GT Sport beta physics discussion - Read the First Post Before Replying

[JDMKING13]

That's what a discussion is. Strong tone and belief in your opinion, enough so to get into a long drawn out argument/discussion on it. I feel people wouldn't be expressing them selves if they didn't think strongly of the thing they're discussing, and that, in turn, is what makes it come across that way. If someone is going to consistently post an opinion as fact, than you're going to consistently get people debunking it, especially if it's wrong. Hell, even if someones being objective, it still happens. It doesn't make it a bad thing.

If you're not trying to label anyone as a bad guy, and if you truly aren't bothered or upset about it, than why would you approach it in such a way? Let people discuss. If there's no insults thrown around, than we're all good. It seems it bothers you more than the people actually discussing these things. I would recommend avoiding these instances if it's that much of an issue.

As I told buddy before Im just reading the discussion and called it out for what it was no diffrent from the post with the flaming room with the pizza dude. Please though show me where I made a huge deal as you and others feel. I said what I said from pure observation from reading the last few conversations and I still will stick with it. Johhny said I side with the obvious even though I agree with Scaff about the whole bumps situation Again all I said was he had a point with some areas games being better than than other games.

 

[oneloops]

the reason why you claim of 'I don't find it fun so its not close to reality' doesn't hold water at all.

If you can't push a car on the limits and cant take fun from it because of that, it doesn't mean it's not realistic. Do you think driving Le Mans 24H is fun? Driving for hours and hours through all weathers, is that fun? Drivers may enjoy it but that doesn't sound like fun. Do you think Vettel had fun driving his company car in F1 the last couple of years? I highly doubt he did. Breaking news: Le Mans and F1 not realistic as racing should be fun.

If I find fun, exciting and pleasant playing with the limits (not only fun) a real activity in real life it should be fun, exciting and pleasant playing with the limits in a good simulator.

For all racing fans, driving a Le Mans car for 15 minutes or 30, or driving a F1 car is a huge impressive and exciting experience that gives you a smile for weeks or month or the rest of your life. Driver testers that have droven that kind of cars said that kind of impression of what it feels like.

So it should be fun for us too.

@JDMKING13 and @oneloops There is no need to get upset and feel that the other counter arguments that johny, scaff PZR are a way of topping your own arguments, because this is a discussion thread which stands for coming up with different opinions and defending it with an argument. If you have an opinion yes fine it's ok but you need to have valid points of arguments that defends your opinion in a case of debating. What I saw is that when asked for a comparison or a clarification of why you brought your argument or thought that way @oneloops you simply kept repeating that it is your opinion and did not clarify it with a video demonstration. All you needed to do is clarify why you felt that way "take all the time you need" to show a proof.

And whether you are wrong or right it does not matter because it is simply a dicussion thread which means we are not here to kill you or make you feel bad (if you do feel that way than it is better not to engage into a discussion with other people). I simply do not get why the community sees the ones who criticize wity counter arguments as the "bad guys". I hope it clarified a bit of what a discussion is all about.

You can't prove that a simulator is a good simulator with a video, you only knows when you try it. So I can't prove my arguments with videos because its about perception of physics reactions and personal and subjective experience.

I don't want to prove anything, I'm only expressing how I would GTS becomes in the future and how I wouldn't. More like AC in some points and less like AC in other points.

It still depends on what is being said. Putting 'in my opinion' alongside what is a factual claim doesn't change it into an opinion.

For example. "In my opinion Ice Cream is only available in vanilla", isn't an opinion regardless of what I have put in front of it.

Now for an example of this in the context of this thread:

"If I can't push playing with the grip because of long bumping sequences while cornering it's not neither fun nor realistic in my opinion."

That's two statements, one is subjective and fine as an opinion ("If I can't push playing with the grip because of long bumping sequences while cornering it's not neither fun"); the other is not an opinion ("nor realistic "), and it doesn't matter if its got "In my opinion" on the end of it or not.

If you can get fun and you can feel realistic things while cornering with AC, why have I to get the same amount of fun and realistic perception than you ? It's a personal perception.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Who is upset? I'm calling it for what it is and I don't need your clarification on what a discussion is about thank you though. If you cannot read some of the tone of these post then I don't know what to tell you. Honestly you are just making things up with the bad guys line I don't feel as anyone in this conversation is a bad guy, everyone is entitled to their opinion as I said before im here to learn and have fun. Also All I said was I agree with @oneloops in the fact all these games are going to do things better than the other.

Again, this being the physics thread, which aspects of the physics engine work better in GTS than other comparable games?

