By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft Discussion - Forza Motorsport 7 brings the future

 

Is FM7 pitstop the future?

Yes 41 41.41%
 
No 58 58.59%
 
Total:99

Far be it from me to point out hypocrisy, but.. 

Azzanation said:

sink to these baby jabs at a game

Azzanation said:

Again 700 cars > Pit Crew. Thats my opinion. Now go back to playing your pit crews and ill go back to playing with my cars.

Just some advice though, since you are really stuck on those car count numbers, I'm not a fan of, nor am I buying either game, I'm just making observations relative to the thread.

From your response you seem under the impression that I'm a GTS fan attacking FM7 for the sake of attacking it, that's quite telling. 



Around the Network
NATO said:

Far be it from me to point out hypocrisy, but.. 

Azzanation said:

sink to these baby jabs at a game

Azzanation said:

Again 700 cars > Pit Crew. Thats my opinion. Now go back to playing your pit crews and ill go back to playing with my cars.

Just some advice though, since you are really stuck on those car count numbers, I'm not a fan of, nor am I buying either game, I'm just making observations relative to the thread.

From your response you seem under the impression that I'm a GTS fan attacking FM7 for the sake of attacking it, that's quite telling. 

I am not a racing fan either. Sim racers dont interest me. I am just saying that this is nit picking one small thing on a game that offers heaps more. 

I am sure many in here (wont admit it) will choose the content and effects FM7 adds over an animated pit crew if they had a choice.

For me id rather play Mario Kart 8 or Horizon 3



Azzanation said:
NATO said:

Far be it from me to point out hypocrisy, but.. 

Just some advice though, since you are really stuck on those car count numbers, I'm not a fan of, nor am I buying either game, I'm just making observations relative to the thread.

From your response you seem under the impression that I'm a GTS fan attacking FM7 for the sake of attacking it, that's quite telling. 

I am not a racing fan either. Sim racers dont interest me. I am just saying that this is nit picking one small thing on a game that offers heaps more. 

I am sure many in here (wont admit it) will choose the content and effects FM7 adds over an animated pit crew if they had a choice.

For me id rather play Mario Kart 8 or Horizon 3

It's also the topic of the entire thread, so yes, people are going to discuss. It. 



NATO said:
LudicrousSpeed said:

Idk, seems right at home in a thread about bare bones pit stop sequences.

Also, there can exist middle ground between one end of the spectrum and another. PD doesn't have to make super realistic crash physics in order to get rid of the bumper car physics.

Well no, because the threads about a trailer clearly showing a fully featured pit sequence then having nothing of the sort, for it to be right at home either game would need to have shown dramatic crash sequences while showing an "in game footage" overlay, then ship with no crash simulation at all.

Crash simulation is a bumper cars joke in both games.

GTS: https://youtu.be/GVr-Qsrj-VQ?t=55
FM7: https://youtu.be/5PgqM28wdTQ?t=538

Then destruction derby 1 on the PS1 - https://youtu.be/cc9Td6Gm8is?t=42

For a long time Forza was way ahead in terms of crash physics, but both Forza and GT seem to have plateau'd at an awkward, inaccurate model that is both unrealistic and lacking in any real purpose.

I say that as someone that races competitively in the real world once a month, at Tsukuba, Fuji speedway and Suzuka. I still hope that some day they'll focus more effort into that area of the simulation but they never seem to, it's all resolution this, car count that, lighting this, photo mode that.

Meh.

Crash modelling itself wouldn't be that hard.

two bodies, quantity of energy, angle and speed of impact, center of gravity... they could model the result of the crash, the cosmetic damage they could also stipulate with the mesh damaging.

On one video Kaz said something interesting... "simulating driving physics isn't really hard, we think it is, but if it is complicated is because you are doing it wrong".

I guess the reason for they not doing crashing physics is more lack of interest (and that most people would turn off because they would lose all races, even worse when AI bump you even when you are doing the turns the right way) than anything.

And how do you evaluate how close GT simulates the driving aspect of the race? On my small experience I can say it's quite good on the fundamentals.. after playing for 6 GTs and over probably 2000h I raced kart for the first time and won, having the 3rd best lap of the month at it (20min race) and most of what I did was from learnt on GT 6 kart experience. I also know that Kaz had never run Nurburgring in real life before going for a race over there (but had over 1000h of Nurburgring racing in GT) and came out 1st or 2nd on the class he gone. GT Academy winners are racing on good level against pros that raced whole life, etc... But in the case of GT Academy and Kaz they wouldn't say anything bad because they are interested in the success of the product. So what is your opinion on the translation from your gaming to your pro racing?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Azzanation said:
NATO said:

Far be it from me to point out hypocrisy, but.. 

Just some advice though, since you are really stuck on those car count numbers, I'm not a fan of, nor am I buying either game, I'm just making observations relative to the thread.

From your response you seem under the impression that I'm a GTS fan attacking FM7 for the sake of attacking it, that's quite telling. 

I am not a racing fan either. Sim racers dont interest me. I am just saying that this is nit picking one small thing on a game that offers heaps more. 

I am sure many in here (wont admit it) will choose the content and effects FM7 adds over an animated pit crew if they had a choice.

For me id rather play Mario Kart 8 or Horizon 3

So someone that doesn't like sim racer chooses content over quality of simulation, impressive.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:

Crash modelling itself wouldn't be that hard.

two bodies, quantity of energy, angle and speed of impact, center of gravity... they could model the result of the crash, the cosmetic damage they could also stipulate with the mesh damaging.

On one video Kaz said something interesting... "simulating driving physics isn't really hard, we think it is, but if it is complicated is because you are doing it wrong".

I guess the reason for they not doing crashing physics is more lack of interest (and that most people would turn off because they would lose all races, even worse when AI bump you even when you are doing the turns the right way) than anything.

And how do you evaluate how close GT simulates the driving aspect of the race? On my small experience I can say it's quite good on the fundamentals.. after playing for 6 GTs and over probably 2000h I raced kart for the first time and won, having the 3rd best lap of the month at it (20min race) and most of what I did was from learnt on GT 6 kart experience. I also know that Kaz had never run Nurburgring in real life before going for a race over there (but had over 1000h of Nurburgring racing in GT) and came out 1st or 2nd on the class he gone. GT Academy winners are racing on good level against pros that raced whole life, etc... But in the case of GT Academy and Kaz they wouldn't say anything bad because they are interested in the success of the product. So what is your opinion on the translation from your gaming to your pro racing?

Purely from a car physics model perspective, discounting collision, they're about as good as can be expected for the current hardware I guess.

Physics modelling is simultaniously too complex and too simple, too much emphasis is put into how each car handles and getting that handling as close to the real thing as possible, but in doing so and not addressing major contributing factors to those characteristics results in pinpoint focus on getting the physics to do what the real life car does, without the appropriate inputs, thus making the physics calculations for the inputs they do use, wrong on their own.

Tire interaction with the road surface is a big point of contention, currently it's a factor of calculating friction and grip with some games going a step further and using event triggers to dynbamically adjust (reduce) the calculated values to simulate tire wear, what they do not do however is take into consideration that a rotating tire is more than the compressed sum of its grip, the entire surface of the tire will wear uniquely, and grip characteristics change based on a multitude of factors, grit in tread, cracking across tread patterns or lost blocks from aggresive use, temperature across the tire, air temperature and PSI of each tire as heat effects the observed pressure, tire wall ridgidity as heat and abuse effect it.

Then, once you factor in all of that, the track surface itself, no two patches of asphalt are the same, varied degrees of baldless (loss of loose medium), compression characteristics (drive on an old section of road then onto a newly laid section, it's a minor difference but you will feel it instantly), grip effects and characteristics for a tire hitting a painted portion, the type of paint used (marker, grit-market, rumble, warning, graffiti), ironworks laid on the track itself, rubber deposit, oil loss, track temperature, racing line grooving and plenty, plenty more.

Even as a driver you don't take these conciously into consideration, but as you familiarize yourself with a track you instinctively learn of these minor faults and issues, if you're simply driving around your neighbourhood you'll encounter it, in certain sections of road you'll know to slow down because a manhole cover causes your tires to slip, or you move to a specific side of the road to avoid a rough patch or hole, etc. you don't get that in these games.

And the most obvious one is the lack of geforce effecting the driver, even on super expensive setups, all they really amount to is shaking your chair and at best, learning you sideways so gravity sort of pulls you to one side, but the effects of gravity and indeed the constant knowledge that messing up on a corner or during an overtake could at best destroy your vehicle, or worst, end your life, subconciously effect your choices as a driver, you dont get that in racing games, because any sort of accident that would end the race for you in the real world have next to no consequences in a game, you don't even have to stop racing, theres rarely any lasting consequence beyond repairing the car and even that is a rare requirement.

Racing sims are good at getting the basics down, and allowing you to develop a relatively reliable grasp of driving technique, braking discipline, good lines to take, overtaking a manouvers, throttle control (for wheel owners), but stepping out of, say, a 800hp GTR in a game, and into the real thing and taking it on a track, are two vastly different things.



NATO said:
DonFerrari said:

Crash modelling itself wouldn't be that hard.

two bodies, quantity of energy, angle and speed of impact, center of gravity... they could model the result of the crash, the cosmetic damage they could also stipulate with the mesh damaging.

On one video Kaz said something interesting... "simulating driving physics isn't really hard, we think it is, but if it is complicated is because you are doing it wrong".

I guess the reason for they not doing crashing physics is more lack of interest (and that most people would turn off because they would lose all races, even worse when AI bump you even when you are doing the turns the right way) than anything.

And how do you evaluate how close GT simulates the driving aspect of the race? On my small experience I can say it's quite good on the fundamentals.. after playing for 6 GTs and over probably 2000h I raced kart for the first time and won, having the 3rd best lap of the month at it (20min race) and most of what I did was from learnt on GT 6 kart experience. I also know that Kaz had never run Nurburgring in real life before going for a race over there (but had over 1000h of Nurburgring racing in GT) and came out 1st or 2nd on the class he gone. GT Academy winners are racing on good level against pros that raced whole life, etc... But in the case of GT Academy and Kaz they wouldn't say anything bad because they are interested in the success of the product. So what is your opinion on the translation from your gaming to your pro racing?

Purely from a car physics model perspective, discounting collision, they're about as good as can be expected for the current hardware I guess.

Physics modelling is simultaniously too complex and too simple, too much emphasis is put into how each car handles and getting that handling as close to the real thing as possible, but in doing so and not addressing major contributing factors to those characteristics results in pinpoint focus on getting the physics to do what the real life car does, without the appropriate inputs, thus making the physics calculations for the inputs they do use, wrong on their own.

Tire interaction with the road surface is a big point of contention, currently it's a factor of calculating friction and grip with some games going a step further and using event triggers to dynbamically adjust (reduce) the calculated values to simulate tire wear, what they do not do however is take into consideration that a rotating tire is more than the compressed sum of its grip, the entire surface of the tire will wear uniquely, and grip characteristics change based on a multitude of factors, grit in tread, cracking across tread patterns or lost blocks from aggresive use, temperature across the tire, air temperature and PSI of each tire as heat effects the observed pressure, tire wall ridgidity as heat and abuse effect it.

Then, once you factor in all of that, the track surface itself, no two patches of asphalt are the same, varied degrees of baldless (loss of loose medium), compression characteristics (drive on an old section of road then onto a newly laid section, it's a minor difference but you will feel it instantly), grip effects and characteristics for a tire hitting a painted portion, the type of paint used (marker, grit-market, rumble, warning, graffiti), ironworks laid on the track itself, rubber deposit, oil loss, track temperature, racing line grooving and plenty, plenty more.

Even as a driver you don't take these conciously into consideration, but as you familiarize yourself with a track you instinctively learn of these minor faults and issues, if you're simply driving around your neighbourhood you'll encounter it, in certain sections of road you'll know to slow down because a manhole cover causes your tires to slip, or you move to a specific side of the road to avoid a rough patch or hole, etc. you don't get that in these games.

And the most obvious one is the lack of geforce effecting the driver, even on super expensive setups, all they really amount to is shaking your chair and at best, learning you sideways so gravity sort of pulls you to one side, but the effects of gravity and indeed the constant knowledge that messing up on a corner or during an overtake could at best destroy your vehicle, or worst, end your life, subconciously effect your choices as a driver, you dont get that in racing games, because any sort of accident that would end the race for you in the real world have next to no consequences in a game, you don't even have to stop racing, theres rarely any lasting consequence beyond repairing the car and even that is a rare requirement.

Racing sims are good at getting the basics down, and allowing you to develop a relatively reliable grasp of driving technique, braking discipline, good lines to take, overtaking a manouvers, throttle control (for wheel owners), but stepping out of, say, a 800hp GTR in a game, and into the real thing and taking it on a track, are two vastly different things.

I would say I have to agree with you in all points, and have seem some of those comments...

They do laser measure all tracks and their cracks and paints, but I'm not sure how close they try to simulate the effects of those in the driving, besides all the points you mentioned about tyre physics.

And I would say most aren't crazy enough to go into a 800hp GTR in real life and try to do the same as in the game. You would probably instantly freeze before the forces of acceleration and side G-force. And that is why I would like to separate the money to do the day track of Lancer Evolution and have some real racing experience because even on the kart the G-Force made it so much more fun than just driving fast without real feedback.

You sense so much more with your foot on the pedal, the shaking of the seat, all sensorial parts that give you better understanding of the car and racing than the control.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
NATO said:

Well no, because the threads about a trailer clearly showing a fully featured pit sequence then having nothing of the sort, for it to be right at home either game would need to have shown dramatic crash sequences while showing an "in game footage" overlay, then ship with no crash simulation at all.

Crash simulation is a bumper cars joke in both games.

GTS: https://youtu.be/GVr-Qsrj-VQ?t=55
FM7: https://youtu.be/5PgqM28wdTQ?t=538

Then destruction derby 1 on the PS1 - https://youtu.be/cc9Td6Gm8is?t=42

For a long time Forza was way ahead in terms of crash physics, but both Forza and GT seem to have plateau'd at an awkward, inaccurate model that is both unrealistic and lacking in any real purpose.

