Forza 3 Vs. GT5.................

DUDE! GO TEST IT! How hard is this? Testing Lateral G-Force on a vehice is a test of the vehicles physical capabilities, hence the word "physics".

Nagidar

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]

DUDE! GO TEST IT! How hard is this? Testing Lateral G-Force on a vehice is a test of the vehicles physical capabilities, hence the word "physics".

playharderfool

Is this the fanboy in you? Or do you just not understand what a vehicles "Physics test" is?

Have you ever raced a car? Do you even own Forza 3?

So you think the only thing that video dispaled was lap time? but yet you think he's compairing elements of physics...with NO VIDEO TO SHOW THE COMPARISON? OK

playharderfool

The video you linked only briefly described what speeds/ gears Felipe was driving. Nothing about the weight/steering of the car and the other elements of physics acting upon it during the race, or how these elements were being reflected in GT5P.

While Nagidar didn't take the time to find a video to show case a comparison he described to you what he was talking about, If it's simply that you don't believe him, he has told you several times that you can go test this your self on forza 3.

If anyone else can try this, look up the FQ 400's specs, upgrade an Evo X in Forza 3 to the FQ 400's specs and let me know how you did in Forza 3, I don't remember the track I tested it it, but I tried to get the corner and speed as well as I could, although, testing Lateral G's, it won't matter much since its basically the MAX amount of G-Force the car can take before the tires start slipping.

EDIT: I'm pretty sure it won't be exact, because the guys in the video only did one run, I'm sure if they did more they probably would have gotten a little bit more out of it, might be why I got 1.66 G's instead of 1.61.

I honestly believe he is confused between testing a vehicles physical limits and lap times....

Nagidar

well I believe Lap times can reflect a cars handling to a certain extent, just not enough to make a solid claim about the games physics.

I have seen that you have said you race in real life, and would like to know out of the two games which one you feel represents a more realistic driving experience.

No, actual PHYSICS test are what really shows a cars physics, not a lap time, like I said earlier, many times, go test it for yourself, upgrade an Evo X in Forza 3 and test it yourself.

Nagidar

One thing I notice is that you try really hard to twist and undermine the points of people who argue against you, Stop trying to change my arguement to make it sound as if I don't know what's being discussed here

This is the second time in this thread that you've done this, point to ANYWHERE in this thread I made a specific point about lap time as a point of my argument? Or even mention lap time outside of relm of you and the one other poster who suggested it on me? If you can't handle discussing the points I make instead of trying to make up your own maybe you shouold just drop it all together

*Point*

I said, speed / curvs / turns / breaks / shifts are all impacted on by the driving physics... those are the points I used and that video shows all of these. You can't undermine me but I see what kind of tactics youtry to use in an argument.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]

I honestly believe he is confused between testing a vehicles physical limits and lap times....

opex07

well I believe Lap times can reflect a cars handling to a certain extent, just not enough to make a solid claim about the games physics.

I have seen that you have said you race in real life, and would like to know out of the two games which one you feel represents a more realistic driving experience.

They are both great games, IMO, GTR2 has the best physics out of all of the games with Forza 3 in second, GT is a great series, but the Forza series is pretty much based on getting the physics as close as possible to real life. The Lateral G's was just one example, the way Forza "feels" just seems more realistic.

EDIT: The best 0-60 time I have gotten in my Lancer is 4.4 and a 1/4 mile time of 12.3, I haven't raced on a track since my recent upgrades so I couldn't give you anything more recent.

EDIT2: And anyone who does race in real life, make sure you do it legally, I got caught "racing" a VW R32 at a stop light and got a hefty ticket, so don't be stupid like me, if you're going to do it, do it legit, I was stupid and it got me in trouble.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]

No, actual PHYSICS test are what really shows a cars physics, not a lap time, like I said earlier, many times, go test it for yourself, upgrade an Evo X in Forza 3 and test it yourself.

playharderfool

One thing I notice is that you try really hard to twist and undermine the points of people who argue against you, Stop trying to change my arguement to make it sound as if I don't know what's being discussed here

This is the second time in this thread that you've done this, point to ANYWHERE in this thread I made a specific point about lap time as a point of my argument? Or even mention lap time outside of relm of you and the one other poster who suggested it on me? If you can't handle discussing the points I make instead of trying to make up your own maybe you shouold just drop it all together

*Point*

I said, speed / curvs / turns / breaks / shifts are all impacted on by the driving physics... those are the points I used and that video shows all of these. You can't undermine me but I see what kind of tactics youtry to use in an argument.

