Support NeoGAF

[Doc Evils]

*exactly*

Well Was reading all this about Forza 3 being pirated already etc.

Had this thought well at least Gt5 can't, well as far as I know can't.

Then thought lets see what others think.Posted in this genius of a thread.

I think there's groups out there that rip iso's of PS3 games, but you can't play them.

 

[Lucius86]

The DLC code in the box is a decent piracy deterrent. That is 34 track variations and 10 cars that pirates won't have access to. It won't convince all the pirates to buy the game, of course. But it may convince a number of them to buy it. If you want to play the full game, you need to buy it.

I think thats a bit optimistic - pirates will be pirates (yarrrrrr!) but what it will more likely do is get people to buy the game new instead of getting it second hand (I take it you get a code to download it, like you did with the Hidden Fronts map pack in Gears 2).

 

[Vlightray]

While you can pirate Forza 3, you will be missing a bit of the game, since you won't have the two DLC tracks, and the 10 car Legends pack.

Benchmark High Speed Ring is set at an air field with wide open areas, a number of other tracks, and an 8 lane drag strip. I think this is the jewel of the day one DLC.

The Sidewinder Proving Grounds aren't amazing, but they still add a large variety of tracks to the game.

And these cars won't be available to pirates:
# 65 Alfa Romeo Giulia Sprint GTA
# '64 Aston Martin DB5 Vantage
# '81 BMW M1
# '60 Chevrolet Corvette
# '69 Dodge Charger
# '57 Ferrari 250 Testa Rossa
# '80 Fiat 131 Abarth
# '67 Lamborghini Miura P400
# '71 Nissan Skyline 2000 GT-R
# '65 Shelby Cobra Daytona Coupe

The DLC code in the box is a decent piracy deterrent. That is 34 track variations and 10 cars that pirates won't have access to. It won't convince all the pirates to buy the game, of course. But it may convince a number of them to buy it. If you want to play the full game, you need to buy it.

Interesting that might even get some pirates to buy the full game after enjoying it's awesomeness.

 

[ShapeGSX]

I think thats a bit optimistic - pirates will be pirates (yarrrrrr!) but what it will more likely do is get people to buy the game new instead of getting it second hand (I take it you get a code to download it, like you did with the Hidden Fronts map pack in Gears 2).

You may be right. Pirates are already used to not playing the full game since you risk your 360 getting banned if you play on Live. So maybe this will just be another part of the game that they can't use.

Then again, the online experience is such a huge part of Forza 3 with the livery editor, tuning, video and the ability to sell it all online that maybe that will also convince people to buy it instead of pirating it. Again, probably wishful thinking. (shrug)

 

[SmokyDave]

Forza will suffer from no more or less piracy than any other 360 title. It's obviously negligible or more devs would shift to the PS3.

 

[Xun]

Haha awesome, just noticed Interfectum was banned.

It certainly feels more peaceful already.

 

[RSTEIN]

They cant keep boasting about the graphics when its painfully obvious that they can't back it up with the game itself.

The forza series is fun, but its making up for its technical shortcomings with an onslaught of community features

Forza can't compete in the traditional sense of the genre

Criticizing/comparing graphics is fine. I myself think GT5 will no doubt be a visual powerhouse. It's painfully obvious PD's lighting engine is miles ahead of Turn 10's. In game car models already look better.

But let's set graphics aside for a moment. What I don't understand is your unrelenting criticism of Forza's core sim model. As the quotes above show, you keep saying that Turn10 doesn't have a great racing game at the core of Forza 3. I really don't understand this. Did you watch the InsideSimRacing review? These guys play sims all day. That's all they do. Forza 3 scored 89/100 which is incredible. They commented on several "core sim stuff" like sound, physics, feedback, models, courses, etc., and they used the word "benchmark" over and over and over again. They were quite floored by the game.

I just can't understand why someone would go out of their way to try to discredit or tear apart the core model at the center of Forza 3 when it's fairly obvious that it's better than - or at the top of - its peer group (even PC games).

