Non-linear throttle

[Pfei]

Small, but still noticable adjustment towards throttle linearity has been made in GT-R gr3 (should be same for all cars).

I think you're right. Last night I was doing Manu practice at Interlagos and tonight I did some more laps and I could feel a difference.

G29 here.

 

[OutlawQuadrnt]

I checked my throttle input just now and nothing has changed. It is still important to keep trying to work on throttle management anyways. My recent Nations race is a good example of this as the Lancer required constant feeding of power to keep the turbo spooled up and carrying momentum through the corners.



Notice how my throttle bar is often jerky. Again, I don't have finite control and so this is about the best I can do as it stands.

 

[Haitauer]

Raising this thread up as once again non-linear throttle is a slight issue. Battling Ford GT LM out of the current race C Tokyo last corner shows the issue. (for some reason non-linearity was not a problem for me pre GT LM.. )

Then last night I had an idea. I doupt PDI couldnt fix this linearity, but is it that its crucial to keep DS4 competitive vs wheel? By hindering the throttle control?

Im already annoyed by the jumpy direction changes / unrealistic grip in direction changes the DS4 drivers have. Not easy to drive side by side in a curve when the oter guy is doing zikzak..

 

[Mr616]

Raising this thread up as once again non-linear throttle is a slight issue. Battling Ford GT LM out of the current race C Tokyo last corner shows the issue. (for some reason non-linearity was not a problem for me pre GT LM.. )

Then last night I had an idea. I doupt PDI couldnt fix this linearity, but is it that its crucial to keep DS4 competitive vs wheel? By hindering the throttle control?

Im already annoyed by the jumpy direction changes / unrealistic grip in direction changes the DS4 drivers have. Not easy to drive side by side in a curve when the oter guy is doing zikzak..

Someone posted earlier in this thread (I think) about mounting a small piece of foam to the back of the throttle. There is about 15% dead area at full throttle. I mean you hit full throttle with 15% travel left on your pedal.

Not only does the foam give a more progressive feel, it helps take the feel of non linear feel away, as the foam doesn't give you the full pedal travel, but still gives you full throttle in the game.

It's not perfect, but doing this has helped my throttle application. Maybe give it a try?

 

[Haitauer]

Someone posted earlier in this thread (I think) about mounting a small piece of foam to the back of the throttle. There is about 15% dead area at full throttle. I mean you hit full throttle with 15% travel left on your pedal.

Not only does the foam give a more progressive feel, it helps take the feel of non linear feel away, as the foam doesn't give you the full pedal travel, but still gives you full throttle in the game.

It's not perfect, but doing this has helped my throttle application. Maybe give it a try?

To me the deadzone is not the problem, but rather how throttles last 1/3 or so is a lot more sensitive / shorter travel. Pushing pedal down with slow steady speed results throttle applying a lot faster after 2/3 or so.. One can see this also in "throttle bar". This results in Ford GT LM breaking loose..

 

[RoadBeef]

It would be lovely to have an explanation from PD about this. To have linearity in GT6 and the GT:S demo only to apply non-linearity to the GT:S release version does smack of either deliberate compromise or, worse, programming incompetence.

If it has to do with equalizing DS4 and wheel users, just come out and say it.

They could potentially salvage this situation by applying realistic, individual throttle maps to each vehicle. Others in this thread have pointed out how although linearity makes sense for us simulation hobbyists so our experience is consistent, the real world has differing results. This could serve PD well for their quote unquote real driving simulator. Separating cable-linked older vehicle throttles from drive-by-wire newer vehicle throttles would be a great first step. Then we enter the dimension of part-throttle carburetor whistles... hghkglklkl

 

[Mr616]

To me the deadzone is not the problem, but rather how throttles last 1/3 or so is a lot more sensitive / shorter travel. Pushing pedal down with slow steady speed results throttle applying a lot faster after 2/3 or so.. One can see this also in "throttle bar". This results in Ford GT LM breaking loose..

I get your point and understand. The foam acts as a push back, so as you ress the last % of throttle it has a slightly different feel, and also cancels out that extra pedal travel that does nothing in terms of more speed. May be worth trying.

Its not a fix. Just an improvement on what we have.

No worries if this isn't what you're looking for.

 

[BreakerOhio]

It would be lovely to have an explanation from PD about this. To have linearity in GT6 and the GT:S demo only to apply non-linearity to the GT:S release version does smack of either deliberate compromise or, worse, programming incompetence.

