• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Forza 3 vs Gran Turismo 5 Comparison Thread of John, Chapter 11, Verse 35

V

-viper-

Banned
Wax Free Vanilla said:
It certainly wins the worst modeled track award.

It seems they were more interested in added fictional mountains/details than making the track surface as accurate as possible.

Why ar e all the real circuits off in Forza?
Click to expand...
Kaz was able to win a race at the Nurburgring by simply practicing on GT5. I think it says a lot about the accuracy of the GT tracks (and the driving model in the game itself).
 
guggnichso

guggnichso

Banned
-viper- said:
Kaz was able to win a race at the Nurburgring by simply practicing on GT5. I think it says a lot about the accuracy of the GT tracks (and the driving model in the game itself).
Click to expand...


Video games are awesome. I was able to cross the street all by myself last week only by practicing with frogger for 3 months!
 
P

Pug

Member
nib95 said:
Well here's a quick video (low quality) of M Schumacher around Suzuka. I certainly don't see any mountains etc, and colour wise I'd say GT5P looked more realistic. But couldn't really properly compare without a proper HD version to compare with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lazr...CEB563AE4&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=2

Here's another better vid. Again, which I'd say based off, GT5P has the edge in realism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SukBpzVt1JI
Click to expand...

The circuit certaintly has mountains viewable in the distance. Well did when I visited. If they are rendered correctly in the game I don't know, but they are visible from the circuit.
 
guggnichso

guggnichso

Banned
Pug said:
The circuit certaintly has mountains viewable in the distance. Well did when I visited. If they are rendered correctly in the game I don't know, but they are visible from the circuit.
Click to expand...


Is this suzuka circuit?

pic.jpg
 
Interfectum

Interfectum

Member
-viper- said:
Kaz was able to win a race at the Nurburgring by simply practicing on GT5. I think it says a lot about the accuracy of the GT tracks (and the driving model in the game itself).
Click to expand...

pfft I'm sure the Insidesimracing guys have won plenty of races at the ring.
 
N

nib95

Banned
Pug said:
The circuit certaintly has mountains viewable in the distance. Well did when I visited. If they are rendered correctly in the game I don't know, but they are visible from the circuit.
Click to expand...

Both games have them, but in F3 they seem to be white alps looking mountains. Or at least one of them anyway.
 
J

Jack B

Member
Interfectum said:
Insidesimracing?

Never heard of them.

Why would anyone get riled up by their comments? :lol
Click to expand...

You should venture outside the Gran Turismo world once in a while. Try a PC sim even. :)

Anyway, you'll love the Forza 2 (yeah 2) vs Prologue shootout video. Insidesimracingtv Episode #39. Guess who won? And that's just Forza 2. Forza 3 steps it up a notch. See their hands on with Forza 3. Gran Turismo 5? Maybe it will leapfrog Forza 3, maybe not, but Prologue certainly didn't knock it out of the park. There are more to sims and accuracy of tail lights. Enjoy. :D

http://insidesimracing.tv/videos/view/37

InsidesimracingtvForzavsPrologue.jpg
 
M

malsumis

Member
A

AnIco

Member
Somebody who was really good at GT5P turned out to be a genuinely world class real racing driver? Who'd have guessed such skills would have translated just fine in real life? :D
 
A

AMUSIX

Member
Interfectum said:
pfft I'm sure the Insidesimracing guys have won plenty of races at the ring.
Click to expand...
yes! this is perfect! Now do more!


seriously, you've quickly become my favorite poster on GAF, and, really, the best thing to have come out of this thread.
 
S

Shurs

Member
AnIco said:
Somebody who was really good at GT5P turned out to be a genuinely world class real racing driver? Who'd have guessed such skills would have translated just fine in real life? :D
Click to expand...


Well with the physics being so terrible in the Gran Turismo games...
 
M

MrJollyLivesNextDoor

Member
jakonovski said:
I think you just killed any console racer claim to best graphics.
Click to expand...

whilst i play LFS and i consider the physics to best anything on console by a long way (and they are soon to receive an update to tire phyics) the graphical side of things is severely out of date in comparison to GT/Forza.

This is what it look like normally:

2-4784_3.jpg
 
B

belvedere

Junior Butler
PD's lead designer recently posted a lap record for his team on the Nuburgring track. PD designed the multifunction display for the GT-R. Multiple professional drivers when using a wheel and seat combo posted nearly identical lap times on multiple real world circuits in GT5 Prologue.

