Someone explain me the reviews!

[St0rmwielder]

How is it possible that Steam reviews are all so negative while f.ex. user + gaming networks have an average of 7.7 to 8.5 on metacritic and other outlets? This makes no sense. Is there a review bombing happening?! I do wanna play this, i even briefly tried it on release dayand had no issues(refunded in hope for a discount at the current sale). But damn this negativity does make me think twice now.

[clairvoyantwolf]

Originally posted by Banjacked:

Now show an actual wet race with rain coming down, pool of water, and slicks instead of one where there was a little drizzle but a line that was as good as dry.

You implied Forza wasn’t a simulation because you can “use” slicks on a “wet” track. In the race I posted it was wet enough that a four time champion went off, among others, but where also the fastest guy on track was also on slicks. So yeah, you can use slicks in the wet.

You have now moved the goalposts, though that doesn’t invalidate my example for two reasons. One; the visual representation of a wet track in Forza does not necessarily correspond to how wet the simulation calculates the track. Two; there are countless examples in racing of teams gambling on using a certain tire based on how they think the conditions will go. In the example I gave one team went full wets when even intermediates were inappropriate. I have no interest in posting those examples. But if you want an example search for when Norris was leading and the team gambled to stay on slicks in the rain. Didn’t pay off but he was able to “use” slicks on a “wet” track.

Please keep in mind I consider the accuracy of even the most accurate sim woeful compared to their aviation counterparts. As example, everyone talks about tire temp while forgetting that brake pads have their own temperature range, wherein if they are too cold or hot they won’t work.

And as far as the "AI matching the online racing experience", there's the problem in a nutshell. That's NOT what was bigged up by Esaki and T10, it's the opposite of what was said, and so much of an abject failure that T10 are even asking people on their own forum for examples so the can sort their own mess out, along with examples of how the matchmaking, FRR, penalties, etc has been a complete failure.

It is taken as a given that sim racing online is a cluster unless you know who you are racing and the on track action is moderated. That Forza attempted an automated system of moderation and it failed does not mean that Forza is special for having a large number of rammers.

As for the AI itself I’m under the impression that it uses that drivitar nonsense to mimic how people play the game. Anyway, I’ve had close battles against the AI as long as I respected it.

If you want to drive around a track on your own at Lime Rock, fine. But even as far back as AC and PC2 I could relive my youth by running a MkII Escort round the Scottish Highlands, or Knockhill. At least all these years ago the game represented things properly, something FM doesn't, especially when you compare tyre wear and temperature in something as old as PC2 and something so "new and advanced" as FM. PC2 is in the Premier League, FM is still a pub team running around with a hangover on a cold Sunday morning.

And they have the Green Hell too, which is more than can be said for the sad excuse for a racing game that is Forza

Well on the actual tracks I’ve driven in game with the same cars the game does a pretty good job representing both. I can’t say whether the game models tire wear correctly (and neither can you) as I don’t know exactly what compounds are modeled. FM is for circuit racing, play FH4 if you want to relive driving the Scottish Highlands. I think that game is junk, but if that’s what you’re looking for please play that instead of trying to make this game into something it’s not.

[Mexicola9302]

There isn't even "aquaplaning/hydroplaning" and puddles of water on the track anymore, if it rains how it was in FM7. They dumbed down how rain works, that is actually a step back in terms of simulation.

[St0rmwielder]

Originally posted by Mexicola9302:

There isn't even "aquaplaning/hydroplaning" and puddles of water on the track anymore, if it rains how it was in FM7. They dumbed down how rain works, that is actually a step back in terms of simulation.

That was actually what the community wanted. They were complaining about the puddles so they're not in the game.

[Banjacked]

Originally posted by clairvoyantwolf:

You implied Forza wasn’t a simulation because you can “use” slicks on a “wet” track. In the race I posted it was wet enough that a four time champion went off, among others, but where also the fastest guy on track was also on slicks. So yeah, you can use slicks in the wet.

