GPL did both complete physics and damage simulation of suspensions, but it had undeformable chassis too. Most probably it's a necessary compromise when RAM is limited, but also when decisions to allocate funds and dev time and resources must be made.

Just think about this: suspension are dynamic parts of which a real time model must be implemented, so simulating them when they are damaged has roughly the same computational weight and a deformed arm can be simulated changing characteristic angles and sizes in the same way, although with exaggerated values, in which suspension settings are simulated.

But a chassis, despite not really rigid, is tens or hundreds thousand times more rigid than suspensions, so when simulating it undamaged, approximation to a totally rigid one, maybe adding some approximated angles to suspensions ones to simulate its very small deformations, can be done. Simulating faithfully greater deformations would require a more detailed and modifiable chassis model that would differ noticeably from the simpler approximated one only for heavy damages, so additional resources, dev costs, RAM requirements and computational weight would be added just to be used to simulate the chassis and car behaviour when damage is so heavy to totally compromise the race.

Hence, a sensible compromise is to simulate as well as possible suspensions damages, when accidents are serious enough, the damages will stop the car anyway, but here comes the problem: in open-wheels cars suspensions are totally exposed to damage, so in most serious accidents they'll receive enough damages to stop the car and so give the correct effect of the accident to the race.

But in cars with covered wheels, they are a lot more protected, particularly if the chassis is approximated with a totally rigid one, so using suspension damage will be often not enough to realistically kick cars out of the race in accidents that in reality should do it.

Approximating engine damage from over-revving or overheating has less consequences on realism (as long as permanent damage in reality is simulated with permanent damage in the game), and simulating its damages from hits is almost totally unnecessary, as in reality chassis, suspensions and wheels should be heavily damaged before it and also in cars with the engine protruding forward or backward, so more vulnerable, an heavy hit to it would damage chassis, axles (if the traction is on the same part where the engine is) and suspensions.

Can you break that up a bit so I can read it?

LOL, you're right, ugly wall of text, I broke it in paragraphs to make it look less undigestable.   

Finally. It was hard to take you seriously. I mean I know I'm biased toward Forza 4, and from hundred of hours of playing racing SIMs I can see Forza 4 is the best on the market, but I don't push my opinion onto others like you.

I aimed to show both games outside the sim aspects deliver. That tally shows them on par. GT5 has rain and drifting, Forza 4 has a better selection of cars and Extra features (like Top Gear) for car enthusiasts.

To many people, it's more then just a game, it's car culture.

But your not right. You are incapable of debating, and can't accept others points of view, so instead of acting like an adult, you resort to childish mockery. That's have 5 year olds debate.....are you 5? I guess RolStoppable is right when he stated that the intelligence of most debaters is that of a child for a rated E title.

Forza 4, track temperature affects performance, GT5 it does not. GT5 also has over 60% ricers, many repeats. How can you expect me not to laugh at that?

I don't laugh at GT5 gamers thinking it's superior, and I have probably played more GT5 then you, as well as most Forza and racing sims all together. The way you behave is a joke, if this is how you treat people around you, I would image very few people like being near you.

Oppp

Guess I was right, more people think Forza is graphically superrior.

Graphics: Forza4 - 30, GT5 - 21

Sound: Forza4 - 32, GT5 - 16 ;-O!

Now I'm not going to be immature like others here. Not going to rub the fact that Forza 4 is the better looking and sounding game.

It won, I'm happy.

I think I remember people saying that about GT5 actually.

Thanks I'll try to read it now

I gotta get more into PC gaming. Yea one of the most unrealistic things about GT5 is that you can jump a car 10-15 feet high and no damage. A car will have serious suspension damage for heights over 1 foot, and most of these cars would bottom out at that height causing body damage. Anything more then a foot would likely destroy the car. However Kazunori Yamauchi says they had to limit the damage in GT5 to make it fun. If they started making it realistic, many of the non existant dream tracks wouldn't be drivable.

It's so stupid though. I know for Forza 4, non of the tracks let you jump over a foot. None of this BS, it's all realistic.

It's not even so simple in reality, as like when skiing, the consequences of a jump aren't just a function of its height, but also of how the car lands and how's the road slope at landing and not only slope, but also at least its first derivative, as it influences whether it will add or subtract suspension compression to the one caused by just absorbing the vertical speed of the landing.