GT4 vs Forza [Let the battle begin]
- Thread starter Front
- 5,710 comments
- 309,370 views
- 15,855
- QLD, Australia
- Small_Fryz
richard burns is a rally game, not a road racing game, apples and oranges. ive never played richard burns so i cant comment on it.
BAHAHA... great ****...kinigittwait for it..............................................................................................!
congratulations, you earned it.
Think about your brilliant statement... PD has had years to up the quality of the GT series, hella money put into it, that is the point of how GT4's physics suck (it's in comparrison to the time and money they've had to make it better only to give slight improvements, and mostly aesthetic makes it that much worse.)... to say "create your own game" is purely childish... and to bring Forza into it? he made no mention of Forza... why try to stir more **** up?PuTTe_TuTTe
- 1,620
People have gotten fairly combative of late in this thread... I have shaken my head at the common misunderstanding and pettyness..
As for PS2 being unable to compute tricky physics - bah! GT3 was pretty much GT2 physics (from PS1!!- a fair bit of scope for more complex physics on PS2, no?) and GT4 (while improved) doesn't feel like its in a DRAMATICALLY different universe. It feels better, but familiar none the less. The physics can't be that hard to compute if GT4 still looks way better graphically than any other PS2 game...
Anyone who is under the illusion that PD's goal is to make the most accurate simulation possible on PS2 is way off the mark. Kaz himself would probably love to pump the physics, remove hidden driver aids etc but he knows that the game must be playable by mainstream non-sim heads on a standard DS2. He aims for as realistic as possible, while being accepted and enjoyed by most casual gamers as well as the sim crowd. GT4 is INCREDIBLY popular for how realistic it is... the only other super popular car games of late - NFSU2 and Burnout3. Hardly known for realism. This is the market PD needs to sell games in.
Its a tricky balancing act and I think GT4 has the balance down better than most!
As for PS2 being unable to compute tricky physics - bah! GT3 was pretty much GT2 physics (from PS1!!- a fair bit of scope for more complex physics on PS2, no?) and GT4 (while improved) doesn't feel like its in a DRAMATICALLY different universe. It feels better, but familiar none the less. The physics can't be that hard to compute if GT4 still looks way better graphically than any other PS2 game...
Anyone who is under the illusion that PD's goal is to make the most accurate simulation possible on PS2 is way off the mark. Kaz himself would probably love to pump the physics, remove hidden driver aids etc but he knows that the game must be playable by mainstream non-sim heads on a standard DS2. He aims for as realistic as possible, while being accepted and enjoyed by most casual gamers as well as the sim crowd. GT4 is INCREDIBLY popular for how realistic it is... the only other super popular car games of late - NFSU2 and Burnout3. Hardly known for realism. This is the market PD needs to sell games in.
Its a tricky balancing act and I think GT4 has the balance down better than most!
James2097
I agree,
there is a fine line between 100% sim, and "feels like you are really driving"
If GT (or any other game for that matter) was 100% sim, you would not feel like you are driving the car. Case in point, if I hooked up a camera to my car, as well as remote steering and throttle devices. It would be damn hard to drive my car remotly. And I drive my car every day! The reason? well I dont get the full sense of speed with no peripheral (sp?) vision, cant feel G's, even with FF I wouldnt feel the road the same as a real car, no depth perception to gauge turns and other obsticles, and not as much visual information in general (resolution).
So without having all these elements, to make a true sim would be a waste. PD are genius in that when you are driving the car (though not 100% accurate) it does FEEL like you are in fact driving that car....and thats whats important.
NO one has been able to match them in this area yet. And if game companies try and be "more sim" than GT, imo will make their game worse not better.
flynn
You hit the nail on the head, GT4 might not be a sim on the level of gran prix legends or GTR, But they got the sensation of driving a car right 👍 even games like gran prix legends and gtr lack this feeling/sensation they feel computerized no matter how accurate they might be, Gt4 Just feels so natural to drive its like the cars are an extension of yourself
PakImo GT4 feels good until you loose traction.
Some PC sims feel more natural to me too, GT4 feels unpredictable sometimes... I guess it's what you're used too.
very true.
But on average I would say most people find the GT series the most natural (at least in my circle of friends, and we play toooons of racing games
)PakCompared to proper sims, GT4's physics engine sucks. It has nothing to do with difficulty or whatever, the game just doesn't simulate tyres/suspension etc the way it should. The result of that is weird looking car movement and wrong tyre characteristics and in GT4's case: racecars which are too easy to control.
(LFS S1 is the opposite, due to lack of dynamic camber and proper tyre physics the cars slide more than they should)
GT4 is still a fun game. However, I cannot understand people who are against a more realistic physics engine. If you like simplified car behaviour then play with driving aids on(like alot of people already do in GT4).
This way the simjunky's can still enjoy amazing physics, it would have so much more replay value for me.
As I rear my ugly head again.
Your post is not bad, however, you are extremely CONFUSED.
Physics Engine is in no way directly related to how the tires and suspension model work in the game. That are all seperate individual engines.
They work together, yes, however it is not the physics engine that is flawed, it is the tire model and the suspension model.
I'm not knocking you, just educating, because I don't feel it fair to knock a portion of the game that is really great, because other members of the "team" (tires and suspension) don't play as well.
And as for your sentiments on race cars being too easy to control. I love saying this. How would you know? Unless you have in fact driven them all, how would you know?
In fact, how does ANYONE in this thread, know what "real physics" are?
Because, IMO, most of you are just judging reality by the difficulty of the game.
Until you've actually GONE OUT and DRIVEN your car to the point where you understand how it works, then no, you don't know.
I auto-x my prelude roughly three to four times a month during season, and I can honestly say that tuned "similarly" to my car, GT4 comes pretty close to getting it right. While there are powerband issues, and most certainly a suspension model issue, the physics are still pretty close to what I experience on a near weekly basis.
