Kotaku 
Enter your username and password.
Denver, 1:37 PM
Sat Nov 7
46 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip us: tips@kotaku.com
Editor-In-Chief:
Brian Crecente
Email | AIM | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Stephen Totilo
Email | AIM | Twitter
Senior Editor:
Michael McWhertor
Email | AIM | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor, Japan:
Brian Ashcraft
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, East Coast:
Michael Fahey
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Oceania:
Luke Plunkett
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Weekends:
Owen Good
Email | AIM | Twitter
Correspondent, San Francisco:
AJ Glasser
Email | AIM | Twitter
Columnist:
Leigh Alexander
Columnist:
Tim Rogers
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/04/09
#forza3
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/26/09
The other solution would be to make an invisible ceiling so that the car can't flip over at all (a la GT4). Believe me. It's much much worse this way.
So it's not just due to crappy physics. It's actually intentional. But with hilarious consequences. #forza3
10/26/09
10/26/09
10/26/09
10/26/09
10/26/09
10/26/09
I was extremely pissed off (still am) after loosing 6 posts I just wrote, but this lightened the mood up a little.
off-topic, but I urgently need some sort of offline Wordpress that is an exact mimic... experiencing too many problems with my host, Firefox and Chrome lately. #forza3
10/26/09
I swear I'd buy the console only for that game... #forza3
10/26/09
10/26/09
10/26/09
10/26/09
10/26/09
Unless god programmed it himself, there is NO WAY to create a "100%" lifelike sim physics in any videogame ever.
Get the fuck over yourselves people. Name a bug free physics engine, and ill show you someone too blind to notice. #forza3
10/26/09
10/26/09
You gotta love the armchair experts coming in here to mock a physics engine without having a fucking clue how one is made or even works.
Hahahaha! Seriously, that is funny ass shit.
To clarify:
Physics boils down to mathematical equations. Guess what's great at solving mathematical equations. While a 100% lifelike physics engine would be incredibly painstaking to do and take a serious amount of time and bugfixing to do, it is possible.
Once you have all the calculations and all the information necessary to complete those calculations then it's 100% possible to create a 100% likelike physics engine. #forza3
10/26/09
10/26/09
10/26/09
also with a game like Forza 3 where damage physics is limited, there of course would be problems arising in the behaviour of a vehicle as it crashes..
the physics in this game might be spot on in terms of driving around with no collisions, but as soon as a crash occurs, things go to hell....
a proper crash physics would involve crumpling, understanding the energy absorbed by the different materials (energy transfer), malleability of materials, etc... these are effectively removed however.. resulting in this bouncing around and probably what lead to the car landing on its nose.. #forza3
10/26/09
10/26/09
10/26/09
all that might be decades, hell, it could be centuries off but that doesn't mean that "there is NO WAY to create a "100%" lifelike sim physics in any videogame ever" without the hand of some supernatural being.
Also, alot of equations are approximated but that doesn't mean that those approximations can't be removed.
@Vylen: With all the chest-beating that Turn 10 have done, what with calling Forza 3 the definitive racing simulator, you'd think they would have at least figured in energy transfer into the crash physics on some level...it seems they didn't even figure in gravity. #forza3
10/26/09
Clarification: It is impossible to create a 100% lifelike simulation, as once you reach "100%" it is no longer a simulation, it is the actual thing. Quantum computing is still in its infancy (if even that), and even then, you still wouldn't be able to do a "100%" simulation of physics.
So please, stfu and correct yourself. #forza3
10/26/09
One of the other posters was correct, everything we have is just approximations. "Newtonian Physics" is another way of saying: "Close enough" or "outright wrong" (depending on whose opinion you get).
At its heart; physics is ruled by Quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics deals with this little thing called uncertainty. What it boils down to, is we don't actually have a single number that says where (or how fast) something is.
We get a number and an error value, that says where something MIGHT be.
Because of this, all of those "equations" you talk about, are actually wrong. Not by a lot, and not by any amount that will matter to anyone driving their car in Forza. But to all those people having the argument about a "100% actually correct physics sim" are arguing something that is answered already. We can't.
Even simulating the uncertainty is wrong, because if our simulation rolls the dice one way, the universe in "reality" might have rolled it the other.
We might one day be able to get a 99% correct sim. But never a 100% correct sim. Until someone rewrites mathematics.
Not to mention no car game on an xbox 360, ps3 or known computer on the planet now, or in existence for the next 10 years will have the capacity to run even a semblance of the kind of physics everyone wishes we had in car games at anything approaching real-time. #forza3
10/26/09
Also, while you assume that every aspect of physics would be needed for a game, I realise that many aspects would never be called for in a game.
So how about you "please, stfu and correct yourself." #forza3
10/27/09
ignoring any aspect of the real thing would then compromise your "100%".
" I realise that many aspects would never be called for in a game"
What aspects of a 100% accurate simulation would you fore go ?
Your 3d model of the car down to the threads of the screws is a "full simulation" yes, but not a 100% one.
So please, stfu and correct yourself. [in regards to your personal definition of "100%" compared to everyone else's; and its function in this thread] #forza3
10/27/09
@-MasterDex-: Quit trying hard to be right? like what everyone else said, stfu and get learned please... #forza3
10/26/09
10/26/09
10/26/09
I trust you are now satisfied with this explanation. #forza3
10/26/09
in other words, the game was designed to do that, but testing of the game didnt reveal the fact it does happen, so no counter-design was implemented... #forza3
10/26/09
10/26/09
any programmer should know, testing only shows proof of bugs, not proof of no bugs.. as no amount of testing can ever show every scenario... which is especially true of a game involving physics!
this crash is pretty much a freak occurance.. however, as more people are playing the game, the chances of it occuring increase... Turn 10 might release a patch for this, or they might not - depending on how many times it can happen...
but thanks to this video, there's a chance a lot of people are trying to make this happen as well.... hell, guys at Turn 10 are probably having bets right now to see who in the office can do it... #forza3
10/27/09
Had the player let go of the controller then the roll would have carried out normally. But when you push on the analog stick you can try to balance yourself in odd positions as shown in the video. #forza3
10/27/09
i was saying that its hard to test a game in different scenarios that involve physics because getting to the point where you're balancing the car on its nose is hard to reproduce. #forza3
10/27/09
10/26/09
10/26/09
10/26/09
How adorable. #forza3
10/26/09
10/26/09
How pitiful.
^Physics should be a top priority in racing sims.
10/26/09
"I reject your reality and substitute my own" #forza3
10/26/09
with all the horn tooting Turn 10 did i expected zero oddities. #forza3
10/26/09
I am glad that they focus more on the driving physics than some stupid crash physics that don't even matter. #forza3
10/26/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
10/27/09
At least that way it would be similar to Rally racing where racers/spectators roll the car back to continue racing.
Though I've always felt and made it known to T10 that anyone who rolls onto their side or roof should get a DNF. #forza3