffled.

 

[freedom1104]

I have watched more AC videos, to me it looks like the gfx got downgrade? Also not sure about driver animation with a controller now it is not looking natural. Sounds are really loud compared to GTS which some how are always muffled.

Downgrade from?

 

[gtracedriver1]

I thought the game was shaping well in pre-release videos and improvements were yet to come. But it seems the gfx quality and also performance have taken a hit. The game is available in some European region, there are many videos on yt.

 

[jblackrevo9]

I've just played Arsetto Corsa you guys


First I must say that the physics are nearly spot and good but that just it.

Currently there are only 90 cars available and there is rubber-banding in the A.I, even on alien mode. The graphics are not impressive but the sound is great.

The presentation seems outdated and the career is kind of bland but hey the physics makes us for it. The A.I is pretty decent though they have problems driving on course like the Nurb.

I'm really not impressed with the game as it was to hyped from what I heard from forums and videos but the physics are the only good thing about the game.

I got much respect for a small team making this game, it was not easy but it is a start. They are suppose send a update on graphics in a update.

 

[ScottPuss20]

I've played both, and they are very similar to play on a controller. Assetto Corsa has the edge, but not by much. GTS has a lot of good points in regards to how weight shifts around the car and low speed grip, but AC feels more natural compared to GTS. However, in all honesty, this may change the more I play both games.

 

[sircarltonlotus]

Well I've played AC for a good few hours since yesterday. I must say it really is excellent. I can see how it won't be everybody's cup of tea, but the physics are really really good. I don't think it's fair to say too much more for now. I will just add this though, I got my girlfriend to have a go on it, she chose an Audi quottro and I put her to go around monza. After a few excursions on the first lap she put together 4 clean laps and was quietly getting quicker. She thoroughly enjoyed it and said that was because it felt like really driving a car. This is with a T300rs

 

[mister dog]

Well I've played AC for a good few hours since yesterday. I must say it really is excellent. I can see how it won't be everybody's cup of tea, but the physics are really really good. I don't think it's fair to say too much more for now. I will just add this though, I got my girlfriend to have a go on it, she chose an Audi quottro and I put her to go around monza. After a few excursions on the first lap she put together 4 clean laps and was quietly getting quicker. She thoroughly enjoyed it and said that was because it felt like really driving a car. This is with a T300rs

Haha ideal this, she'll 'understand' your hobby now. Tried with mine too but she drove like a drunk

 

[gtracedriver1]

I've played both, and they are very similar to play on a controller. Assetto Corsa has the edge, but not by much. GTS has a lot of good points in regards to how weight shifts around the car and low speed grip, but AC feels more natural compared to GTS. However, in all honesty, this may change the more I play both games.

Really. In this video the driver animation looks jerky, that is a deal breaker right there. In some videos it looks smooth probably using a wheel. http://www.gamersyde.com/hqstream_assetto_corsa_ac_ps4_fxx_challenge-37956_en.html

Here a list of all their videos. They have the best quality. The lighting looks little flat but car models are nice.
http://www.gamersyde.com/news_18297_en.html#forum

 

[Scaff]

Having spent a good few days with AC and having played GTS I have to say that while GTS has moved thing on from GT6 it still has a way to go in terms of weight transfer and tyre model in comparison to AC.

 

[CarreraGT]

Pretty much as I expected. The physics and sound are brilliant and graphics are pretty good, but the AI is pretty ordinary and there's not many cars or tracks to choose from.

I'll continue to play Project Cars for the AI racing and switch to AC for time trials. The nordschleife in particular is an absolute joy in AC

 

[Aussie_HSV]

Pretty much as I expected. The physics and sound are brilliant and graphics are pretty good, but the AI is pretty ordinary and there's not many cars or tracks to choose from.

I'll continue to play Project Cars for the AI racing and switch to AC for time trials. The nordschleife in particular is an absolute joy in AC

I have my pre-order of AC quietly waiting for me to pick it up.
So I'm yet to have a go.
But it's not the first post I've read regarding the AI.

Should the AI prove not as it's been reputed to be, sooner or later the PC guys used to playing AC will need to accept the console versions don't neccessarily replicate what they see on PC.
And for that matter, perhaps other areas of the game as well.

I still anticipate the sounds and physics to trump any game I've played on console.
I'm becoming less confident about other aspects the more I read.

 

[jblackrevo9]

Pretty much as I expected. The physics and sound are brilliant and graphics are pretty good, but the AI is pretty ordinary and there's not many cars or tracks to choose from.

I'll continue to play Project Cars for the AI racing and switch to AC for time trials. The nordschleife in particular is an absolute joy in AC

I agree, the Nurb is better on AC then project cars.