Potato...

[VFOURMAX1]

Agree, this is simple math for PD. But where it gets a little more complicated is--the FIA and eSports. Unfortunately, if you are truly assessing the numbers and the potential success of eSports--you have to be mindful of how to acquire participation from the broader Motorsports community that already exists. These folks hold vast marketing potential and what they thirst for--and pay for--is NOT ARCADE. This isn't theoretical physics, it isn't calculus, it's basic arithmetic.

If PD aspires to be THE eSports franchise, then it needs to have a serious and credible approach to enticing new fans to join.

I have been thinking about this and I question what actually is the target audience that PD wants to acquire on the e-sports end and exactly what are the "sponsors" looking to gain from investing in the e-sports games.

My guess is for the real world sanctioning bodies that cost are going up and events fan attendance is declining, younger generations care less about motorsports than probably any time in the last 60 years but that younger generation is the future customers and they do like video games. So those sanctioning bodies are looking for new ways to keep the corporate dollars flowing into their coffers.

I am guessing that PD is still going after the average person and trying to get them interested in racing. The car companies are using this median with the younger generation to get them to prefer and support a particular brand which hopefully will cross over into some when they purchase a real car.

Might not buy a Supra but might buy a Corolla as its still a Toyota sort of thing.

Think about it, how many people today have at their disposal the extra funds to even club race a real car? Even the dirt tracks and drag strips are losing numbers just because of the sheer cost to participate.

E-sports I think still wants to cash in on that "interest" and PD is targeting mainly those starting out, if they want to succeed they do need to separate the classes of drivers and build feeder championships to the higher "alien" class racers.

But first they have to have sufficient numbers playing Sport mode consistently to pull that off and I think that world wide those Sport mode player numbers compared to game sales show they need to make the product (online) more appealing to larger numbers of players.

I disagree wholeheartedly with your sentimentality concerning GTS. If what you suggest is correct we wouldn’t have Forza being as visually appealing as it is while having proper road surfacing...or at least what translates through the controller/wheel as what feels/appears to be.

Again you are trying to compare games on different platforms as to how one can do this and why the other one cannot do the same thing.
If they were on the same platform then you could realistically compare the little differences in why one can do this and the other one cannot.

In fact, I’m being very clear here....PD may have the same system resources but I can assure you they have more man power /financial resources than the creators of AC

No matter what resources they have as company when dealing with system resources when those resources are gone and used up it makes no difference. You could live in a 10 bedroom mansion and I could live in a carboard box but if we both have 1.00 dollar in our pocket to spend on breakfast we both have the same limitations as to what we can do with that dollar.

If they were in it for a casual thrill there are FAR more appealing titles from Need for Speed to Forza with assists to Drive Club

PD is owned by Sony, Sony is looking to make a profit out of the game that PD makes.

PD may have a vision but you best believe that many of the decisions made are made in the interest of selling games.

I doubt very seriously in the board room that PD says we do not want those casual customers where we will sell several million copies of a game but we will make a hardcore sim that we will be lucky to sell 1 million copies.

Sony is in this business to make money and whatever makes them the most overall while retaining customers to buy future editions of the franchise will be the path they follow.

 

[IncredibleMind]

I have been thinking about this and I question what actually is the target audience that PD wants to acquire on the e-sports end and exactly what are the "sponsors" looking to gain from investing in the e-sports games.

My guess is for the real world sanctioning bodies that cost are going up and events fan attendance is declining, younger generations care less about motorsports than probably any time in the last 60 years but that younger generation is the future customers and they do like video games. So those sanctioning bodies are looking for new ways to keep the corporate dollars flowing into their coffers.

I am guessing that PD is still going after the average person and trying to get them interested in racing. The car companies are using this median with the younger generation to get them to prefer and support a particular brand which hopefully will cross over into some when they purchase a real car.

Might not buy a Supra but might buy a Corolla as its still a Toyota sort of thing.

Think about it, how many people today have at their disposal the extra funds to even club race a real car? Even the dirt tracks and drag strips are losing numbers just because of the sheer cost to participate.

E-sports I think still wants to cash in on that "interest" and PD is targeting mainly those starting out, if they want to succeed they do need to separate the classes of drivers and build feeder championships to the higher "alien" class racers.

But first they have to have sufficient numbers playing Sport mode consistently to pull that off and I think that world wide those Sport mode player numbers compared to game sales show they need to make the product (online) more appealing to larger numbers of players.



