NixxxoN
(Banned)
- 2,712
- Barcelona
It is a driving simulator, not a car technical/mecanical issue simulator. You dont get that the vast majority of players dont want to hear about those complicated issues that may occur in real life. Get over it.
Kazunori Yamauchi: Driving Simulators Shouldn't be Difficult
- Thread starter GTPNewsWire
- 270 comments
- 24,281 views
- 27,387
- Toronto
- NewAesthetic
- SlipZtrEm
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Nothing to get over. I'm having a technical discussion. Sorry if it's so emotional for you that you have to make it personal. Anyway, whether something is a simulator or how much of a simulator it is, has nothing to do with what players want. Don't conflate the two issues and it's much easier to understand. As noted above, camber, suspension height and stagger, damper adjustments, LSD, aero, HP/Torque curves etc. aren't exactly kindergarten stuff either. Did GT players vote and decide they weren't complicated or how did they make their way into the game to begin with?
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Hey,
This is my opinion but could it be you and @Johnnypenso have a communication error?
I agree that tuning is a part of a race simulator. And if it is elaborate it is the 'more complete' sim.
BUT this doesn't mean a game without is not a simulator. In engineering simulations thing that can be neglected will be neglected.
Since you (@NixxxoN ) want to simulate the experience of driving a race the tuning is a neglectable variable in a race simulators equation. @Johnnypenso wants a full race experience this includes vast tuning options. Therefor it is a vital part of that kind of simulator.
Both of you should correct me if I misrepresented something as this is my opinion/analisys of the situation.
- 589
- United States
Wow, this topic really took off, huh? Kaz seems to have a way with words.
Sure seems to be a lot of "couch racers" out there giving their opinions on what it takes to be a race car driver...
Sure seems to be a lot of "couch racers" out there giving their opinions on what it takes to be a race car driver...
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
NixxxoN
(Banned)
- 2,712
- Barcelona
I interpreted what he was saying as tunning issues and problems that have some difficulty in sorting out.
I think the vast majority of GT players, dont know how to properly tune and dont know all the tuning parameters in a game like GT6, therefore, I dont think it would be necessary to complicate it even more.
GT is not a hardcore sim and those advanced tuning options are more suited for hardcore sims.
- 10,403
- GTP_Spag69
- spagetti69
It's as though this is a forum for couch racers aiming to race each other.
- 589
- United States
- 2,342
- Camboriu - Braz
- FASJ6418
That´s the feeling some of my friends complain, like you´re driving a boat on thin ice and the sim becomes harder than real life.
Because you don´t have G-forces and fear in the simulation, some games just make harder to drive just to create this additional barrier. It´s nonsense.
I had the great opportunity to drive a F430 GT last month in Las Vegas and for the first time i could compare the differences between real life and simulators.
I was shock to see just how firm, responsive and comfortable the car was. I can understand the frustration from real drivers with sims, because most of them underestimate just how strong G-forces are, specially in low speed situations.
I was a lot faster in my five real laps with the car than on their iRacing simulation that you do it before going to the track.
Thing is, the modern car in drove is easy to drive at a comfortable speed. The challenge is trying to push those cars to the limit. And i think that´s very hard to simulate, but that´s the key difference.
I can only comment on three cars that i drove, and only one was a race car, but driving then at average speeds is easy. However, in real life it´s much, much harder to hit the apexes and draw the perfect line around the track compared to doing the same in a sim.
Kaz is not wrong, some games out there are just adding an artificial layer of difficult just because some of the couch experts think "if it´s not hard it´s not real".
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
What are these games that have an "artificial layer of difficult"? You're inferring that some games take their physics engines and go beyond simulating reality to introduce an additional level of difficulty for the sole reason of generating fan loyalty because it's difficult. I'd like to know which games you are referring to and how you know these layers of difficulty are artificial and not an honest attempt to simulate driving a car at the limit.
- 2,342
- Camboriu - Braz
- FASJ6418
iRacing and rFactor are the worst offenders IMO. In the case of iRacing it was the same car and the same track driven, first on the sim and then on real life.
The problem for me is always testing how the car reacts in low speed situations, and in this aspect some simulators "feel" wrong.
The way the car keeps unsettled in low speeds, specially downshifting, seems to defy gravity. I can´t bring you numbers or statistics of this, the whole point of the comment is how does the car "feel" in real life compared to our traditional sims.