 

[BravoSuperStar]

Infectedrectum got banned? Damn, that leaves some serious slack for the rest of you Sony/GT trolls to take up.

 

[shpankey]

Criticizing/comparing graphics is fine. I myself think GT5 will no doubt be a visual powerhouse. It's painfully obvious PD's lighting engine is miles ahead of Turn 10's. In game car models already look better.

But let's set graphics aside for a moment. What I don't understand is your unrelenting criticism of Forza's core sim model. As the quotes above show, you keep saying that Turn10 doesn't have a great racing game at the core of Forza 3. I really don't understand this. Did you watch the InsideSimRacing review? These guys play sims all day. That's all they do. Forza 3 scored 89/100 which is incredible. They commented on several "core sim stuff" like sound, physics, feedback, models, courses, etc., and they used the word "benchmark" over and over and over again. They were quite floored by the game.

I just can't understand why someone would go out of their way to try to discredit or tear apart the core model at the center of Forza 3 when it's fairly obvious that it's better than - or at the top of - its peer group (even PC games).

I've found that hardcore GT lovers only focus on 2 aspects of the sim world... graphics and driving physics. The latter I agree is really important and the former is a very nice thing to have, but there is soooo much more to a great sim than those 2 things that it pains me sometimes to talk to people with this mindset. I consider sound absolutely extremely important myself, it can take an otherwise great game such at GT4 and make it fall flat. Any real racer, in the real world or otherwise, I have ever talked to finds this aspect just as important. Not to mention crash physics and damage. These all aspects that the GT series utterly fails at.

I myself have made sound packs for both GPL and NR03 just b/c the rush one gets hearing your car is so intoxicating that to match the level of the sim in every other regard is something I felt compelled to do.

 

[ukas]

Interesting that might even get some pirates to buy the full game after enjoying it's awesomeness.

You have too much faith in cheap ass people that pirate games in the first place.

 

[eso76]

While you can pirate Forza 3, you will be missing a bit of the game,

more than a bit. between dlc,free dlc, storefront and online game you'd be missing like 40% of the game

Spoiler

but if i could i would, just to be able to play it early. of course i'd still buy the le day one

 

[Vlightray]

I've found that hardcore GT lovers only focus on 2 aspects of the sim world... graphics and driving physics. The latter I agree is really important and the former is a very nice thing to have, but there is soooo much more to a great sim than those 2 things that it pains me sometimes to talk to people with this mindset. I consider sound absolutely extremely important myself, it can take an otherwise great game such at GT4 and make it fall flat. Any real racer, in the real world or otherwise, I have ever talked to finds this aspect just as important. Not to mention crash physics and damage. These all aspects that the GT series utterly fails at.

I myself have made sound packs for both GPL and NR03 just b/c the rush one gets hearing your car is so intoxicating that to match the level of the sim in every other regard is something I felt compelled to do.

Agreed.

Sound Like PGR4 and SHIFT lovely roaring engines.
Pure clean racing sound. Even GT5P disappointed me with engine sound although a step in the correct direction compared to previous.

 

[seattle6418]

Forza will suffer from no more or less piracy than any other 360 title. It's obviously negligible or more devs would shift to the PS3.

Wii and 360 pirated games sell for less than five dollars here (Brazil). I would have thought piracy was a widespread problem this gen also, but people on the message boards haven't really said anything about this subject. The 360 doesn't even need a modchip like the PS2, here it's like PC's 100% bootlegged, which is a shame.

Only reason we are yet to see pirated copies of PS3 games is because of the price of the bluray disk. It doesn't have anything to do with the protection system, or at least that's what the "evil hackers" told me here.

Btw, Forza 3 is already avaliable for the pirates. (have no ideia how they've done that).

----------------------

I just saw the Inside Sim Racing review of Forza 3. To me the biggest thing about this gen is that the elitist PC crowd will finally have to accept that there are sims on consoles that are just as good, and sometimes better, then what's avaliable on computers.