Again you are trying to compare games on different platforms as to how one can do this and why the other one cannot do the same thing.
If they were on the same platform then you could realistically compare the little differences in why one can do this and the other one cannot.



No matter what resources they have as company when dealing with system resources when those resources are gone and used up it makes no difference. You could live in a 10 bedroom mansion and I could live in a carboard box but if we both have 1.00 dollar in our pocket to spend on breakfast we both have the same limitations as to what we can do with that dollar.


PD is owned by Sony, Sony is looking to make a profit out of the game that PD makes.

PD may have a vision but you best believe that many of the decisions made are made in the interest of selling games.

I doubt very seriously in the board room that PD says we do not want those customers where we will sell several million copies of a game but we will make a hardcore sim that we will be lucky to sell 1 million copies.

Sony is in this business to make money and whatever makes them the most overall while retaining customers to buy future editions of the franchise will be the path they follow.

I respect your opinion. However I don’t think you’ve addressed anything that I’ve said in a relevant manner.

PD and the creators of AC DON’T have access to the same resources. It’s not even close as Sony supplies PD with far more DOLLARS than the creators of AC.

That said, I seriously doubt this is a resource issue. This is most likely an oversight on the part of the developers. IF it is a resource issue it’s a TIME issue and I’m sorry but missing something this basic is unforgivable.

I’m going to go a step further....the fact that the community has been silent on this gives PD no incentive. I personally think many haven’t noticed it as they’ve been playing it for so long. However, once it’s pointed out it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Bottom line...they should fix it. It doesn’t matter if another game is on the same platform or not....they are in competition with other racers/sims and not being on the same platform (PS4) is not even close to being a reasonable excuse for failing at basic track design.

As for the profit....it says it in very plain sight every time you boot up the game....the REAL DRIVING SIMULATOR. People aren’t stupid. They want the game to be as real as possible in it’s translation from 2d screen to the controller/wheel without actually being in a real car. How can you make such a claim when you can’t even properly model a surface to drive on? What’s crazy about this is that no one can actually disagree with this observable and undeniable fact.

To go even further, the sales of this title have dropped off for a reason, even beyond the fact that it doesn’t have a proper single player. I just told you why I shut it off and I’m sure I’m far from the only.

At the end of the day, I just want the game to reach it’s full potential so I HOPE no diehard GT fans think I’m blindly attacking.



Look at the way the cars on Brand Hatch undulate over the somewhat freshly paved surface. I hope PD is already aware of this oversight. However, if not I hope they see this and FIX it. I legitimately thought the game was hopeless when I first purchased it but upon rebooting it after the updates I do see the studio has pride and actually are trying to make this the REAL DRIVING SIMULATOR they claim it to be.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

I respect your opinion. However I don’t think you’ve addressed anything that I’ve said in a relevant manner.

PD and the creators of AC DON’T have access to the same resources. It’s not even close as Sony supplies PD with far more DOLLARS than the creators of AC.

It makes no difference if you have 25 or 2500 people working in the studio and again it makes no difference if your studio has 500 million dollars or 5 million dollars.

When we are talking resources here it is about the amount of resources the PS4 platform has available to make the game operate.

Every game studio is even in what resources on a particular platform has available to work with before the hardware is maxed out. That resource amount does not change because one studio has more dollars or people behind it than another. On that level they are on an even playing field whether it is a big or small studio is what is actually irrelevant.

Again PD spends more system resources on eye candy and detailed car models. Those higher levels of detail to be rendered on your screen consume a bigger slice of the system resource pie than less detailed more cartoonish cars which leaves the smaller studio more of its system resources to spend rendering track surface detail and feedback in the wheel.

Either studio makes changes in one area may cause them to have to cut back another area to employ the newer change if that action requires more detail than what it replaced, hence additional system resources that had been previously allocated to something else.

I do not understand why you continue to say that just because PD is a bigger studio with a bigger bank account that they should be able to do more when they are limited by the PS4 hardware.

Again PD picked pretty and AC picked more detailed physics and FFB.

The limiting factor to building more into the game is the actual hardware limitations of the PS4 platform period.
Games that are ported to consoles from PC are content and feature limited not because the studio wants to sell the console player a lesser game but because the console is not powerful enough to run the full PC game on its available hardware.

