- 4,534
- Australia
Driver endorses product he's paid to endorse, really shocking
Might be a bit different if they did it for free...
Might be a bit different if they did it for free...
Last edited:
Myth: Gran Turismo Sport and thus GT7 have unrealistic Front Wheel Drive Understeer. Status: BUSTED!
- Thread starter Magog
- 228 comments
- 32,518 views
- 40,655
This thread is, of course, a trainwreck. Clueless ramblings about how cars drive in real life on a level I haven't seen since people absolutely shrieked that GT5 featured torque steer on hard launches; or insisted that Porsche 911s are well known in real life for the power oversteer they had in GT5.
But what stood out to me most was this:
Then the sequel came out and basically just didn't model aerodynamic drag at speeds over 100 mph or so; yet that car was still in the game (as well as a new one Newey designed for that game).
But what stood out to me most was this:
Man, I remember when Adrian Newey, architect of some of the best Formula 1 cars ever made, lent his name and expertise to the Gran Turismo series for the Red Bull X1; the pinnacle of what can be done with (then current techonology) for aerodynamics. People paraded around, coming out of the woodwork to note how much gravitas it gave the series and proof that the (non-torque-steer-modeling, rear-engined-car-throttle-oversteering) GT5 was as good or better than any sim you could name at everything; a sentiment Sony/PD made sure to help along of course.
Then the sequel came out and basically just didn't model aerodynamic drag at speeds over 100 mph or so; yet that car was still in the game (as well as a new one Newey designed for that game).
Porsche Unleashed PC! Cars rolled around far too much, with levels of visible body control that frequently felt like you were driving a 90s Monte Carlo instead of a Porsche (albeit seemingly for exaggeration purposes rather than because the engine was actually using it); but that specific part was always done excellently and was so satisfying and felt so "right."
Last edited:
Silver Arrows
(Banned)
- 4,715
- Brandon, MB
- Silver-Arrows21
Further proof that when it comes to GT, PD can basically pull the wool over people's eyes (who already had a stake in the fight, as pathetic as it is, and as this thread has shown, as much as I have harped on it) and make people believe that cars that have a specific way of driving them, and a specific way that driving dynamics interact with said vehicles, are in any way, shape or form realistic with how the GT series is, even if it is a lower level sim.
This isn't rocket science. No, changing it won't make people leave the GT franchise in droves because it's too sim - though I'd argue that people are leaving the series in droves in other ways - but changing it would certainly not make things any worse in that regard, considering it was more or less confirmed that Polyphony changed the physics for specific vehicles (MR and FF vehicles being the majority, huh weird that it's the types of cars that have consistently had the most problems being intuitive to drive in GT games) in order to make them generally better to drive without having to spend time needing to fiddle with tuning settings to get a semi-drivable experience.
But I guess it ultimately doesn't matter. Polyphony knows that the issues that this thread were spun off to have been an actual problem for years now - they wouldn't have done the physics updates to the problematic FF and MR vehicles if it wasn't - yet they will basically wait until the problem is right on top of them and ready to bring in doomsday before ever doing anything to fix it. And even then it'll likely just be kicking the can down the road, as shown by them basically not giving a **** about difficulty even though everyone and their mother in the racing space, even wholly arcade games, have difficulty sliders or settings, while people like OP trumpet up PD as the patron saint of the racing game genre. Just absolutely cucked behavior all around.
No wonder there's a pall of negativity around the GT forum. Because people like myself can very easily see that there's no difference between GT5 and 7 in terms of actual change that would benefit the franchise in comparison to its peers and its competition. It's just a withered husk of a franchise that traffics in history and nostalgia only, ignoring the actual problems in order to continue the charade that is rehashing GT's 2 through 4 again because that was the obvious high water mark for the series. Point these very clear, indisputable facts and you get called fanboys by a very vocal part of the peanut gallery. Why bother? At least now I can rip around Trial Mountain in whatever GT nostalgia fueling car I want in Assetto Corsa and not have to deal with Polyphony's spiteful design decisions instead of waiting for Polyphony to ever get their head out their ass and actually change the series for the better.
- 813
- United Kingdom
Threads like these are why I’m mostly lurking this subforum until the game releases. Do you guys not get bored of this? 