If it has to do with equalizing DS4 and wheel users, just come out and say

My guess it has to do with equalizing DS4 and wheel users as Ive notice the game has other poor nuances to it that are a step back from their past work. The game has to make sacrifices to the wheel and driving so the game can cater to a larger group of DS4 pad users and style of driving.

 

[Groundfish]

I just checked my bar after reading this thread.
It’s not infinite linearity. From half to full throttle technically it seems to be many very fine steps. I used my hand to test modulation response.
To me I see no issue except my own foot coordination which is getting better with time. It’s not like there’s only 3 finite throttle positions between half and full. Personally have no issue needing foam either.
Although I do have stronger springs I put in to give better feel. Can’t remember what the springs were like stock since it’s been so long since I took it apart. Don’t even know dimensions of what I put in anymore. Ordered them from an industrial supplier.
T300 stock 2 pedal set that came with it.
For me the modulation is plenty fine enough. Gotta make sure the pots are kept clean once in a while.
If you’re not mechanically inclined those stock ones are kind of a pain to disassemble and reassemble but mine have a lot of miles and still goin...
For me infinite modulation would make no difference at all. The pedal/game is capable of finer control than I am at my current skill.
I think if you have pedal problems whereby throttle doesn’t come off full until long pedal travel or something something you should check things out. Sticking foam in meh. I wouldn’t do it.
Spring weight is key imo. Plus the pedals need to remain solidly fixed as you drive just like the wheel.

 

[Haitauer]

It’s not like there’s only 3 finite throttle positions between half and full.

For me infinite modulation would make no difference at all.

Did you test resolution or linearity. I dont think theres much problem with resolution - "steps" between half and full. The linearity issue is the change in response. If you push the pedal from 0 to 100% with slow steady speed, you notice the bar starts rising faster after half way. Meaning with steady motion you are applyin more acceleration in the same time vs 0 to 50%. Easy to notice with clutch on. Then again might be my t-gt.. Ill post a video later.

 

[Traks1]

No need to put yourself out for doubters @Haitauer. The throttle response on all pedal sets is exactly and uniquely as non linearly horrible in this game as you descibe it. It's an indisputable fact...like the Earth is not flat is a fact.

 

[Greycap]

I'd still like to know if the bar is showing throttle plate opening, percentage of power available, or something else.

Because if it's showing throttle plate opening it's working as it should, the power increases become exponentially smaller the more the throttle is opened and it would actually produce a pretty linear power delivery from the pedal to the wheels as the two curves would more or less cancel each other out. If it's showing the relative amount of power the engine is making - then we really do have a problem.

It could probably be tested with a car that has its top speed limited by aerodynamics (ie. lack of power) and a long enough straight. Doubling the speed takes eight times the power, thus the difference between 50% power and 100% power should be 25% or so - if it does 200 km/h at half power, it should do 250 km/h at full power. Finding that 50% power spot would answer quite a few questions, it may not be at 50% oif the throttle bar. On the other hand it may be there. Thus it has to be tested.

 

[Griffith500]

Yep, relatively easy and robust test, is that. Although I thought the relationship was quadratic: doubling the speed requires four times the power.

My suspicion is that it's the direct scale factor for the torque. The throttle curve is not soft enough initially and too steep towards full throttle to be a pure cosine curve (throttle plate area vs. angle), it seems closer to a circular arc.

 

[Outspacer]

Isn't that missing the point a bit? People don't complain here because of the on-screen graphic, they complain that throttle is needlessly difficult to control in the 50% to 100% range. The on-screen graphic just matches that bad experience.

 

[Groundfish]

I wonder if anything varies between cars. The bar is throttle percentage. If you do as I did and put a gr4 car on there and find a spot on track and very slowly move the pedal by hand you see that the bar matches your move.
Also you can see the level of skill it takes to use your foot and accomplish the task as well as your hand. There’s no bar jump indicating lack of matching response between on screen bar and pedal move.
I only tried one car, twice now same result. The bar matches the pedal with many fine ‘steps’
Although I have disassembled and reassembled my pedal set so maybe that is somehow different from some?
Never did the test because seemed to work right...
Now potentiometers are devices that can get jumpy response so I could definitely see the issue occurring. They need to be clean and free from corrosion/damage.
I’ve seen industrial control pots become problematic and require replacement. Not common, but can happen.

