More unforgiving physics?

[gtsmashbros]

When I say unforgiving physics, I don't mean spinouts and loss of grip (which GT5 modeled ok in my opinion), I mean rollovers! It just doesn't make sense when street cars skid sideways at 100+ mph without rolling over! What happened to that Fiat 500 pre-release video where the girl playing flips the Fiat by just making a turn? Also, rollovers need to be implemented in online multiplayer. It makes no sense to limit crash physics online (unless the host chooses to). In which case maybe rollovers and advanced crashes could be toggled on and off by the host.

 

[Tornado]

This is going to be an interesting poll just to see if anyone can argue against what is basically calling for better physics.

 

[nascarfn]

I beleive it should be worked on but if pd were to put it online i think we would have more trolls everywhere if i wish everyone could be respectful so we could get better physics but we all know that wont happen

 

[OHM_fusion]

Physics need to be as realistic as possible. And that obviously includes rollovers. But the important thing is - online and offline physics need to be identical. There are ways to deal with online retards without compromising the physics.

 

[J-KiLLA24]

This should go without question.

 

[TexasTyme214]

When I say unforgiving physics, I don't mean spinouts and loss of grip (which GT5 modeled ok in my opinion), I mean rollovers! It just doesn't make sense when street cars skid sideways at 100+ mph without rolling over! What happened to that Fiat 500 pre-release video where the girl playing flips the Fiat by just making a turn? Also, rollovers need to be implemented in online multiplayer. It makes no sense to limit crash physics online (unless the host chooses to). In which case maybe rollovers and advanced crashes could be toggled on and off by the host.

The only reason I can think of is if rollover physics themselves ask a lot for the PS3 to deal with. Once you start talking about 16 cars rolling at once, then issues start arising. Besides that reason, I can't think of one reason why physics shouldn't be improved.

 

[Exorcet]

Once you start talking about 16 cars rolling at once, then issues start arising.

16 cars rolling over is as demanding as 16 cars driving in a straight line.

 

[VBR]

As it is, the roll overs in GT5 look absolutely awful, & not at all realistic. They'd have to work on the physics a lot to make roll overs look good, that is realistic, before they allowed it online.

 

[Raggi Boy]

16 cars rolling over is as demanding as 16 cars driving in a straight line.

Barely any games have accurate rolling physics even nowadays, let alone 16 cars rolling at once. He is right. Rolling is a far more complex combination of physics laws than traveling in a straight line, which is the most simple one. So how does your statement make sense?

 

[awr117]

They need to add a much better damage model if they plan on being a sim. There should not be an option to turn off damage. Non damage promotes careless driving.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Barely any games have accurate rolling physics even nowadays, let alone 16 cars rolling at once. He is right. Rolling is a far more complex combination of physics laws than traveling in a straight line, which is the most simple one. So how does your statement make sense?

The amount of variables that the physics engine has to take into account at every moment is the same, no matter if the car is running in a straight line or rolling over mid-air. Yes, a lot more of the variables will be 0 in the instant of the former, but they are still calculated. The idea of ignoring aspects of the physics engine, or dumbing them down in particular instances, is the anti-thesis of aiming to be a simulator.

They need to add a much better damage model if they plan on being a sim. There should not be an option to turn off damage. Non damage promotes careless driving.

More options are never a bad thing, as they allow more players to, well, play. Personally, I'd be annoyed if the game wouldn't let me turn off damage; if I want to test a car by myself, offline, in a time trial to work on settings, I shouldn't have to deal with damage if I don't want to. And if a more casual group of friends want to race against each other without damage, what's wrong with that?

 

[awr117]

More options are never a bad thing, as they allow more players to, well, play. Personally, I'd be annoyed if the game wouldn't let me turn off damage; if I want to test a car by myself, offline, in a time trial to work on settings, I shouldn't have to deal with damage if I don't want to. And if a more casual group of friends want to race against each other without damage, what's wrong with that?

Nothing is wrong with that if they plan on remaining a simcade. Personally, i'd prefer it to become a pure simulator. But i am well aware that it will probably never happen. The hardcore sim fans is a small percentage.

 

[gtsmashbros]

Nothing is wrong with that if they plan on remaining a simcade. Personally, i'd prefer it to become a pure simulator. But i am well aware that it will probably never happen. The hardcore sim fans is a small percentage.

I don't think "simcade" would be accurate, as GT5 is pretty much one of the more realistic console games. And if you want ultra-real sims, then I guess PC would be the way to go.

 

[PlainBlandMan]

I'd argue for the physics to be more forgiving in order to make it more accessible. It's so frustrating to see my car crash because I didn't brake early enough.

