GT "Simcade"?

[Swagger897]

Why do people want GT to be a sim? I want it to be fun.

Because you have so many variables you can change per situation you want. Sims are riddled with various option meant for one thing... Whatever the simulator is trying to simulate. Be that weather, track surface, car responsiveness, the tuning of the car, the car options... Any thing and everything you think of, a sim can do it...

Sure you can still enable your driving assists, but that doesn't mean it's not a sim. TC and launch control are in cars nowadays. Does that mean those cars are for wimps? No.

With a sim, you are given the standard set of everything, and then you can decide how you want it managed. With GT, they sorta give you some stuff to tinker with, but it's nothing compared to actual sims. It's models the cars correctly, physics wise, which is all I need to call it a sim, but it isn't an immersive sim like others I play...

 

[Devil240Z]

Because you have so many variables you can change per situation you want. Sims are riddled with various option meant for one thing... Whatever the simulator is trying to simulate. Be that weather, track surface, car responsiveness, the tuning of the car, the car options... Any thing and everything you think of, a sim can do it...

Sure you can still enable your driving assists, but that doesn't mean it's not a sim. TC and launch control are in cars nowadays. Does that mean those cars are for wimps? No.

With a sim, you are given the standard set of everything, and then you can decide how you want it managed. With GT, they sorta give you some stuff to tinker with, but it's nothing compared to actual sims. It's models the cars correctly, physics wise, which is all I need to call it a sim, but it isn't an immersive sim like others I play...

I wasn't saying that GT isn't a sim.... I guess I was saying why do people want GT to be like one of those boring PC sims.

 

[Swagger897]

I wasn't saying that GT isn't a sim.... I guess I was saying why do people want GT to be like one of those boring PC sims.

No, I didn't say it was/wasn't a sim either.... I just explained that everyone with time can make the game fun to their own likes. If you want it to be simple, make it be simple. You want it to be complex....

 

[eran0004]

The aids make it more of a simulation as they are real things. SRF is the exception.

Not if you're using them on cars that doesn't have those systems.

 

[HuskyGT]

Why do people want GT to be a sim? I want it to be fun.

Totally agree with this. Want a sim? Get one of those PC sims. Want fun, play Gran Turismo. But I guess some people's idea of fun is different than the majority.

 

[Devil240Z]

Totally agree with this. Want a sim? Get one of those PC sims. Want fun, play Gran Turismo. But I guess some people's idea of fun is different than the majority.

Glad there are a few people who agree with me! I love the realism of GT, I play with a wheel and all that. But when I try those popular PC sims they just seem boring.

 

[Alss]

Glad there are a few people who agree with me! I love the realism of GT, I play with a wheel and all that. But when I try those popular PC sims they just seem boring.

So two cars impacting at say 100 mph and sounding like two rowing boats banging hulls at 2 mph is realism ?

Or hitting a kerb stone at 100mph and everything remaining calm within the chassis and cockpit is realism ?

 

[Devil240Z]

So two cars impacting at say 100 mph and sounding like two rowing boats banging hulls at 2 mph is realism ?

Or hitting a kerb stone at 100mph and everything remaining calm within the chassis and cockpit is realism ?

Yes... I guess. Not sure what you're getting at. You seem to have unrealistic expectations. The physics are good and feel real thats all that matters.

 

[Ryk]

Once you get fitted with the latest Kaz-o-tronic neural interface then the simulation of Gran Turismo will make you never want to leave.
Feel those stomach churning negative G Loads as you crest a rise.
Taste the Castrol-R and smell of hotdogs and over boiled onions in the air of the pit lane at Kent's very own Brands Hatch.
Feel the heat of the car as the cockpit temperature rises so high, your feet begin to burn. Man/Machine interfacing is the future.

Yes! Buy the latest Neural Interface for that real driving experience - in your very own home.

---

On a slightly more serious note the game can only trick your brain into accepting a perceived reality. People with real track experience have to fight that uncanny valley effect when they know something is wrong. If you can get into a gaming trance and just accept the game then you should enjoy it more. (Take the red pill - enjoy the game.)

 

[photonrider]

I need to get my helmet on for this.

 

[disinfected]

That's why they are simulators - not reality. Reality is not a simulator and a simulator is not reality.

Exactly what I was about to say.

 

[avens]

A simulator is what they have at the Red Bull F1 team, which is custom made hardware using rfactor pro (again custom made) with the purpose of resembling one or few cars to perfection. A console game meant to be played with a gamepad sitting on the couch and that is made to be controlled by everyone -including kids that do not want to spin out- is not.