You have now moved the goalposts, though that doesn’t invalidate my example for two reasons. One; the visual representation of a wet track in Forza does not necessarily correspond to how wet the simulation calculates the track. Two; there are countless examples in racing of teams gambling on using a certain tire based on how they think the conditions will go. In the example I gave one team went full wets when even intermediates were inappropriate. I have no interest in posting those examples. But if you want an example search for when Norris was leading and the team gambled to stay on slicks in the rain. Didn’t pay off but he was able to “use” slicks on a “wet” track.

Please keep in mind I consider the accuracy of even the most accurate sim woeful compared to their aviation counterparts. As example, everyone talks about tire temp while forgetting that brake pads have their own temperature range, wherein if they are too cold or hot they won’t work.

That was a slightly damp, not WET, track, and your attempt to justify the failure by T10 by saying that slicks were no good in even these conditions versus the rain seen in FM actually works against your argument due to the fact that you can run slicks in actual rain without it being like driving on ice.

The same applies to tyre temps, completely unrealistic as you would see in PC2 when the temp drops and all grip vanishes.

Brakes are the same, the wear and temperatures are beyond unrealistic. But I can cook my brakes and have fade in ACC.

And FM is not, never was, and never will be an actual simulation. It barely breaches the "simcade" barrier in its current state, for absolutely NOTHING is up to actual sim levels, and we're talking sims that go back 9 years.

It is taken as a given that sim racing online is a cluster unless you know who you are racing and the on track action is moderated. That Forza attempted an automated system of moderation and it failed does not mean that Forza is special for having a large number of rammers.

As for the AI itself I’m under the impression that it uses that drivitar nonsense to mimic how people play the game. Anyway, I’ve had close battles against the AI as long as I respected it.

The fact is that PC2, AC and ACC ALL did a better AI job YEARS ago, we're talking about a time from before the release of FM7. In this debacle, the AI has gone backwards, has retarded and not advanced, and even by your impression that is a failure as it is, at best, equal to FM7 and nothing like the so-called "new and improved" AI claimed.

And in MP? Again, look at other games and see the difference. The matchmaking is a failure as you clearly get stuck in lobbies where there are players nowhere remotely near your level. The FRR implementation has failed as the victim of a collision gets penalised. The enforcement fails because the instigator gets away with no damage, no penalties. Again, that is NOT what was bragged about by T10 and Esaki, and is such a failure that, like the AI, T10 are even asking for examples of where they have dogged it.

Well on the actual tracks I’ve driven in game with the same cars the game does a pretty good job representing both. I can’t say whether the game models tire wear correctly (and neither can you) as I don’t know exactly what compounds are modeled. FM is for circuit racing, play FH4 if you want to relive driving the Scottish Highlands. I think that game is junk, but if that’s what you’re looking for please play that instead of trying to make this game into something it’s not.

You have not driven every track, and you will never have driven the cars you use in game in any way in real life. Therefore you have no idea what the reality is. I can compare to experience on and off track, across different countries, temperatures, both right and left hand drive, from little city cars to 17 tonne trucks. You ever done anything like the Richard Petty Experience at Talladeaga? No? Thought not. Your lack of knowledge, experience, everything, is showing as you try to make something which is NOWHERE near what was claimed sound as if it is remotely half-decent, even PC3 does a better job and that game was dire, and even Dakar Desert Rally gives more enjoyment. Then again, I'm no Microsoft shill.

And as far as your FH4 comment goes, that shows exactly how little you know as the representation in AC and PC2 is more accurate than anything seen in FM, and better than anything you'll ever see in FM. Trying to compare what was done in AC and PC2 with FH just shows how doubtful it is that you have ever driven a real car, never mind one in anger, never mind held a racing licence.

But keep it going, for you are only making a fool of yourself.

