FM3 only a wee bit better than FM2?

GT5P better looking?

That's most probably not how racing sims work, though, unless they are really more primitive than the stuff I've worked with.

If the sampling of the ground had a spacial frequency of 1.3ft then all hell would break loose in the behaviour of your suspensions when you meet the trackside bumps. What probably happens is integration of the forces over an interpolated trajectory between two physical clock ticks.

Thus higher physics clock would still lead to more precise response, but a lower clock does not really ignore anything that happens inbetween the steps. Only inbetween a smaller integration subdivision used every tick.

Oh dear, they do seem determined to say just the wrong thing.

A game is code, it can be replicated so long as you understand the principle you're wanting to replicate - i.e. while I think Turn 10 have done some decent stuff with physics (although like the Digital Foundry analysis I don't think it's quite as amazing as they make out) it can clearly be replicated by any suitably experienced coder aiming for the same results.

Sure, your average guys aren't going to match it easily, but a good developer? Of course they could.

Well at least this wasn't as bad as most Forza 3 threads...

Can't get the links to work, but have a look at this?

Comparing Forza 2 to Forza 3

Actually, you're right, it isn't.  Guess everyones' been worn down by too much FM3 - GT5 arguing.

Can you link to the DF article.  I love those guys.

Lets hope it stays that way.

Digital Foundry Forza 3 Analysis

Here is an excerpt:

Onto the issue of crash damage then, and it's interesting to see how Turn Ten has implemented its model. The car has been divided up into different sections, and each has a pre-determined, incremental level of damage, with a number of removable parts. In the course of general racing, the effect is fairly realistic, but it's still somewhat removed from the reality of a high-speed crash during a real race. There's no deformation along the lines of Burnout Paradise, for example, and even the dynamically generated "battle damage" in the Xbox 360 version of Burnout Revenge hasn't been replicated.

So, what's the big deal with crash damage any way? The bottom line is that it's a hugely important part of games that purport to be racing simulators. High speed racing is synonymous with danger, and risk must carry the threat of dire consequences... the days of ramming opponents with impunity and bouncing harmlessly off solid walls should be well behind us. The danger principle is one of the core philosophies behind Burnout, and it is interesting to note that the Criterion game's over-the-top, enhanced crashes are still vastly more realistic graphically than anything seen in Forza 3.

Interestingly though, Forza 3's model appears to have much in common with the latest work by Polyphony Digital on Gran Turismo 5. While our first impressions of the crash damage in GT5 at gamescom were not so positive, recent footage from the Tokyo Game Show suggests that Polyphony has made big, big improvements over the GC code. Removable body parts have been joined by localised damage. Whether it is dynamically generated, or pre-determined like Forza 3 is something we won't be able to confirm until there's better video or preferably some hands-on code to analyse.

It wouldn't surprise us at all if the damage is indeed pre-determined on both games. The Burnout titles have the luxury of using non-licensed cars; Criterion are the lords and masters of their creations and can do with them whatever they see fit. Both Forza and GT5 don't have that luxury, and it may well be the case that the developers need to get manufacturer sign-off on all the in-game representations of their vehicles. Detachable parts and pre-determined damage would be a convenient solution.

It seems that GT5 is in fact getting Dynamically Generated localised damage though.

I see davygee's already helped you out with that.  It's a good read.  Forza 3 looks and plays good, but I like the way they pick stuff apart.  I'd note the overall article is mainly praise, but they do point out some interesting elements vs. Burnout Paradise, which, despite being an arcade racer, 'feels' the most like a real, dynamic crash.

They've also put up a to be expected rip apart of the Bayonneta demo (poor PS3 port confirmed by the looks of it) and a nice analysis of Uncharted 2 - which is basically full of deep love as they seemed to find little to fault in the title (based on the demo).