 

[Greycap]

Yep, relatively easy and robust test, is that. Although I thought the relationship was quadratic: doubling the speed requires four times the power.

I originally thought so too but all the sources I found when checking it said that it's cubic. It makes sense though, a 150 bhp car doing 200 km/h won't do 400 km/h with 600 bhp.

 

[Haitauer]

find a spot on track

Did you do the test with accelerating/moving car or stationary? While moving the slower acceleration might affect the result. I tested this stationary with clutch or with gr3 using brake as a clutch.



Steady speed pedal from 0 to 100%. By hand if anyone wonders.

Also started to wonder, if this is not a pedal travel linearity problem, but a code related to traction and/or revlimiter. Seems i only struggle with nonlinearity when traction is lost. What if input changes for some reason when theres no resistance. If the code/modeling doesnt understand what to do at that point - like a forced broken traction- / stabilitycontrol. Would also explain the terrible traction loss/gain modeling in GTS..

This conspiracy theory of mine needs more research.

 

[Griffith500]

I originally thought so too but all the sources I found when checking it said that it's cubic. It makes sense though, a 150 bhp car doing 200 km/h won't do 400 km/h with 600 bhp.

Ah yes, the drag force is quadratic in speed, but that force is acted against by the engine's power over a distance (force * distance = work) and at a given rate (work / time = power), the distance / time aspect of which is effectively another instance of speed - hence cubic!

Thanks!

Isn't that missing the point a bit? People don't complain here because of the on-screen graphic, they complain that throttle is needlessly difficult to control in the 50% to 100% range. The on-screen graphic just matches that bad experience.

You could go by pedal voltage instead.

 

[Outspacer]

You could go by pedal voltage instead.

I started responding to @Greycap , but it seemed to fit your post as well so I didn't edit

I'm sure PD thought they were doing something clever, whatever it was, but when a lot of people find it problematic modulating throttle out of corners it's pretty clear to me that PD made the wrong choice (IMO). That experience matches the graphic, and we know that pedal voltage compared to the graphic shows a fairly extreme curve being applied, so putting those together we already know that that curve is GTS's overall response to throttle, pretty much.

Throttle opening - in my car at least, the throttle body has a cam with decreasing radius, so the cable opens the throttle plate faster at the loud end. This makes the overall response more linear. (How linear? I dunno, but it's easily controllable).

 

[Haitauer]

cable opens the throttle plate faster at the loud end. This makes the overall response more linear.

Seems PDI tried to be clever by simulating the nonlinear nature of the throttle plate as a nerdy detail, but forgot their power output / throttle response code was already linear unlike in real world and ended up messing things up.. 👍

 

[Griffith500]

I started responding to @Greycap , but it seemed to fit your post as well so I didn't edit

I'm sure PD thought they were doing something clever, whatever it was, but when a lot of people find it problematic modulating throttle out of corners it's pretty clear to me that PD made the wrong choice (IMO). That experience matches the graphic, and we know that pedal voltage compared to the graphic shows a fairly extreme curve being applied, so putting those together we already know that that curve is GTS's overall response to throttle, pretty much.

Throttle opening - in my car at least, the throttle body has a cam with decreasing radius, so the cable opens the throttle plate faster at the loud end. This makes the overall response more linear. (How linear? I dunno, but it's easily controllable).

Yes, it seems pretty self-evident, but it's all still somewhat subjective, so the test would be a nice concrete proof of what the torque output looks like relative to the throttle meter. Well, it'd be the power curve first - we'd need to log engine speed as well as road speed to get the torque output. That starts to get a bit complicated in terms of gear selection etc., but not disastrously so - are there any CVT vehicles in the game?


I personally think the throttle mapping was intended to stave off the complaints from unskilled wheel users getting beaten by pad players, as compared to the actual professionals competing at the higher levels who will just get on with it (and probably generally be faster with a wheel anyway), and remark that it's the same mapping across all controllers. Because the whole theme of Sport, and indeed the entire racing genre of late (or all of mainstream gaming, or popular society), has been one of player pretence facilitated by ego stroking, which is a little fraught in the reality check that is online competition...

 

[Outspacer]

Yes, it seems pretty self-evident, but it's all still somewhat subjective, so the test would be a nice concrete proof of what the torque output looks like relative to the throttle meter. Well, it'd be the power curve first - we'd need to log engine speed as well as road speed to get the torque output. That starts to get a bit complicated in terms of gear selection etc., but not disastrously so - are there any CVT vehicles in the game?

