No, it's obvious from 5mph upwards that GT4 and Forza are not simulations but games. Sure, they try to recreate the basics of cars, and in that respect you could call them 'simulations', in the same way that Sonic the Hedgehog is a hedgehog simulator.
The low precision isn't just low, but it's been rammed repeatedly into the ground!
This is completely equivalent. It doesn't matter what point you take as origin for your physics calculations (unless the car is approaching the speed of light ). What does matter is how you simplify the real world physics in your calculations.
Go searching around because its in there, am not sure how they did it but they did
I guess its ok to have higher standards of what a sim is. because i could say that LFS is not a sim. it[LFS] runs in real time. No True Simmulator; If you simmulate Everything Possible to the highest precision. can possible Run in real time. Am playing devil advocate in that case.
Problem i had with his statement is it seems like a waste of resources. you can't have multiple cars in his example.
You mean there is HD resolution option in GT4 in PS2? I've always thought HD was only possible with the new genaration consoles, sooo what can you do with PS3 if PS2 is that powerfull?
How do you back this statement up? Why you couln't calculate things in real time, I have a feeling you have been here fighting about GT realism before. It's not a simulator, you can call it simulation of driving and even that is a lie because the cars don't behave as they should.
None of this really matters one iota. Cos none of this will ever convine matey's friend that LFS is more fun to play than GT4.
If he enjoys GT4, then let him just enjoy it rather than feeling a huge need to prove him wrong.
These discussions rarely achieve anything positive, they crop up at regular intervals on the forum and go round and round in circles and end up with "I know more about cars/sims/frame rates/processors/BOV sounds/tyre compression elasticity than you do" arguments.*delete as applicable.
Zzzzz z z z z z . .
No, it doesnt matter one iota, but this is a forum after all, if we were only allowed to talk about topics that can be "solved", or things that hadnt been talked about before then it would be a pretty quiet forum.
Discussion is discussion and without it a forum aint a forum, IMO
...agreed, as long as discussions don't turn into trading personal insults, which threads of this nature always eventually do.
-but do we really want a new thread every week going back over why we all prefer LFS to the other inferior sims out there? Do we really need that constant self-indulgent assurance all the time? I am bored of it. We should be looking at more constructive issues, community events, prioritising improvement suggestions, skin contests, etc.etc.
No I did not look into the source code, but most Racing Games, a few Simulations excluded indeed move the track around the car + the car dont follow the front wheels, it turns by the center height axis of itself. Racing Games are programmed that way since the 80s. There are only few Software Simulations (like LFS) where the car is moving in a comprehensible way.
So what? LFS doesnt need to have an AI in the first place, it is the most popular Online Racing Simulation in the World and AI is not missed.
While in GT4 the Games Concept is to Race the AI, earn money and buy things. So the AI is a important part of this story, it is truly pathetic to Race the AI in GT4 when they are not even aware of you at all.
Yes there is an option for it, although it didn't turn it into a huge difference. 1080i is only has good as your textures i would assume.
What i meant is if u took into consideration Everything and simmulate it with xtreame precision, like what F1 teams do with CFD-wind tunnels. Then your gonna need a super computer that can't even do it in real time. obviusly that type of precision isnt neccesary for a game and LFS level works just fine.
Sometimes it seems people take these games as training sims, but for me there both fun in different ways. I defend Gt4 because i felt it was a great demontration of Programming skills and such.
I can't imagine any game/simmulation moving the track instead of the car. how did u draw that conclution. dosent it create a paradox if you have more than one car on the same track. Its far more beneficial to update the car positions(resource) wise than updating the whole track.
are you talking about those 80s games that where 2d were u basically doged the cars
Wow. Thanks, Don, that video is a thing of beauty.
To the original poster, yes, the guy sounds frustrating, but you'll probably be happier if you just ignore him. You know he's wrong, and that should be enough.
By the way, in Forza, the car does turn by using the front wheels, it doesn't use rotation points. I've tried this many times before. Forza also has suspension movement, and on road cars, quite a bit of it. You can also see it has dynamic camber, and is simulating the circle of grip on each tire.
Now, I am NOT saying Forza is as realistic as LFS, not even close, but it's certainly not in the same class as GT4. In my opinion at least, Forza actually feels right, unlike a lot of other so called sims, including the SimBin/ISI titles....
first off i am bias twords GT4 cause im a fanboy of GT and PS2
but i am S2 licenced. i own the game
its a good game
they both are good Sims
Im not gonna quote anyone cause i dont wanna go scrounging (sp) through all that stuff.
the reason the Corvette doesn't inducee any oversteer is because the weight is lifted from the front of the car when you mash the gas and the tires don grip anymore. you can feel it in the DFP wheel.
Also, cars do flip in GT4, ive done it several times. granted freak accidents (sp) but it happens.