That's my grip, I'm off to "observe again".
I'm not confused and I know how physics engines work.tha_con
It's alot easier to talk about the physics engine as a whole. The tire/suspension model are part of the physics engine, if those are wrong or missing then the physics(engine) simulation of the game is flawed.
What do you expect me to say? The physics engine is fantastic apart from the following parts? :/
I see the physics engine as all the simulating of different parts combined.
If I have to talk your way than the physics engine can never be flawed, I prefer not to talk like that.
You can if you want to. o_o
Cars do not defy physical laws, that's why people can know without driving them.tha_con
And if you meant me, I am not judging reality by the difficulty of a game. I made that clear in a previous post by saying: LFS S1 is the opposite of GT4. Due to lack of dynamic camber and proper tire physics the cars are harder to control than they should be
Has anyone else noticed that all of the comments that GT4 has a bad/unrealistic physics engine only come from people who don't race in RL?
If you don't have the car in RL to compare it to... if you've never been on the real track... if you've never gone for a big spin off the course (Ahem... *embarassment* Not that I've ever done that, mind you *innocent whistle*)... how are you making a judgement anyway?
Hidden driving aids? Unrealistic when the cars slide? How are you deciding this stuff?
You aren't just... making it up... are you?
- Skant
If you don't have the car in RL to compare it to... if you've never been on the real track... if you've never gone for a big spin off the course (Ahem... *embarassment* Not that I've ever done that, mind you *innocent whistle*)... how are you making a judgement anyway?
Hidden driving aids? Unrealistic when the cars slide? How are you deciding this stuff?
You aren't just... making it up... are you?
- Skant
Patrik
(Banned)
- 2,231
- GTP_Patrik
well if i think of it.. the grip in GT4 is pretty unrealistic, but i racing cars had very god handling think . and the force feedback with DFP i think is awesome 
. rally should be away from GT4, all the other GT's as well... i dont like it... pretty booring to... but i love GT4, will allways do untill GT5 comes out 
. and the force feedback with DFP i think is awesome . rally should be away from GT4, all the other GT's as well... i dont like it... pretty booring to... but i love GT4, will allways do untill GT5 comes out PakI'm not confused and I know how physics engines work.
It's alot easier to talk about the physics engine as a whole. The tire/suspension model are part of the physics engine, if those are wrong or missing then the physics(engine) simulation of the game is flawed.
What do you expect me to say? The physics engine is fantastic apart from the following parts? :/
I see the physics engine as all the simulating of different parts combined.
If I have to talk your way than the physics engine can never be flawed, I prefer not to talk like that.
You can if you want to. o_o
Cars do not defy physical laws, that's why people can know without driving them.
And if you meant me, I am not judging reality by the difficulty of a game. I made that clear in a previous post by saying: LFS S1 is the opposite of GT4. Due to lack of dynamic camber and proper tire physics the cars are harder to control than they should be
Physics engine cacluates gravity, wind, air, speed, momentem, g forces, etc. It does not calculate tire wear, nor the suspension. These are sperate entaties AFFECTED by the physics engine.
All the tire model in GT4 renders is tire wear. Period. Given a certain speed, and certain g-forces etc, it will apply the appropriate wear to the tires and model them accordingly, all of that info is recieved from the PHYSICS ENGINE.
When the suspension on a car compresses, it is modeled according to information recieved from the physics engine.
These are SEPERATE from PHYSICS as a whole.
Think of it as a painting, with tons of colors. Physics, tire model, suspension, etc so on and so forth, all make up the "colors" but together they are the big picture. Related? Yes. Do they compliment eachother? yes. But don't say Blue (physics) sucks because you do not like the red and green (tires/suspension). They are different.
- 30,027
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
Actually none of thats made up, theres been hidden traction control in GT since GT1, when you floor a 98Bhp front wheel drive family hatchback you spin the wheels, try that in GT4 with the aids turned off. Also when you floor the more powerful cars like the Viper's and such do you really think thats all that would happen if you floored a Viper irl. The tyre physics arnt as good as they could be either, I'm not nocking GT4's physics, they're great, in fact they're brilliant but they arn't the be all and end all of racing game physics.Skant
Also a few of the people making thoes comments HAVE been to the tracks and raced their cars.
I disagree. I consider all the things which define the car handeling part of the physics engine just because it's more simple that way. For example new suspension models are considered a physics update in LFS, there's no need to be picky about it.tha_con
But whatever you want, I'll just say the simulation of friction sucks for the tyres, and the simulation of physical characteristics of the springs suck.
A physics engine is not that simple, you don't just give a gravity formula and all suspension parts will work properly. You do know how physics work right? It's not like you only have gravity, friction and some other stuff. There are lots of physics laws, a spring is based on those laws and if the right ones aren't simulated the spring won't do what it's supposed to.
The cars in GT4 obviously have springs, otherwise the wheels wouldn't move up and down, but not all physical laws which affect springs are implented.
- 3,420
If gt4 fails at traction physics, it sure as hell does weight physics right. I love how realistically the cars' weight transfers when you go into turns and how the wheel tries to hide in the wheel well. Take the Ford GT for ex: I have been trying to master that car's dynamics for like a week now, tuning and testing, that's all I have been doing. Working on the suspension settings over and over but what I didn't realize is that I needed to work on the car's weight. The back of the car always caught me off guard, especially on the nurb, o man. I could be going 100mph and one bump in the road kills me. The back of the car would lift and come down wrong and mess me over. I had to master the GT's weight dynamics and I'm still not 100 percent done mastering the GT. forza didn't have weight physics that good imo and I'm not sure if enthusia will aswell but who knows?
Similar threads
