3D to blame for delay?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mattbeddall
  • 48 comments
  • 4,796 views
P3nT4gR4m
Exactly! The game doesn't have to launch with 3dtv's it just has to be there, already, patiently smoking a cigarette and waiting for the checkout to open.
Click to expand...

Product launches don't work like that though do they, it's got be BANG! Launching the first TV's AND GT5 would have a lot more impact. The GT5 hype would subside (a little!) by the time the TV's came out. Why not use the fact there will be millions of people talking about GT5 to raise awareness for 3D Gaming and consequently the TV hardware.

Add to that the millions of film and sports fans and you've got some serious momentum. It makes marketing sense I suppose.

The reasons are academic though, in fact the more we find out about the more annoyed I may get. I reckon.

*logs off quickly*
 
3D to blame for the delay? Have they changed the company name?
 
Devedander
Just throwing this out there:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2813511.htm




So what are the problems you percieve with stereo cameras and how are they resolved on the PC side?
Click to expand...

In real life when you look at a very distant object your eyes become almost but not quite parallel, the closer an object becomes the more your eyes converge, when you're watching a 3D movie and you can look around the scene this also has to be the case but although is can be achived to some extent it cannot be done correctly with stereo cameras whereas the maths used to draw CG images can do this.

To make matters even worse, a movie cannot be callibrated to the size of the screen or the distance from the screen to the viewer or their position, the movie is the movie and cannot be altered. A CG setup can be callibrated for screensize and viewers position, and perhaps with headtracking be re-callibrated in realtime for viewers position and even deal properly with the viewer tilting their head to the sides, something not possible with movies which are filmed with the assumption that the viewers eyes are going to be level height.

I'd be interested in knowing what other visual cues would be missing from such a system, I know of the focusing issue where even though you think you're looking at a distant object the lenses of your eyes are focused at the distance to the screen (although not converging) so there may be issues with that.
 
Last edited:
Stonemonkey
In real life when you look at a very distant object your eyes become almost but not quite parallel, the closer an object becomes the more your eyes converge, when you're watching a 3D movie and you can look around the scene this also has to be the case but although is can be achived to some extent it cannot be done correctly with stereo cameras whereas the maths used to draw CG images can do this.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the fact that your eyes kind of go cross eyed as you focus on things closer to you and stereo cameras both look straight ahead all the time? If so I have seen plenty of CG images fall prey to the same issue (which is that they simply offset each eye by a set amount of degrees based on distance).

I would think this can be overcome in moves by forcing the lenses to "cross" based on the programed focal point. What judges what that point is I would think could be simply the distance the lense is focused at.

To make matters even worse, a movie cannot be callibrated to the size of the screen or the distance from the screen to the viewer or their position, the movie is the movie and cannot be altered. A CG setup can be callibrated for screensize and viewers position, and perhaps with headtracking be re-callibrated in realtime for viewers position and even deal properly with the viewer tilting their head to the sides, something not possible with movies which are filmed with the assumption that the viewers eyes are going to be level height.
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying here, in that once the scene is shot, the recorded image cannot recover previous occluded objects to make up for a difference in the viewers position. This could be resolved by specifying a seating distance vs size for a movie and it's worth noting that while a game can calibrate for a user, it cannot calibrate for more than one user at a time meaning that in the same environment as a movie (ie multipel viewers in many cases) the same problem exists.

I'd be interested in knowing what other visual cues would be missing from such a system, I know of the focusing issue where even though you think you're looking at a distant object the lenses of your eyes are focused at the distance to the screen (although not converging) so there may be issues with that.
Click to expand...

This is something I am pretty sure is important... focusing on a blurry image is not the same as being unfocused on a sharp detail. So if you trick your eyes into thinking something is far away by virtue of offset, the muscles should try to focus on something far away. However if the screen is actually the same distance all the time, this has to mess with something.
 
Devedander
Are you talking about the fact that your eyes kind of go cross eyed as you focus on things closer to you and stereo cameras both look straight ahead all the time? If so I have seen plenty of CG images fall prey to the same issue (which is that they simply offset each eye by a set amount of degrees based on distance).