 

[IncredibleMind]

It makes no difference if you have 25 or 2500 people working in the studio and again it makes no difference if your studio has 500 million dollars or 5 million dollars.

When we are talking resources here it is about the amount of resources the PS4 platform has available to make the game operate.

Every game studio is even in what resources on a particular platform has available to work with before the hardware is maxed out. That resource amount does not change because one studio has more dollars or people behind it than another. On that level they are on an even playing field whether it is a big or small studio is what is actually irrelevant.

Again PD spends more system resources on eye candy and detailed car models. Those higher levels of detail to be rendered on your screen consume a bigger slice of the system resource pie than less detailed more cartoonish cars which leaves the smaller studio more of its system resources to spend rendering track surface detail and feedback in the wheel.

Either studio makes changes in one area may cause them to have to cut back another area to employ the newer change if that action requires more detail than what it replaced, hence additional system resources that had been previously allocated to something else.

I do not understand why you continue to say that just because PD is a bigger studio with a bigger bank account that they should be able to do more when they are limited by the PS4 hardware.

Again PD picked pretty and AC picked more detailed physics and FFB.

The limiting factor to building more into the game is the actual hardware limitations of the PS4 platform period.
Games that are ported to consoles from PC are content and feature limited not because the studio wants to sell the console player a lesser game but because the console is not powerful enough to run the full PC game on its available hardware.

I’ll keep this simple...you’re 100% wrong. At this point unless I’m mistaken you aren’t even refuting anything I’m saying about the issue at hand.

As I’ve said, this is not a resource issue. This is an issue of design choice.

Hopefully someone from PD or other GT fans read this so it becomes an issue, because it can be corrected. First of all, the track modeling is fine as you can very, very subtly see the cars in GTS undulating under the non perfectly surfaced tracks.

However, the controller/wheel has an extreme dead zone so when you are driving straight you feel absolutely NOTHING. They need to convey the track surface to the CONTROLLER/screen more absolutely. Please address what I’m saying instead of making the claim that this is a resource issue.

The other extremely basic issue that’s closely related which has NOTHING to do with resources is the FOV. I’ll go into detail on this later. Again, it has NOTHING to do with resources.

 

[dabz343]

Incredible does make a strong case...not sure how much realism is appetizing, but surface detail could help in simulating subtle weight transitions, wait..that could lead to more immersion,......further, it could enhance distinct chassis characteristics...then a higher sense of car control,....


Make practical decisions on realism PD and build a purposeful game. Either play with the kids (and say goodbye to the FIA) or attract the fans who actually can afford a decent wheel setup...it's your game, own it.


Either way, make the best/authentic/intentional game that you can. You have decent resources, your capable, proven and an innovator. Innovate again. Find new ways to design your game by upping your game. Businesses that stare into their rearview sometimes suffer irreparable damage.

Check you gauges PD.

I do not understand why you continue to say that just because PD is a bigger studio with a bigger bank account that they should be able to do more when they are limited by the PS4 hardware.

You do understand that 2 class-A surface modelers are faster than 1 class-A surface modeler...#!#$^* lol

 

[VFOURMAX1]

You do understand that 2 class-A surface modelers are faster than 1 class-A surface modeler...#!#$^* lol

But my point is that it makes no difference in that once the surface modelers have put all in the game that the hardware can handle then you just have two class a surface modelers with their thumbs up their butt instead of one while still getting paid.

As I’ve said, this is not a resource issue. This is an issue of design choice.

Incredible does make a strong case...not sure how much realism is appetizing, but surface detail could help in simulating subtle weight transitions, wait..that could lead to more immersion,......further, it could enhance distinct chassis characteristics...then a higher sense of car control,....

And that is where that PD has chosen a direction that you do not think is the right way to go.

The difference being that today other titles have gone in different directions that have raised the bar as to what is capable of being accomplished on the physics side of the bar. Used to be that PD was king of the hill as their was no real competing titles to challenge it but now they thusfar still decide to stay the direction of pretty over physics.

Also even adding in more surface detail to better simulate weight transitions if the system resources are indeed maxed out at the games current level could result in needing to cut back on something else to accomplish that, something that currently PD is not willing to do.

My whole point is PD is trying to appeal to a broad audience and just because certain people do not like certain things does not make the studio wrong.
AC and Project Cars are both available on the PS4 platform, F1 2019 will be released in a couple of weeks.

