GT5 physics

[unv412]

Hello all,I know that physics has been discussed elsewhere thoughout these threads but I just wanted to know what people thought about the topic of "the best physics mix" for a GT game is ?, with referance to other games.For example, my preferance would be to have:
-Off the line and burnout physics (ie donuts) be like FM2's, as it does a very good job of that out off control, tyres melted biz.
-low to medium speed physics be like EPR's oversteer/understeer (granted understeer is a little underdone in FF cars) where the car moves around with heaps of weight transfer including under braking as well.
-high speed physics should stay like GT4 where great consequences were paid for making a mistake or unbalancing the car whilst on the limit.All these traits in a physics engine would make GT5....to me....the ultimate!

****Disclaimer***** I do not wish to insight rampant arguing over which game does what best, but instead would like to know what physics mix would DO IT for people.If the current GT5 P demo is the best then so be it (i havent been fortunate to sample it yet), just want to know your thoughts on why.👍👍

 

[Quiet_Storm]

Honestly, I'm one of those "gamers" who can't fully judge a game's physics with the control pad. I would have to play it with a Force Feedback wheel in order to make a final judgement. With that said...

I have played GT5P Demo a lot with control pad and the physics seem to be quite a bit better than GT4 with control pad. Donuts are now possible in GT5P and hitting the E-brake button also makes the car reacts realistically, unlike GT4. I've played GT4 at a shop with the DFP and it feels pretty good but not very realistic. I will have to play GT5P with the G25 wheel, which I'll be getting soon, in order to make final judgement on how realistic the physic is in GT5P.

As far as physics combination goes. I wouldn't compare the GT series to such games as Burnout, PGR4 or any other "arcade" type racing games out there. I would compare the physics to games like rFactor, GTR2, GTLegends and Live for Speed which are all very good racing simulations for the PC. Even though LFS doesn't use real cars, I like the physics in that the most when I played it with a FF wheel. I also like rFactor a lot as far as physics and overall feel. I guess I would want something along the lines of a LFS or rFactor if possible. You have to understand that these 2 games don't have that many cars to simulate so they can spend more time on perfecting each one. With GT5 rumored to have over 900 cars, it would be very hard to do accurate simulations like the other 2 games.

I've played Forza 2 and I think Turn10 did a fairly good job with the game. It's just too bad they don't have a decent wheel for the 360. I have the game along with the MS wheel and it "feels" pretty good. Not as realistic as most people have said because the RWD cars seem to be a little too tail happy. I've owned a 240SX and have driven numerous RWD cars (M3s, Supras, RX7s, CamaroSS, MustangGT, C5 ZO6, etc.) and these cars in Forza 2 seem to kick the rear end out way too easily. These cars are not that hard to control in real life even with TCS and ASM off.

Ok, I'm done rambling.

 

[amar212]

One day the sun will shine and there will be no war. United Nations will be the main goverment body on the Earth, while US Trade Deficit will be non-existant. Michael Jackson will be granted Nobel for peace.

On that very day, PD will give the option to turn-off the ABS in GT games. And on that day GT's physics will be just step away from perfection.

 

[Quiet_Storm]

Not only the option to turn off ABS but they should also have no ABS on cars that do not have that option in real life. A 1960s Corvette (like that beauty posted in the other thread) did not come with ABS and it should be that way in the game.

 

[unv412]

Quiet storm, I agree that without a decent steering wheel its very difficult to guage FM2's physics, but I just love the way you can chuck the cars around whilst doing burnouts (not too importand with DFP).Also the low to medium speed tail out thing in FM2 does happen too easy as you said, because in real life standard cars you would have to be tryin real hard to hold long drifts like in FM2.I do like what they have done with the non ABS option though, even if its to difficult/touchy to control brake modulation with the analoge contoller.Having not played rfactor, what are the differnces between rfactor versus LFS in physics?????????


Amar, thanks for your wonderful insight to my original question.......hard day at work, mate????

 

[Mr P510]

To put it simply,GT5s Physics should be as realistic as possible in EVERY area of the drive.

 

[unv412]

Mr P510 this is true, I agree.My thing is tho, of the current/past driving games what would you keep as the mix of physics to make the ultimate game ?. I mean, maybe there isnt just 1 game that has its physics sorted ?....or maybe there is???.....Btw is your username refering to the datsun 1600/p510 and if so, has there ever been 1 in the GT series (stuggling to remember) ????