[Banjacked]

Originally posted by Mexicola9302:

There isn't even "aquaplaning/hydroplaning" and puddles of water on the track anymore, if it rains how it was in FM7. They dumbed down how rain works, that is actually a step back in terms of simulation.

There's not even any effect from hitting a pool of water with one corner of the car, no "pull". Do that in a road car at 50-60, you know about it. Do it in FM7, you best have good reactions. Do it in PC2, good luck.

Rain is a decoration in the new FM, a MASSIVE step backwards, yet he still thinks the game is a "simulation".

How little he knows.

[Kosmozuikis]

Originally posted by Mexicola9302:

Originally posted by Kosmozuikis:

The game is working fine. Performance is ok. Lots of content for single player and plenty for multiplayer. Don't know what else people want.
For better peformance turn off rt and lower the settings.

Let me guess you play it locked to 60 FPS? But you don't understand that the game is stuttering because multithreading barely works, if the game is played with variable FPS up to 120 and more. The optimization is horrible, it basicly runs exactly the same like FM7 still does to this day, you can only play it decent if locked to 60 FPS. But it's a racing game, i want smooth 90+ FPS not locked 60 FPS like in the stone ages.

"bUiLt FrOm ThE GrOuNd Up" my ass.

Nah i locked to 100fps. Runs just fine.Also multiple people i know playing it just fine with no issues. 2060, 2080ti, 4080 doesn't matter, the game runs fine.
And what's wrong with 60fps? It's perfectly playable and it's normal if it runs at 60fps.

[Mexicola9302]

Originally posted by Kosmozuikis:

Originally posted by Mexicola9302:

Let me guess you play it locked to 60 FPS? But you don't understand that the game is stuttering because multithreading barely works, if the game is played with variable FPS up to 120 and more. The optimization is horrible, it basicly runs exactly the same like FM7 still does to this day, you can only play it decent if locked to 60 FPS. But it's a racing game, i want smooth 90+ FPS not locked 60 FPS like in the stone ages.

"bUiLt FrOm ThE GrOuNd Up" my ass.

Nah i locked to 100fps. Runs just fine.Also multiple people i know playing it just fine with no issues. 2060, 2080ti, 4080 doesn't matter, the game runs fine.
And what's wrong with 60fps? It's perfectly playable and it's normal if it runs at 60fps.

What's wrong with 60 FPS you seriously ask this in the year 2023? There are monitors with 360 HZ on the market already and ppl should be happy playing games with 60 FPS i guess.

And why you ppl don't understand that the GPU isn't the problem? I mean the CPU issues, the game doesn't take advantage of multithreading. There is no point discussing anything with fanboys i guess.

[Mexicola9302]

Originally posted by St0rmwielder:

Originally posted by Mexicola9302:

There isn't even "aquaplaning/hydroplaning" and puddles of water on the track anymore, if it rains how it was in FM7. They dumbed down how rain works, that is actually a step back in terms of simulation.

That was actually what the community wanted. They were complaining about the puddles so they're not in the game.

I liked these puddles, it's what made it feel more realistic.

[clairvoyantwolf]

Originally posted by Banjacked:

That was a slightly damp, not WET, track, and your attempt to justify the failure by T10 by saying that slicks were no good in even these conditions versus the rain seen in FM actually works against your argument due to the fact that you can run slicks in actual rain without it being like driving on ice.

Thank you for agreeing with me, yes you can run slicks in rain without it being like driving on ice, just like in Forza.

The same applies to tyre temps, completely unrealistic as you would see in PC2 when the temp drops and all grip vanishes.

Never played PC2. Grip vs temp is compound specific, even for street tires. Since I don’t know what tires the tire model in this game is using I can’t speak to its accuracy in that realm and neither can you.

Brakes are the same, the wear and temperatures are beyond unrealistic. But I can cook my brakes and have fade in ACC.

