standing ovation
Regular
You cannot do that with race cars. Which is what the tuned up GT3's are
Only street legal things can be tuned
A "tuned" GT3 can be a production car.
The Big Forza 2 Thread *
- Thread starter Cheezdoodles
- Start date
A "tuned" GT3 can be a production car.
Nope. Because the only GT3's you win that are "tuned" in this game are race cars
standing ovation
Regular
Nope. Because the only GT3's you win that are "tuned" in this game are race cars
Road-going 911s (well the earlier ones anyway) are notoriously difficult to control. So when someone says a 911 is hard to drive, the latest crop of racecars aren't what spring to mind.
But the argument is moot now that we're talking about prize cars. So you are right; I am dead wrong.
They weren't called the sledgehammers for nothing
In my opinion thought, with the very limited experience i have in newer 911's, everything except the turbo's and Carerra 4's (that both have AWD) are still notorious sledgehammers.
Gotta give porsche credit tho, they know a simple design change, putting the engine in a more neutral position would do wonders for the cars handling, they still hold on to tradition, and try to fix it with electronics and suspension.
They finally released this game in NZ yesterday!
And it's awesome!
yay!
So here is my first paint job, on a W Golf R32:
http://hungryspoon.com/random/r32a.jpg
http://hungryspoon.com/random/r32b.jpg
And it's awesome!
yay!
So here is my first paint job, on a W Golf R32:
http://hungryspoon.com/random/r32a.jpg
http://hungryspoon.com/random/r32b.jpg
Perhaps quite pointless nowadays but anyways, here are some links to a couple of quality reviews.
http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/796/796433p1.html
http://xbox.boomtown.net/en_uk/articles/art.view.php?id=14134
These two have been written by people that is into cars or just love them.
IGN Australia scored the game with a high rating of 92. The other reviewer scored it with a 9.
From IGN:
MS wheel is okay, nothing above average but it's way better than the official wheel in Forza 1, which sucked although it was quite sturdy. It'd be nice if they add support for more sophisticated steering wheels, though.
http://uk.xbox360.ign.com/articles/796/796433p1.html
http://xbox.boomtown.net/en_uk/articles/art.view.php?id=14134
These two have been written by people that is into cars or just love them.
IGN Australia scored the game with a high rating of 92. The other reviewer scored it with a 9.
From IGN:
Specifically, the quote regarding the steering wheel couldn't be more correct. Playing this game without a wheel is much less interesting and it's not an option if you are looking for max realism and its (learning -for novices-) related enjoyment.
MS wheel is okay, nothing above average but it's way better than the official wheel in Forza 1, which sucked although it was quite sturdy. It'd be nice if they add support for more sophisticated steering wheels, though.
A quite staggering design for a first attempt. The one that Ostepot designed is nice, too. Mot as good but it does the job.
I tried the livery editor but I prefer keeping the results *standing in the shadows*. A piece of "art" from a tormented mind.
Btw, I just wrote a list of features that, in my opinion, they should improve in Forza 3 and, why not, the current game. They would do wonders for this game, imho.
Thread title; "Where FM2 SHINES vs the best SIMs of the world and what it LACKS". Link:
http://forums.forzamotorsport.net/forums/thread/262311.aspx
Last edited by a moderator:
standing ovation
Regular
In most people's minds, "Porsche" and "911" are synonymous. So to lobotomize the one is liable to (adversely) affect our perception of the other.
(Q) If I sell a ranked car at auction, will the perks (i.e., discounted auto parts and unlocked vehicles) go with it? Similarly, if I buy a ranked car, will I be the beneficiary of said perks?
Phat,
Check out this youtube video of the Stig driving the ZO6.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfpJoP3x47w&mode=related&search=
At around the 8:55 mark as he is exiting the very last turn he hits a very large hole that is at the edge of the track. Notice how much the wheel and tire move and how little the body moves in comparison. It's not the best video quality however if you search you can find the video for download somewhere. It is the episode from 5/14/2006. Series 8 episode 2.
Check out this youtube video of the Stig driving the ZO6.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfpJoP3x47w&mode=related&search=
At around the 8:55 mark as he is exiting the very last turn he hits a very large hole that is at the edge of the track. Notice how much the wheel and tire move and how little the body moves in comparison. It's not the best video quality however if you search you can find the video for download somewhere. It is the episode from 5/14/2006. Series 8 episode 2.
The upward bump at 8:58 is actually a better example. That is completely eaten up by the suspension. The hole he drives through at around 8:51 however does tilt the car almost as much as the wheel. It's all about setting the right amounts of dampening, bounce, and rebounce, as it has been even in games for a while now (even GT).
One wheel going over a bump or into a dip is often well-handled by the suspension. This can be felt in real life if you go over a speed bump with just one wheel instead of both wheels per axle.
What is really upsetting to the car is when all four wheels go off-track, where you can get summation of forces that produce large front-back, side-side, or corner-corner torque. See, for example, the car in the first 2 seconds of this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uSOYqU4758. The other cars in the grass later in the video are too far away to see the body motion clearly, although some is still visible.
Sadly, the cars in the grass do look a bit like me when I'm at the track in real life.
What is really upsetting to the car is when all four wheels go off-track, where you can get summation of forces that produce large front-back, side-side, or corner-corner torque. See, for example, the car in the first 2 seconds of this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uSOYqU4758. The other cars in the grass later in the video are too far away to see the body motion clearly, although some is still visible.
Sadly, the cars in the grass do look a bit like me when I'm at the track in real life.
I have to say that the animations of the car going over bumps and braking are to downplayed in forza. Car leaning should be more noticeable, aspecially for the normal going cars.
I think I have an old video of where I end up on the grass for an extended bit in GT4 on the Ring ... I'll look it up and youtube it if I can. The car does indeed bounce around merrily while on the grass.
Mintmaster
Veteran
phat, the problem doesn't seem to be a problem with the suspension modelling but rather the modelling of the bumps and unevenness of surfaces off the track.
Cars don't skip and move because the grass is rough, they do it because it's not level. The low-frequency curves (i.e. mini hills several metres across and a few inches high) give sustained forces on the car. That first car in your video was bouncing because it went across that side road where there are depressions/grooves from cars travelling on it normally. You can even see how bad that road is from the reflections. You feel these bumps all the time in the city when going through a well-travelled intersection with a poor foundation.
Your theory of zero unsprung mass being responsible for it, though, is wrong. The force exerted on the car has no direct impact from the wheel's mass, and only depends on its postion (through the spring) and its velocity (through the shock absorber). Wheel mass does, however, affect the position/velocity of the wheel, but then basically you're saying that those 5-6 inches of wheel movement should be bigger and slower. The starting point of your argument earlier in the thread is the wheel position. From that point onwards, wheel mass is irrelevant.
Cars don't skip and move because the grass is rough, they do it because it's not level. The low-frequency curves (i.e. mini hills several metres across and a few inches high) give sustained forces on the car. That first car in your video was bouncing because it went across that side road where there are depressions/grooves from cars travelling on it normally. You can even see how bad that road is from the reflections. You feel these bumps all the time in the city when going through a well-travelled intersection with a poor foundation.
Your theory of zero unsprung mass being responsible for it, though, is wrong. The force exerted on the car has no direct impact from the wheel's mass, and only depends on its postion (through the spring) and its velocity (through the shock absorber). Wheel mass does, however, affect the position/velocity of the wheel, but then basically you're saying that those 5-6 inches of wheel movement should be bigger and slower. The starting point of your argument earlier in the thread is the wheel position. From that point onwards, wheel mass is irrelevant.
I pointed out not just the wheel displacement, but how they would go from +4 inches in one frame to -4 inches the next. This was what caused me to suspect that unsprung mass wasn't being modelled appropriately in Forza 2. With reasonable unsprung mass, the wheels would have a much slower hop frequency and, with that much displacement, would cause more body upset. (This is the same argument you're using to say that it's the low frequency undulations in the grass that cause cars to tip and skip. I partially agree, and add that greater unsprung mass would turn impulse shocks in the grass to lower wheel hop frequencies and thus lead to more body upset as well.)
Mintmaster
Veteran
First of all, how are you able to measure the wheel hop per frame? What kind of slow-mo does Forza 2 have?
Anyway, like I was saying before, do some actual calculations with some reasonable numbers. The decay constant of the wheel's free motion has very low dependence on the wheel mass unless the shock absorbers are virtually broken. Whether each wheel weighs nothing or a crazy 100kg, you only get a few hertz change from a time constant of around 20-30Hz, depending on the exact numbers. Unless the car is really underdamped, the free wheel system is heavily overdamped and thus dominated by the shock absorbers.
The wheel motion is supposed to be fast even if it did have mass, and an impulse shock can't translate into a low frequency motion like you're suggesting. The only time a fleeting bump can really affect a car's motion is if it bottoms out the suspension completely and thus take the shocks out of the equation.
Whatever the case, unsprung mass has nothing to do with the perceptible car motion.
(BTW, I guess inverse seconds is more correct than Hz since these aren't cycles, but it's more cumbersome.)
Anyway, like I was saying before, do some actual calculations with some reasonable numbers. The decay constant of the wheel's free motion has very low dependence on the wheel mass unless the shock absorbers are virtually broken. Whether each wheel weighs nothing or a crazy 100kg, you only get a few hertz change from a time constant of around 20-30Hz, depending on the exact numbers. Unless the car is really underdamped, the free wheel system is heavily overdamped and thus dominated by the shock absorbers.
The wheel motion is supposed to be fast even if it did have mass, and an impulse shock can't translate into a low frequency motion like you're suggesting. The only time a fleeting bump can really affect a car's motion is if it bottoms out the suspension completely and thus take the shocks out of the equation.
Whatever the case, unsprung mass has nothing to do with the perceptible car motion.
(BTW, I guess inverse seconds is more correct than Hz since these aren't cycles, but it's more cumbersome.)
