Well your right about Forza's visual damage being very bad, but at least the damage that counts the most (mechanical) is top notch.  The only problem I have with the mechanical damage is you can't totally blow the engine (but I'm sure thats because some car manufacturers wouldn't allow that)

And you do realize that nobody is forcing you to use the rewind button right? 

Playing both games extensively and looking for realism will let you know which is better alot more than a website. And how about a mod bans when someone trash talks Haze then? Cause maybe I like that game, but unlike you, I can accept that its evidently worse than competitors.

@ John, but there's nothing stopping competitors from using in. A mate for example could tell you he did an ace time, but he wont mention that he used replay function 32 times.

Only hope is they are adjusting the game for 3D... Maybe they will use GT5 to promote 3D television in Japan(march would be to soon for that purpose).

And it's probably going to be a summer, maybe late September release(like Halo 3).

Actually I believe Forza 3 has 2 different leaderboards.  One for people who use assissts, and one for the pro people that don't have on any assissts.  I'm not totally sure what the whole deal about this is but if someone used the assissts, and rewind and got a really good time you would know about it.

And Slomo, you talk about this 'Off Topic' chatter when your were like the first person to mention competitors in this thread. You said it possibly got delayed to make sure it matched competitors features - I just established that it already exceeds the competition in 90% of the areas important in sims. You also say Forza is good in the eyes of the critics, but thats not what Im even talking about. Look back, this is about Forza not being good enough to win over GT fans in general, so just because critics say its good doesn't mean those used to GT will.

Anyway, Im not talking here anymore. The end.

Add a potato to the mix.

""""""I wouldn't go that far and say they don't have legitimity (!) to judge any aspect of a game/sim other than physics. I wouldn't just blindly believe their judgement on physics either. Physics on a racing sim are something you have to experience for yourself."""""

==> to me, when they go on general gaming aspect, they have less legitimity than any gaming website ...
when they go on more racing specific aspect, then yes, they matter more


""""""""If nothing there are two objective criteria to judge a physics model, whether it's correct and whether it's updated often enough for the speed the simulated car will reach. 800Hz for example should be enough to "feel" a road modeled with 25cm granularity at 360km/h (=100m/s) as (100m/s)/0.25m=400Hz and we must multiply by 2 for the sampling theorems.""""""""

==>
1/ what do you call granularity (25 cm ???)
2/ isnt 800Hz monstruously high compared to the already very high (?) 360Hz of FM3 ?

That's around 12cm, so it would need 1600Hz!!!

The detail at which the terrain is physically modeled. IIRC, I read somewhere that to this purpose it's possible to update the tyres physics at higher frequency than the rest of the car, it makes sense if we assume that the suspensions act as a low pass filter towards the suspended masses of the car.