Again, like opex07 said, that video was an EDITED clip of someones lap time put next to the actual race, where in your video does it say how much G-Force the car is taking? Seriously, you're not making a very good case for youself, first you say my comparison doesn't count because the video I showed didn't "mention" Forza, now you're just going off base, show us some numbers, because thats what physics are based off of, numbers.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]

No, actual PHYSICS test are what really shows a cars physics, not a lap time, like I said earlier, many times, go test it for yourself, upgrade an Evo X in Forza 3 and test it yourself.

One thing I notice is that you try really hard to twist and undermine the points of people who argue against you, Stop trying to change my arguement to make it sound as if I don't know what's being discussed here

This is the second time in this thread that you've done this, point to ANYWHERE in this thread I made a specific point about lap time as a point of my argument? Or even mention lap time outside of relm of you and the one other poster who suggested it on me? If you can't handle discussing the points I make instead of trying to make up your own maybe you shouold just drop it all together

*Point*

I said, speed / curvs / turns / breaks / shifts are all impacted on by the driving physics... those are the points I used and that video shows all of these. You can't undermine me but I see what kind of tactics youtry to use in an argument.

I really liked the demo and thought the physics/handling were great. I haven't played FM3 so I can't really compare them

[QUOTE="playharderfool"]

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]

No, actual PHYSICS test are what really shows a cars physics, not a lap time, like I said earlier, many times, go test it for yourself, upgrade an Evo X in Forza 3 and test it yourself.

Peiner09

One thing I notice is that you try really hard to twist and undermine the points of people who argue against you, Stop trying to change my arguement to make it sound as if I don't know what's being discussed here

This is the second time in this thread that you've done this, point to ANYWHERE in this thread I made a specific point about lap time as a point of my argument? Or even mention lap time outside of relm of you and the one other poster who suggested it on me? If you can't handle discussing the points I make instead of trying to make up your own maybe you shouold just drop it all together

*Point*

I said, speed / curvs / turns / breaks / shifts are all impacted on by the driving physics... those are the points I used and that video shows all of these. You can't undermine me but I see what kind of tactics youtry to use in an argument.

I'm confused, are you refering to me, or him?

Forza 3 >>> GT5. The Demo Looks Awful. Forza 3 has better Graphics than that crap demo. I'm Expecting GT5 To Be Released With Improved GraphicsBloodSeeker1337

The demo was meant to show off the Physics engine, not the graphics, and overall, PD did a pretty good job with the physics, i'm sure they will improve the engine before release.

90% of the people loves the new physics. Stop trolling.Wassmansdorff

[QUOTE="BloodSeeker1337"]Forza 3 >>> GT5. The Demo Looks Awful. Forza 3 has better Graphics than that crap demo. I'm Expecting GT5 To Be Released With Improved GraphicsNagidar

The demo was meant to show off the Physics engine, not the graphics, and overall, PD did a pretty good job with the physics, i'm sure they will improve the engine before release.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]

[QUOTE="BloodSeeker1337"]Forza 3 >>> GT5. The Demo Looks Awful. Forza 3 has better Graphics than that crap demo. I'm Expecting GT5 To Be Released With Improved Graphicsronvalencia

The demo was meant to show off the Physics engine, not the graphics, and overall, PD did a pretty good job with the physics, i'm sure they will improve the engine before release.

Like I said, they made it to show off physics, wether they adding more shaders, AA ect., makes no difference, and PD did a good job with the physics.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="Nagidar"]

The demo was meant to show off the Physics engine, not the graphics, and overall, PD did a pretty good job with the physics, i'm sure they will improve the engine before release.

Like I said, they made it to show off physics, wether they adding more shaders, AA ect., makes no difference, and PD did a good job with the physics.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] They can't fit shader/stream processing programs within the 248MB download?ronvalencia

Like I said, they made it to show off physics, wether they adding more shaders, AA ect., makes no difference, and PD did a good job with the physics.

I did answer, it was made to show off the physics, so adding anything more to the graphics does not matter. The game will look better when released, so again, it doesn't matter.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="Nagidar"]

Like I said, they made it to show off physics, wether they adding more shaders, AA ect., makes no difference, and PD did a good job with the physics.

I did answer, it was made to show off the physics, so adding anything more to the graphics does not matter. The game will look better when released, so again, it doesn't matter.

