Forza 5 v. Gran Turismo 6 - Fight!!!

He's got it just about right. The one thing I would add is that GT6 seems to be going in the right direction for sim racing fans, at least in terms of the near future. 

Monthly track DLC and periodic updates. We are supposed to be getting the new BMW M4 coupe this month. They've stated tracks are a definite.

With T10, well, it's all a mystery. Unfortunate, really.

Great Article Zero...I agree with you Snappy about going in the right direction!

I like FM5 and don't regret my purchase.  Don't have a PS3 so I know nothing about GT6.   I do wish T10 would do a little bit more on the communication side of the house as far as what they are working on or what their thoughts are about  the feedback in the forum.   I think their biggest downfall has been the multiplayer aspect.  Hopefully though it is something they'll work on. 

Zero7159 wrote:

Read and comment please.

If you say so...:)

First off, before I even opened the thread but having read the title I say to myself "here we go, what a fucken bad idea this is." and then I see the author and I think "what the hells gotten into Craig he should know better?" LOL But 10 minutes later I'm starting to believe the title is awesome...we're much too mature to let this degrade into a bitch fest so when that does happen hey...as advertised. Well done buddy!

Now onto more serious matters...Based solely on what I've read and heard of FM5 I'm not surprised at the comparison but as I read it I just got the impression this guy was pro GT and FM5 was never gonna win. Maybe it was just me or maybe because I didn't necessarily agree with his final argument that "more cars win" it left a sour taste in my mouth (figuratively, not literally) for the rest of the comparisons. 

Maybe he's right about the career comparison??? but his first argument that GT sticks to its guns threw me cause quite frankly I hate the GT career (albeit GT6 definitely has some huge improvements over GT5) but if I compare the GT career to the Forza games that I've played its not even close, Forza wins in a landslide and not only because of the freedom to race what you want which is important to me.   

As for the bullshit microtransaction comparison wouldn't Forza win because it does it better than PD?

Forza 5 certainly has better graphics, but that's not a fair comparison, like comparing a DVD to a Bluray.  From here on out, when it comes to graphics, the upgrades aren't going to be as huge as they were in the past from gen to gen.  It's just the same when it comes to audio.  8 track to cassette is a huge difference, cassette to CD is another huge jump in quality, but after that it becomes harder and harder to discern the differences.  Not many people can tell the difference between a CD and a SACD, even though there is certainly a jump in quality there.  Just as there are going to be people that cannot tell much a difference between PS3/360 and PS4/One or say for instance a 1080P TV and one that supports 4k (once we get there).

Without a doubt, however, Forza 5 has better graphics than GT6.  To a videophile it's night and day, to the general public it's "meh, a little better".

The quality of your display and quality of cables used also plays a role.  It is unfair for somebody to attempt to judge the differences between the two using a low quality HDMI cable and a $199 TV.  Just as you would hear no difference between an MP3 and a SACD on a pair of Apple earbuds vs an audiophile grade stereo setup.

Direct comparison of graphics at Bathurst:

http://youtu.be/4QPYXhZbzek

You cannot accurately compare differences in video quality using a compressed youtube video.

I have been told that the HDMI cables all conduct the signal equally, as in, that spiffy high dollar gold connector hdmi cable really won't make anything prettier. It might indeed give you a solid uncorroded connection longer.

The quality of the TV on the other hand is indeed important. As mines only 720, I dunno if it's super critical to me at the moment.

Or we could go whole hog and do a gage R&R....or does this warrant a DOE?

I don't regret my purchase of the XboxOne and Forza 5. The physics are improved but still familiar. I can't really put in words how. It's just a feel that I get. The new controller is very nice but it is not as advanced as I thought it would be. Ill explain: I thought that the input, particularly throttle input, would be more gradual - thus, smoother. Maybe i need more time with it. I like the rumble in the triggers because its helpful in telling me what is going on with wheel spin. The game plays great. The graphics are stunning. Silky smooth 60 FPS makes a huge difference. It's one of those things that aren't necessary for everyone but once you see it you can appreciate it. On day one I played FM5 for a few hours and thought the graphics were great. Then I went and got on FM4 and was surprised at how it looked. Still a beautiful game but FM5 is a considerable leap in graphical quality. So, in this regard I think FM5 is an awesome game.

My dislikes for FM5 are simple: reduced content, the apparent reintroduction of old content at a premium cost, the loss of some key community oriented features, the lack of response and inclusion of more gameplay features that have been requested by the community but that also would enhance the racing experience.

I have wondered aloud with some of the guys here about "Laser Scanning" tracks. Is it more costly and time consuming? Is t10's insistence on using Laser Scanning really helpful. To me, the reality is that most who play this game will never really pick up on he subtle differences. I've never been to any of these tracks and doubt I ever will. So there is no real way for me to tell. If laser scanning takes longer and costs more I would have prefered that T10 recreate the tracks the old fashioned way and put the resources to creating more tracks. Then there are the micro transactions. The change was too extreme in my opinion.

I will acknowledge this: T10 has created a NextGen racing game and I believe that this will pay dividends as time passes. For now, I'll have to wait and see what else they will do to improve the game.

As far as the Xbone, I am happy with it. I know that better and more advanced games are coming so I'm happy to be ready for it. My only complaint is with "parties". Why would I have to turn on party chat when I create or invite someone to a party? Seems bassackwards. The racing game that most excites me right now is Project CARS. If you haven't heard of it then go here: http://www.wmdportal.com/

GT6 is great so far. Tons of content and gameplay features that offer varied racing experiences. To me, that's what a racing game should contain. Whether the features cater to a particular user or not is, in my mind, irrelevant. Day/Night transition, drift circuits, variable weather, ovals, road courses, classics, muscle cars, karting, hill climbs, hybrids, prototypes, drag racing, endurance racing, etc. All of it is a part of motorsport and should be contained in a game with that word in its title. I'm still not sure about car soccer though. LOL

In terms of graphics, well, I think it's apples and oranges so I don't compare that. Graphics help with immersion in any game so they are important but they are not the absolute. They definitely shouldn't be two generations behind but I don't think GT6 is very far off and I'm excited to see what PD comes up with in GT7. 

Really, two of the bestracing games for slightly different reasons. Two developers with slightly differing visions who have done a very nice job with their games. If your a fan of racing and sim racing you would be hard pressed not to enjoy either title. And if you an absolute SIM racing nut job, like me, then you'll have three consoles and a gaming PC. Not realistic for everyone but what can I say....? My wife is understanding. Thanks honey!

See you on the track!

Gentleman Racer aka SnappyDee

I'm very happy with the X1 overall and really looking forward to what the future holds on it.  I'd say The Crew is a race/car game that I'm really looking forward too.  Hopefully with it being focused on multiplayer we can all get on there to mess around.  

Just look at the Halo line for the 360 and how its graphics evolved.  I think we are going to see some very nice graphics both on the X1 and PS4. 

To expand on your comments Lawyer, I use to game just on the PC.  Upgrading was getting expensive and with two sons now getting into gaming that was really gonna drive up the bill.  My current PC has started showing signs of it dying, the screen gets dim over time then suddenly pops back to bright,  random crashes and lock ups.  I was looking at either upgrading or an X1.  I'm happy with my choice, I put the game in and play, no more messing with settings to get the game to run.    Anyways a little off topic but I know where your coming from about a game just working.  I got rFactor2 when they first offered it and have since unistalled it.  Nothing like a never ending beta while charging people and making money.  

Well, they did the same car packs with FM4 but from what I can see, FM5 has very little content (compared to FM4 on release) so I doubt a few car packs are going to draw me into spending £500 on a console and FM5! 

For me it comes down to Quality vs Quantity.  I'm completely happy with FM5, the X1 and my TX Wheel(with the T500 rims and T500 pedals).  I think the physics, graphics and overall immersion for me set it apart from GT6 in a big way.  I really applaud and support T10 for starting from Scratch and building the entire game from the ground up for the next gen.  I do agree with some of the Multiplayer critizims but I have mainly been racing with my friends in private lobbies and loving every minute.  I think the direction T10 took will really pay off.  We will see a lot more  DLC that will help and FM6 on will shine because of it.  I think GT is going to have to step up to the plate and I have never been very happy with their numbers approach of taking models from previous GTs going back to PS2 and the whole Standard cars etc.  

Quote:

Impedance control is important for another reason: timing. As impedance varies, so will the time it takes a signal to travel down the cable. Electricity travels at nearly the speed of light; how close to the speed of light it travels depends on the dielectric, and is referred to as the "velocity of propagation." The objective, in putting together the four pairs in an HDMI cable, is to have them be identical; but in actual practice, each pair in a four-pair set will have its own delay. If the delay of one pair is sufficiently greater than the delay of another pair, the receiving device will not know which "red" pixel belongs to which "blue" and "green" pixel, or if the clock circuit is off, it may be impossible to time any of the color signals reliably. Since this delay depends on the consistency and dimensions of the dielectric, and the consistency and dimensions of the dielectric are important factors in impedance, the same requirement for consistent impedance applies here; if impedance is too inconsistent, timing will be too inconsistent, and the whole system will fail.

One way of looking at cable performance is to chart the attenuation for a given length of cable against frequency. For any cable, attenuation (measured in dB) will increase with frequency; this attenuation comes from a few factors. Loss to resistance goes up with frequency, because higher frequency signals are able to use less and less of the cross-section of the wire (this is known as "skin effect") and so have less copper to travel through. Losses to reactance -- capacitance and inductance -- also increase with frequency. Then, what we call "return loss" adds the most irregular, and difficult-to-control, component to the loss. "Return loss" is the loss to impedance mismatch, and is so called because it represents the portion of the signal which is lost when, upon encountering a change in the impedance of the circuit (this may be a change in impedance along the cable, or a change of impedance on entering or leaving a connector, or a circuit board trace, or encountering a different impedance than expected at the load end of the circuit), it reflects back along the cable towards the source rather than being delivered to the load. While basic resistive and reactive losses are pretty reliable and have a definite relationship to frequency, return loss can be quite irregular. A graph of return loss against frequency, rather than showing a nice, consistent curve, is characterized by sharp, spiky lines. Why is this? Well, return loss has to do, more than anything else, with those manufacturing tolerances and their impact upon impedance. Every wire, at some level, has some periodicity, and so resonates somewhat at some unintended frequency. Every dielectric extruder fails, at some level, to extrude the dielectric consistently; every spooler that winds wire or dielectric-covered wire, every wire twister, every unreeler that handles that wire as it goes back into another stage of processing, every foil-wrap and drain-wire machine, every planetary cabler (which bundles and twists the pairs together with one another), every jacket handler and extruder--all of these machines, in all of these processes, apply microscopic irregularities to the cable which show up as return loss. Return loss can't be eliminated, at least not in a real-world cable; but it can be, within limits, made as small and as consistent across a range of frequencies, as possible.

Generally speaking, devices handle very linear or predictable losses very well. If one knows that one part of a signal will come in a thousand times weaker than another part, it's easy to "EQ" the incoming signal to boost the weak part to match the level of the strong part. But return loss can't be EQ'd out because it's too uneven and unpredictable.

Return loss, not resistance, is the critical consideration in determining the quality of an HDMI cable; if one were comparing cables with similar resistance, capacitance, and inductance values against one another, and consulting a chart of attenuation relative to frequency, what one would generally see would be that cables with superior return loss characteristics would show a flatter attenuation curve than the others. This is very important in HDMI because the required bandwidth for an HDMI signal is enormous, and the higher the frequency, the harder it is to control return loss.

Just as with speaker wire and interconnect cables there are people that believe that as long as the gauge of the cable is sufficient for the length of the run there are no other differences that can be discerned and those on the other side of the fence are just drinking the koolaid.  I'll just have to agree to disagree, these subjects have caused many battle royals on many audio forums.

True quesion is, can you see the difference when either cable is connected? Possibly side by side, but one at a time? other major problem is as the first write up said, no one puts the real info on the package, just "high speed" and you either trust or you don't.

Same with audio tech, there's some really awesome high dollar stuff out there, but most people can't tell the difference and prefer the cheap MP3... and there IS a difference.