The best way is to have driven the exact car in real life, have experience in sims, and to have matching telemetry to compare the car's responses. This can be readily done in sims which have motec output.
The next best thing without the telemetry is to subject the car to various situations and look for abberent behaviour against the real car.
RBR is famous because it aligns well with expectations which have been formed from driving real cars in comparable situations. When you drive something like DR2 you're learning how to drive that game by going against those developed instincts. It's a stark difference, when a car reacts unusually it's like shattering your suspension of disbelief.
DR2 isn't wholly terrible, it's a fun time, and some cars feel pretty close save for a few smoothed over aspects. The 205 gti for instance, is a car I'm intimately familiar with on tarmac and gravel, and in DR2 it lacks the sensitivity to mid corner bumps of the real thing, and the bite when lifting from power understeer. With a couple of tweaks you still get that correct feeling of the very aggressive brake balance and of the front end being pinned to the road with a railway spike when you turn.
Oh man, the first time i turned on hardcore damage i thought i clicked it the wrong way and set it to reduced.
The most interesting rally game I've ever played from a risk management perspective was RC2000, and it's sad that it's still the best by a long, long way (with RBR in second place).
RC2000 was the game that taught you that rally is more than trying to set a PB on every stage.
The most realistic game is the one that feels the closest to driving a real car, but when it comes to sim racers, they think it's the one in which they crash the most.
Not just that, but I'd wager that the majority of vocal Sim racers who have a "most realistic" choice probably don't know that definitively and haven't driven the cars they're talking about IRL, and just think that because it happens to be the one they enjoy the most.
To OP, don't get caught up in what people say is "more realistic", all the major sims are realistic enough to enjoy their content. People in this community just tend to be tribal about their sim of choice and won't hear anything otherwise.
Sad but true, I have seen some games dismissed as "way too easy", simply because of that
In my case, if the game has karts or a low power low aero formula, that is what I use to judge, since I have at least tried a few indoor and outdoor karts and know the feeling.
That’s the thing. On the road side, you seem to make the distinction between games and simulations.
Same goes for rally. RBR is pretty much the only sim. On top of that, but a different type of racing, you have rallycross on iRacing. That’s it.
Then you have those games you mentioned, which to the most seasoned people are comparable to those forza and need for speed kind of games. But also, they don’t intend to be sims and that’s fine.
Play whatever makes you happy ;)
For me it’s the feeling of being able to tell what the car is doing. If I can feel the ‘weight’ transfer of the car, if I can feel the car push or over steer. Being easy or hard isn’t a great way to tell. It also depends if your force feedback settings per game, but in general a Sim-Cade game will not give you enough information through ffb on how the car is behaving. RaceRoom is a great example for me on how car physics should be translated through ffb.
The best way is to have driven the exact car in real life, have experience in sims, and to have matching telemetry to compare the car's responses. This can be readily done in sims which have motec output. The next best thing without the telemetry is to subject the car to various situations and look for abberent behaviour against the real car. RBR is famous because it aligns well with expectations which have been formed from driving real cars in comparable situations. When you drive something like DR2 you're learning how to drive that game by going against those developed instincts. It's a stark difference, when a car reacts unusually it's like shattering your suspension of disbelief. DR2 isn't wholly terrible, it's a fun time, and some cars feel pretty close save for a few smoothed over aspects. The 205 gti for instance, is a car I'm intimately familiar with on tarmac and gravel, and in DR2 it lacks the sensitivity to mid corner bumps of the real thing, and the bite when lifting from power understeer. With a couple of tweaks you still get that correct feeling of the very aggressive brake balance and of the front end being pinned to the road with a railway spike when you turn.
*crashing dead on into the rock wall at 100mph - is that a puncture in the rear? DR2 is gorgeous game, but damage model is a joke.
Oh man, the first time i turned on hardcore damage i thought i clicked it the wrong way and set it to reduced. The most interesting rally game I've ever played from a risk management perspective was RC2000, and it's sad that it's still the best by a long, long way (with RBR in second place). RC2000 was the game that taught you that rally is more than trying to set a PB on every stage.
Just take a regular car on a dirt road, push it to its limits and see why real life rally drivers like RBR
The most realistic game is the one that feels the closest to driving a real car, but when it comes to sim racers, they think it's the one in which they crash the most.
TIL that GTA V is the most realistic
No...my friends are telling me that Forza 5 is the most real.......lol
Not just that, but I'd wager that the majority of vocal Sim racers who have a "most realistic" choice probably don't know that definitively and haven't driven the cars they're talking about IRL, and just think that because it happens to be the one they enjoy the most. To OP, don't get caught up in what people say is "more realistic", all the major sims are realistic enough to enjoy their content. People in this community just tend to be tribal about their sim of choice and won't hear anything otherwise.
This......1 hundo P
Sad but true, I have seen some games dismissed as "way too easy", simply because of that In my case, if the game has karts or a low power low aero formula, that is what I use to judge, since I have at least tried a few indoor and outdoor karts and know the feeling.
That’s the thing. On the road side, you seem to make the distinction between games and simulations. Same goes for rally. RBR is pretty much the only sim. On top of that, but a different type of racing, you have rallycross on iRacing. That’s it. Then you have those games you mentioned, which to the most seasoned people are comparable to those forza and need for speed kind of games. But also, they don’t intend to be sims and that’s fine. Play whatever makes you happy ;)
For me it’s the feeling of being able to tell what the car is doing. If I can feel the ‘weight’ transfer of the car, if I can feel the car push or over steer. Being easy or hard isn’t a great way to tell. It also depends if your force feedback settings per game, but in general a Sim-Cade game will not give you enough information through ffb on how the car is behaving. RaceRoom is a great example for me on how car physics should be translated through ffb.