Potato...

[sdi_03]

I would say most people were waiting for Davids video as he's the 1 of only a few people who race GT Sport and actively race in GT3 in real life (Mentioned that earlier in the thread), Lucas would also be another person I'd love to hear his views. Davids video was fantastic but asked a bit more about feedback in the comments on his video and he does think there's to much under-steer which is the general consensus I think. While I've tried a few race cars in real life, never a GT3 car so I can never give a real life vs in game opinion. Although when I tried out a clio cup car (Which isn't in the game but is FWD) I still didn't have this much understeer in that, and they set them to understeer so no one bins it off. I'm also sure I was close to some form of limit as I had a full belter of oversteer at one point which was fun as you plant your foot to get out of that one .

One thing I have found though is I can still do "shiftlock" turning with the R8. While I couldn't do it with tyre wear on as it would wear the tyres to much, with it off you can still do it and it's more effective now because we have more understeer. I still do dislike the new physics at the moment though, the Audi R8 is a complete handful under braking now and not nice to drive. La Sarthe for example the rear is coming out the instant I go on the brakes which is to extreme so I'm finding myself doing all sorts of techniques to control that.

I had understeer in previous update, I do however agree with you that there is still too much of it. What I found more real in the 1.39 is the braking and weight shift. Now you can brake deeper, and because of the weight transfer, turn the car for late apex.
If you hit the apex later, you will have more shallow angle to the straight. Go on throttle sooner with car pointing in right direction.
If this is done the rightway, the understeer will be under control. MR cars won't understeer if your line is good and you can keep 100% throttle.

Like Hightower posted, there is problems in this 1.39, but the basics seems to be good. Some have tested tuning, and found that it helps to eliminate understeer. So I'll bet that there is going to be update, but it will not revert to 1.38.

btw. Like your Ytube channel 👍

I havent found any changes at all with1.39 physics if you ask me....

BTW, I recently felt that if you dont reduce many gears when braking, you brake better, am I the only one?

For GR2 cars I have noticed that if you gear down too fast under braking, the rear will lock and cause the whole car bumping/rumbling.
Not sure if it was like that before.

 

[RacingFan1]

For GR2 cars I have noticed that if you gear down too fast under braking, the rear will lock and cause the whole car bumping/rumbling.
Not sure if it was like that before.

That might be it, and I'm pretty sure it was like that before the update.
I noticed that some drivers were braking better than me for some reason and that was it

 

[VFOURMAX1]

I watched some of it and generally he's complaining about the understeer in ACC. He blames the cars for the understeer, but he doesn't know that the understeer physics are sort of a known complaint in ACC. Listen to his throttle input in the real world car versus the cars in AAC. In the real world car he pushes down the throttle aggressively from the apex. In AAC, he complains about the understeer and gradually begins to wait before he applies throttle on the exit to compensate. On some exits he is waiting till he's 2/3rds across the track before applying heavy throttle. He even makes a joke about "doing it Senna style" and begins rapidly feathering the throttle on the exit to reduce the understeer.

Again, the whole time he's blaming the various cars but we know it's the game. I know there's an element of, "only hearing what we want to hear" here but his criticisms of the cars in ACC match our criticisms of the 1.39 update.

One thing I did also pick up on was there was a point in the wrap up where he stated that ACC did a good job on the physics.
He did talk about some cars that the base set up seemed to be off and that he felt sure some suspension set up tweaks could make the cars better.

So is he blaming the physics or perhaps the base suspension settings on some cars?

There again even in GTS adjusting the cars set up can tweak out many of a cars bad handling traits but many do not want to incorporate that aspect in what they call a level playing field that depends only on drivers skills for results.

What they fail to take into account the only way there is really an across the board level playing field of the entire grid with fixed setups is with a one make race with no variables or aids or adjustments period!

Even adjusting the brake bias, traction control or the fuel mapping which affects power delivery traits is an alteration to the cars base set up which can and many time does affect the outcome of a race.