 

[ImaRobot]

As I told buddy before Im just reading the discussion and called it out for what it was no diffrent from the post with the flaming room with the pizza dude.

Actually, it was completely different. You're complaining about a discussion and how everyone's trying to put people down or trying to 1 up someone else, yet the people in the discussion aren't having any issues with it whatsoever.

That person posted a joke/gif.

Where is the similarities?

Please though show me where I made a huge deal as you and others feel.

You're last few posts on this thread alone have been complaining about a discussion. That should be enough to go off of. It's bothering you enough that you yourself are getting into the same kind of discussion you're complaining about.

I said what I said from pure observation from reading the last few conversations and I still will stick with it.

So now you're understanding how a discussion works, and how you have a strong belief in something, so you'll continue to stick by it and argue about it. This is exactly what the discussion you where complaining about was doing.

 

[SDSPOWER01]

If I find fun, exciting and pleasant playing with the limits (not only fun) a real activity in real life it should be fun, exciting and pleasant playing with the limits in a good simulator.

For all racing fans, driving a Le Mans car for 15 minutes or 30, or driving a F1 car is a huge impressive and exciting experience that gives you a smile for weeks or month or the rest of your life. Driver testers that have droven that kind of cars said that kind of impression of what it feels like.

So it should be fun for us too.



You can't prove that a simulator is a good simulator with a video, you only knows when you try it. So I can't prove my arguments with videos because its about perception of physics reactions and personal and subjective experience.

I don't want to prove anything, I'm only expressing how I would GTS becomes in the future and how I wouldn't. More like AC in some points and less like AC in other points.

If you are talking about force feedback and how it feels compared to real life than I will say I partly agree. Correct you need to have driven the car in real life for you to feel that it is correctly represented in the sim. However what you do in real life can surely not be accurately represented back in the sim because of the fear factor (crashing or commiting a mistake) and while in the sim you can go full out on it. (From visual observation Asseto Corsa seems to translate this fear factor better than GTS) And in visual observation you can see how the vehicle dynamics translates in sim vs real which can also give you an idea how the physics works.
So can you prove that a simulator is a good simulator with a video? Certainly you can and given that you have real life experience should make it more believable.

 

[Scaff]

If I find fun, exciting and pleasant playing with the limits (not only fun) a real activity in real life it should be fun, exciting and pleasant playing with the limits in a good simulator.

For all racing fans, driving a Le Mans car for 15 minutes or 30, or driving a F1 car is a huge impressive and exciting experience that gives you a smile for weeks or month or the rest of your life. Driver testers that have droven that kind of cars said that kind of impression of what it feels like.

So it should be fun for us too.

And yet by your own admission you have not experienced this in reality.

I've driven a Clio V6 Trophy, Radical SR3, Formula Ford and quite a few other race ready cars on track

You can't prove that a simulator is a good simulator with a video, you only knows when you try it. So I can't prove my arguments with videos because its about perception of physics reactions and personal and subjective experience.

Well yes you can in part. If a car is behaving in a manner that is physically impossible in the real world then that can be shown via video and or telemetry. IN the same way that if a claim of behavior in a sim should not be happening, then comparable footage of cars doing it in reality can be used to show that its being simulated (to at least a degree) accurately.

Videos also help enormously in understanding what you are referring to and being able to recreate them and try them ourselves. One example that springs to mind was a claim in another thread that cars in SLRE would go flying over jumps at 30mph and become uncontrollable, when a picture was eventually supplied it turned out one wheel was barely leaving the track surface.

So yes video and picture evidence does certainly help clear up what we are discussing, and by refusing to supply them you do your own credibility no good at all.

I don't want to prove anything, I'm only expressing how I would GTS becomes in the future and how I wouldn't. More like AC in some points and less like AC in other points.

Then stop being surprised that when making factual claims about accuracy members will question them unless you are going to back them up and be willing to discuss them beyond the rather absurd 'its true because its what I feel'

If you can get fun and you can feel realistic things while cornering with AC, why have I to get the same amount of fun and realistic perception than you ? It's a personal perception.

I have no idea, but am at least able to look to comparisons with driving very similar cars on track.

That said the physical recreation of a car in a simulation is not an utterly subjective area, regardless of you demanding it be treated as such. Many, many areas of it are very much measurable and objectively comparable.

 

[JDMKING13]

Again, this being the physics thread, which aspects of the physics engine work better in GTS than other comparable games?