How many more of these do we need?!?!?

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] Doesn't quite answer "they can't fit shader/stream processing programs within the 248MB download". Shader/stream programs are ussually small in size e.g. Drit2's demo DX9 and D11 shaders are both 7 MB in size.ronvalencia

I did answer, it was made to show off the physics, so adding anything more to the graphics does not matter. The game will look better when released, so again, it doesn't matter.

Again, it doesn't matter, if you're basing the entire game off of a physics "demo" then I don't know what else to say to you...

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="Nagidar"]

I did answer, it was made to show off the physics, so adding anything more to the graphics does not matter. The game will look better when released, so again, it doesn't matter.

Nagidar

Again, it doesn't matter, if you're basing the entire game off of a physics "demo" then I don't know what else to say to you...

Did they run out stream compute resource while doing physics?

As a few people mentioned about GT5, the game is a long way from release.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] They did downgrade the graphic streaming pipeline for no good reason?ronvalencia

Again, it doesn't matter, if you're basing the entire game off of a physics "demo" then I don't know what else to say to you...

Did they run out stream compute resource while doing physics?

Explain to me "why" it matters? Its a physics demo, do you care about how much work PD puts in? Are you somehow getting paid for anything? Wether they reduced Shaders, AA, AF, Texture Filtering, ect., makes no difference.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"]

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]

Again, it doesn't matter, if you're basing the entire game off of a physics "demo" then I don't know what else to say to you...

Did they run out stream compute resource while doing physics?

Explain to me "why" it matters? Its a physics demo, do you care about how much work PD puts in? Are you somehow getting paid for anything? Wether they reduced Shaders, AA, AF, Texture Filtering, ect., makes no difference.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] Again, it does matter. Why would they commit additional programming work to downgrade the streaming graphics pipeline without a valid reason?

Did they run out stream compute resource while doing physics?

ronvalencia

Explain to me "why" it matters? Its a physics demo, do you care about how much work PD puts in? Are you somehow getting paid for anything? Wether they reduced Shaders, AA, AF, Texture Filtering, ect., makes no difference.

Why does it matter? Why do you care? It has NOTHING to do with you, PD felt thats the way it would be, if you don't like it, don't play it.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="Nagidar"]

Explain to me "why" it matters? Its a physics demo, do you care about how much work PD puts in? Are you somehow getting paid for anything? Wether they reduced Shaders, AA, AF, Texture Filtering, ect., makes no difference.

Why does it matter? Why do you care? It has NOTHING to do with you, PD felt thats the way it would be, if you don't like it, don't play it.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] Are you claiming "it's just physics demo" includes downgraded stream graphics pipeline? If you think about it, a 248MB download fits within RSX's main 256MB VRAM.ronvalencia

Why does it matter? Why do you care? It has NOTHING to do with you, PD felt thats the way it would be, if you don't like it, don't play it.

I don't work for PD and go ask them, why do you care?

having tried GT demo i am really looking forward to this game.. atm am having a great time playing F3 which is an amazing game, but once GT5 gets released i'll be in (racing) heaven with 2 amazing titles in my hands :)

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="Nagidar"]

Why does it matter? Why do you care? It has NOTHING to do with you, PD felt thats the way it would be, if you don't like it, don't play it.

I don't work for PD and go ask them, why do you care?

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] Getting personal are we? Can't answer the question?ronvalencia

I don't work for PD and go ask them, why do you care?

Again, its a physics demo, why do you cares if the visuals were downgraded? Does it hurt your feelings or something?

EDIT: Actually, it looks like the Demo was created from the ground up for some competition, it seems more likely they will incorporate the physics engine in to final game. Looks like the demo wasn't actually created from the original game.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="Nagidar"]

I don't work for PD and go ask them, why do you care?

Again, its a physics demo, why do you cares if the visuals were downgraded? Does it hurt your feelings or something?

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] Your implied claim on degraded graphic pipeline. Peiner09

Again, its a physics demo, why do you cares if the visuals were downgraded? Does it hurt your feelings or something?

Refer to my edit, here's a link to the article: Link

BTW, I already said earlier, he shouldn't judge the full game by the demo.

EDIT: Next time you try to insult someone, at least try to use proper grammar.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="Nagidar"]

I don't work for PD and go ask them, why do you care?

Again, its a physics demo, why do you cares if the visuals were downgraded? Does it hurt your feelings or something?

