Z11SN Greaves Motorsport '13 in GT6 now available on GT Academy Round 3!

  • Thread starter FoRiZon
  • 408 comments
  • 46,286 views
I doubt there will be much difference between the GT-R LM NISMO and other racers, otherwise it might not have even met LM standards to begin. Also, it's good to see GT Academy change things up and experiment with different racing experience as a result, again otherwise we would be seeing variety in GTA winners begin to stagnate.

In terms of race speed needless to say it's probably very similar to it's competitors. Given it's specifications however, I can't see how it could be dynamically similar to a conventional MR LMP.
 
In terms of race speed needless to say it's probably very similar to it's competitors. Given it's specifications however, I can't see how it could be dynamically similar to a conventional MR LMP.
An FF LMP with optional 4WD simulation isn't supposed to be too similar to established norms, just enough to be acceptable to regulations.
 
An FF LMP with optional 4WD simulation isn't supposed to be too similar to established norms, just enough to be acceptable to regulations.

Exactly. Which is why I think we could have quite an interesting final event on our hands if it's the designated car.
 
abbb.jpg
Well there we have it, @Johnnypenso, @sparkytooth, you were right, it's gonna be the GT-R LM Nismo.

The image with all the rounds are edited with my predicted cars. This is what I have on my screen still:

042315-1952-39.jpg

(I'll add an annotation in the video to avoid confusion. 👍 )
 
The GTR LM is fwd, like most road cars. Maybe it drives somewhat like the Subaru Viziv? Ever since the rumor of fwd came out, I felt the Viziv was a good idea of what 'could be'.
 
The GTR LM is fwd, like most road cars. Maybe it drives somewhat like the Subaru Viziv? Ever since the rumor of fwd came out, I felt the Viziv was a good idea of what 'could be'.
Well the VIZIV has a 4WD but biased towards the front (like the Golf R) while the GTR LM has pure FWD.
 
Well the VIZIV has a 4WD but biased towards the front (like the Golf R) while the GTR LM has pure FWD.

I think what he means is that both cars may have the ICE powering the front wheels with the electric engines powering the rear wheels (assuming the GTR LM does have them). Although the Viziv GT is 4WD it doesn't have a rear LSD, leading to the assumption that these wheels are not powered by the ICE, but by the electric motors.
 
and this for show what works
View attachment 353502
the fuel shows at max 75.0 and the shift lights sure xD

Interesting to know it has a working fuel read-out (do any other cars in GT have a working modeled gauge ?)

Any word on if the in-game wheel rotation & real-world input are on a 1:1 ratio ?. This car can be pretty as all be and sound like a symphony, but if the input/output isn't synced they might as well have not bothered.
 
The GTR LM is fwd, like most road cars. Maybe it drives somewhat like the Subaru Viziv? Ever since the rumor of fwd came out, I felt the Viziv was a good idea of what 'could be'.
Well the VIZIV has a 4WD but biased towards the front (like the Golf R) while the GTR LM has pure FWD.
People seem to forget the hybrid system powers the rear wheels on corner exit acceleration.
 
Any word on if the in-game wheel rotation & real-world input are on a 1:1 ratio ?. This car can be pretty as all be and sound like a symphony, but if the input/output isn't synced they might as well have not bothered.

LOL!

Oh wait, you're serious.

So your priority list is:

1) 1:1 simulation of your input to what the wheel does on the screen (accepting that the lock to lock steering input on the real car might not be the same as your wheel and therefore won't be an accurate representation of the steering limits of the car
anyway)
2) 3D modelling
3) Sounds

Each to their own I guess.
 
LOL!

Oh wait, you're serious.

So your priority list is:

1) 1:1 simulation of your input to what the wheel does on the screen (accepting that the lock to lock steering input on the real car might not be the same as your wheel and therefore won't be an accurate representation of the steering limits of the car
anyway)
2) 3D modelling
3) Sounds

Each to their own I guess.
Actually I think @Kurei is saying that he places a great value on immersion and I can assume he uses cockpit view since he's asking about the steering animation. Immersion is easy to break if you get just one thing wrong. Sounds, physics, car model, specs, animations etc. Get just one of them wrong and it can easily break the immersion. He can correct me if I'm wrong of course.
 
Actually I think @Kurei is saying that he places a great value on immersion and I can assume he uses cockpit view since he's asking about the steering animation. Immersion is easy to break if you get just one thing wrong. Sounds, physics, car model, specs, animations etc. Get just one of them wrong and it can easily break the immersion. He can correct me if I'm wrong of course.

That's fair enough, as I said, each to their own. To me it just seems like quite a small thing to focus on in order to entirely rule out a cars use. One wonders why someone looking for that level of immersion is even bothering to follow developments in a console racing game at all, much less post about it in said console games discussion forum. Unless I'm missing something and all other steering racks in the game are (incorrectly) modelled to 900° of steering.
 
That's fair enough, as I said, each to their own. To me it just seems like quite a small thing to focus on in order to entirely rule out a cars use. One wonders why someone looking for that level of immersion is even bothering to follow developments in a console racing game at all, much less post about it in said console games discussion forum. Unless I'm missing something and all other steering racks in the game are (incorrectly) modelled to 900° of steering.
Do you only follow the development of games that are perfect? If we simply lay down and take what we get without making it known that we want a higher standard of simulation from a "simulator", how will anyone know we want anything different?
 
Pretty much what @Johnnypenso said, I prefer as high-quality of 'immersion' as I can get, I use cockpit view, remove all the timers/maps/info I can from the screen and go from what I would actually have in the car itself (i.e. mirrors, a fuel-gauge, and whatever else the car might have irl for info-relay.)

Having my visual outputs correctly matched to inputs, are just as important as any view-angle or piece of information, because for some drivers/racers, that is information. I didn't enjoy the Lotus 97T in GT6 because it had the same issue, inputs/outputs were off, and having that 'data' of information I desire for immersion, skewwed noticably, affected my ability to concentrate and drive the car to the best of my ability, because I was constantly wondering if I had enough 'lock' into my steering, and usually ended up using too much or not enough. I don't have this issue withe the Lotus 98T in AC, the steering is correctly matched and I'm able to control the car during all of it's little power-slides & skids, and it's a whole 'nother feeling to correctly achieve that.

I'm still interested in this car, because as @DSkywalker01 can vouch, I wanted a modern, premium LMP2 in GT as much as he did & still does, and now that PD are actually bringing one in, I'd like to see them do it correctly for those of use who use a wheel. I want to see them do it correctly, and unless I mention it, it may not even cross their mind that there could be others who want more for the driving experience than a new sound sample & some shiny interior bits.

(DSkywalker, I didn't mean to bring you into a argument if this keeps going, but I'm sure your just as anxious to see how PD handle this car.)
 

Latest Posts

Back