I thought some of the scores were a bit inflated, like damage and graphics. Then in other hand multiplayer got only 3/5 which is too harsh considering the game's features.

Damage shouldn't got more then 3.5 out of 5, because after all, it's still videogame damage. It's just too soft like they said. It allows you to wreck too much before facing consequences.

On a final note about the review, if they gave 9.25 on the graphics, then what will they give it to GT5?

15 out of 10?

As much as the PC crowd tries to dismiss, Forza and GT offer so much more content on their games that they can only be compared with each other. To me, the huge amount of content is what separates Forza/GT from the other "good in one aspect but low on content" PC sims.
-------------

There's no way GT5 is topping the average reviews Forza is getting. I have a feeling that because of the delays, and the fact that GT is regarded by some as a benchmark franchise, it will make the media be too harsh on the game. I will be shocked if GT5 can top GT4 on gamerankings, just by analysing how the press is seeing the game so far.

 

[bj00rn_]

Forza2 looked like shit folks.

I'm sorry, but

generic

completely garbage

feel free to refute

you can't.

but to pretend

a gigantic lie.

bullshots

You guys

it looked bad

problem is

its the year 2009

modern lighting

couldn't get it working

and the menus..

Everyone pretending

barely look better

is fooling themselves

bullshots

let alone

F3 looks decent, but

Turn10 is learning

They cant keep boasting

its painfully obvious

they can't back it up

PR mumbo jumbo

Che

bullshots

Right?

im glad no other

so detached from reality.

Turn10 is in a low polygon world of their own.

bullshot!

lead you to think

problem

pile of dumb.

Holy shit, the rhetoric volume..It's ok to not like Forza 3, but damn..

Anyway, Forza 2's "problem" wasn't that it didn't look good (racing around Suzuka f.ex. was right up there with other good looking sims), the problem was that it was at places very uneven graphically. Especially because Turn10 seemed to forget to tie the artistic direction of the different teams together. Most tracks looks fine, some tracks looked pretty poor, some great, most car models were fine, some a little bit too off. That is mainly why I'm very happy about by Forza 3 because it clearly is a lot more even graphically, and then even more polished on top of that (Love the contrast boost). Anyway, graphics were never ever the reason I enjoyed Forza 2 so much, and not the reason why I anticipate Forza 3. But I'm just saying..

 

[tinfoilhatman]

So according to T10 Forza's physics calcs are being done @ 320-260 x per second

Has PD shared any of these numbers with the public?

If not why not?

 

[dejay]

Criticizing/comparing graphics is fine. I myself think GT5 will no doubt be a visual powerhouse. It's painfully obvious PD's lighting engine is miles ahead of Turn 10's. In game car models already look better.

But let's set graphics aside for a moment. What I don't understand is your unrelenting criticism of Forza's core sim model. As the quotes above show, you keep saying that Turn10 doesn't have a great racing game at the core of Forza 3. I really don't understand this. Did you watch the InsideSimRacing review? These guys play sims all day. That's all they do. Forza 3 scored 89/100 which is incredible. They commented on several "core sim stuff" like sound, physics, feedback, models, courses, etc., and they used the word "benchmark" over and over and over again. They were quite floored by the game.

I just can't understand why someone would go out of their way to try to discredit or tear apart the core model at the center of Forza 3 when it's fairly obvious that it's better than - or at the top of - its peer group (even PC games).

I'd also point out that that review focused mainly on the racing and tuning aspects. They barely touched on the community aspects like the livery editor, the store front, etc. They did say multiplayer was a little disappointing with only 8 vehicles, but again they didn't even mention the configurability of the multiplayer experience or the party system, which is understandable if they're just into pure sim racing. If those features had mattered to them I'm sure the review would have been even better.

On a final note about the review, if they gave 9.25 on the graphics, then what will they give it to GT5?