I have stated what I like In AC and I have stated What I like In GTS It's all in here in the physics discussion. Besides The controller in AC holding me back Its my favorite pure driving game the small attention to details and the way the cars drive is great to me. The controller is holding that game back though the inputs can be very weird sometimes usually resulting in me spinning out. GTS is the best game I have played on the controller so far and with the updates its even better. The driving is going in the direction In what I feel AC does for me but It's still have some ways to go. There are things GTS does better to me I like the chassis balance you have to maintain in turns, but I still think GTS is too forgiving when it comes to off track. I have stated what I like and dont from both games before it's in this thread. I have also asked you a question so im waiting to see what you have to say.

 

[oneloops]

And yet by your own admission you have not experienced this in reality.

I've driven a Clio V6 Trophy, Radical SR3, Formula Ford and quite a few other race ready cars on track



Well yes you can in part. If a car is behaving in a manner that is physically impossible in the real world then that can be shown via video and or telemetry. IN the same way that if a claim of behavior in a sim should not be happening, then comparable footage of cars doing it in reality can be used to show that its being simulated (to at least a degree) accurately.

Videos also help enormously in understanding what you are referring to and being able to recreate them and try them ourselves. One example that springs to mind was a claim in another thread that cars in SLRE would go flying over jumps at 30mph and become uncontrollable, when a picture was eventually supplied it turned out one wheel was barely leaving the track surface.

So yes video and picture evidence does certainly help clear up what we are discussing, and by refusing to supply them you do your own credibility no good at all.


Then stop being surprised that when making factual claims about accuracy members will question them unless you are going to back them up and be willing to discuss them beyond the rather absurd 'its true because its what I feel'



I have no idea, but am at least able to look to comparisons with driving very similar cars on track.

That said the physical recreation of a car in a simulation is not an utterly subjective area, regardless of you demanding it be treated as such. Many, many areas of it are very much measurable and objectively comparable.

Hamilton's words :

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/124814

"I could spend £100 on a PlayStation and learn the same amount."
Hamilton said the simulator was more use to engineers than drivers, because the sensations of driving a real car cannot be replicated correctly in a sim."

So based in Hamilton words, PS4 F1 2015/2016 can be more realistic in driving sensations than his simulator based in physical facts and data.

So, AC can be a good simulator even if the sensations of driving a real car sometimes cannot correctly be replicated in it. Same for GT6, GTS and others.

I don't agree with you and I can agree with others that have more experience than you in real life. Same level experienced drivers can have differents opinions about a sim too.

Now Hamilton's words are an opinion or a fact or no good credibility or what ?

 

[ImaRobot]

So based in Hamilton words, PS4 F1 2015/2016 can be more realistic in driving sensations than his simulator based in physical facts and data.

So, AC can be a good simulator even if the sensations of driving a real car sometimes cannot correctly be replicated in it. Same for GT6, GTS and others.

It all still depends on what is actually being simulated and what isn't. You can't just automatically slap that over everything.

I don't agree with you and I can agree with others that have more experience than you in real life. Same level experienced drivers can have differents opinions about a sim too.

Yeah, except what is going on is that you're disagreeing with reality. People can have opinions about a sim, people can't have an opinion about real world physics, as that is something that is a matter of fact. In which this is the discussion.

Now Hamilton's words are an opinion or a fact or no good credibility or what ?

It's an opinion, because just because he's saying that doesn't mean its the same for everyone. To him, he can learn just as much. Whether that is a marketing ploy or not, thats unknown.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Not the only reason why it could have happened.

I agree, a lot of other changes could and have happened. Just a simple observation that cars using RH tyres are quicker and cars using SH are slower. I find the N300 cars drive worse and the Gr.3 and Gr.4 cars drive better after update.

I tried the Gr.3 cars after reading Kaz's post, can confirm drivability of cars has been improved massively. That was my main concern before but turned out to be just an unintended problem in previous version. Best moment so far is driving the Mercedes-AMG GT GT3 car, sounds and drives good. Now my main concerns are how FWD cars handle and N300 in general. Also since FFB update in GT6, FFB has been quite weak in feeling and from what I've read and heard, it still is.

So effectively PD have nerf'd it so you can't screw up!

Oh and I'm interested to know how when the clutch final engages in the Megane why that causes instability at the rear given that a) it's too low a speed to do it and b) it's a front wheel drive car!

You can still screw up but there is more of an edge to the handling which is currently being masked by countersteering aid or even hidden completely IMO. Probably a good thing for most of the user base going by some of the online racing action...

Maybe upward force on rear axle occurs enough to get rears locking.

Based on?

Some of the new effects like dirt and debris kick up. I wonder what the yet-to-be revealed cutting edge experiences are going to be...

Hopefully rain driving is a noticeable improvement over old GTs, that would need grip reduction set to "Real." Otherwise might be arcade like on slick tyres.

