I have to agree that video looked a lot better than what I've seen about GT5 before. Few times it made me felt that the car didn't go like it should but it looked really enjoyable with G25. Tho it's a shame that they didn't include properly turning steering wheel in the in car view and they should really fix that horrible skidding sound. Hopefully they will include damage too in the final version. Oh well it's not like I will own a PS3 ever anyway.

I think he was referring to GT5 about having no damage?

Quote from ebola :

I think he was referring to GT5p about having no damage?

Corrected, hopefully GT5 will have full damage. Polyphony say that if they do damage then they want to do it properly and not do a bottled job like Forza 2.

Yeah I was talking about GT5. In rF the damage is quite good actually, doesn't look that spectacular but ie. in HistoriX mod if I crash into barrier with my front tire or something with my BDA Escort I'm done, cars front suspension is usually totaled after that. Of course this again depends from the mod.

Quote from Gills4life :

Corrected, hopefully GT5 will have full damage. Polyphony say that if they do damage then they want to do it properly and not do a bottled job like Forza 2.

The Forza 2 damage engine was ok, up to a point where the car would have otherwise disintergrated completly, at least it had detachable body parts, wing mirrors, bumpers and the like. Sure, it wasn't perfect, but damn, it's probably the best damage engine in a console racing game for a long time (bar Flatout series)

Quote from S14 DRIFT :

The Forza 2 damage engine was ok, up to a point where the car would have otherwise disintergrated completly, at least it had detachable body parts, wing mirrors, bumpers and the like. Sure, it wasn't perfect, but damn, it's probably the best damage engine in a console racing game for a long time (bar Flatout series)

Then you never tried the toca series or the mcrae series? I don't think either are great but have far better damage modelling than forza 2. In forza you can drive at a wall at about 150mph and just have a little dent in the bumper. Thats hardly any better than Gran Turismo's invincible cars. I'm looking forward to GT5's damage modelling if it is indeed completed as I think they will do a proper job of it and not just do it really half-assed.

I had TocA 2 and most of the Mcrae. Yeah, IIRC the damage was pretty good, although I can't remember exactly.. all I recall is that the mechanical damage in Mcrae (4 at least) is much better than the mechanical damage in Forza.

Quote from S14 DRIFT :

:banana:

Ika, please consider doing some research before making such sweeping comments.

What are you talking about?

The fact that every word you have uttered in this thread has absolutely no factual background.

lol... i like rfactor mods but ive enevr joined a server beacause of it!

Quote from Ikaponthus :

Get a clue.

Have you driven any of the other GT games? Any computer program where you can effectively and competitively drive a pure bred racing car with a playstation gamepad is NOT a "simulation". And that includes Live For Speed.

How have you played GT5P yet anyway? I thought it hasn't even been released yet. I'm basing my opinion on all the other Gran Turismo games which are PURE arcade. More like Need For Speed than a proper sim.

Compared to LFS and other 'hardcore' PC based simulators the GT series wasn't/isn't a simulator. I don't know how many here were even old enough to be able to recognize what GT1 was when it was release or even remember it at all. But I know at least some are. I was in my late teens then.

At the same time though, GT1 pretty much pushed the bar graphically and with physics. What they did will a Playstion was nothing short of astounding. While I understand there were some PC titles around this time that were pretty revolutionary them selfs, GT1 was mainstream and really kinda hardcore for the time. That's an odd combination even now. Forza came close, but was too late in the game to show the world something new. Forza was no where near original. But it is good.

I do know for obvious reasons the GT series has grown graphically and content wise. There were pitiful attempts in regards to physics changes over the course of longer then a decade though. I just would think a 'simulator', if you will, would work on the other aspects more then they did. Though, it has a big market and they have to sell so many copies to make it justifiable financial wise. I get that. It has a name to uphold in those respects.

After the short comings of GT4, I sold my GT4, GT3 and console. It just sucked as I worked with Forza for a while for the multiplayer. Forza's multiplayer drove me from the PS2 to XBOX. No other reason besides that. That's a whole different story though....