With that clear distinction made, in the past there used to be a vast difference between PC software and hardware with consoles. Now it's not that much.

Mind you, getting the very fastest lap time in any of those necessarily means not 'driving' in a realistic fashion. It's all about abusing the game and this will always be the case.

 

[disinfected]

A console game meant to be played with a gamepad sitting on the couch and that is made to be controlled by everyone -including kids that do not want to spin out- is not.

Disagree. May not be a professional grade simulator meant for training purposes, but it's still a simulator, with a purpose to simulate real driving whether it is 100 percent realistic or not..

 

[IceMan PJN]

Is GT really not a true simulation? I have seen this criticism/observation brought up of both GT and forza a number of times on these forums. I have never (and probably will never) play any of the PC racing sims. It seems like arcade racers are defined by their bending of the rules of physics with the express purpose of making driving more fun or exciting. Sims attempt to mimic the rules to the best of their ability. Now I haven't played the last 2 Forzas, but GT and the older Forzas seem to me to never bend the rules of physics on purpose to make it more fun. Maybe it's not a perfect sim. There are things it does not simulate, and things it simulates improperly, but does that make it somehow less of a simulation? I'm inclined to say no, but I would love to hear some thoughtful opinions that aren't just an attempt to belittle one game or another.

I've addressed this before when GT fanboys posted stuff pretending Forza is arcade. It isn't black and white, yes and no, or on and off. Racing games fall along a graduated scale from arcade to sim, and GT falls somewhere in between just as Forza does. Just as GT fanboys shrugged FM off as being arcade, PC sim fans view GT the same way. PC sims seem crude compared to the sims utilized by top F1 teams like Red Bull.

 

[eSZee]

Disagree. May not be a professional grade simulator meant for training purposes, but it's still a simulator, with a purpose to simulate real driving whether it is 100 percent realistic or not..

So because its purpose is simulation, it's a simulator?
It's an interpretation if anything.

 

[Imari]

GT6 is a relatively simplistic simulator. I'm not sure that there's any aspects of the physics it changed purely for the sake of better gameplay, which is what I think arcade games do. (I'm ignoring SRF, which turns it into full-on wacky physics mode.) But the simulation in GT6 is not nearly as extensive as it could be, and as consumer grade simulations go it still has some pretty big holes.

It does what it does fine. It's a good place for people to start. Most people will never notice what's missing from GT, and when you do it's a sign that you're ready to move on to more complex stuff.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Microsoft flight simulator with some good payware is a true simulator... Excluding motion and some sensory feels..

I would tend to agree. I would say if you can fly a plane after only ever having used Microsoft Flight, it's a pretty decent simulator...
<<Flies plane with only simulator training.

As far as GT being a simulator yes, it's a basic one, could be better but it's designed for the masses not the hardcore edge of the genre. I believe GTAcademy proves that if you are fast on a simulator you can be fast in a car in real life, so that has to say something.

 

[Swagger897]

I would tend to agree. I would say if you can fly a plane after only ever having used Microsoft Flight, it's a pretty decent simulator...
<<Flies plane with only simulator training.

As far as GT being a simulator yes, it's a basic one, could be better but it's designed for the masses not the hardcore edge of the genre. I believe GTAcademy proves that if you are fast on a simulator you can be fast in a car in real life, so that has to say something.

A lot of people do as he/she has done (did t watch video). I have done it myself with the simulator only. But that's not to say I can't go out in my current car and do the same as that. It's just the fact that I can't change as many variables as I can in The Flight Sim...

 

[NixxxoN]

That's why they are simulators - not reality. Reality is not a simulator and a simulator is not reality.

So simulators are different to reality? I thought simulators were supposed to be pretty much the same as reality? Thats why I said no racing game can be 100% simulator.

To me the best (by far) is to not try to get obsessed by wanting as much of a simulation as possible, but to try to get a good balanced between a realistic thing (simulator) and a fun thing (game)... thats why i think a SIMCADE is the best thing you can get. You can combine the best of both worlds.

 

[niky]

This topic comes up about once every two years, and my answer is always the same: "Define simulator"

In our line of work, we use simulators. Simulators with less realistic graphics, less complex physics modelling and less realistic sound. And those things cost between a few hundred thousand to over a million dollars. Automotive simulators used for driver and traffic research (not for car development, those are different) are even sketchier.

The difference between an industrial or commercial-level training simulator and Gran Turismo is that Gran Turismo is built for fun, whereas training simulators are designed to test certain aptitudes.