- 15,905
- Melbourne
- ScottPuss20
- CheetahsMeow
Hang on a minute. This seems extremely harsh for a franchise that has found great success for many years. I understand that there are games with better driving experiences than Gran Turismo, and I admit that driving on Dragon Trail in a V8 Supercar in Assetto Corsa is better than anything GT could possibly do but here's the thing: Assetto Corsa doesn't provide a complete package quite like the old GT games in terms of a career mode. Your game can have the world's best physics engine but if you don't have a proper career mode the appeal is limited. The only game that has come close is Forza. I've played Horizon 4 and 5 and it's just like the old GT games in that you can buy, sell, upgrade, race and win a wide variety of cars. Yes, I know that the career mode is structured differently but the ownership experience is very similar. These hardcore simulators simply do not offer the same degree of engagement, hence why they tend to sell in smaller numbers. I am not downplaying the excellence of Assetto Corsa and it's Competizione spin-off. They are fantastic at what they do, but don't write-off GT as a "withered husk" because it wants to use a proven formula which works. It's why soo many people love it! Yes, there is room for improvement and it would be great if the pressing issues were fixed but if not, who cares? Just play another game. No point insulting the developers because it won't make you feel any better.
Last edited:
Thing is, it’s discussed all the time, when seeing a different game have features Gran Turismo should have by now. Improved by now. Be the masters at by now. That’s the main issue. Whether PD experiment with a new way they want us to play, they should be able to cook up anything and with 25 years experience, deliver what they did from the first four GT games.
Silver Arrows
(Banned)
- 4,715
- Brandon, MB
- Silver-Arrows21
I'd agree, but the issue is that people's wants and needs change over the years. So does the market, and indeed, the industry writ large. What worked in 1998, and in 2005, doesn't work in 2022. As much as Polyphony wants to make it so with cloying appeals to nostalgia that would be somewhat novel if it wasn't them straight up admitting that they were wrong with their great pivot for the GT series.
Said 'proven formula' has reached a hard ceiling in what can realistically be done to make it entertaining, and arguably, was played out the second GT made the jump to the PS2. It's clear Polyphony have had no desire or want to add difficulty settings to their games, which makes the career mode even more of a joke considering that the vast majority of races are treated like JRPG dungeons in terms of difficulty, and as a result, one can more or less brute force things, treat the AI like garbage and be on their way to greener pastures with little difficulty. I don't know about you, but my tolerance for that sort of single player element, the way GT has done since the beginning, has long reached the point of saturation. It's stale in its current form. And Polyphony has shown no desire to change things, only shuffle the chairs to make things seem new.
I say that GT is a series that is withering away because really, it is. Most of its competitors have realized that the market winds in terms of single player content for sim/simcade games is moving much more towards tournaments and driver experiences, allowing people to sample platter different disciplines or race in them full time. Even Forza, by this point, is likely going to ditch the Car-PG structure because there is simply no real way to go with it that is in any way compatible with modern gaming ideas, and increasingly, monetization strategies. Yet GT still remains, and like a child coddling their blanket in the middle of the night, seems intent on holding to the Car-PG structure more and more. Why?
I mean, I'll be completely real, the Car-PG game structure already reached it's zenith a decade ago, and it wasn't even done by PD themselves. That was Forza Motorsport 4, and as far as I'm concerned, FM4 still hasn't really been beat in terms of offering up events for you to race in, giving you enough incentive to move through the ranks, and being actually fun and somewhat challenging compared to most modern GT games after a certain point.
Then what the hell is the entire point of this forum? What the hell is the point of the (once more, very valid) complaints about FF and MR driving like dog **** and being nowhere near close to intuitive realism that this entire thread was predicated upon, if we're just going to go 'who cares' when people do bring them up? The fact that people are evening bringing it up should be evident that there are still things that GT can, and absolutely should, better for the series' health as a whole since they seem uninterested in doing the major things gameplay wise to actually fix, instead just kick the can down the road and hope people don't bring it up again later on. Once more, making FWD vehicles actually drive somewhat like reality will not make people leave the series in droves. They've done that already with two lackluster titles with absolutely nothing other then graphics to show for, and a pivot to online racing that needed free content over two and a half years to even get to anywhere close to moving the needle in terms of general interest, and even then you can make a solid argument that people still don't care.
I have. I've played countless other games. So has a good chunk of this forum, including the very people doing the criticizing of the original thrust of this thread. Doesn't really take away from the fact that it would be nice if the GT series as a whole changed for the better, in the areas that have been issues for close to twenty years, and in some regards have been present since day one.
If not improved by now, then absolutely iterated upon. They certainly woke up after years of being the butt of jokes with the vacuum cleaner engine noises, and improved vastly. They improved the livery editor and more or less proved to Turn 10 and Forza in particular that there is now no excuse and no real reason to not have uploadable PNG's and a much more robust livery editor for Forza 8.
Yet in most other regards, they seem intent on only acknowledging the competition. It's frustrating. And the only reason they're intent on lolligagging and making incremental changes when they need to make so much more is because they're afforded to by virtue of being a Japanese 1st party Sony studio. Nothing more, nothing less.