There are sources on the PS4 that will give you the physics you desire, just GTS is not and on this generation console I doubt it will ever be what you are looking for physics wise.

Even the limited poll numbers on this thread seem to show that many people are okay with things as they are. Personally if I want the more sim experience I have quite a few titles that already deliver that to me.

But no title I own other than GTS gives me the in game livery editor or even the amount of detail in the cars modeling and the almost TV like replays of the races I run whether online or offline.

That end PD has hit it out of the park.

 

[Grand Prix]

They can still remove the comedy rear toe angles from cars, for a start. This what most people who don't tune are having an issue with. I understand why they add it as default, they don't want kids to spin their favorite Lambo all the time and quit the game in frustration, but tripling it from 0.2 in GT5/6 to 0.6 is just hilarious. On cars with solid rear axles even.

It's cool if you want to be like Oddball and focus on driving skills only. "I only ride them I don't know what makes them work." I was like this for many years.
Some basic tuning skills are good to have however, like removing comedy toe angles.

 

[IncredibleMind]

In advance I super apologize to any GT fans because I KNOW I sound super condescending but I promise I’m coming from a constructive standpoint.

1. Get in your car and start it up. The first thing you’ll notice is a slight or extreme vibration (depending on car model) in the steering wheel from the engine. On the controller/wheel this is non present. However, I accept this as the baseline. In an ideal world, PD isn’t concerned about battery life and you get a very, very slight humming feedback through the thumbstick.

2. Drive up the street.

It is UNDENIABLE that you feel some feedback from road irregularity (even if only slightly) through the steering wheel. This is not happening in GTS AT ALL or at minimum not enough to be realistic. Also, you are not getting a representative amount of visual feedback in GT despite the fact that the tracks were indeed laser scanned.

My personal opinion is that GT was rushed by Sony for financial reasons so on the initial delivery the road surface had zero bumps at all.
There is a chance they are adding these features in slowly but surely. Then again, maybe not.

Please GT fans, scream at PD to fix this. In my NEXT AND LAST post here until I finally and eventually immerse myself in the game....I’ll detail their FOV issue. Please get on PD about this. They are NOT idiots. That said, I legitimately think this studio is the equivalent of the genius who can’t even change a light bulb. At this point, in my opinion this game still isn’t ready for prime time.

On the FOV issue, this is FAR less problematic than the tarmac issues but I think there is value to be gained here. Go to your Advanced Settings under adjust cockpit view.

Adjust it to +5. Ok, that’s decent. However, it’s still not sufficient when it comes to relaying a 2D image to a real world representation where your PERIPHERAL vision will pick up the entire windshield.

Now turn the right stick ever so slightly to the right and you’ll get the entire windshield and a much better FOV. This is the type of option they SHOULD have had in the menu settings. Again, not as critical as the road surface but still notable.

 

[dabz343]

But my point is that it makes no difference in that once the surface modelers have put all in the game that the hardware can handle then you just have two class a surface modelers with their thumbs up their butt instead of one while still getting paid.

You're not suggesting that PD operationalizes a for-profit business where their modelers get to, as you put it--sit on their thumbs while getting paid?

Do you think Kaz is a clown?

 

[Lee x sensai]

My thoughts overall on people take new physics on this form. It none wrong answer from either one opinion. At the end of day PD and FIA just using the game as marketing ploy to the kids who don't have chance. As long they make money for doing it. They will keep using it and pushing it. You must look at the reality of thing if you only focus 1% player who use wheel. It would make player on DPad already disadvantage who play causally. The Average joe will not give crap about how physic and don't carter to them mostly move on to new thing. They can't afford thousands dollar wheel top all that. If you are the person in hardcore sim don't like it and give up on it. I understand since it not for you but there alway one person will take your spot using the advantage to start there careers there. Maybe the next person will be face Motorsport of community. Here the cold hard truth about sim racing is already niche and the community divide separate divisions already. The community tend argues which one is better and have fight. It will lead to more arguments it lead the new player leaving away. At the end of the day is about money and marketing. If FIA care about physic they should run rfactor 2 default only but they won't and they not stupid limit to the people who can't afford. Which mean it cut off the plan to bring new blood to the Motorsport community.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

You do understand that 2 class-A surface modelers are faster than 1 class-A surface modeler...#!#$^* lol

It makes no difference if you have 25 or 2500 people working in the studio and again it makes no difference if your studio has 500 million dollars or 5 million dollars.