They mentioned the scores aren't set in stone at this point and they'll re-visit them in a GT5 vs FM3 shootout when it's released.

 

[eso76]

Holy shit, the rhetoric volume..It's ok to not like Forza 3, but damn..

Anyway, Forza 2's "problem" wasn't that it didn't look good (racing around Suzuka f.ex. was right up there with other good looking sims), the problem was that it was at places very uneven graphically.

very true i've been saying this for ages. Even replays on suzuka could look really good, Unfortunately forza 2 was very uneven also when it came to car models; the mesh for that porsche 911 was a real mess for example (while fm3 one doesn't look much more detailed, it seems like they at least sorted out a few problems with the polys flow).

Unfortunately though, it looks like a lot of returning assets from fm2 have been reused; that's why direct comparisons in pics are rather disappointing, although in motion fm3 still menages to look a good deal better than 2 even with the same assets, because of lighting and the way reflections are handed.
New content looks much better, the demo looks much much better than fm2 ever did, while it's clear that the game is running on the same engine as fm2.

 

[CrushDance]

So according to T10 Forza's physics calcs are being done @ 320-260 x per second

Has PD shared any of these numbers with the public?

If not why not?

PD doesn't share their knowledge until well after their games are released, if ever. Same thing with Guerrilla and Naughty Dog in part.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

Nah - assuming he's not perma banned this thread will be the first place he posts when he comes back.

If we're going by the rules in the OP, since he wasn't a junior he's only banned until New Years. I'm sure everyone will be waiting with breathless anticipation until then.

 

[Fun Factor]

In the demo I not seen a higher poly car in replays unless they magicly fixed that for retail, also you have to remember forza 2 is 60fps and at the time nearly every other racing game at the time was 30fps.

Which is kinda pathetic when considering that the majority of racing games on the PS2 were 60fps.

GT3, a game released in 2001, had locked 60fps gameplay, 60fps replays, 60fps reflection mapping & the same in-game car models in the menus & replays. Yet 8 years later on PS3 & Xbox360, there are almost no games to have matched that.
Hell, I'd still say the Tokyo day track in GT3 has some of the better background geometry & architecture in any racing game released to this day.

 

[amar212]

Hell, I'd still say the Tokyo day track in GT3 has some of the better background geometry & architecture in any racing game released to this day.

Never forget Special Stage Route 11 from GT3 when stating something like above. However, I agree 100% with you.

 

[tinfoilhatman]

PD doesn't share their knowledge until well after their games are released, if ever. Same thing with Guerrilla and Naughty Dog in part.

But have they ever released these #'s for prologue or GTHD?


These were released for Forza2 when they stated the 360 calc per second.

Why would they hide these numbers unless they have something to hide?

Whats the difference between this and advertising 60fps?

 

[RSTEIN]

But have they ever released these #'s for prologue or GTHD?
Why would they hide these numbers unless they have something to hide?

I would love to see GT numbers but I think it would do more harm than good. For example, let's say they were refreshing physics at 300hz vs. 360hz for Forza 3. Looking at this one number wouldn't tell the whole story. GT has twice as many cars on screen at one time. It has (likely) higher poly models. So, there are tradeoffs involved. Using the above example, we could say that if one were to drive only one car around the track then Forza 3 has a superior physics model. But is that really an important way to look at the game? That's something that could be debated.

The whole other thing is what exactly is going into the 360hz refresh. Maybe PD has more realistic physics calculations for each of their cars (after all, they have been doing this a lot longer than Turn 10). Maybe they actually have a better total output at a lower refresh rate? For example, in Forza 2 I think the top speed of some cars was off. So even at 360hz they made mistakes because the data was a bit off.

 

[Cheeto]

My XNA brick breaker game does something like 10,000 physics calculations per second.

 

[AndyD]

But have they ever released these #'s for prologue or GTHD?


These were released for Forza2 when they stated the 360 calc per second.

Why would they hide these numbers unless they have something to hide?

Whats the difference between this and advertising 60fps?

Its insider stuff about the engine and its hidden for many purposes, competition for one. 60fps can be seen and "measured" by gamers. 360hz physics calculation cannot.

I guess its the same as saying why doesn't every other engine maker talk about the details of all their stuff? How many times a second is bullet path calculated in Epic games? How many polygons are there in a tree in Oblivion? The numbers are all mostly irrelevant to us as gamers despite being valuable to the gameplay experience and the developers.

I would not worry about it too much.

Not only that but the 360 times per second could be PR speak as well, in reality we don't really know, I don't think there is a way to actively measure it. They may have just said it so they have a pretty number or another bullet point.

 

[theignoramus]

I'm not sure about the ins and outs of it, but you might be able to cross reference FM2 or 3's 360 Hz physics updates with the realtime physics charts/info you can bring up in the middle of a race. The one thing I give Turn 10 is their obsession with the driving physics and relaying that information to the player. Something PD should be doing too.

 

[-Amon-]

So according to T10 Forza's physics calcs are being done @ 320-260 x per second

Has PD shared any of these numbers with the public?

If not why not?

Because it's the results that matters i imagine. Pumping out numbers for the sake of it means nothing, expecially when we talk about physics in racing games, and a good 50 % of the people giving opinions are driving the things with gamepads and assists turned on.

I've seen lots of these discussions back in the days i used to race pc sims, i've heard REAL RACING PILOTS saying unbelivable things about how the "feel" of Sim A was great and Sim B was shit. The truth is that these things are so much subjective that there is only one way to understand if a sim is good or bad.... numbers. Take the car to a virtual skidpad and see in telemetry what it's turning performance is, then compare with real data, do the same for braking, acceleration, aero efficiency and so on and on and on.

That's the only way to tell if a driving sim is doing it right. If you don't have that tools at your disposal than it's impossible to say, really. Of course if you're comparing sims like GT5 and F3.

 

[skulpt]

So according to T10 Forza's physics calcs are being done @ 320-260 x per second

Has PD shared any of these numbers with the public?

If not why not?

I think a just as important question is...

Have people / reviewers playing Forza 3 compared their lap times to actual races with the same cars? I know some of the tracks are fictional. But for the ones that are 100% the same, are people getting the same track times?

I personally could care less about how many calculations are happening per second if the cars aren't making the same kind of lap times. It's obvious then that those calculations don't mean as much as Turn10 would want them to be.

It's not how much something is calculating... It's WHAT they are calculating, and HOW that turns the movement and feedback into reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L023Gxp4pWM

I would love to know if Turn 10 ended up getting realistic lap times down along with the accuracy of each turn and so on.

It annoys me that Forza 3 fans think that GT fans just care about graphics. We also actually care about real tracks, real race times..... It just gets really old when people think that a sim is only when you calculate tire pressure, but lap times and accurate tracks don't mean squat. A good question is why did they alter tracks the way they did? Couldn't they handle real life?

 

[jakonovski]

I think a just as important question is...

Have people / reviewers playing Forza 3 compared their lap times to actual races with the same cars? I know some of the tracks are fictional. But for the ones that are 100% the same, are people getting the same track times?

I personally could care less about how many calculations are happening per second if the cars aren't making the same kind of lap times. It's obvious then that those calculations don't mean as much as Turn10 would want them to be.

It's not how much something is calculating... It's WHAT they are calculating, and HOW that turns the movement and feedback into reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L023Gxp4pWM

I would love to know if Turn 10 ended up getting realistic lap times down along with the accuracy of each turn and so on.

It annoys me that Forza 3 fans think that GT fans just care about graphics. We also actually care about real tracks, real race times..... It just gets really old when people think that a sim is only when you calculate tire pressure, but lap times and accurate tracks don't mean squat. A good question is why did they alter tracks the way they did? Couldn't they handle real life?

What did I miss, how have real life tracks been altered in Forza3?