Subjective, but only to a degree. For all the theories, virtually nobody is claiming it comes out linear in overall response. So I'm thinking that while you might find that the overall curve is either less or more extreme than the pedal voltage vs on-screen graphic curve, I think it's fairly objective to say by now that it will be a similar curve that sits below the linear line.

But by all means, go ahead with some tests Beware that results could be invalid if PD have fudged their drag calculations at all. Another idea would be an acceleration test, say start at 50 mph next to a pit entry and check the speed when passing the start line (or the pit exit), with various throttle applications (25%, 50%, 75%, 100% ... on the pedal, not the graphic). It shouldn't need to be a measured distance to get useful relative results, as long as the car can handle full throttle from the starting speed.

I personally think the throttle mapping was intended to stave off the complaints from unskilled wheel users getting beaten by pad players, as compared to the actual professionals competing at the higher levels who will just get on with it (and probably generally be faster with a wheel anyway), and remark that it's the same mapping across all controllers. Because the whole theme of Sport, and indeed the entire racing genre of late (or all of mainstream gaming, or popular society), has been one of player pretence facilitated by ego stroking, which is a little fraught in the reality check that is online competition...

I absolutely don't buy that conspiracy theory! If anything it would be a sop to pad users, by hobbling the extra control that a pedal gives. But not buying that either.

 

[Groundfish]

Did you do the test with accelerating/moving car or stationary? While moving the slower acceleration might affect the result. I tested this stationary with clutch or with gr3 using brake as a clutch.



Steady speed pedal from 0 to 100%. By hand if anyone wonders.

Also started to wonder, if this is not a pedal travel linearity problem, but a code related to traction and/or revlimiter. Seems i only struggle with nonlinearity when traction is lost. What if input changes for some reason when theres no resistance. If the code/modeling doesnt understand what to do at that point - like a forced broken traction- / stabilitycontrol. Would also explain the terrible traction loss/gain modeling in GTS..

This conspiracy theory of mine needs more research.

Why did you move through the travel so quickly? The test I did takes maybe 15-20 seconds to get from o pedal travel to floored.
The thing you test is pedal position to bar position. Pedal move to bar move. Try it. Very difficult to do each step of the bar and hold and move in finite steps stopping at each one, but by doing it you can see resolution.
Move as slowly as you can and watch the bar. On mine I saw 1 to 1 relationship from pedal position to bar position. There’s plenty of small steps between 0 to 100 percent throttle you need to move the pedal very very slowly to show it not just smash it. Smashing it can be done with your foot and that’s my whole point.
It’s actually hard to move slow enough to show the resolution. That’s what I am talking about.
It’s part of why better skilled players are faster.

 

[FPV MIC]

Why did you move through the travel so quickly? The test I did takes maybe 15-20 seconds to get from o pedal travel to floored.
The thing you test is pedal position to bar position. Pedal move to bar move. Try it. Very difficult to do each step of the bar and hold and move in finite steps stopping at each one, but by doing it you can see resolution.
Move as slowly as you can and watch the bar. On mine I saw 1 to 1 relationship from pedal position to bar position. There’s plenty of small steps between 0 to 100 percent throttle you need to move the pedal very very slowly to show it not just smash it. Smashing it can be done with your foot and that’s my whole point.
It’s actually hard to move slow enough to show the resolution. That’s what I am talking about.
It’s part of why better skilled players are faster.

I don't think it's possible to move slowly enough to see the resolution of your pedals. Standard two pedal Thrustmaster pedals are 10 bit, that means they have 1024 steps.

This (in the image below) is what the issue others, and myself, are saying. 75% throttle equals 50% in game throttle, which makes it very hard to control the last 50%.

Check this video from the OP.

 

[Oshawa-Joe]

My head is spinning now, but the brake input is still non-linear. Not that complicated. Why make it so.

 

[Griffith500]

Subjective, but only to a degree. For all the theories, virtually nobody is claiming it comes out linear in overall response. So I'm thinking that while you might find that the overall curve is either less or more extreme than the pedal voltage vs on-screen graphic curve, I think it's fairly objective to say by now that it will be a similar curve that sits below the linear line.