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] Your implied claim on degraded graphic pipeline. ronvalencia

Again, its a physics demo, why do you cares if the visuals were downgraded? Does it hurt your feelings or something?

Refer to my edit.

Your implied claim on degraded graphic pipeline. ronvalencia

Again, its a physics demo, why do you cares if the visuals were downgraded? Does it hurt your feelings or something?

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="Nagidar"]

Again, its a physics demo, why do you cares if the visuals were downgraded? Does it hurt your feelings or something?

Peiner09

Did you not read the article? It was specificaly designed for a competition.

After playing both demos (I understand the GT5 one is not done) but I don't like either... at all.

Forza is better though... so far.

This coming from a 360 hater.

[QUOTE="Peiner09"][QUOTE="Nagidar"]

Again, its a physics demo, why do you cares if the visuals were downgraded? Does it hurt your feelings or something?

Nagidar

Refer to my edit, here's a link to the article: Link

BTW, I already said earlier, he shouldn't judge the full game by the demo.

EDIT: Next time you try to insult someone, at least try to use proper grammar.

All it says is to showcase physics. Nothing here indicates the stream/shader graphics pipeline being compromise.

PS; I own SONY Vaio VGN-FW45GJ laptop with blu-ray drive (the FW range is thier top of the line gaming/blu-ray HD laptop, it's more expensive than PS3). Besides Apple, they make nice and reasonably thin gaming laptops.So don't imply I'm an extreme anti-Sony. From NVIDIA's own white papers, I do know RSX/G7X's design flaws e.g. pixel shader stalls while performing texture fetch operations. Also, I'm not against purchasing PS3 Slim in future.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]

[QUOTE="Peiner09"] His reason to be concerned with the graphics of the demo, has nothing to due with the fact that downgrading graphics for a physics demo to premote the game would be stupid. But becouse your so hellbent on it and can't see it, I'll explain. He cares about the graphics of the demo, becouse a cynical person can see that it is an indicator of the full game. Which everyone is obviously excited about.ronvalencia

Refer to my edit, here's a link to the article: Link

BTW, I already said earlier, he shouldn't judge the full game by the demo.

EDIT: Next time you try to insult someone, at least try to use proper grammar.

To showcase usually means to "present" something, and in the terminology they use, the said, "The demo was specifically designed for this competition to showcase the realism of the brand-new physics engine". They used "Brand new" and "Showcase" in the same sentence.

And I also have a HD Radeon 4870, AMD Athlon x64 6000+ with 4GB's of RAM, but that has nothing to do with this thread, reading comprehension tells us the demo had nothing to do with the final build.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="Nagidar"]

Refer to my edit, here's a link to the article: Link

BTW, I already said earlier, he shouldn't judge the full game by the demo.

EDIT: Next time you try to insult someone, at least try to use proper grammar.

Nagidar

To showcase usually means to "present" something, and in the terminology they use, the said, "The demo was specifically designed for this competition to showcase the realism of the brand-new physics engine". They used "Brand new" and "Showcase" in the same sentence.

And I also have a HD Radeon 4870, AMD Athlon x64 6000+ with 4GB's of RAM, but that has nothing to do with this thread, reading comprehension tells us the demo had nothing to do with the final build.

allright, well if they have to downgrade the graphics to show of the physics, then I guess theres a pretty big problem huh? There is no reason to think they downgraded the graphics for this build.

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"][QUOTE="Nagidar"]

Refer to my edit, here's a link to the article: Link

BTW, I already said earlier, he shouldn't judge the full game by the demo.

EDIT: Next time you try to insult someone, at least try to use proper grammar.

Nagidar

To showcase usually means to "present" something, and in the terminology they use, the said, "The demo was specifically designed for this competition to showcase the realism of the brand-new physics engine". They used "Brand new" and "Showcase" in the same sentence.

And I also have a HD Radeon 4870, AMD Athlon x64 6000+ with 4GB's of RAM, but that has nothing to do with this thread, reading comprehension tells us the demo had nothing to do with the final build.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] All it says is to showcase physics. Nothing here indicates the stream/shader graphics pipeline being compromise. PS; I own SONY Vaio VGN-FW45GJ laptop with blu-ray drive (the FW range is thier top of the line gaming/blu-ray HD laptop, it's more expensive than PS3). So don't imply I'm anti-Sony. From NVIDIA's own white papers, I do know RSX/G7X's design flaws e.g. pixel shader stalls while performing texture fetch operations. Peiner09

To showcase usually means to "present" something, and in the terminology they use, the said, "The demo was specifically designed for this competition to showcase the realism of the brand-new physics engine". They used "Brand new" and "Showcase" in the same sentence.