It’s cool that ACC models brake temp and wear, but you must remember my criteria, can I drive a Boss 302 or V8 swapped Miata around Lime Rock? Since there are no Boss 302s or V8 swapped Miatas, let alone Lime Rock in ACC; Forza more accurately simulates that which doesn’t even exist in ACC.

And FM is not, never was, and never will be an actual simulation. It barely breaches the "simcade" barrier in its current state, for absolutely NOTHING is up to actual sim levels, and we're talking sims that go back 9 years.

Name one that lets you mod cars, is on pc, and has FM car and track list, that is more accurate.

The fact is that PC2, AC and ACC ALL did a better AI job YEARS ago, we're talking about a time from before the release of FM7. In this debacle, the AI has gone backwards, has retarded and not advanced, and even by your impression that is a failure as it is, at best, equal to FM7 and nothing like the so-called "new and improved" AI claimed.

Once again, never played PC2. ACC is centered around the most boring race cars to ever exist, GT3, so I never wanted to play it. Single player in AC, to me, was so boring and pointless the game devolved into a hot lap sim, even though it was a very good one. As I said before, when I respect the AI in FM it is possible for me to have decent battles.

And in MP?

Haven’t touched multi in this game yet, so no comment.

You have not driven every track, and you will never have driven the cars you use in game in any way in real life..

Never said I drove every track and every car. I said I judge the physics model and track representation based on tracks and cars I’ve driven or their closest counterparts. I also said I prefer Forza because it has cars and tracks that are “relevant” to me.

Therefore you have no idea what the reality is. I can compare to experience on and off track, across different countries, temperatures, both right and left hand drive, from little city cars to 17 tonne trucks.

That is quite an assumption.

You ever done anything like the Richard Petty Experience at Talladeaga? No? Thought not.

From a cost vs track time standpoint I wouldn’t bother unless someone gave that to me as a gift.

With that said have you been given a personal track walk at Watkins Glen by a Spec Miata and Pirelli World Champion?

Your lack of knowledge, experience, everything, is showing as you try to make something which is NOWHERE near what was claimed sound as if it is remotely half-decent, even PC3 does a better job and that game was dire, and even Dakar Desert Rally gives more enjoyment. Then again, I'm no Microsoft shill.

Before the game came out some were saying it was junk because the multiplayer frame rate was capped to 60. If misleading advertising really bothers some of you this much I don’t know how you get through your days.

All I wanted was the classic Forza gameplay of taking a car, modding it, then racing it against AI, myself, or online with a decent physics model. There are some rough spots (looking at you car xp system), but the game delivers on that promise. What does it really matter if it uses old car models, as example?

And as far as your FH4 comment goes, that shows exactly how little you know as the representation in AC and PC2 is more accurate than anything seen in FM

Can’t mod cars in AC. Also AC is supercar heavy with its car list. I prefer sports cars and muscle cars from the 60's to early 2000's.

Trying to compare what was done in AC and PC2 with FH just shows how doubtful it is that you have ever driven a real car, never mind one in anger, never mind held a racing licence.

Pretty sure I said that I thought FH was garbage.

But keep it going, for you are only making a fool of yourself.

Who is the bigger fool, the fool or the person who argues against him?

[clairvoyantwolf]

Originally posted by Banjacked:

Originally posted by Mexicola9302:

There isn't even "aquaplaning/hydroplaning" and puddles of water on the track anymore, if it rains how it was in FM7. They dumbed down how rain works, that is actually a step back in terms of simulation.

Rain is a decoration in the new FM, a MASSIVE step backwards, yet he still thinks the game is a "simulation".

How little he knows.

I’ve flown FAA sims that blow actual air when you turn on the AC, even that isn’t completely realistic. NO SIM IS. Even supercomputers used to build the real cars have to have their data checked against experimental data. However FM comes close enough, in my opinion for a consumer grade sim, that actual data would need to be used to disprove it other than edge cases of course.