When we are talking resources here it is about the amount of resources the PS4 platform has available to make the game operate.

You're not suggesting that PD operationalizes a for-profit business where their modelers get to, as you put it--sit on their thumbs while getting paid?

Do you think Kaz is a clown?

No my conversation regarding resources was about the system hardware abilities, you made the comment which actually had nothing to do with the subject matter about the 2 modelers being faster than one and my response was if there was no work to be done to the game because of the system being already maxed out then again why is having two modelers better than one if nothing for them to do?

I will say no one has ever accused PD of popping out new games quickly compared to other studios regardless of how many employees they may have or how big their budget may be!

 

[ScottPuss20]

I’ll keep this simple...you’re 100% wrong. At this point unless I’m mistaken you aren’t even refuting anything I’m saying about the issue at hand.

As I’ve said, this is not a resource issue. This is an issue of design choice.

Hopefully someone from PD or other GT fans read this so it becomes an issue, because it can be corrected. First of all, the track modeling is fine as you can very, very subtly see the cars in GTS undulating under the non perfectly surfaced tracks.

However, the controller/wheel has an extreme dead zone so when you are driving straight you feel absolutely NOTHING. They need to convey the track surface to the CONTROLLER/screen more absolutely. Please address what I’m saying instead of making the claim that this is a resource issue.

The other extremely basic issue that’s closely related which has NOTHING to do with resources is the FOV. I’ll go into detail on this later. Again, it has NOTHING to do with resources.

It most definitely is. PD don't want to make a hardcore simulator with GT Sport or it would be harder for people to approach. If they wanted to create a hardcore sim, they'd have to throw out the graphics, and that's always been the major drawcard of the game. PD's choice is to keep top quality graphics and not alter the physics to the point where only accustomed sim racers are comfortable.

 

[Groundfish]

I don’t know if it’s still advantageous in some cars to bang off money shift like engine blowing downshifts rapid fire using engine compression to break the rears loose and rotate the car better on entry, but I can’t stand seeing that in top laptimes and won’t ever drive like that personally even if it might be faster at times...

Sdi I agree it’s humorous you just said...
I find it quite funny, that those who defend 1:38 physics, also say that its realistic to use shiftlock to help car turn in corners

Wrote mine Monday but project mayhem had no idea what I was talking about until they saw it on you tube.

There’s something about this thread that doesn’t match the GT positive vibe. Seems like the toxicity is leaking in from the hardcore sim world. Like, we ain’t having it man.

 

[sdi_03]

On the FOV issue, this is FAR less problematic than the tarmac issues but I think there is value to be gained here. Go to your Advanced Settings under adjust cockpit view.

Adjust it to +5. Ok, that’s decent. However, it’s still not sufficient when it comes to relaying a 2D image to a real world representation where your PERIPHERAL vision will pick up the entire windshield.

Now turn the right stick ever so slightly to the right and you’ll get the entire windshield and a much better FOV. This is the type of option they SHOULD have had in the menu settings. Again, not as critical as the road surface but still notable.

Have you tested the FOV in 1:39 update? I think that it has changed.
Atleast in gr2 nsx, you now can see both front fenders.
Comparing to AC it lopks like the FOV is close to 55 deg.

Sdi I agree it’s humorous you just said...
I find it quite funny, that those who defend 1:38 physics, also say that its realistic to use shiftlock to help car turn in corners

Wrote mine Monday but project mayhem had no idea what I was talking about until they saw it on you tube.

There’s something about this thread that doesn’t match the GT positive vibe. Seems like the toxicity is leaking in from the hardcore sim world. Like, we ain’t having it man.

I was wondering the same thing, about the vibes.
I dont think that the 1:39 is perfect. No, but just dont see it as bad as the nay sayers.

As for the gearbanging, I can remember you critisizing that multiple times before this thread.
And its true, no one in real life would use it that way.
I have used shiftlock to initiate drift, but prefer handbrake or throttle more. Just to save the poor powerline.

 

[LeGeNd-1]

I was testing at Interlagos for the FIA Nations race in an N300 Ford GT40 and I shocked how well it handles. I thought I must be dreaming. Then I saw that the BOP in free lobby doesn't change your suspension/LSD/gearbox settings to default. I defaulted everything and it's back to handling poorly again.

So, I think there is some merit in people saying the new physics are better. It could be better, if you adjust the settings. Unfortunately however most online races run on the default settings which is terrible and unrealistic for the majority of cars.