 

[Biggles]

Hello all,I know that physics has been discussed elsewhere thoughout these threads but I just wanted to know what people thought about the topic of "the best physics mix" for a GT game is ?, with referance to other games.For example, my preferance would be to have:
-Off the line and burnout physics (ie donuts) be like FM2's, as it does a very good job of that out off control, tyres melted biz.
-low to medium speed physics be like EPR's oversteer/understeer (granted understeer is a little underdone in FF cars) where the car moves around with heaps of weight transfer including under braking as well.
-high speed physics should stay like GT4 where great consequences were paid for making a mistake or unbalancing the car whilst on the limit.All these traits in a physics engine would make GT5....to me....the ultimate!

That would be pretty much my mix.

I keep switching back between EPR & GT4.

The physics in GT4 are just horribly bland after EPR: the braking is SO easy & of course no meaningfull oversteer or weight transfer - the only track that represents a challenge is Nurburgring because of its bumps, length & complexity.

EPR overall provides a much more challenging experience: braking & cornering require much more attention & finesse, certainly much closer to RL. But I dislike the spongy, laggy feel of the wheel & drifting is too smooth with no "bite" to the grip.

Forza has that oversteer "bite", but does not implement weight transfer realistically, which gives the driving a somewhat unrealistic "digital" feel. Plus, of course, no good wheel...

 

[A Fatal Goodbye]

I wanna see my car roll when I take a U-turn at 100 mph with lik economy tires haha.

 

[Dave A]

In real life you'd have far more chance of it rolling on racing tyre's than economy tyres.

 

[Biggles]

I dunno, Dave: I don't think rolling a car with any tires would be that difficult if you really set your mind to it...

 

[Dave A]

It'd depend largly on the center of gravity, if that's high then a roll will be easier, it it's low then it will be harerd to roll the car. For example, a Suzuki Vitara has a much higher chance of rolling in a cornering test than a Suzuki Liana, which probably won't roll at all short of a tyre're blowing, uneven ground or it hitting sometihng in the right way. But besides that my point was simply that you'd have more chance of a roll if you turned at high speed with gripper racing tyre's than lower grip economy tyre's. Ofcourse, it's all a rather moot point anyway since rolls in Gran Turismo are a non-entity at this point in time.

 

[Biggles]

I imagine that all race cars have really low C of G, so they resist rolling.

 

[A Fatal Goodbye]

Well yea I was just going to put "I want to see my car roll at..."

But I mean some cars on GT4 at least can take sharp turns at high speeds with even R3 tires.

 

[Dave A]

Most race cars have as low a centre of gravity as the car will allow within the rules of whatever class it races in. That doesn't mean that all have low CoG's, some cars just don't, and some racing classes restrict what you can do in this department. I remeber seeing a VW Polo support race at Brands Hatch in 99, it was great, the little Polo's were on the edge round some of the corners, I saw a few going onto two wheels at times and few rolled upon impact. Most high end gt race cars will be almost impossible to roll on a flat surface, though the Mercedes CLR proved to be an exeption to that rule.

 

[Quiet_Storm]

Quiet storm, I agree that without a decent steering wheel its very difficult to guage FM2's physics, but I just love the way you can chuck the cars around whilst doing burnouts (not too importand with DFP).Also the low to medium speed tail out thing in FM2 does happen too easy as you said, because in real life standard cars you would have to be tryin real hard to hold long drifts like in FM2.I do like what they have done with the non ABS option though, even if its to difficult/touchy to control brake modulation with the analoge contoller.Having not played rfactor, what are the differnces between rfactor versus LFS in physics?????????


Amar, thanks for your wonderful insight to my original question.......hard day at work, mate????

I didn't play these games too much but after playing the 2 games a few times and a couple hours at a time, LFS seem to give you a better connection with the car and the car seem to react a lot more realistically when put in certain situations. I played it at a guy I used know's house and he had the whole set up. He's the one who introduced me to these 2 games and I was very impressed.

LFS isn't perfect because I did notice that the car was a little too skittish at times when compared to a real life car that is similar in set up, weight, suspension, drivetrain, power and all that good stuff. rFactor is a very good simulation racing game but LFS just does it a little better in every department, in my opinion. LFS's tire simulation is the best in any racing simulator out there, imho.