I would think this can be overcome in moves by forcing the lenses to "cross" based on the programed focal point. What judges what that point is I would think could be simply the distance the lense is focused at.
Click to expand...
Not exactly, it's to do with the composition of the entire scene being incorrect, not just one object within it and no amount of toe in or separation can solve the problem. Techniques, equipment and rules are improving all the time but I don't see it as perfect.

In CG, I'm sure some people try to simulate the stereo cameras with 2 virtual cameras but that's not how it should be done.

Imagine a point beyond your TV screen, now imagine two lines going from that point and reaching each of your eyes. Where those two lines intersect the surface of your TV screen is where the image of your point should be positioned on the screen for each eye.
Imagine that point moving around with the lines following and so the points where the lines intersect the screen also move around.
Imagine moving or tilting your head, even with the point stationery the points on the screen will move around.

Whether or not they'll go that far with gaming I don't know but it's not out of the question but that is all impossible with movies.

I see what you are saying here, in that once the scene is shot, the recorded image cannot recover previous occluded objects to make up for a difference in the viewers position. This could be resolved by specifying a seating distance vs size for a movie and it's worth noting that while a game can calibrate for a user, it cannot calibrate for more than one user at a time meaning that in the same environment as a movie (ie multipel viewers in many cases) the same problem exists.
Click to expand...
No, you're right. The gaming would have to be for one in a case like that , it could possibly become quite distorted for anyone else watching. If that's a problem switch back to 2D mode or tell them to leave the room.

Seating distance and size for a movie that shown in cinemas and then at home? Also as I was saying, the stereo camera movies have problems and there isn't a perfect size/position.

This is something I am pretty sure is important... focusing on a blurry image is not the same as being unfocused on a sharp detail. So if you trick your eyes into thinking something is far away by virtue of offset, the muscles should try to focus on something far away. However if the screen is actually the same distance all the time, this has to mess with something.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure this could cause some temporary problems (not quite like those suggested in the article you posted which is why I'm curious about what other visual cues are being messed with) but I suppose time will tell if it has any more permanent effect.

Will we see A&E full of people suffering from GT syndrome who've had nasty accidents because their depth perception has been screwed up? I'm guessing with Sony putting so much into this that they'll have done some pretty intense studies as a screw up on that front would completely destroy the company.

But I'll bet we're going to see a whole new list of warnings on the games.
 
Last edited:
dazzi
Thank God Sony is in charge, I hope the push the crap out of PD right now make Yamauchi Cry!!!! and Im sure Sony are really putting the pressure on PD now, I think this wait to them is worse than it is to us, as they know this could be a game that puts them ahead of the 360 in terms of sales.
Click to expand...

We have no actual proof that its 3D whats causing the delay, but I do feel that punishment ;) is right in this case, had they completed the game 1.5 years ago when 3D was pretty much unknown besides Imax and the cinema 3D, the pressure (If there is any) to implement 3D wouldnt have been placed on PD.
And Iam in the end glad, PD one day will get it through their heads that as long as they keep dragging the development on, the consumer will want more, and the publisher (Sony) will demand more for the time its taking, and maybe these lessons will make them hurry up.

Say all you want about Sony but were it not for Sony probably placing pressure on PD the GT series would take the path of duke nukem forever, becase Yamauchi seems to have a mental thought 100% mirroring that of Scott Miller who constantly attempted to add new things into his 13 year problem of a game, and constantly wanted things done better even though everyone knows that is not the way a project is completed.

A project is made by setting a firm plan layout working to the end of it, and whats there is there and only tweaking the minor, looks like PD need to re-do a basic course of the steps of a Structure software approach because it seems to me as though they are missing the entire planning stage.
 
Gran Turismo 5 "delay" culprits by order or their offense. 1=highest offender.

1. Sony-They run this show. Gran Turismo could never be released or released in 2015. It's all Sony. And they've failed many times since the beginning of the PS3 launch. Too much catching up will lead you to delay projects. Unfotrunately, Gran Turismo 5 is one of those.

2. Gran Turismo PSP-What the ****? Really? Gran Turismo 5 should have been the priority. We don't care about the game meant for the bus-ride. We care about the console version and its seemingly endless journey. GT PSP should have come second.

3. PlayStation 3 console- It's powerful, but because we've jumped into a new console generation, the old PS2 codes had to be scrapped to meet the demands of an HD era with HD graphics. Not to mention, the game's been revamped from anew.

4. Polyphony Digital-Come on, guys! Speak up. I know the Japanese way is to be calm and reserved, but you guys can stand up to Sony. I remember Kazunori saying how PD and himself make up a tight family and that Sony is not included in it (in that familial sense).

5. Gran Turismo fans. We want more. We'll get it! (But it will take a while). You want damage and weather? Ok, well, we'll have to wait. Fan communication is essential and I think they heard us. But much patience will be needed.
 
Last edited:
Well GT PSP is currently sitting at about 2 million sales. You can't put down the success of it.
 
SrRd RacinG
Gran Turismo 5 "delay" culprits by order or their offense. 1=highest offender.


4. Polyphony Digital-Come on, guys! Speak up. I know the Japanese way is to be calm and reserved, but you guys can stand up to Sony. I remember Kazunori saying how PD and himself make up a tight family and that Sony is not included in it (in that familial sense).
Click to expand...


You do realise if they did this, and they got Sony annoyed, they would pretty much be doomed, Sony is the game's publisher, Sony owns and funds Polyphony Digital, the only way around this is if Yamauchi quit and started a company again outside of Sony's internal studios.
 
Maybe their making an xbox version too and a simultaneus release is planned.

(logs off and quietly walks away before the Internet warriors castrate me).
 
Or maybe the long-delayed GT for PC will finally wing its way our, er, way... :dopey:
 
SrRd RacinG
^Or how about the Gameboy?
Click to expand...

Well that's just silly :p

GT5 would be awesome on PC. PD would have so much more power to work with. Granted you wouldn't have the cell, but the graphics cards are leaps and bounds more powerful. Even what I'd consider mainstream cards are like twice as powerful as a PS3 now.

Then you have all the benefits of a PC. Want big races online? Go for it, 30 cars on track, no worries. Want to adjust your G25/G27? You've got logitech profiler. Want your skidmarks but worried about system resources? That's fine, even mainstream computers have at least 2gb these days and the trend is going toward 3-4gb or more on a 64 bit OS. And a big one, want a 3 wide display? Now you have Eyefinity and the soon coming nVidia surround. You dont need 3x playstations, just get a slightly better video card.

GT5 would be so at home on a PC. I'd happily wait an extra 6 months for a PC version. If GT5 came out on the PS3 and then they announced it would come out on PC 6 months later, there's no way I'd buy a PS3, I'd just upgrade my PC and wait the 6 months.

Of course its never gonna happen, Sony want to sell their PS3, they dont want to sell graphics cards and CPUs :p
 
WolfRacer543
Well that's just silly :p

GT5 would be awesome on PC. PD would have so much more power to work with. Granted you wouldn't have the cell, but the graphics cards are leaps and bounds more powerful. Even what I'd consider mainstream cards are like twice as powerful as a PS3 now.

Then you have all the benefits of a PC. Want big races online? Go for it, 30 cars on track, no worries. Want to adjust your G25/G27? You've got logitech profiler. Want your skidmarks but worried about system resources? That's fine, even mainstream computers have at least 2gb these days and the trend is going toward 3-4gb or more on a 64 bit OS. And a big one, want a 3 wide display? Now you have Eyefinity and the soon coming nVidia surround. You dont need 3x playstations, just get a slightly better video card.

GT5 would be so at home on a PC. I'd happily wait an extra 6 months for a PC version. If GT5 came out on the PS3 and then they announced it would come out on PC 6 months later, there's no way I'd buy a PS3, I'd just upgrade my PC and wait the 6 months.

Of course its never gonna happen, Sony want to sell their PS3, they dont want to sell graphics cards and CPUs :p
Click to expand...

Ewww, you'd have to have windows running in the background.
 
Back