It's hard to find a team comprised of such passionate racing/car enthusiasts. To say that Polyphony aren't completely immersed in all aspects of racing, and that their qualifications are even questionable, is simply absurd.

To those who are inclined to twist this, please note that this in no way takes from T10's qualifications or efforts, it simply speaks about PD's own accomplishments over the years.
 
J

jakonovski

Member
That Insidesimracing video made me wonder, what is the state of telemetry in GT5? Not that I'm anywhere near enough hardcore to need it, but there's a genuine point of comparison for ya.
 
J

Jack B

Member
AnIco said:
Somebody who was really good at GT5P turned out to be a genuinely world class real racing driver? Who'd have guessed such skills would have translated just fine in real life? :D
Click to expand...

With 4 million Gran Turismo drivers there will be some talented drivers in that group. It has little to do with which sim has the best physics though. Greger Huttu races in iRacing on road courses and Dale Earnhardt Jr races in ovals. By the same logic case closed on physics in iRacing's favor, but who races or wins doesn't matter. The physics in all sims have issues. Objectively, the physics should be considered not who races or whether some guy won something or other who races one sim or the other.

Remember, if you sat an infinite number of monkeys in front of an infinite number of typewriters and gave them an infinite amount of time one of them would re-create the entire works of William Shakespeare.

Their are a lot of Gran Turismo drivers. Tons of Forza drivers too and many are very talented. Unfortunately, many of them never venture outside of the console world.

Many don't because they are such fanboys of one title or the other they don't want to try anything else or even if they did would be completely jaded looking for any reason to hate it.
 
M

malsumis

Member
Jack B said:
With 4 million Gran Turismo drivers there will be some talented drivers in that group. It has little to do with, which sim has the best physics. Greger Huttu races in iRacing on road courses and Dale Earnhardt Jr races in ovals. By the same logic case closed on physics in iRacing's favor, but who races or wins doesn't matter. The physics in all sims have issues. Objectively, the physics should be considered not who races or whether some guy won who races one sim or the other.

Remember, if you sat an infinite number of monkeys in front of an infinite number of typewriters and gave them an infinite amount of time one of them would re-create the entire works of William Shakespeare.

Their are a lot of Gran Turismo drivers. Tons of Forza drivers too and many are very talented. Unfortunately, many of them never venture outside of the console world.

Many don't because they are such fanboys of one title or the other they don't want to try anything else or even if they did would be completely jaded looking for any reason to hate it.
Click to expand...
Fine and dandy, but you can't win a race on talent alone. Practice makes perfect.
 
Truespeed

Truespeed

Member
Does anyone else find it odd why a 720p game that runs at 60 FPS needs to call their physics engine 6 times per frame? Wouldn't it be more logical to just call it once per frame? I really don't see the point of the extra 5 calls (or should I say 5 Hz) because they seem to be irrelevant.

A 60 FPS game has 0.016666667 ms to render a frame. If the physics engine was running at 360Hz then it takes 0.002777778 ms per operation. Within 1 frame, the physics engine is supposedly called 6 times. This means that the physics engines takes 6 * 0.002777778 ms = 0.016666667 ms to complete its operations per frame. The time it takes to calculate the physics also happens to equal the time it takes to render a frame. Now, the 360 is a powerful machine, and they could be dedicating a core to the physics engine, but I find it hard to believe that they would do this when you consider all of the other tasks that need to be concurrently executed. So, either Dan Greenawalt is lying about his game or he's totally ignorant of what it's doing.
 
J

jakonovski

Member
Truespeed said:
Does anyone else find it odd why a 720p game that runs at 60 FPS needs to call their physics engine 6 times per frame? Wouldn't it be more logical to just call it once per frame? I really don't see the point of the extra 5 calls (or should I say 5 Hz) because they seem to be irrelevant.

A 60 FPS game has 0.016666667 ms to render a frame. If the physics engine was running at 360Hz then it takes 0.002777778 ms per operation. Within 1 frame, the physics engine is supposedly called 6 times. This means that the physics engines takes 6 * 0.002777778 ms = 0.016666667 ms to complete its operations per frame. The time it takes to calculate the physics also happens to equal the time it takes to render a frame. Now, the 360 is a powerful machine, and they could be dedicating a core to the physics engine, but I find it hard to believe that they would do this when you consider all of the other tasks that need to be concurrently executed. So, either Dan Greenawalt is lying about his game or he's totally ignorant of what it's doing.
Click to expand...