But by all means, go ahead with some tests Beware that results could be invalid if PD have fudged their drag calculations at all. Another idea would be an acceleration test, say start at 50 mph next to a pit entry and check the speed when passing the start line (or the pit exit), with various throttle applications (25%, 50%, 75%, 100% ... on the pedal, not the graphic). It shouldn't need to be a measured distance to get useful relative results, as long as the car can handle full throttle from the starting speed.

They only use torque outputs in the simulation, not power, so it's likely that the forces will be properly time-integrated and the maths will maths itself without issue. The downforce figures, and absolute "drag" that they give rise to, in the game might not be "accurate", but the change in drag from one speed to another will follow the square law. All good.

The acceleration tests are too unreliable due to the variation in torque (power) output with rpm and so issues with accounting for a non-constant acceleration rate and non constant drag just make it unusable and needlessly complicated.


Oh, in case anyone is waiting for me to do these tests, my PS4 is in need of a backup restore thanks to corrupting itself (NP-36006-5). Which I can't really be bothered with wrestling with external drives I don't currently possess in order to sort just now.

I absolutely don't buy that conspiracy theory! If anything it would be a sop to pad users, by hobbling the extra control that a pedal gives. But not buying that either.

It's easier to drive around it with a pedal than the pad, certainly. Especially a nice, expensive, GT-branded pedal (I jest).

This is far from the first time PD have made weird decisions in the name of bringing "parity" between controllers, though. Go check out the "fix the clutch" threads, for instance. I don't think it matters whose favour it goes in, the fact is that PD have done it and still do it. And it is only in response to player frustration - PD's first go at H-pattern-with-clutch was flawless, if you had a H-shifter...

 

[Groundfish]

In response to the 1024 bit guy. The pedal itself for mine anyway is quite simple. It’s just a potentiometer.
So within the wheel, there’s an analog to digital conversion which makes 1024 steps available to be output to an external device.
Does get sport use all of those? I kinda doubt it, but don’t know.
The fella who posted that his throttle plate had a decreasing radius cam was on to an important point relating to throttle plate itself. That’s basically a butterfly valve on the ones I have seen.
If you look at a butterfly valve flow curve you find out that it’s not a straight line.
At less than 20% Open it’s very high gain, meaning that very small moves result in relatively large change in flow. As the valve opens towards full the curve flattens. A relatively large move makes a smaller increase. The cam shape talked about provides the response relative to pedal move that the engines designers desired for whatever reason.
Regardless of ones position on what the response is. The bar is a graphic representation of what the game sees as pedal position. That’s obvious.
I have no idea if diff cars differ within the game or what have you, I do know this though. Anything done by the games engineers was done that way for some reason.
If I suspend my own disbelief for a second and assume the ops assertions are true, I understand them as this:
effectively the premise is that you have more more ability to make small change in throttle at less than fifty percent.
IF that’s true let’s look at it the other way. What driveability benefit would that provide? Controllability during times when you are around apex. Theoretically, if you are at limit, at only one small point during the corner is your effective traction circle maximized laterally. The rest of the time, you are either accelerating or decelerating which requires a longitudinal component of the traction circle.
Would it be a benefit to have more controllability at either edge of max lateral grip? I think it would and the cars in the game love trail braking in many situations and a real life guy like Ross Bentley argues that all fast race drivers trail brake to some extent.
The game punishes improper relationship of steering angle to throttle just like real cars do. In almost all cases if you are doing anything with the wheel past apex aside from unwinding it there’s a problem with your driving technique/line/speed control wise. So if you are driving the limit in a corner on corner exit the tires are transitioning from max lateral grip on traction circle at apex to longitudinal grip which allows throttle input. There’s a transition time when the longitudinal and lateral parts of the circle are overlapping. So, during that time when you are closest to having next to no grip longitudinally to getting more as you accelerate it would be advantageous to have very fine control of throttle during the overlap period. By the time you are at fifty percent of throttle you SHOULD be able to go almost directly to full in most cases IF you are in the racing line and IF they chose to make the throttle map the way they did because of this reason, It would make sense. That’s IF the ops complaint is real. So that’s all theory, but it’s important to remember that the people designing the game are not stupid. Everything is done for a reason.
If they had to make a choice between more controllability at part opening of throttle or more control from the 70-80 range imo they made the only logical decision based on proper driving at the limit (which I can’t often do in game, nor can almost anyone, which is a perfect reflection of the reality of the limit.
On corner exit by the time you have enough grip to get on it and are in best line it should be floored. Furthermore, if you overdo the limit or are out of best line and have to lift a bit to transfer weight forward at turn in to avoid going wide off track, then it’s advantageous there too, lifting from 100-92 percent say is not enough. In that situation you need instant response. If you had more throw from 60-100 percent your control in that condition would be lessened because of the time and amount of travel required.
Basically the op is saying due to less modulation between 50-100 percent it’s harder. But, if you took that throw and changed it to what he wants you would have less control at the more critical times right near maximum lateral grip at apex. That is far more critical than say from 82-91 percent throttle opening. IMO you should be floored at that point anyway theoretically if you are driving the limit perfectly.
In other words, if I were designing a game and had to choose a throttle map to make a race car perform best AND be most controllable at the limit and near it I would do what he’s saying it is.
I think it’s silly to try to say that the games engineers did something without reasons is all. Engineers of any type don’t just do things. There is always a reason.
The more I really think about it, it would make a lot of sense to have more control from zero to fifty percent throttle. Maybe the pedal does do that.
At any rate it’s an interesting topic when you apply some thought and don’t simply keep shouting into the white noise of the internet that there’s something wrong. Maybe there’s something very RIGHT.
If you have made it this far in this post congratulations. You are probably more patient than I am.