I would love to be able to play LFS and rFactor with the G25 but at the time, the G25 wasn't released yet. When I get around to building my gaming computer, I'll definitely be playing these 2 games a lot. w00t!

 

[Gabkicks]

the mrt, raceabout, and bmw f1 car exist in real life.

 

[Quiet_Storm]

I know some of the cars in LFS exists in real life but they also have cars that aren't licensed production or race cars. Just similar to cars in real life but is made to look generic enough so they won't get sue, right?

 

[MGR]

GT has the best overall physics of any console racer IMO. But the LFS boys do it better. LFS graphics are pretty ordinary, but on the plus side you can run the game well on an average PC and have up to 32 player online racers.

PD should employ/contract the LFS crew to do the physics for GT, and leave the rest of the current PD devs to concentrate on making the game look and sound pretty.

 

[Mazfan]

I think the physics in GT are just right, the whole look and feel is very good in my opinion.
The thing is, I heard some people say it feels too slow. I think its realistic, and you have to remember that GT is going online, and I think the current physics and feel of the cars will
be great for online battles, and it should be close.

 

[unv412]

But I dislike the spongy, laggy feel of the wheel & drifting is too smooth with no "bite" to the grip.
Forza has that oversteer "bite", but does not implement weight transfer realistically, which gives the driving a somewhat unrealistic "digital" feel. Plus, of course, no good wheel...

totally agree with the lack of bite in EPR.GT4 had heaps of it, but it was supa difficult to get propper oversteer in the first place as most cars had open differentials.

 

[Biggles]

Originally Posted by Biggles
But I dislike the spongy, laggy feel of the wheel & drifting is too smooth with no "bite" to the grip.
Forza has that oversteer "bite", but does not implement weight transfer realistically, which gives the driving a somewhat unrealistic "digital" feel. Plus, of course, no good wheel...
totally agree with the lack of bite in EPR.GT4 had heaps of it, but it was supa difficult to get propper oversteer in the first place as most cars had open differentials.

I don't know about you, unv, but I've come to the conclusion that EPR physics is the most convincing on Tsukuba wet & Winterthurm where there is, quite logically, no "bite" to the grip. Also makes Dragon Range downhill pretty convincing...

 

[Kamus]

I don't know about you, unv, but I've come to the conclusion that EPR physics is the most convincing on Tsukuba wet & Winterthurm where there is, quite logically, no "bite" to the grip. Also makes Dragon Range downhill pretty convincing...

I agree, GT5 physics improved a lot from GT4. But it really does feel that they are still based on the same GT4 physics fundamentals.
It really just makes me wish PD hired all the guys responsable for the physics in EPR or just licenced their engine and have that called the "pro mode".
For the PS3 we have CPU power to spare, so i really thought that we'd see a revolution in physics, instead of physics that are outdone by a PS2 game that came out years ago.

 

[Greycap]

Kamus, how can you speak about GT5 physics when the game is a year away and the only thing you've seen is practically a work in process alpha version of a prologue to it? Don't turn this into another Enthusia fanboy thread when you haven't seen the final product. I bet Mona Lisa didn't look that good after painting the base colours either.

 

[Scaff]

I agree, GT5 physics improved a lot from GT4. But it really does feel that they are still based on the same GT4 physics fundamentals.
It really just makes me wish PD hired all the guys responsable for the physics in EPR or just licenced their engine and have that called the "pro mode".
For the PS3 we have CPU power to spare, so i really thought that we'd see a revolution in physics, instead of physics that are outdone by a PS2 game that came out years ago.

I've covered this in another thread, but you must have missed that, so I will cover it again...

A very good number of us here do not believe that EPR is the holy grail of PS2 (or console sims), and that it had more than its own share of 'issues' with reality.

Lets take its complete inability to model terminal understeer, particularly in FWD cars or those with a real-world understeer problem. A classic being the Smart car, I've driven one of these on track and at a proving ground and they have two states of balance grip and full on terror inducing terminal understeer, yet the most EPR will give you is easily recoverable mild understeer. Have a look for the video of The Stig from Top Gear driving one to see exactly what I mean.

Edited to add - Here we go...



last few second show just how well a Smart car actually corners and reacts when you step over the limit.


We then have the full throttle launches with almost zero wheel spin, again a major issue with FWD cars. What about the lack of brake lock-up in straight line braking (EPR and GT4 are almost identical in this area), or the total lack of aero lift at speed (something GT4 did do reasonably) or that they completely screwed up the grip levels of racing tyres, or the unrealistic manner in which wide angle drifts can recovered with almost no consequences (i know the inertia snapback in GT4 is over-done but to make it almost totally non-existent is just as bad).

I can keep going, but simply put if realism were a sliding scale, with the likes of outrun at 0 and the real world at 100, then both GT4 and EPR would be hovering around the 70 mark. Neither gets it right, and when they get it right or wrong they do so in different places. That many prefer EPRs more accurate oversteer does not make EPR more realistic. Hell Richard Burns Rally on the PS2 has a better physics engine than EPR, it just didn't get a worldwide launch and is narrow in its focus.

However to fall in with the majority of the Enthusia 'clan' and wheel it out as the ultimate benchmark (while ignoring its own faults) is no more or less biased than the charge you level at others in your opening comments.

So here we go, I'm going to be the first to say it. Given this brief taste of the GT5 professional physics model I personally believe it has both the potential and is headed in the right direction to stand out as a truly great physics engine.

...I've personally said (in great detail) that I think GT4 and EPR were actually evenly matched in terms of overall physics modelling, they both get some thing's right, but both get plenty wrong as well.

That you have repeatedly (and correctly) raised potential issues with the physics errors in the GT series is understandable, but massively undermined by a seeming refusal to do the same with EPR. If you wish to appear even-handed in this, then at least apply the same critical eye and standards to all involved.


Regards

Scaff

 

[Quiet_Storm]

I forgot to add this in my other post. I think one of the improvements PD really needs to make is the weight physics of the car and better collision physics. I've purposely hit the rear 1/4 panel of an AI car fairly hard and their car barely move at all let alone spin out like in real life. My car also didn't act very convincingly after hitting the AI car. Both should've spun out at the angle and speed that the contact was made. It just makes it feel like the cars all weight a lot more than they really should. I think making it more realistic in this department will make people race even more cautiously since they know that one good hit can spin them out and ruin their race.

 

[Tenacious D]

As I've said numerous times, ignore what other games are doing or have done. Take a real life car around a real life course, and make sure you get Gran Turismo to imitate that as best you can.

 

[Quiet_Storm]

I have taken a real life car around a real life road course many many times. I can't say for sure how 2 cars should react when one hits the other in the 1/4 panel but I have seen a lot of videos of races where this has happened and it's nothing like what happens in Gran Turismo. And no, I am not willing to take my car around the track next time and hit another car in the 1/4 panel to find out for sure.

 

[Biggles]

Scaff: broadly speaking I would agree, but I'd have to say IMO that EPR would overall have the edge over GT4 in the physics department (it's just that EPR is so inferior in other aspects). When I jump back into GT4 after playing EPR, I often find myself wishing that GT had perhaps 50% of the weight transfer & tire physics that EPR exhibits - this would make GT4 pretty close to perfect.

I disagree with Tenacious:

As I've said numerous times, ignore what other games are doing or have done. Take a real life car around a real life course, and make sure you get Gran Turismo to imitate that as best you can.

It's obviously not that easy to do. EPR, GT & Forza are obviously trying to do that, but end up interpreting real world physics in quite different ways. I am sincerely hoping that PD does take a cue from the positive characteristics of both Forza & EPR & incorporate them into GT5

 

[DarthTurismo]

I've purposely hit the rear 1/4 panel of an AI car fairly hard and their car barely move at all let alone spin out like in real life. My car also didn't act very convincingly after hitting the AI car.

It is still by no means perfect but i'd have to partially disagree with you on this one! I have on many occasions tapped an AI car during cornering and sent them off the track.... on other occasions i have hit them hard and also gone off the track... and lastly i have been hit on the rear 1/4 whilst trying to do a cheeky move under brakes resulting in my spinning off the track! that never happened in gt4 so i have to admit they have gone some way to improving that!!! the only problem i have encountered is that at lower speeds it tends not to happen when in fact it probably still would!!