- 327
- ::1
This is what bugs me the most about FF cars in Gran Turismo. The game doesn't simulate load and weight transfer properly at all.
I remember playing the Renault Clio Cup cars in Project Cars. When I suddenly lifted my foot off the throttle in the apex of a corner while close to the limit, I frequently spun out. At first I though the game was buggy or the car setup was messed up, but I did some reading and found out about lift-off oversteer.
I recall an experience IRL that I had with my Mazda 2. I was driving down a twisty road, noticed that I was a bit too quick while approaching a corner, so I went off the throttle and braked hard while turning hard towards the apex. Result: the load shifted quickly towards the front wheels, the rear went light, and I spun about 90° and nearly crapped myself, but luckily I didn't hit anything. 😅
FF cars can have very interesting driving dynamics, but in GT they feel extremely stale. 😕
(Update: sorry, I meant FF of course, and not FR)
Last edited:
- 69
- Florida
Some of the physics in Gran Turismo (FF and MR cars especially) lead to driving habits that will not work in other driving sims. I've learned that the hard way. I really hope GT7's physics are improved. Better physics should translate into a more intuitive driving experience, not an increase in difficulty.
Last edited:
It does depend on the habit, and on the other sims.
The technique of stabbing the handbrake button to add rotation is useful across a number of games that lack better oversteer physics. It's an ingrained habit that kicks in when I get less oversteer than expected -- a superficial fix that gets me further in games I otherwise would not have continued to play.
- 5,952
- Finland
Most people do. The four most vocal critics in this thread do not - they absolutely love it. They love it so much that they're usually found in every thread even slightly touching on GT physics playing the same record all over again. So in fact this thread is a total salvation for the rest of the GT subforum as the discussion is now centered here, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who hopes it to stay that way.Threads like these are why I’m mostly lurking this subforum until the game releases. Do you guys not get bored of this?
- 29,970
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
I wouldn't say they love it, I'm sure they get quite irritated by when someone claims Gran Turismo's physics don't have big flaws. You'd find if people stopped making outlandish claims, then others would stop arguing contrary. You don't get the argument without the claims in the first place.
But yes, it does benefit the forum when it's centred in a single thread rather than several similar conversations taking place over multiple threads. Although the title of this thread may not have aged well, it has focused the discussion quite well.
I find these discussions swing from very frustrating to very interesting. Sometimes they get more technical and informative and I like learning more about how cars behave and what's going on in the games on a technical level too. If you cut out the fluff you can learn a lot, but there can be a lot of fluff.
Last edited:
I hope you are right mate because I don't want to setup cars like this below in GT7, and it's called the ride height bug.
Last edited:
- 15,905
- Melbourne
- ScottPuss20
- CheetahsMeow
I'm obviously not going to convince you that GT is still worth it. Nor will I continue this discussion because it'll drag this thread off course. You can talk about the physics and you can have constructive criticism, I'm not against that, but I say "who cares?" because it isn't the end of the world if the issues aren't solved. I've made many statements about the state of GT and some parts of it are frustrating, but I don't let it get to me - I just let it go.
Last edited:
- 13,830
- Adelaide
- Neomone
It's almost like Gran Turismo keeps having the same physics problems over and over... and people keep trying to say that they don't exist, over and over. See thread title and how thoroughly it's been debunked.
The game's fine, it does what it intends to do with it's physics by being accessible. Just don't pretend it's an accurate simulation of reality when it isn't. It's a perfect example of simcade, it's a simulation that's been toned down for the sake of gameplay and appears somewhat realistic if you don't look to closely. There's nothing wrong with that.
I'm not going to apologise for calling out people talking ******** about their favourite e-willy platform.
Silver Arrows
(Banned)
- 4,715
- Brandon, MB
- Silver-Arrows21
Exactly. The fact the only person who approved was the OP and only the OP should say a lot. Likewise, the fact that there are two GT7 physics threads...of which this was spun off from, instantly blows a hole in the theory that the discussion on physics is 'centered here' but what do I know. People on this side of the forum are jumping up and down the streets like its VE Day.
I dunno, as long as GT continues to trot out 'The Real Driving Simulator' as an advertising tag line while FF vehicles drive nothing even resembling FWD cars in reality, even if it is a simcade title, then it's not exactly a great state of affairs. But what do I know?
- 444
- Sweden
Am I the only one automatically ignoring the opinions of everyone using the term "simcade" about anything at all?
- 4,458
- Vancouver, BC
- GTP_Grand_Prix
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,156
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Not automatically, as that assumes it's being used as a pejorative, which may or may not be the case.