That video is not a very good example btw, the author admits he speeded up parts and slowed down parts in the GT5P video to match Schumi's drive.

 

[Wax Free Vanilla]

So according to T10 Forza's physics calcs are being done @ 320-260 x per second

Has PD shared any of these numbers with the public?

If not why not?

NFS Shift: Console - 400 hz, PC - 800 hz

rFactor: normal - 400 hz, Pro - 800 hz

Gran Turismo 5: Prologue - 400 hz

iRacing - 360 hz

netKar Pro - 333 hz

Grand Prix Legends - 288 hz

Live For Speed - 100 hz

Gran Turismo 5: Target - 600 hz

 

[AndyD]

What did I miss, how have real life tracks been altered in Forza3?

That video is not a very good example btw, the author admits he speeded up parts and slowed down parts in the GT5P video to match Schumi's drive.

There was a rumor that some real tracks in F2 and F3 were altered for playability. Some areas widened and such in tracks that are tough and narrow. And also that high speed driving was altered to give a better feeling. I don't even knwo what that means. But it came up early in this thread.

Not sure if it was dispelled or proven.

Also, Wax Free, where do the numbers come from?

 

[Saiyar]

There was a rumor that some real tracks in F2 and F3 were altered for playability. Some areas widened and such in tracks that are tough and narrow.

Not sure if it was dispelled or proven.

Also, Wax Free, where do the numbers come from?

I know that parts of the Nurburgring were very different in FM2 from the way they are in real life. Not sure if it is the same in FM3 though.

 

[jakonovski]

NFS Shift: Console - 400 hz, PC - 800 hz

rFactor: normal - 400 hz, Pro - 800 hz

Gran Turismo 5: Prologue - 400 hz

iRacing - 360 hz

netKar Pro - 333 hz

Grand Prix Legends - 288 hz

Live For Speed - 100 hz

Gran Turismo 5: Target - 600 hz

Source?

 

[LCfiner]

Source?

I assumed it was a joke considering the length of the list.

 

[-Amon-]

I know some of the tracks are fictional. But for the ones that are 100% the same, are people getting the same track times?

It is known that in a good driving sim lap times should be faster than real times. How much is of course open to debate.

You can test all the time you want, you have the track always with the same grip level, you are not afraid of crashing. You have to be faster.

 

[Jack B]

Because it's the results that matters i imagine. Pumping out numbers for the sake of it means nothing, expecially when we talk about physics in racing games, and a good 50 % of the people giving opinions are driving the things with gamepads and assists turned on.

I've seen lots of these discussions back in the days i used to race pc sims, i've heard REAL RACING PILOTS saying unbelivable things about how the "feel" of Sim A was great and Sim B was shit. The truth is that these things are so much subjective that there is only one way to understand if a sim is good or bad.... numbers. Take the car to a virtual skidpad and see in telemetry what it's turning performance is, then compare with real data, do the same for braking, acceleration, aero efficiency and so on and on and on.

That's the only way to tell if a driving sim is doing it right. If you don't have that tools at your disposal than it's impossible to say, really. Of course if you're comparing sims like GT5 and F3.

There isn't a sim yet, that gets it all right. Most are way off. Skid pads are great, but tracks aren't flat. Grip levels change with humidity and temperature. Dirt, water, oil, marbles all come into play. Elevation changes, camber, banking. Wind, Aero from walls, trees, aero wash from cars in front, behind alongside etc. The car in front of you has a different wing setting one lap than the car in front of you on the next lap. Wind swirls. Damaged wings. The list of things not modeled or modeled correctly is staggering. Tons of stuff is fudged. That's the ugly truth. Some things are purposely broken by developers so it kind of fixes something else.

Look at the latest issue exposed by the Scirocco for Live for Speed. They're redoing their tire model. So is iRacing. And both will change again too at some point. It's a constant improvement cycle. Or should be.

Sims are many many many years away from being accurate. Too many numbers to even use numbers.

Getting hundreds of cars accurate? Good luck. No sim can get 1 car right let alone 700.

And if you try to use lap times, that isn't even apples to apples for reasons I mentioned above. If you look at real world lap times vs sim lap times all sims are pretty far off and each track exposes some other issue, thus even if the lap times are correct the splits wouldn't be.

Then you have tire compounds. Let's say you nail everything, but you switch tires and boom a split or lap time is off because the tire model isn't correct for a particular tire compound.

Many people think their favorite sim nails it and others don't. Truth be known, all of them are off. Some more than others. And often it's by 3 seconds or more per lap depending. Developers know this. Fans often listen to the marketing guys, who want you to believe it's perfect.

 

[eso76]

i just searched "NFS SHIFT 400hz" on google and apparently that's what the devs declared, so i assume the others are "correct" too, at least according to devs. Not that it's something anyone besides them can prove anyway.

I guess T10 can use that as bullet point only as long as the other devs don't think of doing the same : )

Not that it really seem to matter, since the titles regarded as most accurate sims from that list happen to be the ones with the lower number of calculations per second

Also i'm sure that not all calculations are done with the same frequency; everyone is probably just declaring the highest number which only refers to basic stuff like collisions with walls etc.

 

[Flo_Evans]

It is known that in a good driving sim lap times should be faster than real times. How much is of course open to debate.

You can test all the time you want, you have the track always with the same grip level, you are not afraid of crashing. You have to be faster.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgCKaO6_O6A

Jeremy Clarkson on GT4 vs. real life. He was 15 seconds slower IRL. :lol

 

[jakonovski]

I assumed it was a joke considering the length of the list.

The thought crossed my mind too, but you never know on GAF. :lol

 

[jakonovski]

Speaking of NFS Shift, I tried the demo the other day. I have to say it was surprisingly good, and I'll definitely buy it for the sheer viscera of driving loud and fast. The demo cars were really nice and brutish too, very realistic feeling for something with a kazillion hp (lacking in the F3 demo IMO). Damage was for some reason off in the demo, so no comments on that. Couldn't unlock the Zonda F either, got all the stars and still it didn't work.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

There isn't a sim yet, that gets it all right. Most are way off. Skid pads are great, but tracks aren't flat. Grip levels change with humidity and temperature. Dirt, water, oil, marbles all come into play. Elevation changes, camber, banking. Wind, Aero from walls, trees, aero wash from cars in front, behind alongside etc. The car in front of you has a different wing setting one lap than the car in front of you on the next lap. Wind swirls. Damaged wings. The list of things not modeled or modeled correctly is staggering. Tons of stuff is fudged. That's the ugly truth. Some things are purposely broken by developers so it kind of fixes something else.

Which is why you haven't seen anyone seriously try to tackle a full-on weather simulation yet.

 

[Jack B]

Which is why you haven't seen anyone seriously try to tackle a full-on weather simulation yet.

GTR2 has real-time weather changes. rFactor has wet. PGR has weather. I guess "full-on" weather simulation can mean a lot of things to a lot of people, but yeah even basic weather in GTR2 causes physics problems.

It's amazing how many things aren't simulated by racing sims and how many things are fudged to fix something else that's broken.

The physics that seem 'the best" as of Oct 2009 are iRacing, NetKar and then rFactor. LFS is pretty decent too. GTR2 was great when it released and is still pretty good. Forza 3 and likely GT5 are catching up to the PC sims, but the PC sims are where you need to go if that's your most important feature.

Additionally, when you talk graphics, GT5 is amazing, but when you talk frame rate you need to go to the PC world. I run 84fps with iRacing and many with better rigs are running 120fps or higher. 60fps is considered weak in iRacing, but a badge of honor in the console world.

 

[ShapeGSX]

Additionally, when you talk graphics, GT5 is amazing, but when you talk frame rate you need to go to the PC world. I run 84fps with iRacing and many with better rigs are running 120fps or higher. 60fps is considered weak in iRacing, but a badge of honor in the console world.