 

[Traks1]

Appreciate your in depth post @Groundfish. I read every word...honest I did but however one wants to descibe PD's implementation of throttle response, linear, a bit linear, not at all linear, etc, it is not "normal", fun or satisfying for a racing game to use whatever it is regardless of what PD might think are good reasons for doing so. No other driving game I have ever played has given me any cause to give the slightest attention whatsoever to throttle response in the way that GTS does. It's just wrong. Simples.

 

[Outspacer]

They only use torque outputs in the simulation, not power, so it's likely that the forces will be properly time-integrated and the maths will maths itself without issue. The downforce figures, and absolute "drag" that they give rise to, in the game might not be "accurate", but the change in drag from one speed to another will follow the square law. All good.

The acceleration tests are too unreliable due to the variation in torque (power) output with rpm and so issues with accounting for a non-constant acceleration rate and non constant drag just make it unusable and needlessly complicated.

Fair enough, it was just another idea in case the first one didn't work out. I guess the top speed test done with gearbox adjustments should be able to get close to the same RPM at top speed for the various tests, even when using limited throttle.

A comparison of just three cases could give useful initial data: max throttle, throttle limited to 75% pedal travel (which ends up around 50% on the graphic), and throttle limited to 75% on the graphic. Then compare with what 75% torque would do to the original max speed. If it's not close to either then there's something else that needs to be considered.

It's easier to drive around it with a pedal than the pad, certainly. Especially a nice, expensive, GT-branded pedal (I jest).

Many a true word spoken in jest... T-GT has better FFB, why not a better pedal?!

This is far from the first time PD have made weird decisions in the name of bringing "parity" between controllers, though. Go check out the "fix the clutch" threads, for instance. I don't think it matters whose favour it goes in, the fact is that PD have done it and still do it. And it is only in response to player frustration - PD's first go at H-pattern-with-clutch was flawless, if you had a H-shifter...

I could read that (again), but I suspect I wouldn't find evidence that PD did it for any particular reason, let alone 'parity'.

 

[Griffith500]

Fair enough, it was just another idea in case the first one didn't work out. I guess the top speed test done with gearbox adjustments should be able to get close to the same RPM at top speed for the various tests, even when using limited throttle.

A comparison of just three cases could give useful initial data: max throttle, throttle limited to 75% pedal travel (which ends up around 50% on the graphic), and throttle limited to 75% on the graphic. Then compare with what 75% torque would do to the original max speed. If it's not close to either then there's something else that needs to be considered.

No need to match gears, just note the rpm and speed at the same time. It needs to be more fine grained than just 50, 75 and 100% ideally. That's where pedal voltages come in.

Many a true word spoken in jest... T-GT has better FFB, why not a better pedal?!

I could read that (again), but I suspect I wouldn't find evidence that PD did it for any particular reason, let alone 'parity'.

Back in GT5 Prologue, anyone using sequential gears got left in the dust in standing starts and generally on the straights by anyone using the H-pattern, this because of GT's now-famed rev-matched gear changes, up as well as down. That's when the "checks" were introduced: no flat shifting, no second gear allowed in less than x time since deselecting first. Here we are today with the same problems that were once deliberately added for "parity".