While it's not a term I tend to use myself, the fact remains that on it's own the term Sim covers a very wide spectrum of things, and it's quite natural that people would want to further subdivide it. If we take the dictionary definition of a simulation it sets no upper or lower limit on accuracy of the simulation (however the upper limit could be argued to be a 1:1 with reality), however it does set reality as the 'bench-mark' (not GT as some would like).
Given that it's perfectly valid to argue that the likes of Grid (2019), Driveclub and Dirt 5 are simulations, as they meet the definition of "a particular set of conditions is created artificially in order to study or experience something that could exist in reality". Now it's possible to argue that the absurd tail-happy nature of Grid (2019) or the multiple simplifications in Dirt 5 preclude them under the "could exist in reality" part. However, that would then exclude both the GT series and FM/FH series for similar reasons.
However we then have the secondary definition of Simulation which is "the act of pretending that something is real when it is not", which lets be honest doesn't help matters at all, as now the issues around Grid (2019), Dirt 5, GT, FM/FH, etc. now all go away, but we've now just opened the door even wider and, oh look what comes wandering in the door, it's Micro Machines, Hot Wheels Unleashed, Burnout, etc. All now meeting this definition if someone/anyone, is happy to act as if they are real!
As such simply ignoring anyone who uses a term you object to, simply because you assume it's a pejorative runs into all sorts of issues around exactly what we define as a sim, and how we then categorise them. I tend to prefer the term Sim-Lite, but I'm quite sure that would also be seen by some as a pejorative, despite that not being my intention at all!
Discussion forums are going to contain discussion and if we all agreed on everything they would die out rather quickly.
That said, if blatant miss-information (such as the premise of this very thread) needs correction, and for that I will not apologise. I will also be at the front of the queue to congratulate PD if they fix it (and other issues the series has - as do all series) in GT7!
Last edited:
- 13,830
- Adelaide
- Neomone
I mean, you can ignore whoever you like. But it's useful to have a shorthand term to describe games that have physics that are neither the developers best attempt at recreating an accurate simulation of real life (ie. simulation) nor physics that are designed completely around gameplay with little to no relation to the real world at all (ie. arcade).
Obviously, there's also a spectrum within this, with stuff like GT and Forza towards the more simulation end and stuff like Horizon and Dirt 5 more towards the arcade end.
If you wanna suggest better names then go for it, but there's a definite spectrum across the hardcore sims, GT/FM, FH/Dirt/Grid, and NfS/Burnout.
This isn't a novel concept, and it's worth having. It allows games like GT to be correctly categorised as good simcade games, instead of bad simulations or bad arcade racers.
What are forums for? Echo chambers to reinforce the opinions you already hold? That would be boring af.
- 29,970
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
I don't particularly like the term simcade, it doesn't really have a set defintion and I tend to think more of titles much less realistic than Gran Turimo when I hear that term. To me, Gran Turismo is a sim, it aims for realism, it's just not the most accurate sim out there and has a few glaring issues which I'd be very happy if they fixed.
As for @TS050's comment, I may have read it wrong, but I took it as sarcasm.
As for @TS050's comment, I may have read it wrong, but I took it as sarcasm.
- 3,157
- United Kingdom
- ask
It was, though it's no big deal if a few took it a little more seriously than others. Sarcasm can be hard to infer through text
🤷♂️
I'm aware. Honestly I thought the thread was a trainwreck from the get-go with the misinformation surrounding the physics engine but I didn't say anything as I felt like people had kinda already said everything that had to be said. I didn't want to feel like I was beating a dead horse or attacking OP.
Last edited:
- 1,167
- Paradera
- SDSPOWER01
It's kinda different the way I see it, it feels more like he keeps digging his own grave. As people acknowledged he knew some certain degree of physical behavior but yet fail to further explain what he meant or moving the goalpoast each time he's asked to explain.
And well if you started an argument that cannot be backed up by facts or actual human experience of others I would say back off and humble yourself if you dont want to get further embarrased by others who knows more than you.
It feels like a kid trying to argue with teachers on a subject that the they know all to well and I feel bad for him not gonna lie.
Silver Arrows
(Banned)
- 4,715
- Brandon, MB
- Silver-Arrows21
It can be a valid term, and to be quite honest, is the best term to describe games like GT and Forza, and especially PGR, which aren't wholly arcade titles, but have enough nuance and realism in their handling models to fall within the borderlands between sim and arcade. The fact it has been used as a pejorative, often times by exclusively sim racers, is not an indictment on the usefulness of the term. And if you're going to ignore people's opinions (that both GT and Forza, as currently described, are nowhere near sim and fit into the middle ground between sim and arcade) because of the terms used, well I won't stop you, but I certainly can point out that it is throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Similar threads