The only car so far which I can honestly say is miles better after the update is the GR Supra. It's a complete 180 degree change in character from before and actually feels intuitive to drive. Coincidence? I think not. Why PD just couldn't tweak this single car's setup instead of changing the whole game's physics, I'll never know.

 

[Sander 001]

Get in your car and drive down the street and you will clearly feel and see that the idea of a vestibular system being accounted for is in the realm of believing Greek mythology is real.

The vestibular system is well established in medical science.

 

[breeminator]

So, I think there is some merit in people saying the new physics are better. It could be better, if you adjust the settings. Unfortunately however most online races run on the default settings which is terrible and unrealistic for the majority of cars.

The only car so far which I can honestly say is miles better after the update is the GR Supra. It's a complete 180 degree change in character from before and actually feels intuitive to drive. Coincidence? I think not. Why PD just couldn't tweak this single car's setup instead of changing the whole game's physics, I'll never know.

I can see how that might come about. We can assume they have very close contact with Toyota, so the car's setup might have been correct all along. The car drove like a dog in the game, so Toyota could have said "the setup is correct, the real car doesn't drive like that, therefore the game's physics are wrong". So, knowing the setup is correct, they go about changing the physics to make the car drive in the game like it does in real life. The only problem is most of the other cars probably don't have correct setups, and the setups were probably developed to make them drive okay with the old physics, so they now really need to change the default setups of many cars, but haven't done that yet. That is all pure speculation!

 

[IncredibleMind]

The vestibular system is well established in medical science.

I’m not denying that. However, claiming that GT is accounting for it isn’t true.

 

[Sander 001]

I’m not denying that. However, claiming that GT is accounting for it isn’t true.

One of the functions of the vestibular system is to smooth out bumps and jarring movements. Most other sims ignore that or forget about it but GT doesn't so you get the better experience .

 

[IncredibleMind]

One of the functions of the vestibular system is to smooth out bumps and jarring movements. Most other sims ignore that or forget about it but GT doesn't so you get the better experience .

Are you actually pranking me? Or are you really trying to convince yourself? I’ve driven in enough cars to know what you speak of is not true, certainly not to the extent that it is exemplified in GT Sport.

 

[Sander 001]

Are you actually pranking me? Or are you really trying to convince yourself? I’ve driven in enough cars to know what you speak of is not true, certainly not to the extent that it is exemplified in GT Sport.

It is for me. My vestibular system is in pretty good form so my vision isn’t jarred even on rough roads or very bad off road. Everybody is different but you can improve your VS.

Here are some exercises which can help

 

[Grand Prix]

I was testing at Interlagos for the FIA Nations race in an N300 Ford GT40 and I shocked how well it handles. I thought I must be dreaming. Then I saw that the BOP in free lobby doesn't change your suspension/LSD/gearbox settings to default. I defaulted everything and it's back to handling poorly again.

So, I think there is some merit in people saying the new physics are better. It could be better, if you adjust the settings. Unfortunately however most online races run on the default settings which is terrible and unrealistic for the majority of cars.

The only car so far which I can honestly say is miles better after the update is the GR Supra. It's a complete 180 degree change in character from before and actually feels intuitive to drive. Coincidence? I think not. Why PD just couldn't tweak this single car's setup instead of changing the whole game's physics, I'll never know.

See, this is what I was talking about. While the physics are far from perfect atm, some of the understeer can be mitigated with some tuning. The Mark 1 GT40 handles amazing in this game, can actually steer the car with the gas pedal. Looks great, sounds decent, good power, just a boss car all around.

 

[IncredibleMind]

It is for me. My vestibular system is in pretty good form so my vision isn’t jarred even on rough roads or very bad off road. Everybody is different but you can improve your VS.

Here are some exercises which can help

I get that you’re joking. However, in case you’re not I’ll explain what you think is going on. Your eyes will focus on something in the distance (another car/the horizon) and the extra movement will essentially be subjugated to your subcortical vision.

So NO, you won’t consciously feel or see all of the up and down movement as you go over the bumps as you drive but they are still there. There is absolutely no reason for GT to assume the role of your subconscious and remove the feedback or visuals because you will do it yourself anyway even as this movement is happening on a 2D screen.

I honestly think GT is right on the edge of being SPECTACULAR if they fix this so I hope you realize that us acting as apologists will only hurt the title’s chances to improve because then PD has zero incentive.

That so-called spectacular AC footage I posted could easily be surpassed by GT if PD actually corrects this issue.

 

[IncredibleMind]

Have you tested the FOV in 1:39 update? I think that it has changed.
Atleast in gr2 nsx, you now can see both front fenders.
Comparing to AC it lopks like the FOV is close to 55 deg.



I was wondering the same thing, about the vibes.
I dont think that the 1:39 is perfect. No, but just dont see it as bad as the nay sayers.

As for the gearbanging, I can remember you critisizing that multiple times before this thread.
And its true, no one in real life would use it that way.
I have used shiftlock to initiate drift, but prefer handbrake or throttle more. Just to save the poor powerline.

Yes, I have the 1.39 update and I personally like the new physics. However, my issue about the windshield is very minor in comparison to the road surfacing so it’s nothing really.

That said, I hope PD implements a horizontal slider for the cockpit and options for FOV. That would be amazing.

 

[Sander 001]

I get that you’re joking. However, in case you’re not I’ll explain what you think is going on. Your eyes will focus on something in the distance (another car/the horizon) and the extra movement will essentially be subjugated to your subcortical vision.

So NO, you won’t consciously feel or see all of the up and down movement as you go over the bumps as you drive but they are still there. There is absolutely no reason for GT to assume the role of your subconscious and remove the feedback or visuals because you will do it yourself anyway even as this movement is happening on a 2D screen.

I honestly think GT is right on the edge of being SPECTACULAR if they fix this so I hope you realize that us acting as apologists will only hurt the title’s chances to improve because then PD has zero incentive.

That so-called spectacular AC footage I posted could easily be surpassed by GT if PD actually corrects this issue.

No, the vestibular reflex works with inertia, movement and momentum so looking at a 2D screen will not do anything.

 

[IncredibleMind]

No, the vestibular reflex works with inertia, movement and momentum so looking at a 2D screen will not do anything.

EXACTLY. You’re not actually in a moving car with real G-Forces. What you’re suggesting makes absolutely no sense. This makes the idea of the vestibular reflex being accounted for completely irrelevant.

 

[Magog]

I personally have a problem with the games extremely smooth track surfaces more than even the physics. It’s like every track is freshly paved and there are no track irregularities whatsoever. This is completely unrealistic and I have no idea what PD is thinking.

I don't think that's accurate. There are definitely irregularities in the tracks. At least as many as you notice watching an F1 race.

 

[IncredibleMind]

I don't think that's accurate. There are definitely irregularities in the tracks. At least as many as you notice watching an F1 race.

I don’t disagree. However they fail at conveying these irregularities. It’s so subtle that it’s not realistic at all. I even wondered if PD did this because they were worried about it interfering with other tactile inputs. You will only need to look at the real footage I posted of the cars rolling on the Brands Hatch track to realize that something is seriously amiss in GT.

 

[fastone371]

Before people here make assumptions about the playerbase I would think PD needs to do a survey to find out more info about the average player. I dont think you will find many casual players commenting here, they probably didnt even notice much of a difference between 1.38 and 1.39.
I would bet that far more than 1% of players use a wheel, at least the players that have stuck with the game for more than a month. PD/Sony really needs to know their target demographic, I know I have never taken a survey relative to GT. I have all generations of GT and the counsels yet. I just got a PS4 for Xmas 2017 when I got GTS. The only games I play are racing games, on both PS and XBox. I am not a hardcore gamer but I do spend my fair share of time playing GTS. If PD wants to keep their players happy they will need to learn more about who they are trying to please. I would think due to the affiliation with the FIA they are catering more towards a sim race player moreso than the casual player. I would also speculate that when you look at copies of GTS sold probably less than 25% are still playing a couple months after the purchase of the game.

 

[Sander 001]

EXACTLY. You’re not actually in a moving car with real G-Forces. What you’re suggesting makes absolutely no sense. This makes the idea of the vestibular reflex being accounted for completely irrelevant.

Let me explain again because you're confused.

The vestibular system is a sort of shock absorber for human perception, making bumpy things smoother to perceive. Most sims demonstrate bumps and bumpy tracks and these bumps which are normally filtered and dampened by the vestibular reflexes aren't. You just get a jarring, shaking screen.

So GT Sport is more accurate because the bumpyness is filtered and dampened like what happens in real life.