And I also have a HD Radeon 4870, AMD Athlon x64 6000+ with 4GB's of RAM, but that has nothing to do with this thread, reading comprehension tells us the demo had nothing to do with the final build.

allright, well if they have to downgrade the graphics to show of the physics, then I guess theres a pretty big problem huh? There is no reason to think they downgraded the graphics for this build.

Are you not getting this? This is not from the production GT5, this is to show off the physics, it was NOT made from the final build of GT5, this was created completely INDEPENDENT of the full GT5 game. What they are saying is, this physics engine will be in the final build of the game.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] All it says is to showcase physics. Nothing here indicates the stream/shader graphics pipeline being compromise. PS; I own SONY Vaio VGN-FW45GJ laptop with blu-ray drive (the FW range is thier top of the line gaming/blu-ray HD laptop, it's more expensive than PS3). So don't imply I'm anti-Sony. From NVIDIA's own white papers, I do know RSX/G7X's design flaws e.g. pixel shader stalls while performing texture fetch operations. ronvalencia

To showcase usually means to "present" something, and in the terminology they use, the said, "The demo was specifically designed for this competition to showcase the realism of the brand-new physics engine". They used "Brand new" and "Showcase" in the same sentence.

And I also have a HD Radeon 4870, AMD Athlon x64 6000+ with 4GB's of RAM, but that has nothing to do with this thread, reading comprehension tells us the demo had nothing to do with the final build.

I don't need examples, and yes, this was independent from the final build of GT5.

[QUOTE="Peiner09"]

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]

To showcase usually means to "present" something, and in the terminology they use, the said, "The demo was specifically designed for this competition to showcase the realism of the brand-new physics engine". They used "Brand new" and "Showcase" in the same sentence.

And I also have a HD Radeon 4870, AMD Athlon x64 6000+ with 4GB's of RAM, but that has nothing to do with this thread, reading comprehension tells us the demo had nothing to do with the final build.

allright, well if they have to downgrade the graphics to show of the physics, then I guess theres a pretty big problem huh? There is no reason to think they downgraded the graphics for this build.

Are you not getting this? This is not from the production GT5, this is to show off the physics, it was NOT made from the final build of GT5, this was created completely INDEPENDENT of the full GT5 game. What they are saying is, this physics engine will be in the final build of the game.

[QUOTE="Nagidar"]

[QUOTE="Peiner09"]

allright, well if they have to downgrade the graphics to show of the physics, then I guess theres a pretty big problem huh? There is no reason to think they downgraded the graphics for this build.

Peiner09

Are you not getting this? This is not from the production GT5, this is to show off the physics, it was NOT made from the final build of GT5, this was created completely INDEPENDENT of the full GT5 game. What they are saying is, this physics engine will be in the final build of the game.

Its not a matter of using bad graphics, it seems more likely the would have had to spend more time improving the visuals on the engine, since it was not created from the final build of GT5, which would also mean, they haven't completely implemented the new engine into the final game.

[QUOTE="Peiner09"][QUOTE="Nagidar"]

Are you not getting this? This is not from the production GT5, this is to show off the physics, it was NOT made from the final build of GT5, this was created completely INDEPENDENT of the full GT5 game. What they are saying is, this physics engine will be in the final build of the game.

Its not a matter of using bad graphics, it seems more likely the would have had to spend more time improving the visuals on the engine, since it was not created from the final build of GT5, which would also mean, they haven't completely implemented the new engine into the final game.

[QUOTE="Peiner09"][QUOTE="Nagidar"]

Are you not getting this? This is not from the production GT5, this is to show off the physics, it was NOT made from the final build of GT5, this was created completely INDEPENDENT of the full GT5 game. What they are saying is, this physics engine will be in the final build of the game.

Its not a matter of using bad graphics, it seems more likely the would have had to spend more time improving the visuals on the engine, since it was not created from the final build of GT5, which would also mean, they haven't completely implemented the new engine into the final game.

90% of the people loves the new physics. Stop trolling.Wassmansdorff

And I love the physics of Burnout, but that doesn't make them anymore real.

Reallly?

Another Forza vs GT thread?

Argh... :evil: