Im finding the cars are fun to drive, turn in well, braking is good too but its not so much a sim in realisim. It is however fun to play responsive and at the same time not to arcadey. It doesnt to me feel floaty or twitchy.
Need to play more to get a feel in differences between various cars but I wouldnt say the handling of the cars is a downside to this title whatsoever.
Aren't they using a completely new engine for dirt 3's handling? I'm not 100% certain but I do remember hearing this somewhere.
I loved dirt 2, its so instantly accessible. Not terribly deep though. I will def be picking this game up. But it still wont be taking away my GT5 addiction.
EDIT: The 3 screens looked impressive. Do you still need 3 PS3's and 3 copies to play on 3 screens like GT5? Im assuming yes.
oohhh yeahI have both Shift 1 and 2, yes 2 is better than 1 but it's still is nowhere near GT5's physics.
What on earth has this to do with this forum.
Please enlighten me.
Here I was expecting a discussion about DIRT 3 physics.
Anybody with some real experience, and the ability to judge it (unlike some of the people above here)? If it's anything like DiRT2 or improved on it, it will be good. đź‘Ť
Nope, from your previous comment I already figured it feels similar or improved to DiRT2, which is good IMO. đź‘ŤI've already made comments...
Have you got any particular questions?
Here I was expecting a discussion about DIRT 3 physics.
Off-topic flame-bait is not going to be tolerated.
Scaff
The thing about Codemasters is that their physics work around a central pivot point.
The thing about Codemasters is that their physics work around a central pivot point. That is, the centre of the car acts as the axis of rotation. Compare that to most simulators that have four independent points, one for each wheel. This tends to create something of an arcadey feel to Codemasters games - but it's long been established that the COLIN McRAE and DIRT franchises are not hardcore simulations. Go play RICHARD BURNS RALLY if that's what you're after.
The thing about Codemasters is that their physics work around a central pivot point. That is, the centre of the car acts as the axis of rotation. Compare that to most simulators that have four independent points, one for each wheel. This tends to create something of an arcadey feel to Codemasters games - but it's long been established that the COLIN McRAE and DIRT franchises are not hardcore simulations. Go play RICHARD BURNS RALLY if that's what you're after.
I'm not really sure how F1 2010 is modelled. I would imagine it's still the central pivot point, but I can't confirm it. They have been doing it long enough to know the ins and the outs of the design to the extent where they can make it very sensitive, but not as accurate as the four-point physics model used by most simulators.Is that true? For example, does F1 2010 behave like that too? I wouldn't know what behaviours to look for to confirm/deny how the physics work.
Well, that simulation is not DIRT 3. Apparently Black Bean's WRC 2010 isn't half bad, even if the graphics are a little lacking.I agree on this one, but I understand those who want a new reall rally sim, Its bin 7 years since richard burns rally afterall.
Inside Sim Racing reporting the physics are on par with GT5's rally physics if not better!
That's not saying much to be honest.
I found Dirt 2's physics to be quite good, if a little arcadey at times but as I use a DS3 it doesn't make as much difference, but I'd expect Dirt 3 to be an improvement.
Im using the T500RS mate.