 

[NA]

I'd argue for the physics to be more forgiving in order to make it more accessible. It's so frustrating to see my car crash because I didn't brake early enough.

I can sympathize, and would like to see physics able to be simplified, by the user, through sliders. This is not uncommon in the PC flightsim world, where flight models can be very much customized for the user. Indeed, I switch my difficulty settings often in flightsims, mainly tailoring to how serious I am feeling about flying on a given day.

That said, I personally would like the most realistic driving physics possible made available to me. I'm the type that actually enjoys practicing a corner, over and over, until I get it right. I just don't think my desire for ultra realism should be forced on people who would rather spend their time playing at a level they personally find to be the most rewarding and fun for them.

 

[Exorcet]

Barely any games have accurate rolling physics even nowadays, let alone 16 cars rolling at once. He is right. Rolling is a far more complex combination of physics laws than traveling in a straight line, which is the most simple one. So how does your statement make sense?

As Slip said, the physics engine is still doing the same amount of work in both cases. The engine can't relax just because the car is going in a straight line, because that could change at any moment.

Nothing is wrong with that if they plan on remaining a simcade. Personally, i'd prefer it to become a pure simulator. But i am well aware that it will probably never happen. The hardcore sim fans is a small percentage.

Options do not lessen realism. The ability to turn off damage is perfectly fine a pure simulator and I know a couple of super high fidelity sims that have this feature.

 

[niky]

Our company runs a $250,000 vehicle simulator that doesn't simulate crash damage at all.

The amount of variables that the physics engine has to take into account at every moment is the same, no matter if the car is running in a straight line or rolling over mid-air. Yes, a lot more of the variables will be 0 in the instant of the former, but they are still calculated.

I recall a number of discussions we've had here wherein we've theorized some of the driving physics issues in previous releases as being related to the anti-rollover scripting built into the game engine. Specifically things like tripoding and two-wheeling.

-

Though I kind of miss doing 1,000+++ km/h wheelies...

-

And that's the thing. GT5 can already simulate rollovers. And flips. It's just that they choose to artificially limit what angle of inclination your car can achieve.

 

[Stotty]

Personally, I care little for roll overs and crashes... what I am interested in is the most realistic driving feel possible... if crash dynamics faciliate an improvement in this then I'm all for it.

I'd argue for the physics to be more forgiving in order to make it more accessible. It's so frustrating to see my car crash because I didn't brake early enough.

 

[AleksandarSRB]

I'd argue for the physics to be more forgiving in order to make it more accessible. It's so frustrating to see my car crash because I didn't brake early enough.

Than play NFS and other arcade games...

 

[Stotty]

I took it that he was being sarcastic

 

[J-KiLLA24]

I'd argue for the physics to be more forgiving in order to make it more accessible. It's so frustrating to see my car crash because I didn't brake early enough.

You are joking...right?

 

[MeanElf]

The amount of variables that the physics engine has to take into account at every moment is the same, no matter if the car is running in a straight line or rolling over mid-air. Yes, a lot more of the variables will be 0 in the instant of the former, but they are still calculated. The idea of ignoring aspects of the physics engine, or dumbing them down in particular instances, is the anti-thesis of aiming to be a simulator...

Wouldn't the physics engine be more taxed if there were parts flying off any rolling cars? Those parts would then have their own trajectories, etc.

I know that wasn't specifically mentioned as a part of the original premise, but if truer physics are the goal, then a better damage model would also need to factor in the equation.

I think that's what Raggi boy was possibly refering to.

 

[ShiftingGears]

Physics need to be as realistic as possible. And that obviously includes rollovers. But the important thing is - online and offline physics need to be identical. There are ways to deal with online retards without compromising the physics.

Absolutely. On a related note, are the undersides of the premium cars modelled?

 

[SlipZtrEm]

You are joking...right?

Regardless of if he is or isn't, he actually does have a point, sort of; I wouldn't say the physics engine itself should be dumbed down (absolutely not), but there should be just as many optional aids as we have now, if not more, to make the game at least approachable for the casual unfamiliars out there. SRF, an essential God Mode that plays to a different set of rules, physics-wise, than having it off? No, I think that should never have been introduced. But the racing line, ASM and TCS, and perhaps even semi-auto steering and braking could be introduced. Those last two would never take the quickest way around a track, only an average tour speed, but if it'd be the difference between someone playing or not, I think it'd be the right choice. I have a great example living with me; my girlfriend was far more excited trying to learn the whole concept of circuit racing in FM4 than GT5, thanks to the aids that actually help do that.

