The GT6 Epic Whining and Crying Thread

[Imari]

Is this supposed to convince me that Youtube videos are useful tools for judging game physics?

They're very nice videos, but that's all they are.

 

[CBH]

Youtube videos and game physics are two different things.

 

[Lewis_Hamilton_]

Just suffered more and different game breaking glitches. Yay. For me the game breaks more than it actually works at the moment, the same for some of my friends - the only reason I still own the PS3 and this game - if it weren't for them, I would have sold them both by now.

Having an online session that works without me or one of my friends having a game breaking glitch is becoming a rare experience. If these problems aren't fixed soon or continue on into GT7, I absolutely believe that this series deserves to tank and die, it's been incredibly neglected and is a mere shadow of it's former self.

 

[Jimmy_DA]

I think super_gt is using the videos to get an idea/gist of how the cars behave. No where has he/she said they're a direct comparison. As Imari said super_gt probably hasn't driven the cars super_gt is talking about in real life, hence using the videos as that's the closest information/reference they have to make their comparison.

At least super_gt is trying to provide some evidence to their point and credit needs to be given. As no one debating with them has provided any of their own besides making flamboyant statements that can be given with a grain of salt.

Youtube videos and game physics are two different things.

Hall90 makes a valid point here. On my mtb bike I hhave watched YouTube videos of tracks I actually ride on and I can say videos give a warped since of perception. What looks to be a smooth section of track in the videos can actually be very rough.

 

[Imari]

At least super_gt is trying to provide some evidence to their point and credit needs to be given. As no one debating with them has provided any of their own besides making flamboyant statements that can be given with a grain of salt.

You know that there's a difference between saying that the methods someone has used to arrive at a conclusion are faulty, and attempting to disprove the conclusion, right?

I don't necessarily disagree with his conclusion that GT6 is unrealistic. I also think GT6 is somewhat unrealistic, which I arrived at in my own way.
I don't necessarily agree with his conclusion that a large amount of cars have unrealistic understeer, because I haven't seen any evidence presented to support that claim.

I don't agree that his method of watching Youtube videos and comparing them to gameplay is a valid method of obtaining objective information about how realistic the game is. It's so prone to observer bias and confirmation bias that it's not even funny. If you got a large number of skilled drivers to watch the same videos and then report back on the perceived accuracy of the game, you might get somewhere, but even then it would be iffy.
Ditto comparing lap times with real life laps. The potential differences in conditions and equipment mean that if you happen to get exactly the same lap time you should be extremely suspicious.


He's not provided any evidence to support his point so far, he's dumped a load of videos with no information at all. What settings are those cars running, and what settings should we be running to look for this supposed understeer? That's not evidence, that's trying to swamp people with raw data.

He's apparently compared enough cars to state that a lot have unrealistic understeer. I want to see that data, not some random videos off Youtube.

 

[Jimmy_DA]

If you think that comparison with Youtube videos is an acceptable way to judge the physics of a game, I hope you aren't too surprised when a lot of people disagree with you.

Youtube videos are generally a pretty terrible way to judge the physics of anything, see any number of Youtube videos for simulation-type games covered with "OMG that's so arcade" comments and similar. Youtube videos are a good start, but they need to be taken with a big grain of salt.

Is GT6 a reasonably accurate simulation ...I couldn't prove it to someone who disagreed. You seem to think that you can. Please begin, because I'd be interested to see how it's done.

GT6 is vastly unrealistic. Drives car into wall at 300km/hr (~220m/hr), bounces off to continue race.

Is this supposed to convince me that Youtube videos are useful tools for judging game physics?

They're very nice videos, but that's all they are.

You could use YouTube videos for judging physics, videos contain a lot of hidden information.

You've mention track conditions? Well as the video is of real tracks you can obtain the time of day via shadow angles and length in support of where the sun is sitting in the sky and it's diameter. This will allow the time to be calculated and day, therefore temperature, wind conditions etc can be obtained.

As objects have a definate size and mass in videos, by the footage dipping from the car braking how much it dips can also be calculated and how much force is being exerted. Also speed can be determined by time and distance taken when transversing from point a to b in the video.

With these and using the angles of the cars spoilers downforce setups can be determined as you will know what exact angle settings have been used.

As most racing/cars adhere to strict guidelines weights etc will be known (approximately).

This is just a few ways as example of how videos can be used to judge in-game physics.

Also as one of the videos mentioned was of a gt academy driver I'm sure (being a Nissan and gt academy) it had that GPS visualizer in it. This would record a lot of the data required when making comparision and examplified when loaded into gt by the same driver competing with their actual race ghost replay.

 

[Imari]

GT6 is vastly unrealistic. Drives car into wall at 300km/hr (~220m/hr), bounces off to continue race.

Yes, well, apart from the obvious.

You've mention track conditions? Well as the video is of real tracks you can obtain the time of day via shadow angles and length in support of where the sun is sitting in the sky and it's diameter. This will allow the time to be calculated and day, therefore temperature, wind conditions etc can be obtained.

If you can somehow see an object of known length and it's entire shadow, sure.

Temperature and wind are depended on more than just time of day though. I don't see how you're getting those from knowing the length of a shadow, or anything you see in a video unless it's a thermometer and an anemometer.

As objects have a definate size and mass in videos, by the footage dipping from the car braking how much it dips can also be calculated and how much force is being exerted. Also speed can be determined by time and distance taken when transversing from point a to b in the video.

If you knew the mass of the car, the spring and damper rates at all four corners and the suspension geometry you certainly could have a good go at calculating the braking forces from how much the car dips. Assuming it's not thrown off by stuff like bumps in the road.

Speed can certainly be measured. A lot of videos have visible speedometers or digital readouts, but you can certainly estimate speed, if you know the distance between two points on the track.

I reckon you'd be better of calculating braking forces by the change in speeds, but if you wanted to do it with your car dipping method, knock yourself out.

With these and using the angles of the cars spoilers downforce setups can be determined as you will know what exact angle settings have been used.

Will you? How will you know what angle settings they're using? Do you know how efficient their wings are, and how much angle corresponds to how much downforce? What about the splitter, undertray and diffuser?

As most racing/cars adhere to strict guidelines weights etc will be known (approximately).

Sure, but you don't need a video for that, just the internet.

This is just a few ways as example of how videos can be used to judge in-game physics.

You get yourself a video, one video, and extract all that information from it, showing the methodology behind how you've done it.

I really don't think you can. You'll get speed and braking at a few specific points around the track, and possibly a rough estimate of time of day. You may be able to have a rough guess at wind conditions depending on what you can see in the scenery. That's probably about it.

Also as one of the videos mentioned was of a gt academy driver I'm sure (being a Nissan and gt academy) it had that GPS visualizer in it. This would record a lot of the data required when making comparision and examplified when loaded into gt by the same driver competing with their actual race ghost replay.

Then we're beyond videos and into GPS telemetry comparisons. Those would be much better and more suitable for comparison than a video, at least then you get hard data that you can compare without the need for subjective interpretation.

 

[super_gt]

Here is a video in which racing driver Randy Pobst explains what is the car handling of Corvette Stingray:

You can compare it with GT6 Corvette Stingray.
Everything what does this car in mid corner is big understeer.

 

[Jimmy_DA]

If you can somehow see an object of known length and it's entire shadow, sure.

Temperature and wind are depended on more than just time of day though. I don't see how you're getting those from knowing the length of a shadow, or anything you see in a video unless it's a thermometer and an anemometer.

Once you know the time of day you can check and see what the weather was for that day.

If you knew the mass of the car, the spring and damper rates at all four corners and the suspension geometry you certainly could have a good go at calculating the braking forces from how much the car dips. Assuming it's not thrown off by stuff like bumps in the road.

Even if it's thrown of by bumps you will still see this as the car would raise back up. Also I can't see how spring and damper rates will throw the calculations as they'll be accounted for within the cars mass therefore the whole cars mass can be counted for in braking forces. Thus if low range and high range of the braking forces are known, spring rates and dampening can be calculated for within GT as the cars mass is known using an algebraic formula given the answer is known (braking forces exerted)and total mass.

Speed can certainly be measured. A lot of videos have visible speedometers or digital readouts, but you can certainly estimate speed, if you know the distance between two points on the track.

I reckon you'd be better of calculating braking forces by the change in speeds, but if you wanted to do it with your car dipping method, knock yourself out.

This would be an easier method!

Will you? How will you know what angle settings they're using? Do you know how efficient their wings are, and how much angle corresponds to how much downforce? What about the splitter, undertray and diffuser? Sure, but you don't need a video for that, just the internet.

Spoiler angles can be measured horizontally against the car/track surface.

Never said all information is contained in the videos just a lot of data can be gathered. But to turn data into relative information it needs to be grouped into relevancy. Then using the internet this data's relevance can be further increased in accuracy via obtaining data/info from the internet which is unknown.

You get yourself a video, one video, and extract all that information from it, showing the methodology behind how you've done it.

I really don't think you can. You'll get speed and braking at a few specific points around the track, and possibly a rough estimate of time of day. You may be able to have a rough guess at wind conditions depending on what you can see in the scenery. That's probably about it.

Then using the methodology I've listed one can open up the same track, set time of day etc then use the same car adjusting the settings to match those calculated from the video and see if similar conditions/outcomes can be met. I say similar as you pointed out no game/simulation would be able to match every single minute variable given the current hardware and software limitations.

Also more credit can be achieved in this methodology by the driver from the video attempting to replicate it within GT.

Then we're beyond videos and into GPS telemetry comparisons. Those would be much better and more suitable for comparison than a video, at least then you get hard data that you can compare without the need for subjective interpretation.

That would be preferred but given the data available to super_gt, the data can be used to determine they're conclusions.

 

[Imari]

Once you know the time of day you can check and see what the weather was for that day.

So, referencing information not on the video. Check. You'll also have to get the date from somewhere, because that probably won't be on the video unless it's a major event or they have a calendar alongside them.

See how much information you're having to get from outside the video?

Even if it's thrown of by bumps you will still see this as the car would raise back up. Also I can't see how spring and damper rates will throw the calculations as they'll be accounted for within the cars mass therefore the whole cars mass can be counted for in braking forces. Thus if low range and high range of the braking forces are known, spring rates and dampening can be calculated for within GT as the cars mass is known using an algebraic formula given the answer is known (braking forces exerted)and total mass.

What? You're talking about measuring braking force by the measuring the deflection of the springs by
the decelerating mass of the car. The dampers will modify the rate of deflection, and the springs themselves will modify the rate and total deflection.

How do you know the car's mass anyway? Or are you again going outside the video and looking up some number, which may or may not be available, and may or may not be accurate depending on the weight of the driver, the fluids onboard and any other crap they have in the car.

Spoiler angles can be measured horizontally against the car/track surface.

Not from an onboard they can't. Let's assume that your video gives you a nice outside shot, with a known horizontal to compare to. You now have the angle.

Tell me how that allows you to calculate downforce. How do you know how much lift the wing generates for a given angle? How do you know how that particular wing varies with speed? How do you know how wide the wing is, and what the cross-section of it is? How do you know that there's not interactions with other body parts generating downforce? How do you account for the downforce from the splitter, undertray and diffuser, which you almost certainly can't see?

Never said all information is contained in the videos just a lot of data can be gathered. But to turn data into relative information it needs to be grouped into relevancy. Then using the internet this data's relevance can be further increased in accuracy via obtaining data/info from the internet which is unknown.

I'm not seeing much information at all that you couldn't have looked up on the internet without the video. Sounds like you'd get a lot more information a lot more easily by simply looking up a specifications page.

]quote]Then using the methodology I've listed one can open up the same track, set time of day etc then use the same car adjusting the settings to match those calculated from the video and see if similar conditions/outcomes can be met. I say similar as you pointed out no game/simulation would be able to match every single minute variable given the current hardware and software limitations.[/quote]

I don't believe that you can get even close.

Again, you show this being done with one video, just one. You don't have to be perfectly accurate, but you do have to be able to explain how you arrived at any settings that you use. Until then I will maintain that you cannot do it.

If your methodology involves opening up the game and simply tinkering with values until you get something that you think looks about the same as the video, that's not acceptable. That's a subjective measure and not useful.

That would be preferred but given the data available to super_gt, the data can be used to determine they're conclusions.

Prove that it can be done. You and @super_gt seem to think that Youtube videos can provide objective evidence of how realistic the game is. If it's objective, then I won't be able to pick logical holes in it. I'll be able to follow your reasoning, and I'll have to agree that you indeed have come up with a reasonable approximation of the settings on the car in the video and the ambient conditions. You'll be able to apply your same measurement methods to the game and demonstrate that the same settings on both the real car and the game produce different behaviours.

But I don't think you can. Do it, and prove me wrong. This is a very much innocent until proven guilty manner, until someone actually does what you say, the assumption is that it cannot be done.

 

[Forester XT]

Remember guys: IT'S A VIDEO GAME !

 

[fredyellowone]

I will be completely off topic, but I want to take a moment to thank Robbin Williams for all the great years, one of my favorite actors.

Oh captain, my captain!

 

[Jimmy_DA]

Remember guys: IT'S A VIDEO GAME !

Yeah I know, just bored had to do something to fill in time

 

[super_gt]

(outside of the few real life cars that I've driven and can confirm that they do not in fact behave in the same manner).

Imari can you tell me who are these cars?
I want to try something.

 

[Imari]

Imari can you tell me who are these cars?
I want to try something.

What, compare them to videos and tell me that I'm wrong?

 

[Forester XT]

While waiting for the promised updates, I'm painting the calipers on all of my Favorite cars. It makes them faster!

 

[super_gt]

What, compare them to videos and tell me that I'm wrong?

I want to try to setup these cars like I did with Nissan GT3 car,and then you will able to try them.
Because you said that the handling of these cars is not the same in GT6.
I will try to make the handling like in real world.
You are very suspicious

 

[Jimmy_DA]

While waiting for the promised updates, I'm painting the calipers on all of my Favorite cars. It makes them faster!

Wouldn't technically it make them slower due to extra paint weight!

See how much information you're having to get from outside the video?

Again I said the video is currently super_gt's only reference point and said a lot of data can be obtained from it, not concrete evidence. Remember data and information are two entirely different objects.

What? You're talking about measuring braking force by the measuring the deflection of the springs by
the decelerating mass of the car. The dampers will modify the rate of deflection, and the springs themselves will modify the rate and total deflection.

How do you know the car's mass anyway? Or are you again going outside the video and looking up some number, which may or may not be available, and may or may not be accurate depending on the weight of the driver, the fluids onboard and any other crap they have in the car.

Deflection of springs/dampeners - if the car's mass is known and the rate (acceleration/time) the car is taken to dip one would be able to calculate the spring compression ratio to weight to equate to the same braking force as deflected in the video.

Car mass (not entirely known given onboard fluids, driver, equipment etc) - you stated that the calculations did not have to be perfectly accurate.

Not from an onboard they can't. Let's assume that your video gives you a nice outside shot, with a known horizontal to compare to. You now have the angle.

Tell me how that allows you to calculate downforce. How do you know how much lift the wing generates for a given angle? How do you know how that particular wing varies with speed? How do you know how wide the wing is, and what the cross-section of it is? How do you know that there's not interactions with other body parts generating downforce? How do you account for the downforce from the splitter, undertray and diffuser, which you almost certainly can't see?

For a objective hypothesis a controlled variable needs to be used, in this case it is the car, matched the same as video and GT6. If there was a shot in the video that allowed the spoilers angles to be taken against a known horizontal plane as the car is the "controlled variable" all the information you stated on the spoilers would become redundant information. Therefore the down forces exerted on the car can be assumed like-for-like (though as we all now this will not be entirely true but for this instance would be the closest between game and video comparison).

The width of the wing could be adjusted (not sure if GT6 will allow this) in the custom spoiler fitting within GT6. As @Imari stated the width etc will be unknown. To compensate this using stills from the video the spoilers measurements could be taken and calculated into a percentage against the cars width or length, for what measurement is most appropriate. i.e width of the spoiler against the car width converted into the spoiler as a percentage of the cars width - if that makes sense?) Then the same methodology applied while setting wing customisations on the same car within GT6.

I'm not seeing much information at all that you couldn't have looked up on the internet without the video. Sounds like you'd get a lot more information a lot more easily by simply looking up a specifications page.

Then using the methodology I've listed one can open up the same track, set time of day etc then use the same car adjusting the settings to match those calculated from the video and see if similar conditions/outcomes can be met. I say similar as you pointed out no game/simulation would be able to match every single minute variable given the current hardware and software limitations.

I don't believe that you can get even close.

Again, you show this being done with one video, just one. You don't have to be perfectly accurate, but you do have to be able to explain how you arrived at any settings that you use. Until then I will maintain that you cannot do it.

As @Imari said this does not have to be perfectly accurate and I cant really see track temp and day weather conditions affecting this comparison by enough to askew the outcomes.

 

[stuff1138]

After spending the last 20 years driving moderately to low priced road cars, trucks, SUV's and vans (none of which is represented in GT6) mostly on gravel roads, city streets and highways; Occasionally driving faster and more dangerously on these roads that I probably should have; Once having the opportunity to drive a Formula Renault car for an afternoon; More than 30 years of watching various forms of motorsports on TV and the Internet from the comfort of my chesterfield or office chair; attending a few live motorsports events; And of course playing racing simulators since the original Test Drive for PC. I would consider myself an expert on all things motorsports, and automobiles including how to compare the handling characteristics between GT6 and real life and I will say this...

GT6 is so real my expert brain is fooled every time I drive (with the dpad and x/sqaure buttons) a car in the game. It feels no different than the countless times I've thrown cruise control on in the car, rolled the window down and smoked a cigarette on the open road. Being able to tune the suspension front to rear only is exactly the same as a real race car. Having control over camber and toe angle but not tire pressure is so realistic...I WANT TO DIE!!! (so fuzzy) I really can't believe there is any debate over this at all. GT6 is the self touted "Real Driving Simulator" so come on on guys how can you debate my expertise and what it clearly states on the box.

 

[Le_Manuz]

real driving simulator, that's all it says
i remember a quote from kaz after a vgt release
enjoy driving it in beautiful scenery

it's not the real car tuning simulator
yesterday i opened the apex pdf to the page about the ride height and some other stuff for suspension
then i closed it promptly
how comes that what's in the book is the opposite of what's in the game ?

 

[super_gt]

Being able to tune the suspension front to rear only is exactly the same as a real race car. Having control over camber and toe angle but not tire pressure is so realistic...I WANT TO DIE!!! (so fuzzy) I really can't believe there is any debate over this at all.

Great idea!👍

 

[Imari]

Wouldn't technically it make them slower due to extra paint weight!




Again I said the video is currently super_gt's only reference point and said a lot of data can be obtained from it, not concrete evidence. Remember data and information are two entirely different objects.




Deflection of springs/dampeners - if the car's mass is known and the rate (acceleration/time) the car is taken to dip one would be able to calculate the spring compression ratio to weight to equate to the same braking force as deflected in the video.

Car mass (not entirely known given onboard fluids, driver, equipment etc) - you stated that the calculations did not have to be perfectly accurate.




For a objective hypothesis a controlled variable needs to be used, in this case it is the car, matched the same as video and GT6. If there was a shot in the video that allowed the spoilers angles to be taken against a known horizontal plane as the car is the "controlled variable" all the information you stated on the spoilers would become redundant information. Therefore the down forces exerted on the car can be assumed like-for-like (though as we all now this will not be entirely true but for this instance would be the closest between game and video comparison).

The width of the wing could be adjusted (not sure if GT6 will allow this) in the custom spoiler fitting within GT6. As @Imari stated the width etc will be unknown. To compensate this using stills from the video the spoilers measurements could be taken and calculated into a percentage against the cars width or length, for what measurement is most appropriate. i.e width of the spoiler against the car width converted into the spoiler as a percentage of the cars width - if that makes sense?) Then the same methodology applied while setting wing customisations on the same car within GT6.

I'm not seeing much information at all that you couldn't have looked up on the internet without the video. Sounds like you'd get a lot more information a lot more easily by simply looking up a specifications page.



As @Imari said this does not have to be perfectly accurate and I cant really see track temp and day weather conditions affecting this comparison by enough to askew the outcomes.

I said it before and I'll say it again: do it. Don't talk about it, pick an example and actually do it.

 

[Jimmy_DA]

I said it before and I'll say it again: do it. Don't talk about it, pick an example and actually do it.

Mmmah - I couldn't really care about how realistic the understeer is. Just more that a video could be used to compare GT6's realisticy. Besides that how would you test it @Imari? I'm intrigued to know.

All that really matters as @Forester XT said it's a video game which I purchased for entertainment purposes (sadly it doesn't really achive that ).

Lol hey as this is the epic whining and whinging thread I can't even remember what to whine about I haven't played GT6 for that long. The disc gets popped in for ago though taken out within 10minutes when I realise it's boredom or until I receive any new addition cars (aka VGT).

 

[super_gt]

Where is the KW 7-post tuning system?let me guess,we have not received yet because
GT suspension does not work properly like in real world!
And the tire model is weak,there is no tire flex,sidewall flex,the tires behavior is like a solid piece of rubber.

 

[Forester XT]

What is that? Is that a street or track car? I've seen camber like that when someone was trying to lower a car by cutting the springs.
We drive our car to the track, jack it up and adjust the camber for the race. After the race we get it straight to return home. No nasty tire wear.

 

[mister dog]

I hardly spend any time anymore in the GT section. Bit of a sad goodbye as that used to be the only section i browsed when i was still a dedicated fan, and even when the series started to disappoint me i still kept a great interest in coming here and complaining about it at least, in the hope things would improve.

The GT series has attained such a dull character in general nowadays that i can't be bothered with it anymore. Even the Senna content didn't get me excited enough to go out and pick out a copy from a bargain shelve, and i've been a Senna fan for 22 years now.

Wonder if there are more old timers on GTP that also feel the same about GT now?

 

[Forester XT]

GT6 really grinds to a stop when PlayStation Network goes down.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I hardly spend any time anymore in the GT section. Bit of a sad goodbye as that used to be the only section i browsed when i was still a dedicated fan, and even when the series started to disappoint me i still kept a great interest in coming here and complaining about it at least, in the hope things would improve.

The GT series has attained such a dull character in general nowadays that i can't be bothered with it anymore. Even the Senna content didn't get me excited enough to go out and pick out a copy from a bargain shelve, and i've been a Senna fan for 22 years now.

Wonder if there are more old timers on GTP that also feel the same about GT now?

Same here. I've played every version of the game since the beginning and for the first time, I put down a new copy of the game just a few months into it. Been a couple of months since GT was in the PS3. Picked up Grid Autosport and found some good offline racing. Downloaded iRacing to try it out but haven't had much time the last month to really get into it, but I can see how it would be a lot of fun. Can't wait for Project Cars and for the first time in my life I'm leaning towards PC gaming and away from consoles. Sad for me but there's so little to offer me in GT6 I see no other choice. I have zero faith GT7 will be much different.

 

[TokoTurismo]

I hardly spend any time anymore in the GT section. Bit of a sad goodbye as that used to be the only section i browsed when i was still a dedicated fan, and even when the series started to disappoint me i still kept a great interest in coming here and complaining about it at least, in the hope things would improve.

The GT series has attained such a dull character in general nowadays that i can't be bothered with it anymore. Even the Senna content didn't get me excited enough to go out and pick out a copy from a bargain shelve, and i've been a Senna fan for 22 years now.

Wonder if there are more old timers on GTP that also feel the same about GT now?

I most certainly feel the same way as you do @mister dog. I feel GT has run its course, and so many fans of the series has moved on after the failure that is GT5.

I usually still browse in the GT section on this fourm, for the same reason as you, in hopes PD will listen and improve GT. But Kaz is so sucked in by his fame, I doubt he won't be bothering with our complaints. He seems to just pretend to listen to us, and than goes back to doing his crap. I just feel me, you and everyone else who are disappointed should move on to better games, that actually keeps us happy and not always angry, sad, depressed and disappointed like GT. Project CARS will soon be our new homeland, and I'll be joining that and other arcade racers like Forza Horizon 2. I need to get away from GT, because I won't be buying GT7 period because I KNOW, it won't be any different nor make me happy. Just like how GT6 isn't different from GT5. No more chances, it's officially over.

I hope my friends won't have to put up with PD's BS either, I hope they join with us too.

 

[eminem09494]

Kaz's vision is so blurred.
He should go into stand up comedy.
Everyone on GTP can do better than him on improving the game.