You seem to have a quite different experience with the Evora in AC than I do.

It's not only Evora, you can get away with a lot due to how the physics are in AC. Still quite fun to play though even with touchpad. Can be quite a believable experience on track.

The grass and curbs may be more realistic in Assetto Corsa than GT Sport Beta but this is what happened to me in AC with Cayman GT4 yesterday:



But in AC the car remained stable.I went into the corner full throttle the car start to understeer and go outside I fully lift off the throttle while the tyres touches the grass and this remained unpunished.
In this regard LFS is the most realistic game IMO.

So you find this most realistic?



Reminds me of Out Run and Ridge Racer. Can see why people drift in that game now, makes you feel like a drift king. No ABS, brake balance all the way to rear and still so easily controllable with rears locked on grass, you can just full throttle over kerbs and also go full lock left and right on grass and asphalt without losing control with no need to modulate throttle. Grass looks quite good at least. Found out that Valtteri Bottas is a former LFS player, his spins in China and some other incidents makes more sense now.

 

[oneloops]

It all still depends on what is actually being simulated and what isn't. You can't just automatically slap that over everything.


Yeah, except what is going on is that you're disagreeing with reality. People can have opinions about a sim, people can't have an opinion about real world physics, as that is something that is a matter of fact. In which this is the discussion.


It's an opinion, because just because he's saying that doesn't mean its the same for everyone. To him, he can learn just as much. Whether that is a marketing ploy or not, thats unknown.

What is being physically simulated in a simulator or approximated in others can give similar results.

Like in render engines with Arion render vs Vray for example. The first is phisically based the other not.

 

[ImaRobot]

What is being physically simulated in a simulator or approximated in others can give similar results.

Like in render engines with Arion render vs Vray for example. The first is phisically based the other not.

If that's the case, than every single simulator is nearly the same. That's not the case at all. If it was, there wouldn't be such major differences between many of these games.

Reminds me of Out Run and Ridge Racer. Can see why people drift in that game now, makes you feel like a drift king. No ABS, brake balance all the way to rear and still so easily controllable with rears locked on grass, you can just full throttle over kerbs and also go full lock left and right on grass and asphalt without losing control with no need to modulate throttle. Grass looks quite good at least. Found out that Valtteri Bottas is a former LFS player, his spins in China and some other incidents makes more sense now.

For a second there, I thought you where just repeating what @Scaff has said about GTS.

 

[oneloops]

If that's the case, than every single simulator is nearly the same. That's not the case at all. If it was, there wouldn't be such major differences between many of these games.

It depends also of the talent factor of programers and game developers artists talent and sensibility.

And it depends also of the boss company or that area decisions about what seems more realistic or not.

Real facts don't make all the simulator.

 

[Motor City Hami]

I've driven a Clio V6 Trophy, Radical SR3, Formula Ford and quite a few other race ready cars on tracke.

Ooooohhhhh!

Actually I am a little jealous.

 

[ImaRobot]

It depends also of the talent factor of programers and game developers artists talent and sensibility.

And it depends also of the boss company or that area decisions about what seems more realistic or not.

Ok, but that seems like a contradiction to what you just said.

 

[oneloops]

Ok, but that seems like a contradiction to what you just said.

No, that talks about the human factor and the subjective factor in simulators.

 

[ImaRobot]

No, that talks about the human factor and the subjective factor in simulators.

So then it's not "What is being physically simulated in a simulator or approximated in others can give similar results" as you're already explaining how there can be bigger differences. Like I said, there are many differences, and whether there is precision or estimates(or skill or lack there of), it will cause big differences between games, as you're already noting.

There is no "subjective" factor when talking about physics. Its either what you can simulate based off reality, or what you can not. Not what you perceive it to be.

 

[oneloops]

So then it's not "What is being physically simulated in a simulator or approximated in others can give similar results" as you're already explaining how there can be bigger differences. Like I said, there are many differences, and precision of estimates will cause big differences between games, as you're already noting.

There can be big differences in both factors. Bigger or smaller ?... it depends of each case ... It could be understand like an opinion or a fact in each single case to say if those differences are bigger or smaller.

The way some physics are percieved is a subjective thing, that's why AC and GTS and all sims improves and sometimes get worse or get different evolutions of theirs tyre model for example.
If there is not a subjective factor, the tyre model should be only one for all sims and only one truth of how tyres react in cars simulations.

 

[ImaRobot]

There can be big differences in both factors. Bigger or smaller ?... it depends of each case ... It could be understand like an opinion or a fact in each single case to say if those differences are bigger or smaller.