So is it strictly a physics issue that people are complaining about in GTS or perhaps many of the cars base set ups with the recent changes?

If you can eliminate the offending behaviors out of a car with car set up changes do you continue to blame the physics or start using the suspension variables already incorporated in the game to make the cars behave more how you prefer?

It falls back to where on one hand people want realistic sim behavior but on the other hand they want the game dumbed down and made simple, hop in and drive and suspension set up locked like an arcade game.

Seems that realism and custom suspension settings kind of go hand in hand to a degree. Where do you draw the line?

 

[CallawaySS]

After more days, I noticed that Gr3 and Gr4 cars are indeed easier to drive than before. As for the road cars, some cars are easier, some seem to be the same and some even harder, which is quite interesting. MR2 for example, feel very easy to drive and there is no oversteer. Meanwhile, cars like Mustang GT and BMW M4 seem to be a bit harder to drive than before...Another thing I noticed, is that cars are more sensitive against curbs, which is more realistic I guess

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

One thing I did also pick up on was there was a point in the wrap up where he stated that ACC did a good job on the physics.
He did talk about some cars that the base set up seemed to be off and that he felt sure some suspension set up tweaks could make the cars better.

Right, I covered that. He's a pro driver with no experience with the game. He doesn't know the difference between the physic tendencies and the car setup, which is why (as a driver) he only comments in regards to the cars. He doesn't have the knowledge to adequately comment on the physics.

Tuning discussions are honestly irrelevant for GT Sport. Sport mode does not have and will not have full tuning options available so saying that we can just tune handling issues out is irrelevant.

Besides even when tuning was available, you couldn't completely tune out a car's tendency without creating another issue in the handling. Sure, you could tune out oversteer on something as crazy as the RUF Yellowbird but if you ever did lose your back end the whip back effect from the front tires gripping was almost unrecoverable. So you gain stability at the loss of oversteer handling. I can't imagine how erratic the 911 RSR might become if I was able to tune wheel-spin and exit oversteer back into the car.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

He doesn't have the knowledge to adequately comment on the physics.

So basically you are saying that although people compare about how a games physics model is either right or wrong as compared to how a car "feels or reacts" in game as opposed to how such vehicles real life counterparts react on the real world track that a pro driver of gt3 cars does not have the knowledge to comment on that as compared to who?

Who besides someone that has experience driving such vehicles in actual racing conditions on the actual limits would be better to offer an opinion or comment whether the game had overall done a good job on the physics?

Would such person need to be a game programmer, real world crew chief and also be the actual race driver to offer up an opinion that should be somewhat based on how the car in game feels as compared to the real world counterpart within a somewhat reasonable degree?

I would rather pay attention to the opinion of a person that drives the real life cars for a living and has less experience with the game than someone that plays games for a living and has occasionally done a track day in the real world as to a accuracy between the two differences.

Regardless of who reviews or compares at the end of the day it is just their personal opinion being conveyed but on which side, real life racing/real life gamer does the experience give the most accurate opinion to whether the games physics are realistic or not?

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

So basically you are saying...

I'm sorry, but I stopped reading your comment right there. You don't get to say, what I'm saying. Respond to my comments or don't respond at all. I can't account for your strawman that you want to create in place of my argument.

He's a pro driver, not a video game fan. He speaks in regards to cars because he doesn't know how to split hairs between the physics and the car setup. That's all I said.

 

[fastone371]

So basically you are saying that although people compare about how a games physics model is either right or wrong as compared to how a car "feels or reacts" in game as opposed to how such vehicles real life counterparts react on the real world track that a pro driver of gt3 cars does not have the knowledge to comment on that as compared to who?

Who besides someone that has experience driving such vehicles in actual racing conditions on the actual limits would be better to offer an opinion or comment whether the game had overall done a good job on the physics?

Would such person need to be a game programmer, real world crew chief and also be the actual race driver to offer up an opinion that should be somewhat based on how the car in game feels as compared to the real world counterpart within a somewhat reasonable degree?

I would rather pay attention to the opinion of a person that drives the real life cars for a living and has less experience with the game than someone that plays games for a living and has occasionally done a track day in the real world as to a accuracy between the two differences.

Regardless of who reviews or compares at the end of the day it is just their personal opinion being conveyed but on which side, real life racing/real life gamer does the experience give the most accurate opinion to whether the games physics are realistic or not?

The pro driver was comparing the real life car he drives to that particular car in the game, not comparing his real life car to all of the cars in the game. Had he driven all of the cars maybe at that point he would have discovered that its a general problem with the game and not that particular cars set up.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

The pro driver was comparing the real life car he drives to that particular car in the game, not comparing his real life car to all of the cars in the game. Had he driven all of the cars maybe at that point he would have discovered that its a general problem with the game and not that particular cars set up.

Actually he did drive all the cars and towards the end of the video he gave a general opinion of each car and what he thought of the way it drove, he even commented a couple of times that he had not driven such and such a car in real life.

So before he made the comment that ACC had done a good job with the physics he had driven all the cars.

Basically I initially thought the lack of experience with the game could "color" the opinion but the more I thought about that the more I personally came to the conclusion that was actually a good thing for a real life to game comparison.

Instead of learning to drive around a games particular physics just hop in and give a seat of the pants opinion as to how well the game had done as far as getting it right compared to what he felt on the real car or tracks.

He's a pro driver, not a video game fan. He speaks in regards to cars because he doesn't know how to split hairs between the physics and the car setup. That's all I said.

Actually he does also do some iracing so I am going to guess that he does have some experience playing video games as well as driving actual gt3 cars. I do not follow this guy a lot, I have watched a few of his videos but I do not see other real life gt3 drivers coming out and saying his opinion is wrong or he does not know how to give an informed opinion based off of real life experiences.

I think it is ironic that video game players that have never experienced or driven gt3 cars in a real life world class series know better whether a game feels right or wrong in its physics and says that a guy that is getting suited up this weekend to drive in the real world Le Mans 24 hr race does not know how to give an accurate opinion on how the video game compared to real life.

Apparently people do not really want to know the truth!

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

Actually he does also do some iracing so I am going to guess that he does have some experience playing video games as well as driving actual gt3 cars. I do not follow this guy a lot, I have watched a few of his videos but I do not see other real life gt3 drivers coming out and saying his opinion is wrong or he does not know how to give an informed opinion based off of real life experiences.

I think it is ironic that video game players that have never experienced or driven gt3 cars in a real life world class series know better whether a game feels right or wrong in its physics and says that a guy that is getting suited up this weekend to drive in the real world Le Mans 24 hr race does not know how to give an accurate opinion on how the video game compared to real life.

Who said I had more authority? You're really running into a bad habit of putting words in people's mouths. I have no professional authority here, I'm a DR B driver for crying out-loud. For that reason, I use diagrams and cite outside sources to bolster my opinion.

Now who are you? So far you've only appealed to the authority of others. Others whose opinions I actually agree with and who I feel support my own view.

You are more than welcome to dismiss my opinion but you still haven't even approached the merit of my words. So don't pretend that disregarding my opinion somehow supports yours.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

He's a pro driver, not a video game fan. He speaks in regards to cars because he doesn't know how to split hairs between the physics and the car setup. That's all I said.

Who said I had more authority? You're really running into a bad habit of putting words in people's mouths

You are the one that made the above statement "he doesn't how to split hairs between the physics and car set up.
You seem to want to act like an authority on the the mans opinion and his knowledge base and experience.

My comment is just based off the fact that he does have experience that most of us mortal gamers do not have and you making the statement he does not have the knowledge to tell the difference is not putting words into your mouth, you did fine on your own.

I just find it ironic that you make assumptions on the mans qualifications or even his experience or level in depicting the realism in video gaming when the man surely has more real world experience than anyone in this thread.

Again how many others participating in this thread are suiting up to actually drive in the Le Mans 24 hour race this weekend? I will listen to their opinion as well with an open mind and viewpoint.

You surely can disagree with his opinion but saying he is not qualified to realistically offer such opinion, all I can say is by you making such statements you apparently are not open to considering different viewpoints or opinions other than your own.

And that last statement in in my opinion!

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

You surely can disagree with his opinion but saying he is not qualified to realistically offer such opinion, all I can say is by you making such statements you apparently are not open to considering different viewpoints or opinions other than your own.

And that last statement in in my opinion!

And I disregard you're irrelevant observation about my character. Can we please focus on the game now?

WTH?

 

[pantherjag]

You have majority of the votes leaning towards worse

You deny the statistical majority of this poll

There are more votes for the physics update being better or just as good than votes for worse from what I can see.

 

[BallPtPenTheif]

There are more votes for the physics update being better or just as good than votes for worse from what I can see.

The poll is in a constant flux. It's sort of disingenuous to throw it in his face like that.

 

[Haitauer]

He's a pro driver, not a video game fan. He speaks in regards to cars because he doesn't know how to split hairs between the physics and the car setup. That's all I said.

I think it is ironic that video game players that have never experienced or driven gt3 cars in a real life world class series know better whether a game feels right or wrong in its physics and says that a guy that is getting suited up this weekend to drive in the real world Le Mans 24 hr race does not know how to give an accurate opinion on how the video game compared to real life.

I have also have said it over and over again. Each time theres a conversation of physics of a game, people just cant seem to come up with clear opinion are they evaluating the physics as a game, as a simulation or vs real life. All these are very different points of view and have very different criteria of evaluation. Heck - I my self cant tell if id like the game to be realistic, immersive or fun.

This leads to people arguing each other with different criteria. Some (quite many) think its not "realistic" if it doesnt feel like some other game thats considered to be "realistic" or it doesnt resemble something they are used to. Some think its not a good "simulation" if it doesnt feel like real life - which is often actually pretty boring if you take off the g-forces, fear and adrenaline. Just think of how your daily drivers steering wheel feels next time you drive - pretty damn boring even if you try to do funny things with the car.

And many think its "bad physics" or "not realistic" if you dont enjoy it or even just because one is not that good at it - if one feels its a bad game.

What i THINK id like to see is current physics with tweaked setups and weight balances to make the cars understeer slightly less OR to a point where we can choose between slight under/oversteer with the balance controls. PDI should trust us with a bit of weight balance control - its not any more unfair than someone knowing the sweet spot of brake balance

 

[IncredibleMind]

I have also have said it over and over again. Each time theres a conversation of physics of a game, people just cant seem to come up with clear opinion are they evaluating the physics as a game, as a simulation or vs real life. All these are very different points of view and have very different criteria of evaluation. Heck - I my self cant tell if id like the game to be realistic, immersive or fun.

This leads to people arguing each other with different criteria. Some (quite many) think its not "realistic" if it doesnt feel like some other game thats considered to be "realistic" or it doesnt resemble something they are used to. Some think its not a good "simulation" if it doesnt feel like real life - which is often actually pretty boring if you take off the g-forces, fear and adrenaline. Just think of how your daily drivers steering wheel feels next time you drive - pretty damn boring even if you try to do funny things with the car.

And many think its "bad physics" or "not realistic" if you dont enjoy it or even just because one is not that good at it - if one feels its a bad game.

What i THINK id like to see is current physics with tweaked setups and weight balances to make the cars understeer slightly less OR to a point where we can choose between slight under/oversteer with the balance controls. PDI should trust us with a bit of weight balance control - its not any more unfair than someone knowing the sweet spot of brake balance

This is an AWESOME post.

I think immersion is the ultimate goal. I’ve made it very clear that I think PD dropped the ball by being ENTIRELY too subtle in how they handle road irregularities. They don’t have to exaggerate like it’s an arcade but I do think ACC nailed this aspect perfectly.

Every time I drive down a straightaway and there isn’t a single undulation it BREAKS my immersion which leads to me having less fun. That said, in the context of a sim....realistic physics are paramount.

On a side note I just want to say something positive about the game. The UI of this game is literally SECOND TO NONE. Also, the graphics are SUBLIME.

 

[IncredibleMind]

Yet another game with enough visual feedback that it would likely trick a person’s brain into thinking the game has better physics than GT.

Hint:it’s not game

 

[Boedefeld]

Just to give my two cents after the update:

All I've been told over the years is that now almost everyone can drive real GT3 Cars, as we clearly can see in GTE Am and in the Blancpain series. Many drivers over 50 with a big old beer belly have no problem driving these cars for multiple hours without crashing. Now that we have a physics update which does exactly that many people here complain about this. Why is that? I've seen comments where people want the old, more uncontrollable GT3 cars back which doesn't make sense to me if everyone here preaches about realism and the sorts.

 

[fastone371]

Just to give my two cents after the update:

All I've been told over the years is that now almost everyone can drive real GT3 Cars, as we clearly can see in GTE Am and in the Blancpain series. Many drivers over 50 with a big old beer belly have no problem driving these cars for multiple hours without crashing. Now that we have a physics update which does exactly that many people here complain about this. Why is that? I've seen comments where people want the old, more uncontrollable GT3 cars back which doesn't make sense to me if everyone here preaches about realism and the sorts.

I think it's because if the cars are more difficult to drive it separates the online field with the better, more practiced drivers being faster. I liked it better when the cars were more difficult to drive. I also think that's why I prefer Race A One Makes so often, especially when it's a tricky car. First you have to learn to control it then you have to learn to be fast. If it's too easy to be relatively fast then you dont gain a big enough of an advantage for the amount of effort you invest. I only checked Race C this week but I hope they always lock out CSA and ASM for all races.

 

[IncredibleMind]

More tremendous info....this is a very informative video.

Some standout points:

1. ACC indeed has tremendously accurate ROAD SURFACES.
2. ACC has better physics than GT Sport.
3. IRacing is outdated for current racers. The tracks are in severe need of updating.
4. GT Sport has amazing FFB, even in comparison to IRacing.
5. GT’s physics complaints concerning understeer in the latest update are 100% valid!
6. The complaints about GT’s garbage physics where all 4 wheels are nailed to the ground and the car won’t flip over no matter the inertia are valid.

7. My own personal injection: extreme fanboyism is hurting the dialogue imo. On one hand you have PS/GT fanboys who will LIE and make up pseudoscientific theories to protect their beloved.

On the other hand you have bots who are here complaining not to improve the game but simply to cause chaos.

Please people let’s make the game better with honesty, even if it means we have to attack our own platform. I’m only a PS gamer but come on...GT needs work.

 

[Beezer215]

4. GT Sport has amazing FFB

Ouch. What wheel are you using. I've bowled on bumpier alleys than some of the tracks on this game.

 

[IncredibleMind]

Ouch. What wheel are you using. I've bowled on bumpier alleys than some of the tracks on this game.

Much respect to you!!! Those aren’t my professional opinions because I’m not a Pro. I approach this angle from common sense and love of the platform.

However, my takeaway is that the Force Feedback IS actually good when it is required. However, the way they surfaced the roads in GT Sport is so obviously BAD AND FLAT that I’m literally disgusted that other people on this site aren’t raising this OVERWHELMINGLY blatant issue with the same energy as myself.

The reason GT sickens me is because I realize how great it could be with some subtle yet important adjustments.

 

[Beezer215]

OK. I agree with you there. The potential seemingly available and what we are left with is frustrating.
Why I can't race a Fitipaldi VGT car against anything else in "Custom" Races is still beyond me seeing as I just won one in the daily marathon.
That aside, I have a T300rs and the middle dead zone where the wheel has no feedback at all is ridiculous.
Now tracks like Nordschleife and Alsace do have some feedback that is nice but Monza is like a pool table and that track on PC2 or AC is bumpy.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

More tremendous info....this is a very informative video.

Some standout points:

1. ACC indeed has tremendously accurate ROAD SURFACES.
2. ACC has better physics than GT Sport.
3. IRacing is outdated for current racers. The tracks are in severe need of updating.
4. GT Sport has amazing FFB, even in comparison to IRacing.
5. GT’s physics complaints concerning understeer in the latest update are 100% valid!
6. The complaints about GT’s garbage physics where all 4 wheels are nailed to the ground and the car won’t flip over no matter the inertia are valid.

7. My own personal injection: extreme fanboyism is hurting the dialogue imo. On one hand you have PS/GT fanboys who will LIE and make up pseudoscientific theories to protect their beloved.

On the other hand you have bots who are here complaining not to improve the game but simply to cause chaos.

Please people let’s make the game better with honesty, even if it means we have to attack our own platform. I’m only a PS gamer but come on...GT needs work.

That was a good video, very informative from yet another pro driver that also seems to approve of the ACC physics.

One point I picked up on that I liked was his comment about FFB and feeling through the wheel about the curbs and so forth being felt through the steering shaft.
But the biggest thing was how he commented that today's real race cars have power steering and are very light feeling in the wheel and many games try to use extra force against turning the wheel to try a create a a "feeling" through the wheel and that is just wrong.

I enjoy listening to the thoughts and opinions of guys that race in top cars and top classes on a world level take the time to evaluate and compare real world to the games we play.

Yes each one may differ somewhat as it is still personal opinion but the bank of real world knowledge they are using to compare to the games is top shelf experience.

These guys do know what in the real world driving these gt cars on the absolute limit feels like and how these cars react to different situations so I do value what they say is right or wrong with the game much more than someone that the real world experience comes from theory in a book or watching races on tv or driving his car fast to the grocery store to get a loaf of bread and a gallon of milk.

Again great video!

 

[LeGeNd-1]

At Alsace for Daily C, I've seen one of the top NSX drivers full on drift the hairpin in the first part of the track. It's a carbon copy of the Ridge Racer style driving used in GT6 top times. Before the update I don't think this would've worked. Just looks silly and shows new physics are dodgy as hell.

The GT86 around Fuji also feels completely different. I know because I farmed the hell out of this race a few months back when it was a Daily C race. I'm comparing practice driving here to eliminate the tyre/fuel consumption factor. Car feels a lot heavier (good), but front end lacks bite (opposite of what numerous reviews say about this car IRL) and throttle management coming out of the last 2 turns is a lot more lenient now. I like the weighty feel but the dynamics of the car has completely changed to be less fun.

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!

I doubt the Supra's stock setup is right, or any other road car for that matter. +0.60 rear toe is unheard of in real life. All cars also have the same ARB of 7/4. LSD Accel is also way too high for most road cars. Those are just the obvious ones. @Ridox2JZGTE would be able to elaborate more. He spent hundreds of hours tuning stock cars in GT6 to be closer to their real life suspension/LSD values and they all drive amazing after applying his tune. GTS changing its whole physics system just to suit one car (with an inaccurate default setup) is 2 wrongs making a right. Despite the car handling better after the update, I don't think it's the right way to do things as it compromises a lot of other cars. Unless PD wants to spend effort re-tweaking all cars default setups and BOP...but I can't see them doing that to be honest.

 

[fastone371]

At Alsace for Daily C, I've seen one of the top NSX drivers full on drift the hairpin in the first part of the track. It's a carbon copy of the Ridge Racer style driving used in GT6 top times. Before the update I don't think this would've worked. Just looks silly and shows new physics are dodgy as hell.

The GT86 around Fuji also feels completely different. I know because I farmed the hell out of this race a few months back when it was a Daily C race. I'm comparing practice driving here to eliminate the tyre/fuel consumption factor. Car feels a lot heavier (good), but front end lacks bite (opposite of what numerous reviews say about this car IRL) and throttle management coming out of the last 2 turns is a lot more lenient now. I like the weighty feel but the dynamics of the car has completely changed to be less fun.



I doubt the Supra's stock setup is right, or any other road car for that matter. +0.60 rear toe is unheard of in real life. All cars also have the same ARB of 7/4. LSD Accel is also way too high for most road cars. Those are just the obvious ones. @Ridox2JZGTE would be able to elaborate more. He spent hundreds of hours tuning stock cars in GT6 to be closer to their real life suspension/LSD values and they all drive amazing after applying his tune. GTS changing its whole physics system just to suit one car (with an inaccurate default setup) is 2 wrongs making a right. Despite the car handling better after the update, I don't think it's the right way to do things as it compromises a lot of other cars. Unless PD wants to spend effort re-tweaking all cars default setups and BOP...but I can't see them doing that to be honest.

Is that the theory then, that PD changed the physics model to suit the Supra? Maybe with pressure from Toyota? If true that is a real load of 🤬

 

[Groundfish]

As far as t300, there’s no dead zone in ffb, if the wheel is a bit loose when you are going perfectly straight its because the suspension isn’t loaded but moving it the slightest bit SHOULD be having effect. It’s a good way to tell if you are not cornering correctly also. In transitions from braking to turning or chicanes etc, you should keep the car loaded then unwind on exit.
I used one for a long time. Maybe contact thrustmaster if there’s a dead zone. Somethings wrong with it if that’s what you feel.
I’d say GT Sport is up there as far as being intuitive to drive coming from the real world.
If your primary experience of driving is only games you may feel differently. It’s surprising to me the number of aggressive negative posts and I have to believe a reason for that is simply that people played other games first and relate it to that.
Ffb is always a compromise imo trying to account for the fact that in a real vehicle you get a lot of the important feel from the forces from 5he car through butt feel.

 

[Haitauer]

But the biggest thing was how he commented that today's real race cars have power steering and are very light feeling in the wheel and many games try to use extra force against turning the wheel to try a create a a "feeling" through the wheel and that is just wrong.

There is a lot to improve in immersion - especially what comes to road surface in gts, but this is a very good examble why comparing real life to sim racing is like comparing parenting a child to a tamagochi.

I have just lately stated my opinion, but i do it again. FFB of the wheel in a game is not there just to mimic the wheel of real racing car, but to also give you information of forces you would feel through G forces and chassis in real life. If a game doesnt simulate these forces, its (in my opinion) missing the biggest part of physics vs real life. I have in real life always trusted so called "butt feel" more than steering feel - and the more slippery the surface or the more lighter powered steering the less feel one gets from the wheel.

Im kind of fed up of all this "realism" talk comparing games.. none of them are more "realistic" compared to real world racing than childs plays are to war. Some like a BB gun and some like paintball gun.. neither really is a Kalashnikov..

This mimic of physics is so vague, i really dont see point in "wrong" and "right" conversation - I'd limit it to "like" and "dont like".. especially when it comes to ffb.

As far as t300, there’s no dead zone in ffb, if the wheel is a bit loose when you are going perfectly straight its because the suspension isn’t loaded but moving it the slightest bit SHOULD be having effect. It’s a good way to tell if you are not cornering correctly also. In transitions from braking to turning or chicanes etc, you should keep the car loaded then unwind on exit.
I used one for a long time. Maybe contact thrustmaster if there’s a dead zone. Somethings wrong with it if that’s what you feel.
I’d say GT Sport is up there as far as being intuitive to drive coming from the real world.
If your primary experience of driving is only games you may feel differently. It’s surprising to me the number of aggressive negative posts and I have to believe a reason for that is simply that people played other games first and relate it to that.
Ffb is always a compromise imo trying to account for the fact that in a real vehicle you get a lot of the important feel from the forces from 5he car through butt feel.

You beat me to it by seconds.

At least T-GT has not much of a ffb dead zone. Some cars/tracks/setups might even make driving straight hard as ffb is right there in the center swaying the wheel.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

the more lighter powered steering the less feel one gets from the wheel.

Basically that depends on what you consider needed feedback information, I want to feel the wheel get loose at the point of losing grip.
I want to feel the irregularity or vibrations through the wheel on the uneven curb surfaces or on offtrack excursions.
I do not want or need to feel after racing a 20 minute race that I have been working out in the gym on the weight lifting equipment because there was such a resistance to to turning the wheel to change the cars direction in the game.
I have driven cars with no power steering and with power steering and do know the difference between the two.

Im kind of fed up of all this "realism" talk comparing games..

This mimic of physics is so vague, i really dont see point in "wrong" and "right" conversation - I'd limit it to "like" and "dont like".. especially when it comes to ffb

There is a lot to improve in immersion

So if not looking to get a feeling of realism as compared to real world driving a race car then why have any complaint about any games feedback?
Why not just make the controls for a race car and a Jedi star fighter be of the same feeling or transmit identical information?

Wanting more immersion without striving for more realistic feedback is contradicting.
What defines immersion if it is not realism and if total immersion is your thing they do offer for sale complete motion rigs that can give the sense of g forces and butt kicker vibrators that mimic road vibrations transferred to the seat and rig.

Whatever level you want in immersion is pretty much already available in the sim driving world. Now whether that level of immersion comes at a price point you are willing to invest to experience is another thing entirely.

But the actual meaning of immersion is "extensive exposure to surroundings or conditions that are native or pertinent to the object of study" which in itself is based off of recreating the realism of the original object you are attempting to mimic.
I do not in my opinion see how you can separate immersion from the definition of realism.
immersion
noun
im·mer·sion | \ i-ˈmər-zhən

, -shən\
Definition of immersion

: the act of immersing or the state of being immersed: such as
: instruction based on extensive exposure to surroundings or conditions that are native or pertinent to the object of study
: absorbing involvement

 

[Haitauer]

Basically that depends on what you consider needed feedback information, I want to feel the wheel get loose at the point of losing grip.
I want to feel the irregularity or vibrations through the wheel on the uneven curb surfaces or on offtrack excursions.
I do not want or need to feel after racing a 20 minute race that I have been working out in the gym on the weight lifting equipment because there was such a resistance to to turning the wheel to change the cars direction in the game.
I have driven cars with no power steering and with power steering and do know the difference between the two.






So if not looking to get a feeling of realism as compared to real world driving a race car then why have any complaint about any games feedback?
Why not just make the controls for a race car and a Jedi star fighter be of the same feeling or transmit identical information?

Wanting more immersion without striving for more realistic feedback is contradicting.
What defines immersion if it is not realism and if total immersion is your thing they do offer for sale complete motion rigs that can give the sense of g forces and butt kicker vibrators that mimic road vibrations transferred to the seat and rig.

Whatever level you want in immersion is pretty much already available in the sim driving world. Now whether that level of immersion comes at a price point you are willing to invest to experience is another thing entirely.

But the actual meaning of immersion is "extensive exposure to surroundings or conditions that are native or pertinent to the object of study" which in itself is based off of recreating the realism of the original object you are attempting to mimic.
I do not in my opinion see how you can separate immersion from the definition of realism.
immersion
noun
im·mer·sion | \ i-ˈmər-zhən

, -shən\
Definition of immersion

: the act of immersing or the state of being immersed: such as
: instruction based on extensive exposure to surroundings or conditions that are native or pertinent to the object of study
: absorbing involvement

Shouldnt even comment to not provoke, but the very post you wrote underlines immersion has nothing (much) to do with realism. Its about making one THINK it feels real. Its like image marketing. Its so relatively easy to trick human mind and senses to think something is happening when its not. Immersion can make you feel like an alien robot asteroid even if theres no way its realistic.

Motion rigs and but kickers - immersion yes though tricking your senses, but not much to do with realism.

That said - in a game i like to take immersion over realism most of the time.