To sum it up and couple other thoughts:

I think a lot of where we are now is because a GT1. Not just in sim racing, but in what GT did for the import tuner market in the United States. It got a lot of the existing 'closet' import tuners out. I think too it lead in the creation a horrid import tuner films that inevitably started the tuver craze.... i mean large diameter and spoiler craze here. I can't be sure. But if not for GT1, I don't know that the Evos, GTRs and other such type cars would have made it here in the States. It just seems like after GT1, other markets stated getting bigger. Sorta like a milestone in a way for this culture.

Jay

Quote from Ikaponthus :

Any computer program where you can effectively and competitively drive a pure bred racing car with a playstation gamepad is NOT a "simulation". And that includes Live For Speed.

If the user is able to adapt his skills of understanding what a simulated car does and how to react to it and can use a gamepad, a joystick, a mouse or even a direct neural interface to control it effectively then it can't be held up as evidence to there being a fault in the program as long as all methods of control are treated the same by it and there are no aids enabled when one input method or another is used. This is a totally separate issue to if the user is enjoying a trully simulated experience or not - as much as that is possible with modern hardware.

And to get back on topic - indeed the Caterhams are very close to what the LXs feel like in LFS using specific setups. They're a nice alternative to driving such cars on different circuits and not having to adapt too much.

polyphony probly omitted hardcore sim stuff to make it better for a broader audience and to not make it like forza ricer sport's damage model.. lol.. ricer... *runs*

Why call Forza a ricer game? So what you can modify your car, it's hardly rice, because they actually affect the car. Fit larger wheels = more weight, and different wheels weigh differently, which is a feature you don't get on a real ricer game such as NFS.

Besides, bodykits actually add (variable, depending on kit purchased) amounts of downforce, and unlike NFS, you can't get multicolour boot neon lights and a pair of subs.

Forza 2 is probably the 2nd best console racing sim, only 2nd to Enthusia. Forza 1 is probably 3rd or 4th.

lol i called it ricer beacuase:
1) i love the sound of it
2) i knew that it would stab you in the throat lol..
oh and i said that gt was aimed at a broad audience and not make partly done fetures so poeple dont complain about it..

This is a pretty good discussion thread about racing sims in general, and it'd be alot better if people wouldn't post stupid comments. Call it what you like, though. All I was doing was to explain why Forza's NFS like options can't be compared.

And I said nothing regarding about GT series, and I actually agree, hence why I said nothing.

i like forza, its just the name that i love ,
back on Rfactor VS. LFS ...
rfactor isnt as user friendly as lfs but has more stuff to do, lfs makes the internet fun but rfactor doesnt..

Quote from dawesdust_12 :

The fact that every word you have uttered in this thread has absolutely no factual background.

What a dumb comment. Give me one example.

Just a question about LFS, why does LFS not use the world tracks? Spa, Monza and the rest. This would make it even better than what it is. Just for the record I raced last season in rfactor MMG in Tyka race client but never race any of the LFS leagues although I think LFS kill all other sims.

Quote from Bryan1 :

Just a question about LFS, why does LFS not use the world tracks? Spa, Monza and the rest.

Money probably.

If the money is problem, then why not to use money donation just like in rFactorcentral.com

Quote from PioneerLv :

If the money is problem, then why not to use money donation just like in rFactorcentral.com

Well, I guess it is a lot of money you have to pay to be able to put tracks like Spa or Monza in a game.

Maybe the devs just wouldn't want it either if they had enough money.

I think their is enough members here to sort out a money problem or? If there was a new patch that had the real tracks I personal would buy it in the blink of an eye.

Quote from Bryan1 :

I think their is enough members here to sort out a money problem or?

The devs have to live, too. They can't just take the money received for S2 licences and use it to get real tracks.

True, maybe something for the future.... I have no idea of the work involved of course but them seems to be people power here in LFS as in many interested members who would love to see the sim develop further.