And on a similar subject; the next GT would do well to incentivize players to not use aids. In the career mode, in online races, everywhere; give the player additional credits if they play at a harder difficulty setting, with less aids. Turned TCS off completely? Here's an extra 10-20% at the end of a race. The heavier-handed stuff, like auto-braking, could even take a percentage of your winnings, and keeping it off just has the variable at 0%. Again using my girlfriend as an example; she went from nearly every aid in the game to just TCS and automatic transmission after a few attempts. She was learning the track, gaining more control over the car, and having fun doing it. Natural competitive nature sort of pushed her along, knowing that she was missing out on more credits by playing the dumbed-down way... which is funny, since they were credits for my account

Of course, make all of these optional, and allowing hosts to ban them individually, as they see fit, in online lobbies, and you won't be affected by them in your own online races. Give the player more ways to learn and improve, and they're more likely to.

Wouldn't the physics engine be more taxed if there were parts flying off any rolling cars? Those parts would then have their own trajectories, etc.

I know that wasn't specifically mentioned as a part of the original premise, but if truer physics are the goal, then a better damage model would also need to factor in the equation.

I think that's what Raggi boy was possibly refering to.

True, if parts were coming off, it'd be a bit more taxing. About the same as hitting any of the pylons or tires already littered around the tracks, though. Now, if we got into full-on modelling of carbonfibre shattering on impact, splintering into thousands of little pieces, than yeah, it'd probably be a heavy computational load. But I really don't expect that

 

[CJSpencer77]

We all know there are memory shortage issues with the PS3, and with all this talk of GT6 on PS3 i wonder if we will get rollover physics online on GT6 if it does land on the PS3.

Regardless of if he is or isn't, he actually does have a point, sort of; I wouldn't say the physics engine itself should be dumbed down (absolutely not), but there should be just as many optional aids as we have now, if not more, to make the game at least approachable for the casual unfamiliars out there. SRF, an essential God Mode that plays to a different set of rules, physics-wise, than having it off? No, I think that should never have been introduced. But the racing line, ASM and TCS, and perhaps even semi-auto steering and braking could be introduced. Those last two would never take the quickest way around a track, only an average tour speed, but if it'd be the difference between someone playing or not, I think it'd be the right choice. I have a great example living with me; my girlfriend was far more excited trying to learn the whole concept of circuit racing in FM4 than GT5, thanks to the aids that actually help do that.

And on a similar subject; the next GT would do well to incentivize players to not use aids. In the career mode, in online races, everywhere; give the player additional credits if they play at a harder difficulty setting, with less aids. Turned TCS off completely? Here's an extra 10-20% at the end of a race. The heavier-handed stuff, like auto-braking, could even take a percentage of your winnings, and keeping it off just has the variable at 0%. Again using my girlfriend as an example; she went from nearly every aid in the game to just TCS and automatic transmission after a few attempts. She was learning the track, gaining more control over the car, and having fun doing it. Natural competitive nature sort of pushed her along, knowing that she was missing out on more credits by playing the dumbed-down way... which is funny, since they were credits for my account

Of course, make all of these optional, and allowing hosts to ban them individually, as they see fit, in online lobbies, and you won't be affected by them in your own online races. Give the player more ways to learn and improve, and they're more likely to.

As for dumbing down the physics definatly not, SlipZtrEm you make some fair points but it would worry me the game as whole may suffer for those of us who like the simulation experience, its hard enough to find a ABS 0 lobby as it is without muddying the water anymore.

I understand everyone has a different opinion on these kind of matters but i find the harder the game, more unforgiving etc the more rewarding i find it when i get it right.......just like " Richard burns rally " back in the day.

 

[BongRipz]

Absolutely. On a related note, are the undersides of the premium cars modelled?

No but IIRC there is a easter egg hidden underneath.

 

[CJSpencer77]

No but IIRC there is a easter egg hidden underneath.

If i remeber right wasnt the underside of some of the cars taken from matchbox models? Im sure i read something like that ages ago.

 

[Tornado]

They are modeled, but not... thoroughly.

 

[counter345]

Not really worried about the underside being modelled. If my car rolls over, the last thing I will be worrying about is how the catalytic converter looks.

 

[research]

any way the OP might change the title of this thread to "More unforgiving rollover physics?"

^This would definitely help the community understand what they're getting into and staying on-topic..

As far as my input goes, when you see a virtual car standing up on it's nose slowly rotating like a ballerina, then you know that something is very wrong with the gravitational physics in this game. The cars seem to fly and land fairly well on jumps, like at Eiger- but the crashing/full rollover gravity seems to be a mess.