\
\
And they've expanded the physics model, altered the wheel controls to accomodate the new Thrustmaster, tweaked the AI, added a zillion different things...
Again this statement, if you know what kind of stuff goes into supporting an input device, really makes no sense.
You don't "alter the wheel controls" anymore than you have to alter the font in MS word to accept a new keyboard layout. Supporting a new wheel is simply making a new entry in your table of deviceses and mapping the input names of it's buttons/axises to the in game functions.
To add a new wheel you would not change anything but just add an entry. It does not mess with other existing entires. Think of adding support for another device like learning what a new hand gesture means. You knew thumb up, you knew thumbs down. Now someone teaches you that two fingers means peace. In order to learn this new gesture you don't have to alter anything about the previuos ones. And if someone later updates that gesture and you learn it now means "victory" it doesn't effect your established undrstanding of thumbs up or thumbs down. Similar with adding input support... once you have coded support for one, you don't have to mess with it to add support for another device.
Again this is why I think you do not understand the subject well, the ideas you are putting forth do not pass the sniff test if you have a general undertanding of development.
Is it possible for them to go: "Hey, let's screw the G27 users by disabling button mapping for one set of controls, but let's play with their heads by letting everything else on the wheel work! This way we get an additional hundred bucks in royalties when the Thrustmaster actually sells more than a handful of units!"
Sure it is.
Do I think it likely? No.
Well on it's own, it sounds unlikely, but when you consider things that worked in GT5P don't work in GT5 (again with proper understanding of what's going on in the background to make it work) there is no other explanation other than a VERY unlikely chain of specific accidental errors which is of monkeys, typewriters and shakespear proportions.
GT5 isn't an expansion pack. It's a standalone game.
And the difference is in nomenclature alone. What I mean is that while you can differentiate between the two, if you looked at the dev process side by side, the real difference would be volume of change, but it's still the same path.
What I mean is that it's not like they finished GT5P and then started a whole new program from the ground up to get GT5. GT5 is what happens when they keep working on GT5P for a few more years adding new features and content.
IF they had started ALL over from scratch again after GT5P to make GT5, then it's reasonable to believe the device mappings had to be redone from scratch and maybe some random errors crept in.
I would eat the hat of everyone I know if they started from scratch on a new program after GT5P. It just didn't happen.
GT5P was basically a GT5 beta. It's what they had at the time on the way to making GT5. They took a tech build, made sure it was cleaned up and ready to go for market and sold it. And kept working on it and eventually built it out to be GT5. GT5P was to GT5 sort of what GT3 was to GT4 and what GT1 was to GT2.
To go back to the house analogy, GT5P was the 2 bedroom house that was built onto and upgraded to become the 10 bedroom mansion with central air and full home automation that GT5 is.
And again, those additions don't require going back and retooling the basics like sewer and water... the house is already hooked up.
To say GT5's controller issues were just accidents that came from making GT5 would be like saying that while building the additions onto the house, the sewer line was somehow redirect in an area of your yard that wasn't worked on and all and now contins an accidental 360 loop.
It just makes no sense.
Define "significant". I thought it took more than long enough for any other company to build three or four new games in-between.
I didn't say significan't. I said considerably.
And I will just end that by asking this: Do you honestly believe that GT5 represents a new project after GT5P? As in do you honestly believe PD made GT5P then went back and coded GT5 from scratch afterwards?
If so (and again I don't mean any offense with this) you don't understand the development process enough to go much further with this discussion and I couldn't simplify it down enough to explain it all to you so you could see... it would be like if someone walked into a garage and said "but how does the smoke from the fire in the engine get to the tires and how does it leak out when I go too fast?", it simply means you don't have the foundation of understanding necessary to explain the situation thoroughly.
I know that sounds snotty, but it's not meant to be, I am just trying to say you can't really explain or discuss the functionality and reasons behind something with someone who doens't understand the fundametals of how it works, and your comments really make you sound like programming and tech aren't your suite.
You've remodelled the entire house and put in wiring for HDMI. And... oops... you've got a problem with signal fidelity with the standard cable. No time... we'll fix that later!
No, this would be more like "the contractors who built our original 2 bedroom house wired it for HDMI and it worked. Then they came back to do the addition and magically some of the ports don't work anymore... oh and the contractors sell a new device that does the same thing as HDMI cables but is more expensive, what a coincidence".
You are again ignoring the fact that buttons that worked in GT5P STOPPED working.
I can agree with the "oh we never got around to making that work" theory, except they DID have it working and now it doesn't.
Again the reason that is so blatent is becaues GT5 is not a whole different game, it's a prgression of GT5P and there is no reason for it to have happened accidentally... in fact for something so specific to happen accidentally without breaking anything else is exponentially unlikely.
I don't program games for a living. And yes, I think it should be straightforward, given that it's a standard system, but I've seen worse programming gaffes than this... on software made with a much bigger budget and with less compromises than GT5.
I will be blunt here with you then, you wouldn't walk into a car garage and tell the mechanics that there is no way the engine in two different cars is the same engine because they are TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CARS and there is no way a Ford Focus has the same frame as a Volvo V60 because they are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT COMPANIES.
I think you don't know what you are talking about but you are assuming you must be right about what you assume.
I can tell you that from your comments, I am 99% sure you are both not right and don't understand why you are not right.
Sorry for the bluntness but that is really what it seems to be. I don't mean it as an insult, it just is very much what appears to be the situation.
Oh... and seriously... Logitech support on GT5P wasn't all that great, either. We could never get some of the features to work. I don't understand how all of you are saying that it was great, because it wasn't. And even after the last patch of GT5P, we didn't have a G25 or G27 mode.
I am not saying it was always that great.
I am saying things that DID work now DON'T. And that is completely different from simply never having gotten them working in the first place.
Again it's not about whether the mode exists or the wheel picture is on the wheel setup page, it's about the fact that buttons that were functioning before, now aren't and that the RA menu is magically the only function that won't work when assigned to a button... but that ONLY happens on the G27. And if you understand programming a bit, it is glaringly obvious that that involves some actual attnetion to make happen.
BTW the G25 is fully supported in GT5 and doens't have any of the flaws of the G27... that is another clue that something is up with the G27 specifically.
Which is why I still find it hard to believe that suddenly Gran Turismo doesn't support Logitech anymore because of the new Terminator wheel. Because there was none when GT5P was released.
I am not sure now whether you are just really unclear or you are attempting to phrase th situation in a way that isn't at all what I said...
I in no way said "suddenly there is no logitech support" I said that the things that are now broken about the G27 make no sense from a development point for being broken for the rasons I gave and the only way they could reasonably be how they are is that they were intentionally made that way.
As for whether it's an attempt to damage the T500's main competition, the writing is very much on the wall... it's in no way a certainty, but it would be a very longshot for it to be a coincidence that all this happens exactly this way just by chance.
Now because of that last bit, I have to ask, did you read my OP and did it make sense to you? Becaue honestly I can't imagine how you came up with what you said there if you actually read what I wrote and it makes sense to you... it really seems like youa re twisting what I say into hyperboli and statements I didnt make in order to show me how what I didn't say isn't right.
Next thing Devedander mentioned is that the support for one button existed before and now it's gone, so they must've taken parts of the code away. The thing is, I don't believe that that code remained unchanged for 2 years. You always change things, always refining things, and at times to the outside eye it could look like you're taking some functionality away, but it may not be necessarily the case. It's hard to explain, but it happened to me before.
Intereting post, and while it's interesting the parallels you draw with web design, I don't think they are necessarily applicable for a major reason: the input devices are standardized, not nearly as complex as supported functions of a web browser and the OS handles most of the load working with them.
But a for your specific part above, while the overall code of the game certainly didn't stay unchanged for 2 years, your suggestion that this alone means everything must could have been changed doesn't really make sense, espeically from a programming viewpoint for an input device.
To try to put it in web dev terms (and it's not really my world so forgive a probably poor analogy) it would be like building a website today with an images folder for each page.
One page is your contacts page, it's got your photo in it and your photo exists in the folder for images for the contacts page.
Over the next two years you update the index page and the content pages and maybe even add a few new pages.
But you have never moved, your phone number didn't change and no one has every taken a photo of you so there is no reason to update your photo. Maybe you got a fax line during that time so edited the contacts html page to add your fax number.
Then you load your page up 2 years later and see, hey, on your contacts page, the picture of you has the eyes erased out and your phone number is now the number at the old house you lived at 10 years ago...
Now, would you say "well the page didn't stay the same for 2 years and I did update something on the contacts page so it's possible something just happened to my photo and the eyes got erased out and maybe I accidentally changed the phone number while updating the fax field"?
Now you wouldn't... becuase while you can certainly say the code didn't stay the same for two years, the area that the issue exists was not necesary to redo during that time period and the change that occured to your picture is one that pretty much can't have happened by random incident or file corruption. Also it's possible you would have accidentlaly hit a key that altered the phone number while updating the fax number, but to have the change be EXACTLY to something so specific as your own phone number? So improbable as to be impossible.
See what I am saying?
You have come up with a reason why things can change unexpectedly while working on a project, and I agree, they can, but you have to look at what DID happen and examine the likelihood it could have happened on accident or had a reason for happening. And what has happened with the G27 quite simply doesn't appear to possibly fit in those cases.
)