So then, the results aren't similar. They seem to be appearing like it can be vastly different, going off the examples you're giving.

 

[oneloops]

So then, the results aren't similar. They seem to be appearing like it can be vastly different, going off the examples you're giving.

They can be similar or different. I didn't say "they have to be similar" nor "they are always similar", I said that they can give similar results in a physically based study or in approximated simulation based in subjective perceptions of reality.

 

[Haitauer]

.. And this thread is slowly melting to a fiery mess.

For example. "In my opinion Ice Cream is only available in vanilla", isn't an opinion regardless of what I have put in front of it.

It can be your opinion - a silly one, but if thats what you believe you are allowed to have it. Opinions are like imaginary friends - you can have them, but dont force others to believe in them.

Example: Majority of british have an opinion BREXIT is a good thing..

 

[ImaRobot]

They can be similar or different. I didn't say "they have to be similar" nor "they are always similar", I said that they can give similar results in a physically based study or in approximated simulation based in subjective perceptions of reality.

Do you have an example?

 

[Scaff]

Hamilton's words :

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/124814

"I could spend £100 on a PlayStation and learn the same amount."
Hamilton said the simulator was more use to engineers than drivers, because the sensations of driving a real car cannot be replicated correctly in a sim."

You conveniently omit the other things he doesn't do that other drivers do (such as walk the track) or that plenty of drivers do use sim and find them valuable

So based in Hamilton words, PS4 F1 2015/2016 can be more realistic in driving sensations than his simulator based in physical facts and data.

No you really can't.

So, AC can be a good simulator even if the sensations of driving a real car sometimes cannot correctly be replicated in it. Same for GT6, GTS and others.

Which is why I have been saying repeatedly that the subjective elements are not something that can be easily compared, and that plenty of objective areas exist that can be compared.

Yu however seem to want to pretend that they don't exist and claim that they are all actually subjective (which they are not).

I don't agree with you and I can agree with others that have more experience than you in real life. Same level experienced drivers can have differents opinions about a sim too.

Now Hamilton's words are an opinion or a fact or no good credibility or what ?

Which does the most damage to your argument, as just about everyone else is saying this is why objective comparisons and checks are more useful.

It depends also of the talent factor of programers and game developers artists talent and sensibility.

And it depends also of the boss company or that area decisions about what seems more realistic or not.

Real facts don't make all the simulator.

No they don't, but they do make up a significant part of it.

If you don't have valid data and the sim engine isn't based on how physics work in reality then it doesn't matter what the dev or team 'feel' is best at all. The tyre model in GT5 is a shining example of that.

Ooooohhhhh!

Actually I am a little jealous.

Part the perks of an old job and also spending my money on 'fun'.

 

[oneloops]

Do you have an example?

A picture from a digital camera vs a realistic oil painting made by an artist.

 

[Haitauer]

Do you have an example?

Do we really need one? I mean really?

 

[Scaff]

.. And this thread is slowly melting to a fiery mess.

It can be your opinion - a silly one, but if thats what you believe you are allowed to have it. Opinions are like imaginary friends - you can have them, but dont force others to believe in them.

Example: Majority of british have an opinion BREXIT is a good thing..

Nope.

The statement that Ice Cream is only available in vanilla is not subjective (which an opinion would be), its objectively falsifiable statement of fact.

Its a statement of fact dressed up as opinion.

 

[ImaRobot]

A picture from a digital camera vs a realistic oil painting made by an artist.

I was talking about the games you're discussing. But ok.

Do we really need one? I mean really?

yes.

 

[oneloops]

Which does the most damage to your argument, as just about everyone else is saying this is why objective comparisons and checks are more useful

Useful for an engineer can be different than useful for a sim user. Opinions can be as useful as facts for GTS developpement.

 

[Scaff]

Useful for an engineer can be different than useful for a sim user. Opinions can be as useful as facts for GTS developpement.

You seem to have missed a huge amount of my post?

You know the bits about you avoiding discussing areas that can be looked at objectively, odd that you have avoided it.

And opinions are not facts.

 

[psychoazubi]

Could we get back to.. I don't know, maybe the physics of this game?

Because there is a new Video, extended Porsche Gameplay which fits exactly into the Bumps discussion that happened a few pages ago:



At 1:03 minutes, that's when they enter the Karussell on the Nordschleife. That is again waaaaaaay to smooth. Nothing happens with the car. That part of the track has horrible bumps, we even didn't dare to drive there with our racing bicycles. How could that happen? I don't remember it to be so smooth in GT5/6. Especially on this track, Kaz should know better.