I say that as someone that races competitively in the real world once a month, at Tsukuba, Fuji speedway and Suzuka. I still hope that some day they'll focus more effort into that area of the simulation but they never seem to, it's all resolution this, car count that, lighting this, photo mode that.

Meh.

Crash modelling itself wouldn't be that hard.

two bodies, quantity of energy, angle and speed of impact, center of gravity... they could model the result of the crash, the cosmetic damage they could also stipulate with the mesh damaging.

On one video Kaz said something interesting... "simulating driving physics isn't really hard, we think it is, but if it is complicated is because you are doing it wrong".

I guess the reason for they not doing crashing physics is more lack of interest (and that most people would turn off because they would lose all races, even worse when AI bump you even when you are doing the turns the right way) than anything.

And how do you evaluate how close GT simulates the driving aspect of the race? On my small experience I can say it's quite good on the fundamentals.. after playing for 6 GTs and over probably 2000h I raced kart for the first time and won, having the 3rd best lap of the month at it (20min race) and most of what I did was from learnt on GT 6 kart experience. I also know that Kaz had never run Nurburgring in real life before going for a race over there (but had over 1000h of Nurburgring racing in GT) and came out 1st or 2nd on the class he gone. GT Academy winners are racing on good level against pros that raced whole life, etc... But in the case of GT Academy and Kaz they wouldn't say anything bad because they are interested in the success of the product. So what is your opinion on the translation from your gaming to your pro racing?

Tbh I’m pretty convinced those weak ass console CPUs are the reason why we can’t have nice things. How would they be able to cope with the crash physics of 20 highly detailed cars while still doing AI etc?! It’s just not possible.

Edit..oh yeah, just saw you’ve covered that yourself in another post already..

We'll talk again next gen.



DonFerrari said:

I would say I have to agree with you in all points, and have seem some of those comments...

They do laser measure all tracks and their cracks and paints, but I'm not sure how close they try to simulate the effects of those in the driving, besides all the points you mentioned about tyre physics.

And I would say most aren't crazy enough to go into a 800hp GTR in real life and try to do the same as in the game. You would probably instantly freeze before the forces of acceleration and side G-force. And that is why I would like to separate the money to do the day track of Lancer Evolution and have some real racing experience because even on the kart the G-Force made it so much more fun than just driving fast without real feedback.

You sense so much more with your foot on the pedal, the shaking of the seat, all sensorial parts that give you better understanding of the car and racing than the control.

A problem with the laser scanning thing is, no matter how accurately they scan the track, that data has to be massively paired back and simplified in order to keep the overall geometry as low as possible, which involves flattening a lot of it and keeping only key features such as elevation, angle and pitch, while they do also scan the paint, it's used only for getting the markings right, they don't actually do friction testing on each portion of track and paint, and laser measurements, even if done perfectly and not simplified at all, would only give you the surface data, not the friction data, and the friction data is something that gives a track it's soul, because it evolves with the track and it's use.

Indeed the surface of the track also evolves with it, as heavy use means sections need to be resurfaced and that resurfacing causes large patches of frictional change.

There isn't a process, yet, that can accurately replicate a track down to even a checkerboarding of friction zones.

For a real track, in a real car, approaching it professionally, every single method of input gets processed fluidly, vibration and tension of the wheel, note of the engine, jerkiness of gear shifts, feedback from the track through the accelerator, feedback from the brake pads, rotors and calipers through the brake pedal, a near sixth sense of the grippiness of all four wheels, all data from gauges and clusters, even the sound of the chassis popping and clicking, right down to the whine of the transmission as you pull through the gears, it's visceral and raw, something no racing sim has come close to replicating, and no wheel manufacturer has yet bothered to do any sort of feedback in the gear shifter or pedals, theyre just dead and everything depends entirely on judder in the steering.



DonFerrari said:
Azzanation said:

I am not a racing fan either. Sim racers dont interest me. I am just saying that this is nit picking one small thing on a game that offers heaps more. 

I am sure many in here (wont admit it) will choose the content and effects FM7 adds over an animated pit crew if they had a choice.

For me id rather play Mario Kart 8 or Horizon 3

So someone that doesn't like sim racer chooses content over quality of simulation, impressive.

Are we talking about Pit Stops vs Content or quality of simulation? I can safetly say FM7 is very good in the quality of simulation catagory. And its a very polished racer with unriviled content this gen so far. If you rather have 1/4 of the car list, no Dymanic Weather or days and nights for an aminated pit crew, go for it. GTS is perfect for you.

Yes i am not a fan of Sim racers. I am here in this thread because i find it rather immunising and a nice jab at a good game.