The last corner on the infield Las Vegas Speedway track, for instance, you can go full speed turning the car at the same time, on third gear. The same thing on the simulator would result in a spin, every time. After asking the instructor about setup differences between the sim and the real car, they told me the sim had the exact same setup they used. The sim version also underestimates how strong engine braking is on the car, but that´s a completely different thing.
These opinions are just this, opinions. I can´t prove that iRacing does X wrong and Y right, but, like everyone else that had a chance to drive a real car under similar circumstances, i can say how it feels, and that´s why i posted to agree with Kaz on the subject of these cars being easy to drive.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Even if all this is true it doesn't establish your inference that the developers of iRacing and rFactor introduced deliberate elements of unrealistic difficulty into their games for no reason related to simulation. I also think I'd be pretty safe in saying that you were nowhere near the limit of the real car at LVMS. Do you have telemtry to show that the sim version underestimates engine braking or are you just going by feel? There's no feel for this in the sim so the only way you would know is by comparing the telemetry and analyzing braking points, g-forces etc. FYI, your wording is indicating you are stating facts, not opinions.
- 13,892
- Adelaide
- Neomone
- 2,342
- Camboriu - Braz
- FASJ6418
The artificial layer of difficulty would appear, perhaps, because writing code is just so hard. You know, everything is just opinion like i´ve said. I´ve only driven the car for a few minutes, and like you said, not that fast.
- 67
- Sydney
- XxHighWayStarXx
Well I think you're wrong and I disagree. See? Personal perception really is all that matters.
10 different car magazine writers who test drive the exact same car will not have the exact same review of it. 10 different race car drivers who drive the exact same car will not have the exact same review of it. How can this be if, as you say, reality is the same for everyone ??
Never mind, it's a rhetorical question. The answer is because even though the car is exactly the same, each and every one of us perceives it's handling characteristics, and the sensations of motion in general in our own personal way.
And I said there is no "one perception to rule them all" so what feels a certain way to one will not feel the same to another.
It appears to me it is you who has a complete lack of understanding.
I am not talking about width of doors or physical attributes, I am talking about feel and perception, things for which there is NOT a fixed reality.
A simulator is a device which is governed by particular parameters and programmes which are an approximation of someone else's perception of reality. And as driving/racing cars is ALL about feel then it goes without saying that it is impossible to simulate everyone's unique, personal and therefore totally correct perceptions of their reality.
You can think there is only one reality for everyone, and good for you. All that means is it's right for you. Lots of people think there is only one life too. Good for them. Within themselves they are right.
I happen to disagree. But that's ok cause there is no universal right or wrong with these things.
Same applies to physics, they may be fixed in the real world but us humans being receivers & transmitters, with our own unique set of filters & sensors, we will simply not perceive them in the same way. There's no way around it.
So my question stands. WHOSE perception of motion, g-forces,car behavior ( you know, reality ) is used as the base for a simulator to match ??
Again, its a rhetorical question.
Really. And whose objective viewpoint is considered the one true reality, hmm ?
Last edited by a moderator:
- 3,807
Driving is easy, really easy. Just look at how many OAP's you see driving around. I mean who here couldn't do this without crashing?
Personally to me it sounds like he is trying to blow smoke up players bottoms, making them think they're playing a game where cars handle like the real thing and they really are the driving gods they think they are. There is some truth to what Kaz says. Driving is easy, at legal speeds, driving fast and good, and at the limit is a different story all together.
So basically you just took what he said and made it about something he didn't even mention. Why can't we just take it as what he said?
Personally to me it sounds like he is trying to blow smoke up players bottoms, making them think they're playing a game where cars handle like the real thing and they really are the driving gods they think they are. There is some truth to what Kaz says. Driving is easy, at legal speeds, driving fast and good, and at the limit is a different story all together.
It's entirely possible to play any GT game, Assetto Corsa, RF2, iRacing without touching any setting at all, ever. I bet there are players who never touch anything other than tyres on all of these games too. If you have desires on being the fastest in the world in these games then the chances are you're going to need to set up your car, and that includes GT.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
That's an epic fail bro'
- 1,633
- Mass UTC-5
- HugoStiglitz_420 and GTP_HugoStiglitz
He's right but the excessive difficulty of some racing simulators (and simcades for that matter) can lie in their lack of feedback and control, not necessarily their physics engine.
