Hmmmm. It seems someone assumes I know nothing about 16 years of persistant cars and racing in my life. LOL.

Yes your correct about F1, although you miss some HUGE major factors. It's actually worse for F1 cars to follow closely when speed is reduced for corners. Because understeer is a major problem. Not enough airflow to keep the car down. There is more, but I dont have 6 pages on aerodynamics.

As we are talking about FM3 I'm sorry but I have to seriously laugh at you. I'm guessing you know what cars are in FM3 right? I'm guessing you know you can add PROPER aerofoils to any car in FM3, right? Firstly In a NORMAL car with no aerofoils turbulence can be felt by a car behind it with a distance of 7 meters or less when speeds exceed 135mph. Did you know this? By your comment I think not. You thought I knew nothing LOL. Seriously go and learn about cars and racing. Now, if you add aerofoils of any type that are designed to keep the car glued to the road better, the speed it will affect the trailing car reduces. On average to many tests around 91.7mph.

Now the turbulence is not as drastic as it is in Formula 1 ( but then 200mph and the best aerofoils in the world will do that to the guy behind ), but it exists, and DOES affect you while driving. Le Mans cars get it alot. Touring cars get it mainly on high speed straights even without working aerofolis.

You need to do some research. It sounds as though you assume. I know quite a few people in real life in the motorsport industry. Not just F1.   

Well you seem to assume that Polyphony hasn't been working on a new damage engine during the whole time of GT5 development. I've seen many PC games have extra files left in by the developers who obviously didn't have time to add a feature in the final product. Gt4 was suppose to have online multiplayer yet it was dropped for example.
Thus as far as we know this new damage engine could have been worked on since Gt4 yet now after seeing Forza 3 they decided to fully develop it for GT5. (this is the same as saying Sony wand is copying Nintendo when Sony was working on  stuff like motion controls during PS2 years)

 Also the comment that Froza is "based on Mclarens billion dollar simulation" is about as much impressing to me  as these so called "based on a true story" movies. I learn these movies often are a load of crap with just a hint of facts in them. So I guess this makes Forza 3 not a racing sim after all but a "racing sim" sim.

No. I am being realistic. Less than 5 months till release of GT5 in Japan. The damage system we have seen is pretty much it. Bear in mind development will likely stop late February we have maybe 15 weeks left of GT5 develoment if the game releases in March for Japan. Dont forget it goes to manufacturer and likely will have 2 million disc ready for launch. With this in mind, a masively slow developer like Polyphony will NOT IMO change or have a different damage system to that already shown. The remaining 15 weeks will be spent ironing bugs that were reported at TGS09 and making sure the game is completely come together. There is no designing new engines at this point in the game process. No way.

If they are Japan wont see the game till christmas. Sorry but that is the process. Engines are finished probably 2 years ago. Seriously mate, I'm being realsitic to the whole game dev program. If they are still designing any engines now, they would have to playtest these engines to iron bugs out of the code. That can take 3 months and even then still have bugs left. Think about it. I'm being pretty realistic about it. Sony are rushing them IMO. I firmly believe they have been very slow devs. Yes they have loads of cars but only 20 tracks to model. FM3 had less cars but an extra 15 tracks to model. So the dev time should have been the same.

I think you are correct.  I would add the extremely short break distance of F1 cars to the mix.  

@Selnor

On a road car race, turbulence is not really an issue.

Already responded with raw factual data. So I would do some research. If you can speak to some actual touring car tests ( they have no working aerofoils, so essentially normal cars doing certain speeds WILL be affected by turbulence. Please dont try and tell me I'm wrong. I know this.

Right ok, just look at what i picked you up on. You have stated that cars hit turbulent air when they pull OUT of slipstream and into clean air.  Thats wrong. They hit turbulent air when they are behind the car.

As for the rest of your post. I never said it was better for F1 car's to travel closer at any speeds, however at lower speeds the affect of turbulent air from the car in front would be reduced due to lower wind speeds, so you are wrong again.

I would also love to know where you got the figure of 135mph @ 7m for "normal cars", define a "normal car". 

I think your talking out of your bottom.

Oh man. dude seriously. No Just no. Maybe I worded it wrong. What I should of said is when a car pulls OUT of the turbulent air the driver has to make adjustments. Now slipstreaming is essentially a pocket behind the car in front. It is great to be in to gain an advantage on a straight, pull out of it to overtake and you will notice straight away the car pull to the right or left ( depending on which side you pull out. So I am right. Yes go to overtake and you will feel the car wanting to pull. Correction needed.

Yes there is less turbulence in a corner due to slower speeds. But what I was saying is it's alot worse because when you ask the car to turn at that distance in an F1 car you will get tremendous understeer. It's worse in a corner for F1. ( I am referring to corners where an F1 car needs downforce. )

Normal car is defined as a car without aerodoils. Or a car that looks like a normal road fairing car. Ie Touring cars. That figure came from a 3 week stint at Ford touring cars in 2004 where I learnt alot. But you take that how you will.

I'm sorry if my wording confused you, but above is what I meant.

"Getting in a slipstream and then pulling out to overtake has the car hit turbulent air affecting the car"

No it's probably my fault for reading this wrong. It's clear now that what you wanted to say was not at all that cars hit turbulence when they pull out, but infact that they will pull to the side or something like that. *SARCASM*

I'm sorry but im leaving this thread now, i caught you out on a small mistake and instead of going, "oh yeah your right" you have decided to try and defend yourself and are now just further digging yourself into a hole.

This is going no where.

You have done nothing but make yourself look silly.

Barrichello is behind Vettel. Lets say Barrichello is in the sweet spot slipstreaming and gaining on Vettel. Now because he is tucked up behind him there is less resistance to his car. Now pulling out to the left to overtake will put his car through the MOST turbulent air. Why? because he is going from barely any resistance to full resistance. No at 190mph, even for 1/10th of a second his car will be half in full resistance and half in no resistance. This requires correction alot of the time on the wheel.

Hence in my original comment you tried to take on I wrote "Getting in a slipstream and then pulling out to overtake has the car hit turbulent air affecting the car".

You see in a slipstream you are effectively in less resistance. The turbulance comes from crossing over into full resistance on the car. THAT IS TURBULANT AIR AFFECTING THE CAR. In no way did I interperet anything else. How can you not understand that?

Why do people like Vettel and Button say it's difficult when you get into the dirty air? It's because they lose time in the corners where their car needs downforce. They can no longer keep their normal speed through those corners because of not enough downforce, the car will understeer and miss the apex.

Now will this apply to normal car? Yes. Not to the scale of F1 cars. It would in reality require over 137mph at 7 meters to have any pull on the car. I cant stop laughing, my original statement is fine. People need to learn about what turbulent air is. How it happens and when a car is affected by turbulence.