Vehicle Handling and Physics

[Pedinhuh]

On 3/14/2023 at 1:30 AM, DODI3OG said:

Did braking better. Not perfect, but better than making it seem like you're drifting on ice.

By giving brake assist to every single land vehicle, including 80+ years old cars.

 

Even cars with awful brakes like the Slamnvan and Rat Truck won't lock up the wheels no matter what you do.

 

But in IV lower end cars could come with no brake assists which would make them lock up all 4 wheels at full braking, making unskilled drivers complain and not understand that you don't slam the brakes on old sh*tboxes, you feather the brakes or pump them.

[suicidehummer]

15 hours ago, STOGE said:

ha ha ok, fair play man. Everyone has there take on it. But out with beam NG, can you name even  a driving game, never mind an open world action game, that has a better damage model? i seriously cant think of any. Dont know any other game that you can shoot or damage an individual light on a bank of lights or shoot just 1 bullet hole through the glass and creating one hole other than smash the whole glass at once etc etc. Not saying they cant be improved and these models are probably years old aswell as the fact the tech can probably create better damage models now, but same time i just cant think of a game that gives the same level of damage as GTA 5

Easy: GTA IV. Burnout from 2001. Wreckfest.

 

V's damage is non-existent. Who cares about bullet holes when you can hit a brick wall at 80 mph and not even get a dent?

[McDreamyh]

Can't wait to see how suspension on cars will work. Hopefully there will be a noticable difference with different car types.

[DODI3OG]

22 hours ago, Pedinhuh said:

By giving brake assist to every single land vehicle, including 80+ years old cars.

 

Even cars with awful brakes like the Slamnvan and Rat Truck won't lock up the wheels no matter what you do.

 

But in IV lower end cars could come with no brake assists which would make them lock up all 4 wheels at full braking, making unskilled drivers complain and not understand that you don't slam the brakes on old sh*tboxes, you feather the brakes or pump them.

The problem with GTA IV (not a "real" problem if you're gonna look at it from a wider view, but this is just my experience) is that the handling and braking just didn't work with each other.

 

Nowadays, there are cars with slower acceleration in GTA Online, they really feel heavy, but not quite like GTA IV. The braking works with GTA V because it's needed for a game where most vehicles have an unnecessary fast acceleration. The slow handling ang slow brakes would have worked if it wasn't for the wobbly and floaty handling.

[ChengizVlad09]

Driving/racing identity of the series have been nothing but a mess of cheap tricks, poor/lazy programming and I dare to say it is being fueled by low standards thanks to the general sentiment coming from the public for these last 15 years. Rockstar knows jack sh*t about driving physics. Or they don't care. Or both. Their only mission is to follow the general publics' low standards and boy are they going to fulfill 'em. It is quite amazing however, that just because they make cars 'wobbly' and 'boat-like' half of you jump to say it's 'realistic' while the other half deems it to be not arcady enough. Or the other way around, when they literally turn off that 'feature' some say it's 'cinematic' now and some proclaims it to be arcady. It's neither in both cases. Driving physics of their HD games is so simple, yet so ineffective. Their idea of the driving physics is a burden, there's no flexibility of any kind and there's no reason for it to be any different next time around. Driving physics rockstar games are making, renders every car class basically the same. Ultimate snooze. Boring and borderline idiotic, with no intention to give us any kind of challenge, no learning curve whatsoever, no fun at all. Totally flat in every sense. With all due respect, seeing people still fighting over which one is better, IV or V, is baffling, but it's predictable. That's why poor and lazy programming is going to be a leading force when it comes to the next GTA driving physics and handling. The reason is simple and the end result is quite predictable; it's going to be a GTA V clone with dozens of gimmicky stuff which are closely related, but not directly tied to driving physics, ultimately regarded as 'upgrades'. 

 

There's one thing that should be a leading fun factor as well as a force to have in mind while programming  driving physics and that's drifting/powersliding. I just can't fathom how are they not seeing this. It's the holy grail of simulations, arcades and anything in between. Most of the fun happens when you seemingly lose control of your car, or better yet, the fun starts when you start regaining it back and what is actually happening while you do it or better yet, how exactly do you do it. Every game from HDU is notoriously famous for not allowing you to do anything. No one is talking about it. Once you lose control, willingly or accidentally, it's over. Literally. Name me one car that can even remotely drift, starting from IV all the way to 0nline. People are using scripts, cheats and heavy modding in order to do it. Every car class is rendered the same, with only exception being top speed or acceleration. I'll be highly surprised if they decide to harness the power of new gen SSDs to increase the top speed even..

[SoldierBoy]

1 hour ago, ChengizVlad09 said:

Driving/racing identity of the series have been nothing but a mess of cheap tricks, poor/lazy programming and I dare to say it is being fueled by low standards thanks to the general sentiment coming from the public for these last 15 years. Rockstar knows jack sh*t about driving physics. Or they don't care. Or both. Their only mission is to follow the general publics' low standards and boy are they going to fulfill 'em. It is quite amazing however, that just because they make cars 'wobbly' and 'boat-like' half of you jump to say it's 'realistic' while the other half deems it to be not arcady enough. Or the other way around, when they literally turn off that 'feature' some say it's 'cinematic' now and some proclaims it to be arcady. It's neither in both cases. Driving physics of their HD games is so simple, yet so ineffective. Their idea of the driving physics is a burden, there's no flexibility of any kind and there's no reason for it to be any different next time around. Driving physics rockstar games are making, renders every car class basically the same. Ultimate snooze. Boring and borderline idiotic, with no intention to give us any kind of challenge, no learning curve whatsoever, no fun at all. Totally flat in every sense. With all due respect, seeing people still fighting over which one is better, IV or V, is baffling, but it's predictable. That's why poor and lazy programming is going to be a leading force when it comes to the next GTA driving physics and handling. The reason is simple and the end result is quite predictable; it's going to be a GTA V clone with dozens of gimmicky stuff which are closely related, but not directly tied to driving physics, ultimately regarded as 'upgrades'. 

 

There's one thing that should be a leading fun factor as well as a force to have in mind while programming  driving physics and that's drifting/powersliding. I just can't fathom how are they not seeing this. It's the holy grail of simulations, arcades and anything in between. Most of the fun happens when you seemingly lose control of your car, or better yet, the fun starts when you start regaining it back and what is actually happening while you do it or better yet, how exactly do you do it. Every game from HDU is notoriously famous for not allowing you to do anything. No one is talking about it. Once you lose control, willingly or accidentally, it's over. Literally. Name me one car that can even remotely drift, starting from IV all the way to 0nline. People are using scripts, cheats and heavy modding in order to do it. Every car class is rendered the same, with only exception being top speed or acceleration. I'll be highly surprised if they decide to harness the power of new gen SSDs to increase the top speed even..

100% agreed.

[Exsanguination]

8 hours ago, DODI3OG said:

The problem with GTA IV (not a "real" problem if you're gonna look at it from a wider view, but this is just my experience) is that the handling and braking just didn't work with each other.

 

Nowadays, there are cars with slower acceleration in GTA Online, they really feel heavy, but not quite like GTA IV. The braking works with GTA V because it's needed for a game where most vehicles have an unnecessary fast acceleration. The slow handling ang slow brakes would have worked if it wasn't for the wobbly and floaty handling.

I think you’re missing his point. A car like the Eudora (even though I love its looks) shouldn’t have anit-lock brakes (being able to control steering while the brake is fully depressed) It’s unrealistic as cars that old don’t have ABS…. GTA IV did better in that regard. 

[ChengizVlad09]

It's funny reading through the comments here, people hoping for, invoking some kind of "middle grounds" between IV and V in VI. It's funny 'coz the same middle grounds was already available way before IV was even conceived, let alone V. Not only does the LVPD police car - for example - has that body roll, swinging chassis and general wobbliness, it as well can perfectly stick to the ground, while still having sense of weight to it and being perfectly maneuverable. Furthermore, you can freely play around and find its limits, willingly losing control and regaining it back, once you get the feel of the things and it doesn't take too long. That characteristic fluidity of driving isn't possible with huge amount of understeer in IV or the same amount of oversteer in V.

 

 

[SoldierBoy]

One of the things that they nerfed in V was suspension.

 

The lack of suspension made every vehicle feel solid as a brick. It’s one of the reasons it felt more “arcade”.

 

Hope they really got it right this time…

 

 

[Pedinhuh]

3 hours ago, ChengizVlad09 said:

It's funny reading through the comments here, people hoping for, invoking some kind of "middle grounds" between IV and V in VI. It's funny 'coz the same middle grounds was already available way before IV was even conceived, let alone V. Not only does the LVPD police car - for example - has that body roll, swinging chassis and general wobbliness, it as well can perfectly stick to the ground, while still having sense of weight to it and being perfectly maneuverable. Furthermore, you can freely play around and find its limits, willingly losing control and regaining it back, once you get the feel of the things and it doesn't take too long. That characteristic fluidity of driving isn't possible with huge amount of understeer in IV or the same amount of oversteer in V.

 

 

Hmmm i dont know, i still see too much tire grip in there, and notice how the driver can't hold the drifts for long, again it is because of cars having too much traction(which is the main crux of the problems here in regards to drifting) and the engine cutting power, as there was no actual gearbox ratios back then.

 

For the tire grip issue they already found a solution: low-grip tires as a customization option in GTA Online, just bring it over to VI.

 

But that only brings the next problem that is the engines cutting power, but now that cars do have a proper working transmissions with gear ratios, there's no excuse for them to let us have full control of the gears, and for this we will need a manual gearbox option.

(I mean, it's possible to drift with an automatic...But it's just dumb and kinda pathetic since you can't hold the gear for as long as you want)

Edited March 18 by Pedinhuh

[DODI3OG]

3 hours ago, Exsanguination said:

I think you’re missing his point. A car like the Eudora (even though I love its looks) shouldn’t have anit-lock brakes (being able to control steering while the brake is fully depressed) It’s unrealistic as cars that old don’t have ABS…. GTA IV did better in that regard. 

Sorry. Yes, I missed the point. I was talking about GTA IV cars in general, btw.

[ChengizVlad09]

@Pedinhuh

Even tho I completely understand where you are coming from, looking from the technical point of view of the real world driving, I must say that's nitpicking in the terms of driving mechanics provided in video games. However the point you have brought acros is valid and should be considered by the creators, not us, and even more importantly, properly implemented; that's why I've said they know jack sh*t about driving mechanics or they are being too lazy to consider and implement ideas, no matter if we are talking about sim, arcade or anyting in between.

Here's the "same driver" but using another car, doing what's closest thing to "drifting" inside GTA franchise. In the following video, this different car still suffers from power cutting and doesn't use manual transmission but most imortantly it behaves completaly different in comparison to the car from the first clip, which proves another point I've made as factual - different car classes have actual meaning in SA - cars behave differently depending on the class.

 

I removed traffic as you can see, not because it was in the way, but because cars rendomly spawn when you are not looking and I use a lot of mouse movement. Btw, I mistakenly set the game to run on 35 FPS here, making it even a bit more difficult to do what was intended purpose of the video.

Edited March 18 by ChengizVlad09

[44Orca]

Interested to see how the bus and other large vehicles handle, those is where I want to see some very different physics than other smaller cars.

Edited March 18 by 44Orca

[suicidehummer]

On 3/17/2023 at 7:43 PM, ChengizVlad09 said:

 That characteristic fluidity of driving isn't possible with huge amount of understeer in IV or the same amount of oversteer in V.

 

 

Oversteer in V?

 

On 3/17/2023 at 11:27 PM, ChengizVlad09 said:

different car classes have actual meaning in SA - cars behave differently depending on the class.

 

 

Not any more than the other installments. Large vehicles in SA still respond instantly to steering inputs and have too much traction. They don't have a proper feeling of weight.

 

I think we've talked about this before. Did you ever try my handling mod for SA?

[ChengizVlad09]

@suicidehummer

 

I really don't know why the question mark? Things are stated clearly. Oversteer is such a predominant force in V, it's ridiculous. It seems that the entire driving physics is based on it, where tremendous amount of cars in stupid amount of situations suffer from it, ironically, even the cars that often tend to understeer. One would have thought that having that lateral, side jerks from left to right once your car starts fishtailing would open up a window of opportunity to drift, which would be natural, but of course not. There are only two possible scenarios once you move left or right, starting all the way from 90 degrees facing front, down to somewhere around 30 degress left or right, depending on the car; either you immediately straighten back to 90 in a terrible, spring like, jerky fashion, freed of any physics and sense of weight or body roll, or, you simply spun out left/right to a complete stop. If that isn't clear and accurate description of the essence of driving mechanics of V I don't know what is. 

It doesn't matter if you lose control purposefully or accidentally. There isn't anything you have to be aware of or try to do about it. There isn't anything needed to be mastered, except for the fact you constantly have to keep in mind this terrible, idiotic design in mind. Cherry on top, for whatever reason - their idea of 'diversity' probably - there are cars that are suffering constantly from the same symptoms described above, while they still tend to understeer in certain situations, adding to the confussion; you have a car that both oversteer by default and as a bonus it clearly understeers if you don't get some corners 'how it's intended' by the creators. I'm sure no one told those guys in charge of creating the driving mechanics that you can actually drive your car straight for the prolonged periods of time, despite not pointing the nose of a car completely straight to a 90 degree point.

 

The same way that V has its driving mechanics/physics defined, molded, guided and determined by 'oversteery' nature, the same thing can be said about IV and its 'understeery' nature. You just can't f*cking make that turn with out your car deforming from body sway, chassis is already scratching the concrete and you are doing an easy 30 km/h in a sports car. Tires are squealing, your fingers hurt, you are sweating, but you still can't make that turn and you end up in Vice City. There's a predominant, overwhelming feeling we literally have to ground the car to a complete stop, dry steer it left or right, and then we can go where initially intended. It doesn't have anything to do with being good or bad at driving, no matter whether it's our fault, or we are trying something intentionally. That's just a 'feature' we have to deal with, and just like in f*cking V, you have to constantly have this bad design at mind, no matter what f*cking car you drive. Sure, I can completely understand subjective, masochistic desires people have, but don't f*cking defend this bad, sh*tty design(s), just because you subjectively like the game or this specific driving physics - not you personally, but people in general.

 

In regards to SA, you clearly have cars that oversteer and cars that understeer and even despite that fact, you can totaly be in control, simply know when to push it. Not to mention cars that appear to be perfectly in balance. The entire driving mechanics isn't bound by either of the concepts. And that's already a great f*cking start. For example, take cars from the same category; Infernus that understeers and Cheetah that oversteers. Two completely different personalities. Under the right conditions you can make Infernus to do something that's really close to powersliding, while there's no way in hell to do the same with Cheetah, just like you can make the sharpest corners with one, while the other couldn't perform the same under no condition. Those cars seem to suffer from one or the other, but that's because it's in their nature, not the nature of the entire f*cking game and logic behing driving mechanics. Differences are more than obvious and compared to IV and V, these two cars appear to have come from two different games. For someone so initiated and informed as yourself, I can't unerstand how come you can say such a thing, honestly. I won't even mention differences between something coming from distinctive car classes, such as Elegy and Savanna. Night. And. Day.

 

I like to think there is something called driving physics in general and driving mechanics, as two distinctive spheres, directly related and extremely tied but still a bit different. Driving physics comes as a broader term which includes driving mechanics in itself and while mechanics relates strictly to cruising, driving and racing - what you are doing with your car - physics contains, amongst others, things such as impacts and collisions, weight calculations and what not. When I said you can " feel the weight " I was implying it for that car alone, while we are maneuvering with it, not in relation to a f*cking bus upon impact. And, I mean that not only for that car in particular, but for every car in SA. There is distinctive weight to them, body roll, shassis swing and sway, yet they don't suffer from understeer, like cars in IV do. Sure, they did a great job in IV with 'weight differentiation' amongst vehicle classes and it would have been great if it wasn't for that terrible driving mechanics, design and logic behind the fact of simply driving a car.

 

Agh, sorry fam. Yeah, indeed we did, but I sold my gaming PC, hence I can't bother to play games on my laptop. Maybe I'll give your mod a shot in the future..

Edited Monday at 08:59 AM by ChengizVlad09

[E Revere]

My problem with GTA V's handling isn't actually the physics debate. I think the cars have enough physica, they're not completely arcade. You can still induce an oversteer by letting go of the accelerator and steering at a very high speed, as you would in real life. My problem is something else. I just can't put my finger on it but something about the driving in GTA V isn't fun. Also, tyres roll too much when you're trying to take off, doesn't matter the car, surface or incline and it's very annoying.

 

Edited Monday at 08:58 AM by E Revere

[ChengizVlad09]

41 minutes ago, E Revere said:

Also, tyres roll too much when you're trying to take off, doesn't matter the car, surface or incline and it's very annoying.

That's just one of the spheres, where their idiotic design comes to light. You cannot have a pressed  acceleration button/key not even for a second without having your tires already burned and up in smoke - alright, you can with buttons, since they are analog or haptic or whatever, but only because of the controller design, not their 'creative' intentions. Wheel turned a mere centimeter and fire brigade is about to storm the f*cking place because of all the smoke. Not only that, but you won't have a better start in either case - whether you want to go fast or simply take off, gently. No one told these idiots there's something called 'launch control' and maybe, just maybe, they could add that function for the modern cars, in a menu of sorts, so we can CHOSE whether we need it or not. Hell, a simple function inside the simple menu, stating what start we want. Even better, press and hold Shift for aggressive start. They have never seen a sport car slightly dropping down from the back while launch control is being initiated. And these fanboy punks call their 'visions' of driving mechanics 'cinematic'. Get the f*ck outta here. It hasn't occured to them that even older sporty cars can take off viciously, but since there were way less advanced system the car we drive would be launched all over the place, especially sideways WHILE STILL GOING STRAIGHT. Hey, some sort of programming could be involved there, they would expect something to be actually done by their intented 'public'. Something as that was clearly visible and doable in NFS-f*cking-Underground-20-f*cking-years-ago.

 

They don't care about the driving mechanics, can't wait to see how obvious it will be in VI.

Edited Monday at 09:37 AM by ChengizVlad09

[Lotte]

The thing that "works" about GTA IV's vehicle presentation is that its a more textured package. The game's lighting, all of the sounds that the cars make, the way that everything has a feeling of being used to it, and yes, the physics model work all together. Obviously the end result isn't realistic, but it feels like it belongs within the world that it's in, if that makes sense. the cars are a part of the game world and you're simply moving them around within it

 

Versus GTA V, where there's something so much more toylike about the vehicles. Obviously part of it is the handling and damage model, but the way that the game is lit contributes. the way that most cars do not spawn in traffic naturally makes the fact that they are toys for us way more clear. it feels a lot easier to see through the illusion that's presented in V, if that makes sense

[suicidehummer]

15 hours ago, ChengizVlad09 said:

@suicidehummer

 

I really don't know why the question mark? Things are stated clearly. Oversteer is such a predominant force in V, it's ridiculous. It seems that the entire driving physics is based on it, where tremendous amount of cars in stupid amount of situations suffer from it, ironically, even the cars that often tend to understeer. One would have thought that having that lateral, side jerks from left to right once your car starts fishtailing would open up a window of opportunity to drift, which would be natural, but of course not. There are only two possible scenarios once you move left or right, starting all the way from 90 degrees facing front, down to somewhere around 30 degress left or right, depending on the car; either you immediately straighten back to 90 in a terrible, spring like, jerky fashion, freed of any physics and sense of weight or body roll, or, you simply spun out left/right to a complete stop. If that isn't clear and accurate description of the essence of driving mechanics of V I don't know what is. 

It doesn't matter if you lose control purposefully or accidentally. There isn't anything you have to be aware of or try to do about it. There isn't anything needed to be mastered, except for the fact you constantly have to keep in mind this terrible, idiotic design in mind. Cherry on top, for whatever reason - their idea of 'diversity' probably - there are cars that are suffering constantly from the same symptoms described above, while they still tend to understeer in certain situations, adding to the confussion; you have a car that both oversteer by default and as a bonus it clearly understeers if you don't get some corners 'how it's intended' by the creators. I'm sure no one told those guys in charge of creating the driving mechanics that you can actually drive your car straight for the prolonged periods of time, despite not pointing the nose of a car completely straight to a 90 degree point.

 

The same way that V has its driving mechanics/physics defined, molded, guided and determined by 'oversteery' nature, the same thing can be said about IV and its 'understeery' nature. You just can't f*cking make that turn with out your car deforming from body sway, chassis is already scratching the concrete and you are doing an easy 30 km/h in a sports car. Tires are squealing, your fingers hurt, you are sweating, but you still can't make that turn and you end up in Vice City. There's a predominant, overwhelming feeling we literally have to ground the car to a complete stop, dry steer it left or right, and then we can go where initially intended. It doesn't have anything to do with being good or bad at driving, no matter whether it's our fault, or we are trying something intentionally. That's just a 'feature' we have to deal with, and just like in f*cking V, you have to constantly have this bad design at mind, no matter what f*cking car you drive. Sure, I can completely understand subjective, masochistic desires people have, but don't f*cking defend this bad, sh*tty design(s), just because you subjectively like the game or this specific driving physics - not you personally, but people in general.

 

In regards to SA, you clearly have cars that oversteer and cars that understeer and even despite that fact, you can totaly be in control, simply know when to push it. Not to mention cars that appear to be perfectly in balance. The entire driving mechanics isn't bound by either of the concepts. And that's already a great f*cking start. For example, take cars from the same category; Infernus that understeers and Cheetah that oversteers. Two completely different personalities. Under the right conditions you can make Infernus to do something that's really close to powersliding, while there's no way in hell to do the same with Cheetah, just like you can make the sharpest corners with one, while the other couldn't perform the same under no condition. Those cars seem to suffer from one or the other, but that's because it's in their nature, not the nature of the entire f*cking game and logic behing driving mechanics. Differences are more than obvious and compared to IV and V, these two cars appear to have come from two different games. For someone so initiated and informed as yourself, I can't unerstand how come you can say such a thing, honestly. I won't even mention differences between something coming from distinctive car classes, such as Elegy and Savanna. Night. And. Day.

 

I like to think there is something called driving physics in general and driving mechanics, as two distinctive spheres, directly related and extremely tied but still a bit different. Driving physics comes as a broader term which includes driving mechanics in itself and while mechanics relates strictly to cruising, driving and racing - what you are doing with your car - physics contains, amongst others, things such as impacts and collisions, weight calculations and what not. When I said you can " feel the weight " I was implying it for that car alone, while we are maneuvering with it, not in relation to a f*cking bus upon impact. And, I mean that not only for that car in particular, but for every car in SA. There is distinctive weight to them, body roll, shassis swing and sway, yet they don't suffer from understeer, like cars in IV do. Sure, they did a great job in IV with 'weight differentiation' amongst vehicle classes and it would have been great if it wasn't for that terrible driving mechanics, design and logic behind the fact of simply driving a car.

 

Agh, sorry fam. Yeah, indeed we did, but I sold my gaming PC, hence I can't bother to play games on my laptop. Maybe I'll give your mod a shot in the future..

 

Holy schnikes! 

 

I think you're confusing spinning out with oversteer. In V, you have absolute glued-to-the-road traction until you've turned so hard that the car just spins out.

 

As far as IV goes, It's been a minute since I played it, but as I recall, it was more a matter of wide turning circles than understeer. Once you got up to a decent speed, you could flick the back end out pretty easily, even in FWD cars like the Blista Compact. That's a pretty minor complaint considering the vast improvement over SA in terms of suspension, traction, mass, inertia, deformation, and so on. I gotta say, It's pretty funny seeing somebody so arrogant about the superiority of a game built on the ancient Renderware physics engine. I like SA's handling, but it's not in any way superior to IV. Sorry, that's just silly.

 

And you're making your argument by completely cherrypicking. You're going to tell me that the Dukes in IV does not oversteer? You're just trying to reach your pre-determined conclusion.

 

The Elegy and Savanna perfectly prove my point, in fact. The Savanna has way too little interia. It reacts to steering inputs very quickly, like a car that weighs the same as the Elegy. You completely ignored my main point about large vehicles in SA not having enough rotational inertia. I'm not talking about mass. I'm talking about inertia.

 

The chassis swinging in SA is "sh*tty design", as you would put it. Cars don't swing their ass sideways like that (unless they have a severely broken rear suspension). It's a totally fake, forced mechanic.

[ChengizVlad09]

12 hours ago, suicidehummer said:

 

Holy schnikes! 

 

I think you're confusing spinning out with oversteer. In V, you have absolute glued-to-the-road traction until you've turned so hard that the car just spins out.

 

As far as IV goes, It's been a minute since I played it, but as I recall, it was more a matter of wide turning circles than understeer. Once you got up to a decent speed, you could flick the back end out pretty easily, even in FWD cars like the Blista Compact. That's a pretty minor complaint considering the vast improvement over SA in terms of suspension, traction, mass, inertia, deformation, and so on. I gotta say, It's pretty funny seeing somebody so arrogant about the superiority of a game built on the ancient Renderware physics engine. I like SA's handling, but it's not in any way superior to IV. Sorry, that's just silly.

 

And you're making your argument by completely cherrypicking. You're going to tell me that the Dukes in IV does not oversteer? You're just trying to reach your pre-determined conclusion.

 

The Elegy and Savanna perfectly prove my point, in fact. The Savanna has way too little interia. It reacts to steering inputs very quickly, like a car that weighs the same as the Elegy. You completely ignored my main point about large vehicles in SA not having enough rotational inertia. I'm not talking about mass. I'm talking about inertia.

 

The chassis swinging in SA is "sh*tty design", as you would put it. Cars don't swing their ass sideways like that (unless they have a severely broken rear suspension). It's a totally fake, forced mechanic.

There's no confusing one with the other. It's just that their general design is that f*cking sh*tty, so it might seems I kinda end up to be doing so. Sensitivity of imput with 'short' turning angles are just like that in V, especially during high speeds. It doesn't make much difference to be glued to the road, even though it should - having all that traction at your disposal never makes you feel in control, what's more, it somehow seems highly unstable. Hearing something similar to glass shattering while the traction is keeping us glued to the road beneth is schizophrenia inducing. It constantly creates a feeling of oversteer for almost every vehicle, no matter whether it's technically there or not and regardless of the fact, whether that specific car is actually prone to understeer, eventually or from the very beginning. Spinning out is just one of the two possible scenarios; in one, you straighten your car in a short and jerky fashion and continue to go forward and in the other, well, you spin out in a pretty quick fashion to a pretty 'uncinematic' short crash, not reflecting the speed you were going in most cases. Except maybe when launching yourself of from a mountain. That's it. There's nothing happening in between and there's nothing you can do after to correct it. You either lose control or you don't. Remove (almost) every sense of suspension and it all seems way too erratic. Brilliant design. Like a child playing with Hotwheels, only the kids have more imagination.

 

The same can be said about IV, just stated from the different angle. Like you've said it yourself; game defining or physics defining " wide turning circles " when it comes to driving are creating a constant feeling of an understeer for almosy every single vehicle, doesn't matter whether it's a sport class vehicle or a beat up old timer, doesn't matter whether that specific car actually oversteers in a true technical sense of things, although, those cars are in a vast minority. Add crazy amount of suspenssion to every car and you are having a wobbly mess that so often happen to look like it's baloon floating on air rather than a car getting traction. And just to be clear, driving in both games is piss, f*cking easy. The hardest part is constantly having a bad design on your mind, regardless of the fact whether the car you are driving indeed possesses the right amount of rotational inertia or suspension, whether it oversteers, understeers or whatever it is being written in its code, when the the general rules for its mechanics are badly designed in the first place and are hardcoded in the tremendous amount of the possible scenarios during the exact ride. Tell me, what kind of a difference does it make to be able to flick the car's back in the end, during high speed, low speed, in between, whenever, in GTA IV and V with any kind of car? Why would you do it? What exactly happens then and there? You'd do it for the simple sake of doing it? Doubt it. I'm not speaking rhetorically, it's a legit question. To be able to have some f*cking fun, drifting and powersliding, that's why. Those two games cannot provide that and I'm not talking true, technical sense of those two manifestations, by shifting gears properly and what not, where you would need the complete set of simcade peripherals, but simply to make it appear like the car is doing that, just like you are able to do so with so many cars in SA. Once the power is cut in either IV or V that's it. Once the power is cut in SA, it makes a huge difference what car you are driving. How is that not making bigger variety?

 

So, it's not exactly a pile of sh*t, it's just that the dog took a huge f*cking dump, right?

 

I'm not cherrypicking anything nor am I reaching to any kind of conclusion. How exactly am I doing all that? I'm just stating the obvious. Why should anybody care if it's an obsolete game engine? What exactly have you proved with Elegy and Savanna in SA? These two cars handle so differently that the gap is way greater than any two vehicles being compared h2h from IV and V coming from different car classes, pointing out to the variety of SA I was talking about. Utter trash car and the ultimate sports car from either two of the HD games share way much more than they should, ofc I'm gonna be a harsh critic.. I completely haven't ignored your 'argument' about large vehicles in SA. Truth to be told, you were so broad about it, I had a hard time reading through the entire statement you made. I still answered that, you overlooked my answer. Maybe my exact and explicit confirmation was needed. So here, yes, large vehicles, which are in minority anyways, like buses or huge industrial vehicles have a high sensitivity of input and low sense of weight and are not heavy enough upon coliding with smaller objects. Sure, subjective as well as objective intention of a lot of people is to hit pedestrians and other relatively smaller objects with large vehicles and watch them fly and tumble in a cinematic fashion. That's where GTA IV shines and I made it clear that's broader sense of driving aspect, which is tied to general driving physics, not exactly or specifically isolated case of how the vehicles behave on their own when simply driven. 

Edited Tuesday at 01:00 PM by ChengizVlad09