This has been proven time and time again over the years with sims like LFS, netkar pro, and more recently Assetto Corsa, rfactor 2, and automobilista that you can have a HIGHLY accurate simulation while also being easy to drive. They feature highly accurate physics, but also are relatively easy to drive because of the stellar feedback they give to the players through a steering wheel (or a controller in rare cases). GT6 to a certain extent as well, but the difference is, GT6 and GT Sport have mostly got the feedback and control part of it right, but still have issues and inaccuracies with physics. Same with pCars except even worse. That's something that needs to be fixed to put GT and pCars up there with the "real" sims on the market.
Having realistic physics doesn't mean more difficulty IF you also provide great feedback and control to the players. That even goes for playing sims with a controller too. If the controllers analog sticks and triggers are calibrated properly (deadzone, sensitivity, acceleration, linearity, filter, speed sensitivity, etc.), (GT Sport in my opinion is the shining example of what a properly calibrated controller should feel like in a sim) it makes all the difference in the world compared to a sim where the controller is calibrated poorly AKA any Forza game aside from the horizon series, and many of the PC sims that really weren't designed with controllers in mind and have awful settings by default but can sometimes be fixed IF the sim has settings that can be changed.
Iracing on the other hand severely needs to work on its force feedback so it's kind of the opposite problem that GT has while forza has serious issues with controls, feedback and physics so it's really the furthest away from being among the best sims, and Turn 10 probably doesn't mind it being that way because it still sells since it's a different audience.
This has been proven time and time again over the years with sims like LFS, netkar pro, and more recently Assetto Corsa, rfactor 2, and automobilista that you can have a HIGHLY accurate simulation while also being easy to drive. They feature highly accurate physics, but also are relatively easy to drive because of the stellar feedback they give to the players through a steering wheel (or a controller in rare cases). GT6 to a certain extent as well, but the difference is, GT6 and GT Sport have mostly got the feedback and control part of it right, but still have issues and inaccuracies with physics. Same with pCars except even worse. That's something that needs to be fixed to put GT and pCars up there with the "real" sims on the market.
Having realistic physics doesn't mean more difficulty IF you also provide great feedback and control to the players. That even goes for playing sims with a controller too. If the controllers analog sticks and triggers are calibrated properly (deadzone, sensitivity, acceleration, linearity, filter, speed sensitivity, etc.), (GT Sport in my opinion is the shining example of what a properly calibrated controller should feel like in a sim) it makes all the difference in the world compared to a sim where the controller is calibrated poorly AKA any Forza game aside from the horizon series, and many of the PC sims that really weren't designed with controllers in mind and have awful settings by default but can sometimes be fixed IF the sim has settings that can be changed.
Iracing on the other hand severely needs to work on its force feedback so it's kind of the opposite problem that GT has while forza has serious issues with controls, feedback and physics so it's really the furthest away from being among the best sims, and Turn 10 probably doesn't mind it being that way because it still sells since it's a different audience.
Last edited:
- 67
- Sydney
- XxHighWayStarXx
That's an epic fail bro'
First, I ain't your "bro'" and second, what the hell are you talking about ?
Dude, like,y'know, like, wow, like, what an epic fail, bro' .
There. Right back at ya.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Reality and the physics principle surrounding it aren't a "viewpoint". They aren't subject to opinion. That you conflate the two, is quite telling.
- 67
- Sydney
- XxHighWayStarXx
That's an epic fail bro'
First, I ain't your "bro'" and second, what the hell are you talking about ?
Dude, like,y'know, like, wow, like, what an epic fail, bro' .
There. Right back at ya.
Of course they are. Anything to do with feel and perception is open to opinion and interpretation.
I am simply saying that no simulator or simulation will successfully replicate our personal viewpoint of reality, because we're all individual & unique. I don't believe there is any one and only true perception that must apply to all & is carved in stone.
Let's say that 10 professional race car drivers test out a particular racing simulator. All with highly regarded credentials & experience.
Now let's say that 5 of them regard the simulator as totally authentic & an accurate replication of their feels & sensations.
However the other 5 don't agree & regard the simulator as deficient & not an accurate replication of their reality.
Which of them are right or wrong?
Like I've asked before, whose perception is deemed the most accurate to base the simulator's parameters on ?
They have to find a middle ground in order to cater to all, cause no one has a monopoly on how, what or why we perceive things the way we do. Especially artificial inputs, controls & stimuli.
Let's get to why you're wrong once more.
The perception is diffrent for every driver (didn't I allready say that in my last post try to keep up).
But it's diffrent perceptions of the SAME PHYSICS.
Now no you don't start building a simulator from scratch based on feelings.
1. You start with measurements on the real life thing.
2. Then you start to build equations that fit your measured data.
3. Next you run the simulation and compare it to a benchmark real life test and tune your model until it accuratelh represents reality.
In the case of a car simulator I could see this going this way:
They measure these physical effects on the car in confined test area's to try and get these right.
Once that's done they start tweaking and debugging with MULTIPLE drivers as to get as much feelings/perceptions as when they can make the game feel real for everyone ot means they used equations that relate well enough to real life to fool everyone's perception to think this is the real world.
All this only needs one physics model.
Now if you don't want to reply to me can ypu please please explain one thing to me: if for diffrent perceptions you need diffrent physics engines in a game to feel real. Does that mean that those test drivers all driven the car in a diffrent physics model? And if not then why does the need for diffrent physics suddenly arise when someone builds a simulator?
Edit: perception of motion is a measurement of a real physical atribute you know motion every movement can be defined in a single correct way so no not feeling. It's a very baf measurement tool that's why we all perceive that one reality diffrent. And that's why people put motionsensors and accelerometers on cars as in that way we can bypass our perception and measure the real physical attribute.
Answer to your question: I hope everyones perception. Because if everyone perceives it to feel real it must be pretty ... Close to real.
You know what g-forces are and that they are just as set in stone as the width of a door?
No ones (objective), i geuss you meant to say subjective, viewpoint is ever used to set reality. That again is a misconception of mechanical/scientific development. We don't use perception to set up model of objective reality. We use measuring devices and set up tests that are repeatable again and again.
On your personal believes of afterlife and such please do not open that book and you had not need to tell me you are a believer I could see that from your opinion alone. You probably did this as you could notice I have a grounding in secular humanism and a basis of education in physics and this usually means I don't believe in (fill in your prefered story) and this cpuld easily derail the topic. I'd love to discus that topic in private if you please but the public board is not the place for that.
I am wondering what you studied as I can not believe it would be anything scientific. (You can still be very smart, this was not meant offensively! For example I love physics yet I hate languagues and am bad at them.)
Must it interest you I studied to be an electro-mechenical engineer at 'thomas more hogeschool' in belgium that has now become 'KU Leuven'. So you can check those credentials.
Last edited:
- 6,838
- Europe
- GTP_Slim
- PzR Slim
Would any of those reviewers or race drivers perceive the car they were driving rotated around a single point in the middle of the car?
- 16,401
- Melbourne
- ScottPuss20
- CheetahsMeow
- 13,892
- Adelaide
- Neomone
No ones, because that's what "objective" means. If it was someone's viewpoint, it wouldn't be objective.
I think I see where you're missing the boat. A simulator is not attempting to replicate your personal viewpoint of reality. A simulator is trying to replicate the objective interactions that you have with reality. Your personal viewpoint is created in response to those interactions that you have with objective reality, and in the same way your personal viewpoint can do the same with interactions with a video game.
Did you notice how you changed what the game was an accurate representation or not of between the first and second?
A game can do a good job of replicating what a driver feels while being a poor simulation of reality, and the other way around. However, we don't judge how good a simulation is on how it feels, we judge it on how accurately it reproduces real world behaviours. Those are objective and can be measured.
If I say "this tyre is hard" and you say "this tyre is soft", we can both be correct depending on our experiences and what we consider to be hard and soft. However, if we measure the tyre to have a hardness of 47 millisquishies, that's an objective fact. You can have a go at the testing method if you like, but there's no interpretation or personal viewpoint in there. That is a measure of what the tyre is.
Similarly, one designs a simulator to respond the same way as reality does to inputs, objectively. One may design a game to evoke certain feelings or emotions, but that's not part of the simulation aspect.
Back to your example of 10 writers testing the same car and having different experiences, do you think that means that they're actually testing ten different cars? I suspect most wouldn't claim so. The car is an objective reality with definable characteristics. The way that certain writers interact with that car may be different, because they're different people. But that's a characteristic of the writers that is changing the experience then, not an aspect of the car.
The car is independent of the perception, unless you really want to go down the rabbit hole. But I'll warn you that you'll end up at "I think therefore I am" and not be able to get any further. Not a terribly useful way to view the universe, regardless of how accurate or not it might be.
This guy gets it.
- 16,401
- Melbourne
- ScottPuss20
- CheetahsMeow
Not everyone will enjoy realistic physics, that's the fact. You can try to convince people of it all day long, but if they don't feel comfortable with the handling, they will right it off as inferior. Most people will not be able to appreciate realistic physics for what the are unfortunately.
Similar threads