But if used properly, Gran Turismo can be used to properly train certain attributes and skills needed for racing and driving. And if you have a track represented in-game, you can use the game for familiarization or re-familiarization.

If twelve year olds can learn enough in a few weeks to drive competitively in-game, then the game is doing its job. Granted, you'd probably run rings around them in real-life, but that's all down to experience. They will still have a leg up on those who've had no training.

Which is all we're looking for in educational simulators: replacing expensive hours of familiarization with cheaper hours. In the end, you can't avoid the need for real-world training, but the less of it you need to do, the cheaper you can make the process.

No amount of simulation will make you as good as the best. Indeed (and I've told the story before in more detail), a racing driver can beat most of us casual players with just an hour on GT with a good wheel. But being good in a simulator typically means you can also be good in real life.

 

[Beart8o]

I've addressed this before when GT fanboys posted stuff pretending Forza is arcade. It isn't black and white, yes and no, or on and off. Racing games fall along a graduated scale from arcade to sim, and GT falls somewhere in between just as Forza does. Just as GT fanboys shrugged FM off as being arcade, PC sim fans view GT the same way. PC sims seem crude compared to the sims utilized by top F1 teams like Red Bull.

That is the same super fan mentality that prompted my initial post. I see your view of the difference between arcade and sim as a gradation, and that does seem to be the way most people see it. I guess I'm arguing for a fiction/nonfiction type of delineation. GT is a sim because it is a depiction the real world (the successfulness of that depiction being a whole separate factor). Midnight Club is an arcade game because it is a depiction of a fictional world. I think calling anything "simcade" is inherently contradictory. And saying something is arcade like its a negative thing preposterous. Even most of the complaints people have against GT6 have more to do with fact checking than balancing. I guess it doesn't matter really, but I think the contraction of the ideas removes what is special about both. Thanks all for discussing this in such a positive way!

 

[NA]

This topic comes up about once every two years, and my answer is always the same: "Define simulator"

In our line of work, we use simulators. Simulators with less realistic graphics, less complex physics modelling and less realistic sound. And those things cost between a few hundred thousand to over a million dollars. Automotive simulators used for driver and traffic research (not for car development, those are different) are even sketchier.

The difference between an industrial or commercial-level training simulator and Gran Turismo is that Gran Turismo is built for fun, whereas training simulators are designed to test certain aptitudes.

But if used properly, Gran Turismo can be used to properly train certain attributes and skills needed for racing and driving. And if you have a track represented in-game, you can use the game for familiarization or re-familiarization.

If twelve year olds can learn enough in a few weeks to drive competitively in-game, then the game is doing its job. Granted, you'd probably run rings around them in real-life, but that's all down to experience. They will still have a leg up on those who've had no training.

Which is all we're looking for in educational simulators: replacing expensive hours of familiarization with cheaper hours. In the end, you can't avoid the need for real-world training, but the less of it you need to do, the cheaper you can make the process.

No amount of simulation will make you as good as the best. Indeed (and I've told the story before in more detail), a racing driver can beat most of us casual players with just an hour on GT with a good wheel. But being good in a simulator typically means you can also be good in real life.

Thank you. Pretty much where I was trying to go earlier, but this post did it much better.

 

[Beart8o]

This topic comes up about once every two years, and my answer is always the same: "Define simulator"

In our line of work, we use simulators. Simulators with less realistic graphics, less complex physics modelling and less realistic sound. And those things cost between a few hundred thousand to over a million dollars. Automotive simulators used for driver and traffic research (not for car development, those are different) are even sketchier.

The difference between an industrial or commercial-level training simulator and Gran Turismo is that Gran Turismo is built for fun, whereas training simulators are designed to test certain aptitudes.

But if used properly, Gran Turismo can be used to properly train certain attributes and skills needed for racing and driving. And if you have a track represented in-game, you can use the game for familiarization or re-familiarization.

If twelve year olds can learn enough in a few weeks to drive competitively in-game, then the game is doing its job. Granted, you'd probably run rings around them in real-life, but that's all down to experience. They will still have a leg up on those who've had no training.

Which is all we're looking for in educational simulators: replacing expensive hours of familiarization with cheaper hours. In the end, you can't avoid the need for real-world training, but the less of it you need to do, the cheaper you can make the process.

No amount of simulation will make you as good as the best. Indeed (and I've told the story before in more detail), a racing driver can beat most of us casual players with just an hour on GT with a good wheel. But being good in a simulator typically means you can also be good in real life.

Yeah, I get that it's just semantics. Great points!

 

[Swagger897]

There are so many things that separate "simulators/games" from the reality, like real time wind, temperature, humidity, tarmac imperfections, real g-forces, real gravity... you gotta question what can really be considered a true simulator.

Heck even the F1 guys know that their ultra advanced and expensive simulators arent the real thing. They have different results.

I guess this flew over my head somehow without notice, but brining this back up, I have said countless times that there needs to be a current weather option for GT, where to variables and others are put to good use. Also, they need to look at what Codemasters did with F1 2012, where certain parts of tracks only experience rain... Especially such as Le Mans, and Nurburgring. They also need to focus on that if you drive on one lane for some time, over and over and over and frequently on a track in the rain, that part of the track needs to dry up a little faster than the unused section of track...

Simple things that we experience every day while driving, which aren't put in the game is what annoys me most..

 

[Devilb0y]

Microsoft flight simulator with some good payware is a true simulator... Excluding motion and some sensory feels..

PMDG

 

[eran0004]

Double post as the site went down while I was replying. Sorry.

 

[Bo]

You mean that a 10 year old playing GT6 for a week can rival the best times? Or do you mean something like NFS?

To be fast in GT it's taken me about 7 years. Any kid who spends a week playing then becomes one of the world's best has an insane amount of driving talent.

 

[eran0004]

So simulators are different to reality? I thought simulators were supposed to be pretty much the same as reality? Thats why I said no racing game can be 100% simulator.

To me the best (by far) is to not try to get obsessed by wanting as much of a simulation as possible, but to try to get a good balanced between a realistic thing (simulator) and a fun thing (game)... thats why i think a SIMCADE is the best thing you can get. You can combine the best of both worlds.

Simulators are supposed to simulate reality to some degree. Simulators can't be the same as reality because reality is a very complex - and often dangerous - thing. The point of simulators is to test real-world scenarios in a safe environment, or at a lower cost than real life testing. What aspects of the simulators that needs to be realistic depends on what is being tested.

If the goal is to test strategical thinking and risk-taking behaviour of a general, then this might be a good simulator of war:

(And if the goal is to test how skilled the general is with with using tactical nukes, it's not.)
​

If the goal of a driving simulator is to simulate the behaviour of a car on a track, then that is the part that needs to be simulated. If the goal is to simulate the dangers of reckless driving (perhaps to teach the driver to be more careful) then a good simulator might be one where the physics are arcade, but every time the driver hits an obstacle he gets a small electric chock.

So what needs to be realistic is the aspect that the simulator is aiming to simulate. The rest can be abstract or arcade or over-simplified.

For a game, being fun to play is of course the best thing.

 

[niky]

I think that last point is where you can draw the line between games like Gran Turismo and Forza and more conspicuously arcade-ish games like NFS or Grand Theft Auto (though I have said, in times past, that Grand Theft Auto has one of the best simulations of peg-leg burnouts, wheel-hop and blown shocks on the console... ). What they aim to simulate.

GT and Forza attempt to replicate physical parameters as closely as possible. There are other physical parameters they don't replicate are not replicated simply because it is beyond their scope or ability to replicate within the given limits of the system and the software. Any unrealistic aspect is simply due to modelling limitations.

Games like NFS and GTA do use relatively real world parameters for some things, but consciously choose to use non-realistic parameters for others not because of a lack of processing power but in order to make things fun. Unrealistically low top speeds... unrealistically high grip, or non-linear loss of grip (NFS), long hang-time or air time, etcetera. All done to make the games more playable. Or even more difficult, sometimes... making car behaviour more erratic if you're in the lead (I recall this was done in an earlier GT... this is still done in GT4, 5 and 6, but it's linked to chassis rigidity, which degrades predictably rather than based on how far in front you are).

GT does feature other tweaks to make the racing closer, such as AI catch-up behaviour, but these are tweaks to AI behaviour and not the physics engine, per se. Things like SRF, stability control and traction control do not dumb down the physics engine, they simply dumb down the player interface.

Played properly, with a wheel and with all the aids off, you can say that Gran Turismo is a simulator. It's not the best simulator out there, but it's still a simulator. At the same time, you can configure it as an arcade experience if you so choose.

Mind you, I haven't played Gran Turismo for almost a year. Too busy driving in real-life for the magazine and other auto-testing assignments (last one was a fuel economy run on-track, but I helped with setting-up and photos only... would rather not put up with two hours of lapping at just 40 mph!)... While eventually, you have to go out into the real world to learn things firsthand, GT taught me a lot of the basics, and provided the springboard off of which I built my automotive writing career. 👍

 

[super_gt]

I want on PS4 100% physics simulation!!!no compromice