[Banjacked]

Originally posted by clairvoyantwolf:

I’ve flown FAA sims that blow actual air when you turn on the AC, even that isn’t completely realistic. NO SIM IS. Even supercomputers used to build the real cars have to have their data checked against experimental data. However FM comes close enough, in my opinion for a consumer grade sim, that actual data would need to be used to disprove it other than edge cases of course.

By that standard, so does NFS.

AC and ACC are closer to the mark of your standard, iRacing takes it a step or two higher.

Compared to them, FM is in the basement, especially when you have wonderful glitches where individual cars spawn in the middle of the start/finish straight in MP, and even a whole grid lined up to start a race at Catalunya once which was "interesting" when on a hot quali lap, where timing zones are messed up with different layouts of a track, where more time was spent on pretty graphics than sorting out kerb realism at tracks like Spa (something present since FM5!), where rain has no real effect on handling even on stock tyres, where tyre wear is an optional extra in single player, where the AI on any level is as thick as mince, where penalties are applied the wrong way around and for absurd reasons with no rationality behind the applied penalty, where servers simply do not work properly giving loading loops, the list goes on.

It's a pure, unabashed, mess, and it's little wonder the achievement stats are so low as even GP users have so many issues (ironically, these stats are higher in Steam users, most likely because of having to pay for the full game so are less likely to ditch it so quickly). When you don't even have 100% of your user base, and barely 75%, actually completing ONE race, you have a problem because that is a damning statistic for what is supposed to be a AAA game.

[clairvoyantwolf]

Originally posted by Banjacked:

By that standard, so does NFS.

I still play NFS3 and NFS High Stakes. Why? Because no one has made an arcade cop chasing racing game better.

AC and ACC are closer to the mark of your standard, iRacing takes it a step or two higher.

I keep saying this, but no one seems to hear me. There is no other racing game anywhere on the market for PCs like FM. None. ACC focuses on GT3 and I frankly hate GT3. When Corvette Racing challenged the mighty Vipers in GTS class (soon changed to GT1 class) they petitioned to have the Viper slowed down. They were told instead to build a better car. They then dropped a 7L V8 in the C5R and the (racing) rivalry was born. And you know what, that directly lead to the 7L C6 Z06. Sports car racing is meant to tie to the production car. GT3 does not. They are purpose built race cars that are made to look like their road going counterparts. If one chassis has an advantage over the other it is BOPed to death to peg it down. You can practically call the race order by reading the BOP specs (I have, that's why I can barely stay awake for a GT3 race).

Moving on, AC has the most ridiculous car list I've ever seen in a game. Only that game can think to have a Mustang and NOT a Camaro. A F40 and NOT a Porsche 959. Forza has historically been better than most racing games I can think of in having both entire generations of a car line and also car rivals. In FM I can spend an afternoon lapping every generation of Supra ever made, every MR2, both generations of NSX, every Viper ACR. Then I can mod them into 1000hp beasts if I want. I'm having way more fun in FM than I EVER did in AC trying to figure out how to turn the piece of junk Ford Fiesta (the old one from the 80's) into a race car.

Compared to them, FM is in the basement,

FM models cars, tracks, and systems that don't even exist in AC or ACC. I'm WAY more into aviation than cars. You can argue which has the more accurate flight simulation DCS or Microsoft Flight sim (DCS by a mile). But you can't argue which is more accurate when a wing is blown off because Microsoft Flight Sim doesn't model damage because it is not a combat flight simulator. Just like AC or ACC can't model what it's like to drop a turbo V8 into a Miata because you can't mod cars in either game.

especially when you have wonderful glitches where individual cars spawn in the middle of the start/finish straight in MP

Don't play MP so can't comment and frankly don't much care. If the game were junk other than MP I wouldn't buy it. Until this game I still played FM4, because single player is fun to play...long after the multiplayer died in that game. I still play Enduro from the Atari. I play GTR2 over ACC, despite its age, because it models GT1 and GT2 when it was in its peak.

where more time was spent on pretty graphics than sorting out kerb realism at tracks like Spa (something present since FM5!)

At NJMP Lightning there is a turn where you use a crack in the pavement as the turn in point. Remember where I mentioned a track walk, that is where local knowledge comes into play. You can ride the kerbs at NJMP, but do it at Pocono and you're going for a ride...ask me how I know. No sim gets it perfectly right. I'm not going to pull my hair out when minor details are wrong nor am I going to kill myself by driving a track in real life like how I drive it in a sim.

, where rain has no real effect on handling even on stock tyres

I notice the difference in game between light rain, wet track, drying track. Maybe I'm just sensitive. I find windshield wiper speed a good metric to how wet the track is.

, where tyre wear is an optional extra in single player

You can build whatever type of event you want in singleplayer, including with time acceleration for time of day and tire wear.

It's a pure, unabashed, mess, and it's little wonder the achievement stats are so low as even GP users have so many issues (ironically, these stats are higher in Steam users, most likely because of having to pay for the full game so are less likely to ditch it so quickly). When you don't even have 100% of your user base, and barely 75%, actually completing ONE race, you have a problem because that is a damning statistic for what is supposed to be a AAA game.

Only Microsoft knows how well the game is selling and only Microsoft knows how well they expected the game to sell. As I said many time in this forum, I strongly suspect the game is meant to sell game pass. Evidence is the game used in association wherever game pass is mentioned and the very game design, wherein content is drip feed slowly overtime.


But with regards to physics models, keep in mind how poorly even the best sims model reality. As example, every street car I know is programmed to go pig rich on the fuel mixture with increasing heat so the engine doesn't detonate itself to death, that costs horsepower as well as fuel economy. FM doesn't model that. Neither does AC or GT or any other sim I know of. Most racing sims don't even model heat, especially when it comes to street cars. DCS models heat. Take a WWII bird and go high power at low speed (low airflow) and the temp gauges will rise. When/if the airspeed increases the gauges will go down. Keep the needles pegged, however, and you'll blow the engine. DCS even goes so far as to put in a random modifier for how durable the engine is at the start of a mission because not all engines are built the same (it might blow after 9 minutes or maybe 10). Now throw in density altitude, fuel octane (are the cars in game on street gas or race gas), etc. Once again, most racing sims don't even bother. I don't have ACC, but if it is a "proper" sim every race car should overheat if it is left idling in the pits. WHY? Race cars don't have fans like street cars. Ever notice in F1 as soon as the car is in the pits the team immediately attach blowers to the brakes and air intake?

Or how about fuel burn balance changes? Most of the front engined RWD cars should get increasingly tail happy as the fuel load burns off. I notice no such thing in FM or AC. Or how about engine specific fuel economy or even fuel capacity? I have no idea if the game models how big the tank is in each car.

I can keep going on, but there is no real point because most people don't really know about such things or even care if it is simulated if they do know. Met a guy at an autocross that had a 600+hp Nissan Silva. I asked if he ever took the car on a road course and he said no, the car wouldn't be able to survive much more than a lap.

Against the unreality of EVERY SINGLE RACING SIM, FM does a pretty good job simulating reality. It's one of the few sims I know that separates handling performance from turning performance. Used a WS6 Firebird in the C class open and it was great fun wrestling that beast against Ferrari Dinos, you can feel the weight and the stick axle in the back. But the car was predicable if sloppy, just like a gen four F Body is supposed to be. THAT'S why I said the game does a pretty good job. Now in Turn one at VIR if it was suppose to generate .89Gs at mid corner vs the .87 modeled in game (with 1990's tires BTW), that is where I said you need data to really know.

That is true in FM AND AC. DCS tries to get within 1% (I believe) of published performance data with its flight model. Keep in mind that when I went through flight training my instructor advised me to multiply performance data by 20% as a good rule of thumb and safety factor. WHY? Well for takeoff distance, for instance, the charts assumes a new engine, new prop, flow by a professional test pilot. I have none of that. The HP rating for cars coming off the line can vary more than 1% among other factors. Ever hear F1 drivers complain that a specific set of supposedly identical tires don't perform the same. Or that two chassis built exactly the same perform slightly differently?

Against all that do you start to see how arguing about the ultimate fidelity of a racing sim increasingly is about splitting hairs. On the BMS forums the developers said the flight data for F-16 was more accurate than the NASA data used to build the jet! Yet people still said it was wrong. Eventually they said ultra perfect fidelity was pointless, no one can tell the difference. With that said how accurate can you tell a sim car from a real one. Within 1%...5%...10%?

[GatorKarma]

I think there are four reason for the difference beyond the dynamics that Review Sites and End Users that have already been covered.

1) Turn 10 Studios really oversold the game calling it "the most advance racing game ever made", "pushing the boundaries of realism", and "rebuilt from the grounds up". And anyone who has played real sim racing games will clearly dispute the first two points and long time players of Forza clearly can see how questionable the last claim it.

2) The Safety Rating System also was over-hyped and not very good at encouraging clean racing. While a review who might play it for a week might act more careful in racing and see the algorithm make judgment call, players have quickly figured out that there really is only very minor consequences for getting penalties unless you are pretty flagrant. In addition the damage model is pretty much disabled in online racing, so hitting a wall in FH5 actually has a bigger impact than in FM.

3) Given all the time people waited for the next Version, the number or bugs in the game is really disappointing. And when you combing this with the price increase of the game versus prior versions, people are just not going to be tougher about game bugs. Microsoft should have done a beta/limited release program instead of charging 10 extra for early access, if they were really serious about the games quality and getting community feedback on game readiness.

4) I do think there is a number of FM player who started out with FH5 and were surprise to see how inferior FM is from a gaming perspective as you have less diverse type of racing, a clearly inferior reward system/accolade model, inferior graphics, and missing features like favorite cars. And combine this with how broken the out of the box wheel setups were, you have a real recipe for user dissatisfaction.

[1MantisPhoenix]

Originally posted by St0rmwielder:

How is it possible that Steam reviews are all so negative while f.ex. user + gaming networks have an average of 7.7 to 8.5 on metacritic and other outlets? This makes no sense. Is there a review bombing happening?! I do wanna play this, i even briefly tried it on release dayand had no issues(refunded in hope for a discount at the current sale). But damn this negativity does make me think twice now.

The game is incredible,
Wheel drivers will be the most common problem-finders [too many settings for them to modify to get their wheel 'configured' -
and people with slow HDD's don't load the track details fast enough [seeing black patches randomly on the track - in different places on the same track ]
I have a GTX1070, put it on my M2 drive, and voila, the game is FLAWLESS - game pass > paying for it -
I'll buy the premium DLC to get the game permanently from game pass :)
Steam also interferes with PS4/5 controllers in this game - making telemetry pop up when steering, as if you're pressing DPAD, but you're not...

[1MantisPhoenix]

Originally posted by Banjacked:

Originally posted by Mexicola9302:

There isn't even "aquaplaning/hydroplaning" and puddles of water on the track anymore, if it rains how it was in FM7. They dumbed down how rain works, that is actually a step back in terms of simulation.

There's not even any effect from hitting a pool of water with one corner of the car, no "pull". Do that in a road car at 50-60, you know about it. Do it in FM7, you best have good reactions. Do it in PC2, good luck.

Rain is a decoration in the new FM, a MASSIVE step backwards, yet he still thinks the game is a "simulation".

How little he knows.

WET TIRES are all we need to say here,
The game is incredible, and realism is felt in the most arcade of ways...
Get good, learn the mechanics, and you can have such a blast. Or find your favourite cars, rent them before you buy them, :)
just play to have fun. Stop being so serious if you know it's not a 'simulator'
It's incredibly detailed for an arcade game, and the details do count.