Damage on all cars confirmed by IGN

  • Thread starter Fritter7
  • 168 comments
  • 14,449 views
I just had a lightbulb moment.

What if FULL damage is available on production cars once you install aftermarket exterior components such as bumpers?
An example would be a Nissan Skyline R34 that would only have cosmetic damage if it was stock, but once you install that front bumper, it is possible to damage and crumple it.

And if the full race transformation is available again (forgot the name of it), then maybe these cars could also have full damage.

If GT5 does not allow you to install these aftermarket parts, then it's all down the drain.
 
RufusGonePunk
My opinion, sorry if it's been discussed before...
Click to expand...

I disagree, I feel that the collision physics in the recent demos are much improved over previous iterations of the game.

Oh and that announcer in that drift video is absolutely hilarious when they crash. lol
 
its funny how gt fans have been moking forza and other games had bad damage model.. and now its seem that gt5 gets even worse damage...

its a bit sad actualy..
 
Famine
It's a damage model, just not a very good one. Which is something that always struck me about other games and their devoted fans when they would bang on about how they had damage and GT didn't.
Click to expand...

Just want to quickly step in here, I never really post much but I suppose I shall just to clarify this for a few of you.

It is NOT a damage model if the cars model is unaffected. Each car is a "model" created with polygons, vertexes and whatnot, if when you smash, that model is unaffected, there it is not a damage model.

Originally, the term "damage model" came about back in the "olden days" of racing games, when if you smashed your door, the whole door "model" would be replaced with a damaged version. Over time and a lot of impacts, the whole car would be converted into a "damaged model", hence the term "damage model".

If anything, it's a "damage texture"... But that's not cool is it? As best I suppose you could claim it is "damage physics" because the forces acting upon the car cause the car to change - even if it is only aesthetically.
 
Morsolo
Just want to quickly step in here, I never really post much but I suppose I shall just to clarify this for a few of you.

It is NOT a damage model if the cars model is unaffected. Each car is a "model" created with polygons, vertexes and whatnot, if when you smash, that model is unaffected, there it is not a damage model.

Originally, the term "damage model" came about back in the "olden days" of racing games, when if you smashed your door, the whole door "model" would be replaced with a damaged version. Over time and a lot of impacts, the whole car would be converted into a "damaged model", hence the term "damage model".

If anything, it's a "damage texture"... But that's not cool is it? As best I suppose you could claim it is "damage physics" because the forces acting upon the car cause the car to change - even if it is only aesthetically.
Click to expand...

I wonder how you can have a physics model then... :D

Semantics aside, most people refer to a "damage model" to refer to not just appearance but behaviour. The damage is modelled and is thus a "damage model".

In any case, I've not seen enough of the non-racer damage to say that the car changes texture alone or whether it physically changes - we know that the racer damage includes physical change. In both cases the reports include alterations to the physics model to a "damaged" one. Ultimately, my original point remains:

Famine
A head-on collision with a closing speed of 250mph should end the race of both cars. They shouldn't bounce off each other and carry on.
Click to expand...

If you can bounce off and carry on, even with cosmetic and behavioural changes, how the damage is modelled is not very good.
 
El Drifto
And if the full race transformation is available again (forgot the name of it), then maybe these cars could also have full damage.
Click to expand...
I was actually contemplating that last night in another thread, but I dunno if it'll actually happen.

Morsolo
Originally, the term "damage model" came about back in the "olden days" of racing games, when if you smashed your door, the whole door "model" would be replaced with a damaged version. Over time and a lot of impacts, the whole car would be converted into a "damaged model", hence the term "damage model".
Click to expand...
That's not what model means at all. At least, not in this context. A "model" is any system simulated by a computer, and the term comes from the really olden days, before we even had computers, and people had to build physical models out of wood and clay and animal droppings to determine/demonstrate how stuff worked.

When people talk about a "damage model," they're talking about a bit of the program that calculates the effects of damage. It has nothing to do with the 3D models used to render the cars. You could have an entirely programatic damage model, with no pictures at all, 3D or otherwise. Granted, once we've simulated whatever it is we're simulating, we usually ask the computer to draw us a picture, because pictures are easy for us apes to understand, but the picture isn't part of the model; it's a representation of the model.
 
It seems there's two crowds that game developers have to focus on, one the visual damage crowd,
the other the physical damage crowd. Of lately it seems the visual damage crowd is the one wining out.
Do you want damage in a game to be for visual affect or as a penalty for making bad choices in driving.
For me it's the latter. Just as we should want good tire physics, should also want the emphasis to be
on a proper damage physics model.


:)
 
For realism and extra depth. Visual is nice but mechanical damage is the one I'd like to see the most. Obviously both would be great.
 
Yes, also scratches on car dont bother me, as long you are able to see where you hit the car. I would love more in depth mechanical damage, besides its easier to create it over visual damage.
 
I also think the physics is more important, but really, on a new 2009(now 2010)Gran Turismo game, we really shouldn't have to choose. P.D. should have pulled through with both.

I've been a GT fan since even before the first game was released. I can't remember the exact numbers they advertised, but when I heard that it was going to have over 100 cars, we were intrigued with the game right there & then.

I understand and agree that more cars are better. But every time something like this comes up, it does make me wonder where P.D.'s priorities are.
 
a6m5
I understand and agree that more cars are better. But every time something like this comes up, it does make me wonder where P.D.'s priorities are.
Click to expand...

Being an "Automotive Encyclopedia" first and a destruction derby later.

I don't care much for visual damage.
I'm 100% all for mechanical damage. If i have a head on collision at 60 kph and it completely ended my race ill be completely happy knowing that's pretty realistic.
 
I like both visual and mechanical damage.
But mechanical is the most important part.

And I don't know but...
What's the point in having pretty nice damage on the subaru,
but to get the visual damage, you have to crash wayyy too hard..

And I don't know, but the 'damage' on the ferrari looks cheap.
 
killanite
Being an "Automotive Encyclopedia" first and a destruction derby later.
Click to expand...
"Destruction Derby" is bit unfair. P.D. did feel that they had to have it in the game, and Yamauchi has talked about it for years now.

I'm just saying, second rate is second rate. Fact that this argument exist is because it has been half-assed from the very beginning.

P.S. You don't have to remind me what Gran Turismo excels in. I'm well aware of the pro's & cons, as I've been following this game a very long time. :D
 
Personally I can't see crashes ending races...

In GT4 you could run out of petrol - and not even that ended your race...

C.
 
the important thing is mechanical damage on all cars. Visual damage is surely cool and "good looking" but i can live without that.
 

Latest Posts

Back