I love how your argument compresses into "the 360 is powerful but I find it hard to believe that blah blah". That's some hardcore physics processing expertise right there!
 
Truespeed

Truespeed

Member
jakonovski said:
I love how your argument compresses into "the 360 is powerful but I find it hard to believe that blah blah". That's some hardcore physics processing expertise right there!
Click to expand...

Considering your softcore reply, it's not like you would have gotten it anyway.
 
P

proposition

Banned
Truespeed said:
Does anyone else find it odd why a 720p game that runs at 60 FPS needs to call their physics engine 6 times per frame? Wouldn't it be more logical to just call it once per frame? I really don't see the point of the extra 5 calls (or should I say 5 Hz) because they seem to be irrelevant.

A 60 FPS game has 0.016666667 ms to render a frame. If the physics engine was running at 360Hz then it takes 0.002777778 ms per operation. Within 1 frame, the physics engine is supposedly called 6 times. This means that the physics engines takes 6 * 0.002777778 ms = 0.016666667 ms to complete its operations per frame. The time it takes to calculate the physics also happens to equal the time it takes to render a frame. Now, the 360 is a powerful machine, and they could be dedicating a core to the physics engine, but I find it hard to believe that they would do this when you consider all of the other tasks that need to be concurrently executed. So, either Dan Greenawalt is lying about his game or he's totally ignorant of what it's doing.
Click to expand...
So your argument is that because you don't know the specifics of Turn 10's methods, Dan Greenawalt is lying or ignorant.

Well, it's of about a similar quality to most of the other claims in the thread, I'll give you that.
 
M

malsumis

Member
Truespeed said:
Does anyone else find it odd why a 720p game that runs at 60 FPS needs to call their physics engine 6 times per frame? Wouldn't it be more logical to just call it once per frame? I really don't see the point of the extra 5 calls (or should I say 5 Hz) because they seem to be irrelevant.

A 60 FPS game has 0.016666667 ms to render a frame. If the physics engine was running at 360Hz then it takes 0.002777778 ms per operation. Within 1 frame, the physics engine is supposedly called 6 times. This means that the physics engines takes 6 * 0.002777778 ms = 0.016666667 ms to complete its operations per frame. The time it takes to calculate the physics also happens to equal the time it takes to render a frame. Now, the 360 is a powerful machine, and they could be dedicating a core to the physics engine, but I find it hard to believe that they would do this when you consider all of the other tasks that need to be concurrently executed. So, either Dan Greenawalt is lying about his game or he's totally ignorant of what it's doing.
Click to expand...
Nope. It's actually very logical. Lets say, the reality is continuous. If you're probing our physics model at 60Hz, or over a period 16ms, then a car going at 100kph(27.7 meters per second) will travel about 46cm per probe. Half a meter almost. If you're doing physics at 360Hz then the car would move about 8cm. That's the difference, half a meter is really bad, and you may not catch a bump on the road in your calculations, or a puddle, or something, although that depends on how you're doing things.

Of course that really depends on how the calculations are really done there.
 
eso76

eso76

Member
Cloudy said:
Does GT5 have an option to link up ps3s for 360 cockpit view like Forza?
Click to expand...

like photomode, multiple screen setup is a feature PD introduced first with GT so it's pretty much guaranteed.
 
A

AnIco

Member
Jack B said:
With 4 million Gran Turismo drivers there will be some talented drivers in that group. It has little to do with which sim has the best physics though. Greger Huttu races in iRacing on road courses and Dale Earnhardt Jr races in ovals. By the same logic case closed on physics in iRacing's favor, but who races or wins doesn't matter. The physics in all sims have issues. Objectively, the physics should be considered not who races or whether some guy won something or other who races one sim or the other.

Remember, if you sat an infinite number of monkeys in front of an infinite number of typewriters and gave them an infinite amount of time one of them would re-create the entire works of William Shakespeare.

Their are a lot of Gran Turismo drivers. Tons of Forza drivers too and many are very talented. Unfortunately, many of them never venture outside of the console world.

Many don't because they are such fanboys of one title or the other they don't want to try anything else or even if they did would be completely jaded looking for any reason to hate it.
Click to expand...
Lucas Ordoñez isn't just some random monkey who succeeded where an infinite number of monkeys failed before, specifically, he is where he is today by winning a GT5P competition.