What is your monitor's refresh rate?

 

[XiaNaphryz]

GTR2 has real-time weather changes. rFactor has wet. PGR has weather. I guess "full-on" weather simulation can mean a lot of things to a lot of people, but yeah even basic weather in GTR2 causes physics problems.

By full-on I mean dynamic weather where not only are all the track and driving physics properly adjusted and accurate, but the weather, wind, water, temperature, humidity, etc behaves and changes as close to accurate as possible. Stuff we're not likely to see done right for a long while.

 

[eso76]

"We laughed at the overuse of the word "definitive" at the game's E3 debut this year, but it's absolutely deserved - this incredibly rounded piece of software has wiped the smirk of our face and replaced it with a warm, if humbled, grin."

"For 2009 at least, consider the racing game defined"

Eurogamer

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/forza-motorsport-3-review

 

[shpankey]

What is your monitor's refresh rate?

Speaking of this, this is why I miss CRT monitor's on PC's. Vsync off and or set the monitor to 120hz and enjoy the glorious world of PC gaming. Once I changed to a LCD, 60hz and forced to run vsync (otherwise tearing was atrocious) not only killed the framerate of the game, but killed the "feel" as well. With a good CRT, one could turn off vsync of the video card and set the monitor to 120hz and enjoy no tearing and incredible feel to a game. I played this way for years with my sims on the PC (GPL, NRO3) and with games like Quake II (which bring up yet another point, the change to laser mice also killed the feel) and it is UNreal the difference in the way a game felt.

Since he brought up iRacing (which is basically a modified NR03 engine) I bet he's running it like I did.

I miss the late 90's gaming on the pc. A badass CRT monitor set to 120hz and a good video card with vsync off, a good overclocked ball mouse was pure gaming BLISS!

p.s. on racing sims, you also get into the quality of the wheel and how many updates it does. which is why the high-end big name analog wheels (IE: TSW's) were so popular among sim racers. it really made a world of difference. the fact is, to really enjoy high framerates and physics rates, one had to have a high end monitor, set it to a high refresh rate, a high end analog wheel and a high end video card with vsync set to off. which is exactly how most sim racers do it. and believe me, the first time I went to a LAN part to play GPL with a bunch of sim racers, it was made painfully aware to me, sitting and playing the game from their rigs (had a TSW wheel) was so enjoyable and indescribable, that one just has to do it to know what I mean. it set me off to buy all of the above for my own rig.

 

[shpankey]

"We laughed at the overuse of the word "definitive" at the game's E3 debut this year, but it's absolutely deserved - this incredibly rounded piece of software has wiped the smirk of our face and replaced it with a warm, if humbled, grin."

"For 2009 at least, consider the racing game defined"

Eurogamer

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/forza-motorsport-3-review

Honestly, it probably IS the definitive racing game (consoles) so far this gen. Other than the fact that they touted it themselves, there is nothing wrong about FM3 making that claim. It's hilarious to me that GT fans seem to take umbrage with it, seeing as how they either ignore the fact that PD did it, or make up some lame excuse about it not really meaning what it says (irt: The real driving simulator).

 

[LCfiner]

The thought crossed my mind too, but you never know on GAF. :lol

honestly, I was surprised that the GT5 physics refresh rate wasn't listed as 720 Hz just so it could be fully double that of FM3.

I guess that would've given it away too easily

 

[belvedere]

No one was really expecting a bad review from Eurogamer, right? Right?

And "Real Driving Simulator" was used more for separation against an overpopulated arcade racing genre last generation, not to imply it's dominance against it's competitors (there weren't any).

 

[tinfoilhatman]

No one was really expecting a bad review from Eurogamer, right? Right?

And "Real Driving Simulator" was used more for separation against an overpopulated arcade racing genre last generation, not to imply it's dominance against it's competitors (there weren't any).

I believe hoping and praying against all rational and logic is probably the better way to describe the mindset around here.