Drifting can be done in GT4 there were already videos on it.
in GT4 when you whip the wheel around back and forth at 160mph it will spin out. thats what happens. end of story. 4wd would be harder but w/e
GT4 lacks damage, tire heat, tire pressure.
but then look at LFS no parts upgrades or anything. that takes up space on a disk. LFS has no disk, and no options.
LFS lacks rally racing. for me "rallycross" doesn't cut it. the rally racing in GT3 IMO was better than it is in GT4. but still is better than LFS.
GT4 has alot of actual GT cars. LFS not so much.
LFS has nice physics. so does GT4. but when im racing im not staring at my tires looking for it to flex every time a take the slightest curve. maybe its just me.
In referance to the ford GT comment that it goes 270 mph.
idk if out of the box it can hit 200mph why not with 750 grand in upgrades why cant it hit 270
I've never seen a car flip in GT4, no matter how many times I try, and how many crashes there are. They always are connected on an axis or something, and never roll over. They ALWAYS keep all 4 wheels down on the ground, and never have I seen a car with its roof on the ground or at least close to that happening.
The drifting in GT4 is very vague and abstract. The sliding in all GT games even is not correct. There is somehow an endless amount of sliding, and the sliding can even become FASTER! ... even if your car is compeltely (90deg) sideways.
This is where GT4 begins to lack in it's timeline and/or purpose of playing. You may think getting all those upgrades is cool, but this is what you do time and time again to do what else? Just have a faster car and then move onto the next car to upgrade and win the same races over and over again? GT4 loses its interest because of such upgrades and repetitive gaming style. It's not all that great to have such upgrades from a playability perspective, because that is the only thing you can do to win a race... and the races themselves are so unbalanced because you can choose nearly whatever class of car you want to race to get easy money. It isn't "strict" class restrictions like in Forza (where upgrading your car makes it a new class).
Granted that GT4 has cooler rally tracks than LFS, I still think GT4's "rally" courses are not much better in terms of having a true rally experience. They are lap-by-lap rally courses like in LFS, and if you wanted to argue about having better rally courses, have REAL point to point rally courses that are not so wide and made for only 1 car at a time.
GT4/Polyphony also has an employee count in the thousands, and hundreds of modellers. LFS has 1.
Why would anyone be staring at their tires for flex when they are racing, and in what car can you see the tires flex from the cockpit? The tire flex is a feature to add to the realism. And especially adds to making the game look more true-to-life with how a car performs and interacts with the ground. Whereas GT4's wheels somehow go into the ground at weird angles, and stay as solid blocks -- along with a shadow that doesn't look properly placed. That method dates back years and years in old driving games, and GT4 still uses it. Even their new PS3 GT title still uses it!
_________
I've played each and every GT title, so much that I am bored out of my mind from them, and always highly dissapointed that they haven't changed much in the light of their play style. I don't mind doing the license tests and unlocking cars or whatever (that stuff is a breeze - and I finish it very quickly, but do I have to prove everytime that I can drive a car??? ffs). But it is so mundayne, and lacks so much in the timeline of progression for a player. It is very easy to get bored of, and when I have something where I can play people online with great physics and people I know (LFS), I'd much rather play that than sit at my TV and try to unlock a stupid Nismo car --- and all for what? It's a fascinating game to have and play with, but the titles die off very quickly because it lacks a lot of progression timeline for the players.
Being pretty anal about physics in racing games, I look for the best. And the only best simulations I have played on the PC are LFS, and Papyrus titles. The only two best driving games with good car feel for the console are PGR and Forza titles. I'll still play GT titles every now and then, but I know that having an abundance of cars and tracks is not all that great -- and that is the only thing they can be superior with for a driving game. The physics in GT4 are not something to be amazed about, there are quite a bit of flaws. But still, I don't think there can be a fair comparison with LFS and GT4, they just don't mix. And at least one of them has the rightful name of being called a "realistic driving simulator".
One thing I've always found annoying about the GT series (I started in '97 on the old grey lunchbox) is the complete lack of damage. You can hammer around in one your dozens of different 900hp Skylines, using the AI as brakes and riding walls around corners or hitting jumps sideways at 300+ kph and suffer absolutely no penalty for it. No panel damage, no suspension damage, no handling/aero issues when you rear-end someone in an open-wheeler, no rollovers. LFS's damage model may not be complete (well, neither's the game so it's to be expected) but at least it's there! Punk someone in a BF1 and you need a pitstop. Punk someone in a UF1 and presto: you can't turn right anymore and you have a big ding in the front. Smash a GT AI car at 400 kph: you slow down, he speeds up, in about a second you're ahead of him again.
Also, GT may have a zillion well-rendered cars but half of them are either Skylines or mass-produced family cars. I really don't fancy being required to race a bloody Yaris or some simliarly uninspiring mum-car, thanks. I think focusing on quality, realistic driving and getting rid of at least half of the cars would do the GT franchise a big favour. Why is it the only car game ever that doesn't have rollovers or decent - or at least entertaining - damage? There is absolutely no point in having a 480+kph capable car (my personal record in the Escudo) if you can't smash the damn thing into another car and shit yourself laughing watching the replay
Don't get me wrong though - I played through all three GTs until GT4 came out (I'd had GPL and LFS for quite some time by then) and had great fun doing it. However, it always tunred out the same way: buy a car, win some stuff, juice the car, win more stuff, repeat the process until you have enough money or prize cars to just destroy the opposition. Remember the oval enduro in GT3 where you get your Escudo and rubber-band the throttle stick and ride the walls for 100 laps? Also, I don't remember being able to soup up a MkII GT40 IRL. How is that simulation? What exactly is a "Stage 4" turbo? And why isn't there an option to select all maximum upgrades at once, instead of having to purchase and install everything manually? It's cumbersome and silly.
The most fun I got from GT was racing a friend in the same car (usually stock Vipers) in epic battles at Trial Mountain and getting huge air off that bump after T1 But I'm under no illusions: there's no way GT can compare to LFS on anything approaching equal terms, let alone beat it!
To be honest, the GT series have become less and less focused on the gameplay, and more on the car selection and tracks. The driving physics haven't changed much at all in my opinion. And oh yes, I sure do remember the Escudo trick on the oval. I really liked the 787b you won after that. But think about that trick.... it's funny that nearly everyone that played GT3 has done this trick and figured it out themselves!!! That kind of tells you how desperate and careless you can be with this game just to get a win, and it is just to easy to cheat the system. Everyone has cut the tracks and or slammed into the AI (and the AI repel like a magnet), and hell, GT4 is even WORSE in this case. Especially with the B-spec computer controlled option that won't even require that you race yourself!!! :doh: Only reinforces my point that the GT series have become less and less of a "game" for the player, and all just for show.
I do still wish that you can upgrade all in one go. Buying the parts is indeed very cumbersome and silly, the GT titles always have had problems like this, and I think for them to not have changed it over the course of several of their titles, that just is weird to me. One thing that was stupid that they took out in GT4 was the racing bodykit modification that you could add all at once from GT3. This was the kit that would be available for most cars and give you the option for downforce, and a nice looking race car finally! Dissapoints me that they've taken out so many neat ideas from the past, and replaced them with really stupid ideas and features. All while they haven't even improved the physics the slightest bit illepall
GT seems more like a virtual car show than the ultimate racing simulator, especially since the PS2 with its killer eye candy factor was released, and especially since I started PC simracing. Single-player GT ceased being a challenge way back in the PS1 days when the best car was the green race-spec Silvia. The methods of beating GT haven't changed at all in nearly a decade. Cash up, spec up & off you go, then watch the sexy replay.
These days the strength of GT for me lies in playing it casually with friends and beer It's no more a driving simulator than Daytona or Sega Rally but just as much fun after one or two ales :up:
I guess if you guys focus on those areas of why GT4 or Gt is bad then yea. For me i have had Great fun racing with friends Seriusly Online using DFP and right next to them. Yea when am driving i realize that the outcome could of been alot different had certain other things been.
Damage in Gt4 prob isnt really possible on ps2 and won't be half way near realism.
The same way you guys beat on GT4 i could beat on LFS
1.LFS has Inconsistent levels of Simulation Excellent Tire simulation but Horrible Engine simulation and such.
2.LFS Slow developement
3.While LFs does have online, There arer't alot of people online For me living in New york whenever i get a chance to play i always check LFS world and see what S2 servers are doing. and it isnt alot. Most of the time is a few servers and more people playing the demo than the game it self. Right now There 13 servers on S2. There are 116 People playing the game and there more people playing the demo.
Problem with LFs is it dosent apeal to alot of people its enough for
people to play the demo but isnt enough to get them to buy it. Now that dosent mean it dosent appeal because its Super realistic. probally has to do With actually Gameplay. Drag Racing and Rally are subpar.
4. The tracks are just reiteration of what we have seen times before. There is no aspect of the tracks we i havent seen before.
I could prob go on for a while with the areas of problem I see with LFS and say stuff like LFS seem more like a tech Demo than a game. But that dosent make it a bad game i take it for what it worth.
??? Explain what is inconsistent, and why the engine simulation is horrible. If you think GT4 is any better, take a closer look.
Again. Realize this game is a "garage game" produced out of 3 developer's own homes. That is 3 people and with the help of its community/userbase that pay for the game knowing they will do better and better each and every "slow" update they have. As oppossed to a video game you go buy on a CD and are STUCK with that game for the rest of your Playstation's life, and really cannot have anything new for years to come. While we get more feedback and more "goods" in return from the game's own developers with just a few months of wait each time... sometimes weeks.
It's too bad you resort to judging the game mainly based on your demo time of play, when playing with S2 is an entirely different experience. Hell you are over in NY, when I am in California, and I haven't really had any complaints about the number of people playing online. Surely there aren't as many servers filled up as in earlier hours when people in Europe are playing, but there are users playing on the servers and you at least have a choice between 8 or so servers at the least. And coming online to play in the late afternoon and evening shouldn't be a problem for you actually, less people play online when I am online at around this time I post this reply. But I still go play, and have been doing it for almost 3 years now.
Coming up with your own track ideas is no walk in the park. Eric has done a great job with what he has done so far, and he has gone through so many other track ideas that never make it to the game, because he tries to get something that is quality work. I like making tracks myself personally, and wish I could make some of my own ideas for LFS, but we have to settle with what Eric makes for us, and we have enough to choose from to keep us busy until his next big update. Something that just keeps adding on to the game, and increasing its options.
Having a bundle of real cars and real tracks can be great in GT4, but it wont make much of a difference since these are objects in which make up the game's platform, and the driving is what really matters to call something a "simulation". One could argue on and on why GT4 has real cars/tracks, a nice photo mode, licensed music, car upgrades, a driving license system... etc --- while LFS has none of that. But that is all completely irrelevant to the whole debate here: "Which is a better driving simulation?". We are talking physics here, not why Game A is better than Game B because of its development plan or something. Yet if there are many other constructed comments against LFS or GT4, it all just seems too easy to make a point, or change someone's opinion (or not).
If you have more of your "I can beat down LFS" snacks in your lunch box, feel free to share, but there is nothing you could do to compare LFS's physics with GT4, their's is "subpar".
But I guess you wouldn't realize why we respect the unique little game called LFS when you haven't paid for it Keep spinning that hot little GT4 cd, just be sure and insert your memory card when you need to save your garage!
lala, I can take on many of your points. The engine modelling isn't as sophisticated as the tyre simulation, for example. I'd personally argue that, of the two, I'm glad the tyres got the focus before the engine. The tyres have much greater importance in the feel/handling of each and every car in LFS, and in every track, than the engine model.
LFS development is slow compared with...? You're along for the ride with LFS, and so you know the development process. With all due respect, you cannot compare the development of LFS with the development of any other racing simulator and you cannot therefore define it as slow.. or fast.. or anything, frankly. Foul ball, buddy.
What I absolutely can't accept are your points about the tracks. They are as disparate as you can get, but you'd have to be S2-licenced to know that. You'll just have to take our word for it when we say that Aston Cadet is as different from Fern Bay Black, in ride and feel, as Nurburgring is from Donington Park.
I can't argue with you that there aren't many people around at GMT0100-0700, and I agree that it's rather limited at that time. My sleeping pattern is screwed up at the moment, and I'd happily be driving LFS if there were more people to drive with. I don't have an answer for it, except to get your friends online.
Absolutely, Tweaks. I either want an LFS-standard of physics environment in a sim or what's the point?
i just put down the controller bout 30 seconds ago.. i was pulling hand brakes in GT4 and yet me revs went UP!!! me fingers where not even on the accelerator.. i did this many times..
was using the BMW McLaren F1 with the stage 4 turbo.. (i thought it was Mercedies benz who made the F1)
I was driving Gran Turismo since its first release, I have played GT4 for a month, what has really put me off was not the stupid AI, or the lack of a cockpit view...
The loading times between the Menus and the dozen times you have to answer that damn question "Do you really want to do that?"
Alot of time is spended just jumping threw the menus and waiting for the loading times, you have to navigate threw a Mess of User interface until you get to where you wanted, answering on pathetic questions, that annoying waiting times finally made me quit driving GT4. It is to much navigating threw the Menus, and a too simplified Physic Engine, the World has moved on since Gran Turismo 2. But the GT Series has not much.
). What does matter is how you simplify the real world physics in your calculations.
The tire flex is a feature to add to the realism. And especially adds to making the game look more true-to-life with how a car performs and interacts with the ground. Whereas GT4's wheels somehow go into the ground at weird angles, and stay as solid blocks -- along with a shadow that doesn't look properly placed. That method dates back years and years in old driving games, and GT4 still uses it. Even their new PS3 GT title still uses it!
illepall
GT seems more like a virtual car show than the ultimate racing simulator, especially since the PS2 with its killer eye candy factor was released, and especially since I started PC simracing. Single-player GT ceased being a challenge way back in the PS1 days when the best car was the green race-spec Silvia. The methods of beating GT haven't changed at all in nearly a decade. Cash up, spec up & off you go, then watch the sexy replay.
Explain what is inconsistent, and why the engine simulation is horrible. If you think GT4 is any better, take a closer look.
Keep spinning that hot little GT4 cd, just be sure and insert your memory card when you need to save your garage!