Truespeed said:
Does anyone else find it odd why a 720p game that runs at 60 FPS needs to call their physics engine 6 times per frame? Wouldn't it be more logical to just call it once per frame? I really don't see the point of the extra 5 calls (or should I say 5 Hz) because they seem to be irrelevant.

A 60 FPS game has 0.016666667 ms to render a frame. If the physics engine was running at 360Hz then it takes 0.002777778 ms per operation. Within 1 frame, the physics engine is supposedly called 6 times. This means that the physics engines takes 6 * 0.002777778 ms = 0.016666667 ms to complete its operations per frame. The time it takes to calculate the physics also happens to equal the time it takes to render a frame. Now, the 360 is a powerful machine, and they could be dedicating a core to the physics engine, but I find it hard to believe that they would do this when you consider all of the other tasks that need to be concurrently executed. So, either Dan Greenawalt is lying about his game or he's totally ignorant of what it's doing.
Click to expand...

I believe physics upsampling is quite common; Kazunori Yamauchi has previously said that they're aiming for 600Hz physics calculations. I believe such techniques work by calculating limited geometrical data (which can be calculated considerably more quickly than rendering that resulting data) between rendering frames, and it can capture, say, wheels going over bumps, etc and calculate the cumulative effects between rendered frames that potentially the discrete frames of a 60Hz physics engine could completely pass through because say, on a frame, a wheel could be just before a bump, but the successive frame the discrete distance travelled could render the wheel past the bump causing no physical effect.
 
A

AMUSIX

Member
eso76 said:
like photomode, multiple screen setup is a feature PD introduced first with GT so it's pretty much guaranteed.
Click to expand...
yes, but how many screens can be used? This is important! I mean, is it more than the F3 7-screen option?? If not, then OBVIOUSLY one game is far superior.
 
S

Shurs

Member
proposition said:
So your argument is that because you don't know the specifics of Turn 10's methods, Dan Greenawalt is lying or ignorant.
Click to expand...

If it was Che making that statement instead of Greenwalt, then it would be a legitimate concern.
 
M

MrJollyLivesNextDoor

Member
J

jakonovski

Member
Truespeed said:
There's no need. I mistakenly substituted ms for seconds and you didn't even notice.
Click to expand...

Umm what?

Dude you divided one second with 360. That was literally all the content of your post. I don't really think a typo could make it any less simple.
 
Truespeed

Truespeed

Member
Shurs said:
If it was Che making that statement instead of Greenwalt, then it would be a legitimate concern.
Click to expand...

It's interesting that you bring that up because looking at Dan Greenawalt’s Linked In profile brings up some interesting results. How does a B.A in fundamentalist Religion make you a physics master?

Dan Greenawalt’s Summary Link
02535eb.jpg


Managing creative individuals and processes
Developing and communicating franchise vision
Dan Greenawalt’s Specialties:

PR and Public Speaking,
Franchise Strategy,
Game Vision, Design and Pitch,
Vehicle Physics and Race Car Dynamics,
Game System and AI Balance and Tuning,
Dan Greenawalt’s Experience


Game Director
Turn 10

(Computer Games industry)

August 2002 — Present (7 years 3 months)

Forza Motorsport 3 (Xbox 360)
Forza Motorsport 2 (Xbox 360)
Forza Motorsport (Xbox)

Employee
Microsoft Games Studios

(Public Company; Computer Games industry)

1997 — Present (12 years)

Test Lead
Microsoft

(Public Company; 10,001 or more employees; MSFT; Computer Software industry)

January 2002 — August 2002 (8 months)

Midtown Madness 3 (Xbox)
Game Tester / Game Designer
Microsoft

(Public Company; 10,001 or more employees; MSFT; Computer Games industry)

December 1999 — January 2002 (2 years 2 months)
Project Gotham Racing (Xbox)
Midtown Madness 2 (PC)
Game Tester
Volt

(Public Company; Computer Games industry)
December 1997 — December 1999 (2 years 1 month)
NBA Inside Drive 2000 (PC)

Dan Greenawalt’s Education
Colorado College
BA , Religion , 1991 — 1996
Click to expand...
 
Truespeed

Truespeed

Member
jakonovski said:
Umm what?

Dude you divided one second with 360. That was literally all the content of your post. I don't really think a typo could make it any less simple.
Click to expand...

It wasn't just a typo. It was a glaring error that you should have seen within 360Hz.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom