Do you still support PD?

[trk29]

Delete.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

And i guess you think life in general hasn't changed. I know that you might have an "out of the ark" or "passé" lifesytle but if you don't have satisfactory representation of damage or cockpit view and various other things in a "sim" in this decade then what would you expect?

I dont get the reasoning behind the smart response but

The past 4 iterations have been pretty much the same thing (besides adding more cars and tracks) over what 8 or so years ( doesnt mean " life in general" stayed the same ).Cockpit view and damage is new to GT, its been in Older sims since the 90's.
What makes you think they would make any more drastic changes than what they did if they havent all those years ?

Lol I remember cars couldnt even flip

The last four games have not been on the PS3 which has the capabilities to handle the type of game people like AlphaEdition are asking for. Games older that GT3 had cockpits...heck look at the nascar games and F1 games of 2000 and beyond. All games that had cockpit views, then you have the sim games that had cockpit views for various cars. PG and FM first games need for speed and various other games that GT would be in with also have cockpits. You could have said the same thing for damage but everyone had damage as well. People expect major changes because GT5 was on a major system (the third rendition) and released on said system at a time where people are no longer playing much on First generation PS3s. They had six years in which they made this game what we see doesn't look like six years, they had the cars from GT4 and GTPSP to model to five...so it's not like they build them again from the ground up, so if they didn't need to be completely redone then surely making cockpits for premade cars wouldn't be too heavy a task.

The newer tracks may have taken some time but not the tracks that have been with GT from 1-4 which is most of them. The only real new things seems to be the damage and cockpits to an extent. However, like I said for the years they put in more should have been shown but I think they had issues like I said in this post:

To me it seems PD felt rushed, but I can't fully say that because more so this game had been worked on for 5-6 year up to its release. There had to be something there that PD hasn't told anyone as to why they had to take so long and still not be complete. However, that is the very reason why I cut them some slack because it wasn't there idea to give us an incomplete game. Yet it was more than a little incomplete considering how many patches have been put out. More so license deals may have fallen through the cracks and this is what put bigger delays on the game. With Forza and others, organizations may see them as bigger names to join up with and give them their info about their cars.

All in all I think PD had many issues in the development that we don't know about, I know certain race series didn't span out for the game like Kaz had intended. I also think they were a bit lazy and didn't have an alternative route and thus thought they could add to the game later on due to it being on a system that enables updates. Both are a loss for us obviously in some sense. Also I think the quest to make the best Simulator for Kaz had led him off the path and to try certain items that other games in the category like Forza have done. We will see how things go, but at the moment I'm not happy with PD development of the game, yet I feel they can pull through.

End point is cockpits aren't rocket science game makers especially those who update their car games anually to two years. Especially making cockpits for cars that have already been modeled from previous games.

 

[brycepunk]

Hoping that PD will continue to improve the game is perfectly reasonable. Being frustrated at how slowly that is occurring may be justified too. Being angry at PD or deciding not to support them doesn't really make sense though. Heck, GT4 never got any updates. Once you bought it, that was it, no extra features to hope for or anything. I'm just glad PD has been giving us these updates at all. I know I certainly wouldn't want to go back to playing the game like it was at release.

Well said. I agree.
I would add that part of the frustration comes not from the pace of the updates but the lack of communication with the players as to what updates are coming and when (projected, of course.)

 

[Spagetti69]

No... i cant...

Aw nevermind then, not everyone has an imagination.......

 

[CSLACR]

As I read this, I can only ask myself who's going to be the 1st to use this as an argument when they appeal to have a Euro spec S2000 legally registered and title in the US...lol

So you're saying people are interested in identical spec cars from their own area? That doesn't make if a different car when it has the same specs. And when it's a 10kg difference between J-Spec and Euro/US spec it's still the same car, just a very slight option change.
What kind of car is a Camaro SS when it has a 10KG stereo package that's optional? Is it a whole new car?

What's next then, does with or without A/C option count as "different cars"?

 

[spunwicked]

Not really, I understand what you're saying.
What I'm saying is many GT4 "updated" cars still carry at least part of those physics over, if the general game physics are combined with individual car physics, you get 1+1 - 2. If a GT4 carry-over has 0.5+1 - 1.5. Totally different physics from a car compared to the rest.

I'm sorry, but this means absolutely nothing! Still, you brightened up my morning 👍

 

[Authentic718]

Possibly. At the very least Standards don't control the same way as Premium equivalents do. Particularly when it comes to center of gravity calculations.

Far closer to a hundred than "a couple." With some of those mistakes being far more obvious than others.

No they don't.

No they haven't. In fact, it is well documented that several of them look considerably worse than they did in previous games, due to badly done livery edits and/or glitches.

It seems as if you just like to bash "standard" cars. And yes MOST standards look better or equal to cars from other racing games, I don't understand why people b**** about standard cars when these are the same people that complained GT5 was taking too long. Would you rather GT become a game were it's released every year with 70 cars average graphics and crap physics? Honestly I still think GT doesn't have much competition , maybe SOME (forza) but that's about it.

 

[CSLACR]

I'm sorry, but this means absolutely nothing! Still, you brightened up my morning 👍

It's possible you just haven't understood it.

It seems as if you just like to bash "standard" cars. And yes MOST standards look better or equal to cars from other racing games, I don't understand why people b**** about standard cars when these are the same people that complained GT5 was taking too long. Would you rather GT become a game were it's released every year with 70 cars average graphics and crap physics? Honestly I still think GT doesn't have much competition , maybe SOME (forza) but that's about it.

Why? Why must it always be one bad or the other? It already has 200 premiums, so why in your "alternate option" must it be "70 cars with average graphics and crap physics"? It already has 200, with better graphics and physics for PS3 games.
So no, removing standards would not magically plummet the number of premiums to 70, reduce the physics to crap, and worsen the graphics.

What about 200 Premiums and a couple great world tracks, and dynamic weather on all the real tracks, and no fake tracks?
200 Premiums and 15 real world tracks with variants, they could even skip the weather if the tracks are right. Oh, and an A-Spec that rewards winning more challenging races instead of having to "grind".

Not that anyone has to like this idea, but it's a more reasonable alternative to what we have then "70 cars, crap physics and worse graphics."

 

[spunwicked]

It's possible you just haven't understood it.

What I'm saying is many GT4 "updated" cars still carry at least part of those physics over, if the general game physics are combined with individual car physics, you get 1+1 - 2. If a GT4 carry-over has 0.5+1 - 1.5. Totally different physics from a car compared to the rest.

I'm sorry mate, but I am a software engineer by trade and that means absolutely nothing. It's just that much of a bad analogy that I would have edited it out and pretended it never came out of my head. Plus your 'science' is baseless. I presume you have the original GT5 source code to peruse which is how you have come up with your assumption? 👍 💡

 

[CSLACR]

I'm sorry mate, but I am a software engineer by trade and that means absolutely nothing. It's just that much of a bad analogy that I would have edited it out and pretended it never came out of my head. Plus your 'science' is baseless. I presume you have the original GT5 source code to peruse which is how you have come up with your assumption? 👍 💡

Ok, so unless one uses correct coding it's impossible?
Or you can't understand it.

There is a set of physics, for the whole game.
There are separate individual car physics.
If a car has a different set of physics, the physics can't be the same on the track.
Some cars in GT5 don't drive naturally at all compared to most of the cars in the game, these cars all drive almost exactly like they did in GT4.
This means the individual car physics override the main physics, it plays a larger role in the operating physics of said car then the "main" physics.

 

[Bushby_23]

It seems as if you just like to bash "standard" cars. And yes MOST standards look better or equal to cars from other racing games, I don't understand why people b**** about standard cars when these are the same people that complained GT5 was taking too long. Would you rather GT become a game were it's released every year with 70 cars average graphics and crap physics? Honestly I still think GT doesn't have much competition , maybe SOME (forza) but that's about it.

So basically release a new GT5 Prologue every year?

 

[spunwicked]

Ok, so unless one uses correct coding it's impossible?
Or you can't understand it.

There is a set of physics, for the whole game.
There are separate individual car physics.
If a car has a different set of physics, the physics can't be the same on the track.
Some cars in GT5 don't drive naturally at all compared to most of the cars in the game, these cars all drive almost exactly like they did in GT4.
This means the individual car physics override the main physics, it plays a larger role in the operating physics of said car then the "main" physics.

How exactly have you discovered that there are two separate physics models? Surely, there is one engine for the game physics with each individual car having different attributes which affects the way the car behaves in the physics engine?

Like I said, show me the source code for GT5, then we can argue away all day long. But your original point is baseless and it's not that I don't understand it. It's that it makes no sense

 

[CSLACR]

How exactly have you discovered that there are two separate physics models? Surely, there is one engine for the game physics with each individual car having different attributes which affects the way the car behaves in the physics engine?

Like I said, show me the source code for GT5, then we can argue away all day long. But your original point is baseless and it's not that I don't understand it. It's that it makes no sense

And what do you think those "attributes" are, exactly?

 

[Bushby_23]

And what do you think those "attributes" are, exactly?

Different parametres? Why do you think the GT by Citreon was a Gt car first and a real car second? Because Citreon gave PD the details on its running gear, and its physical attributes (Weight, wheelbase etc.) and then they simply punched in the numbers and were set from there.

 

[CSLACR]

Different parametres? Why do you think the GT by Citreon was a Gt car first and a real car second? Because Citreon gave PD the details on its running gear, and its physical attributes (Weight, wheelbase etc.) and then they simply punched in the numbers and were set from there.

Yes, but not the answer I'm looking for.

What do these "attributes" equal in the "eyes" of the physics engine?

 

[spunwicked]

And what do you think those "attributes" are, exactly?

I wouldn't like to speculate too much. The list will most likely include all parameters configurable via each cars 'settings' (weight, ballast, downforce front & rear, hp, all individual engine mods, plus aerodynamics), but don't quote me on that.

I would speculate that each car uses the physics engine in the same way, just that it's own attributes make it behave in a characteristic way.

I do not for one moment think that standard cars have any less detail in the 'physics' department than premium cars. Why on earth would they?

 

[robbo6]

It seems as if you just like to bash "standard" cars. And yes MOST standards look better or equal to cars from other racing games, I don't understand why people b**** about standard cars when these are the same people that complained GT5 was taking too long. Would you rather GT become a game were it's released every year with 70 cars average graphics and crap physics? Honestly I still think GT doesn't have much competition , maybe SOME (forza) but that's about it.

Nope, the standards most definitly do NOT look better or equal to cars from other racing games at all...unless you're comparing them to last gen games. the standards look crap compared to Forza 3s, Shift 1+2s, Hell even some FREE PC mods look better than GT5s standards.

And why is the alternative to GT5 taking forever to develope, only a game with less content and crap physics. If PD employed more people or managed their time and resources better then the game could have better content and retain the excellent physics. It's not a black and white scenario that people so often spout in this situation.

 

[Griffith500]

Passive-aggressive nationalism?
"Maths" is 13 year old speak in the U.S., maybe wherever the keyboard you're behind it's different, but it's still going to sound like child's play behind my keyboard.

So it was ignorance, then. "Maths" is adult-speak in many countries. And I was right, you knew damn-well what he meant. It was an unnecessary quip, not to mention ad hominem.

Physics are not a "subjective" section. Of course people can still come up with incorrect opinions, and theories, but physics themselves, are not open to discussion, they are what they are.
And GT5's physics are off in almost, if not, every single way. It's not just the game physics, there's online, offline, individual car, and tuning/tires physics, all of which have holes.
I think most agree that despite all the inconsistency's, the overall "feel" is still pretty realistic, but that doesn't change the errors or make them go away.

Except that every game has physics flaws. People then decide which game's flaws they can better live with, so it's still down to preference - hence subjective.

 

[spunwicked]

Yes, but not the answer I'm looking for.

What do these "attributes" equal in the "eyes" of the physics engine?

I'm not sure that you comprehend what an algorithm is, or how variables affect it. Until you do, my counter discussion is entirely without merit.

"GT5 is magic and you can see it inside a TV"

 

[analog]

Take the idea not the literal.

And your explanation shows why you don't understand. Understanding appreciation has no correlation to refuting likes and dislikes.

Oh I did get the general idea from that post, I just picked one (unrelated for the most part I'll admit) part which seemingly suggested you had to be appreciative of a certain artist or work of art to be considered a true admirer or lover of a whole genre or discipline.
I wasn't trying to refute a particular like or dislike other than stating my own (as I respect my taste isn't shared by all) but mainly trying to point out there's no universal consensus (despite many popular misconceptions) or 'objective' criteria for which artists or works of art to appreciate to be labelled an admirer of a particular artform, nothing more.

Which is exactly why you'll never see me buy a Macy Gray cd only to get on her twitter page and comment on what she should do for her next cd to satisfy me.. you seem like an intelligent person so, your purchase of gt5 was proceeded by reviews of the game outlining its features, as well as youtube vids of gameplay right? I mean I didn't even get the game until @ at least 6-7 patches were released, and I alrdy was made aware of them by doing my research as a consumer long before any purchase was made. So I would have no place to demand more from a product I was fully aware of. Truth be told, I think the only ones who have 1/2 an argument for demanding more of the game are those who have yet to purchase it...if you alrdy have it you made your choice, no crocodile tears now....

Sorry but I don't get the logic of only being 'permitted' to complain if you've yet to buy GT5.
I did watch the development stage, announced features, gameplay videos, etc. before release, mainly through this forum and was largely aware of what to expect long before I bought GT5 on release day but that's only half the story.
It's also due to me having played all previous GT-games which made me invest in new hardware (PS3, although GT5 wasn't the only but perhaps the main reason) long before GT5 was released and that wasn't due to things as loyalty or supporting PD but trusting PD to deliver their usual quality, not least since they released the limited but more coherent, and in hindsight rather selective, GT5 Prologue.
So when it became clear months prior to release this game wasn't going to be the same one I thought it would be for years leading up to it I could ofcourse choose not to buy it, weren't it for the simple fact I didn't really have an alternative (no other titles on PS3 could fill that gap).
I do still really enjoy playing GT5 and accepted what it is before I bought it, that doesn't mean I agree with a lot of decisions made or that I can't complain about it even when I was fully aware and conscious of its limitations before I bought it.
Doing your research or even renting it before buying isn't the same as experiencing a game over months of playing it when a lot of shortcomings become apparant and are indeed experienced.

 

[Bushby_23]

Yes, but not the answer I'm looking for.

What do these "attributes" equal in the "eyes" of the physics engine?

What is below

I'm not sure that you comprehend what an algorithm is, or how variables affect it. Until you do, my counter discussion is entirely without merit.

"GT5 is magic and you can see it inside a TV"

Imagine the physics engine as a giant Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, where you punch numbers in and out comes a response. The numbers put in can be anything relating to the handling and performance of the car (weight, power, suspension travel); you name it, it has a value that gets entered into said spreadsheet. Complex algorithms are performed by the program, and spits out various other answers from combigning the initial values together. The values that are spat out, are what makes the car handle how it does.

 

[CAMAROBOY69]

6 years and only 200 cars are premium. No I do not still support PD. In fact I did not even purchase GT5. It was a christmas present and I feel bad that someone else actually paid $60.00 to give me this game. I own EVERY GT game from the beginning to now but I will no longer support PD. I cant even change wheels or use the interior view on 800 of the cars 80% of the game. How can you call this a simulation game when you cant even drive use the interior view. I have always been open minded and have been a fan of GT for a very long time. I tried to be optimistic with this game but it was the last straw for me. 6 years later and this is what they give us? Just insulting. 👎

 

[MikeTheHockeyFan]

Let's be honest with ourselves here, even those who are rather critical of PD will be buying GT6.

 

[CAMAROBOY69]

Let's be honest with ourselves here, even those who are rather critical of PD will be buying GT6.

I didnt buy GT5 and at this point I have no interrest at all in buying GT6. And thats coming from someone that owns ALL the GT games including the PAL and JPN versions. You might think people will buy it but the reality is, some people truly have given up on PD... Including myself.

If GT6 is actually FINISHED then I might consider the purchase. BUt this 20% crap is not going to get my money at all.

 

[spunwicked]

What is below



Imagine the physics engine as a giant Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, where you punch numbers in and out comes a response. The numbers put in can be anything relating to the handling and performance of the car (weight, power, suspension travel); you name it, it has a value that gets entered into said spreadsheet. Complex algorithms (calculations) are performed by the program (algorithm), and spits out various other answers from combigning the initial values together. The values that are spat out, are what makes the car handle how it does.

Right on the money 👍

This is why I do not believe that standards differ from premiums in the physics stakes. Online differs slightly, perhaps by using a slimmed down version of the physics engine due to memory resources being tight. Maybe the number of calculations performed per second is reduced resulting in the handling of cars being different to offline.

 

[Pennywize]

wow this is crazy forza 4 has these forums in a uproar

 

[CAMAROBOY69]

wow this is crazy forza 4 has these forums in a uproar

Actually the GT5 forums have been in an uproar since GT5 came out. GT5 did this to itself with the standard car crap. The other games are just making this game look even worse.

 

[shirakawaa]

Right on the money

This is why I do not believe that standards differ from premiums in the physics stakes. Online differs slightly, perhaps by using a slimmed down version of the physics engine due to memory resources being tight. Maybe the number of calculations performed per second is reduced resulting in the handling of cars being different to offline.

If you like that comparison, then let's put it this way: standard cars in that excel spreadsheet have more "default values" and "computed approximate values" than premium cars, because they have been imported from a smaller spreadsheet (GT4) which is backward-compatible but less sophisticated.

The result is that even though the physics engine might be the same, many standard cars behave occasionally in odd ways in certain situations.

 

[homeforsummer]

I'll still support PD. Maybe I have lower expectations, maybe I think PD gets the basics right with GT5 even if some of the extraneous stuff is a little off the mark, or perhaps just because there's more to my life than complaining about video games, but I'm perfectly happy with GT5 and still enjoy playing it.

I expect life would seem a lot longer if I sat inside every day wondering why PD wasn't releasing updates for GT5.

Still, I'm amused how many people who think GT is a pile of poo have still taken the time to join a GT forum. Must be like people who complain how much rubbish there is on TV, but still watch it all day.

 

[spunwicked]

If you like that comparison, then let's put it this way: standard cars in that excel spreadsheet have more "default values" and "computed approximate values" than premium cars, because they have been imported from a smaller spreadsheet (GT4) which is backward-compatible but less sophisticated.

The result is that even though the physics engine might be the same, many standard cars behave occasionally in odd ways in certain situations.

Hey, I'm with you completely 👍

My argument was that "you get 1+1 - 2. If a GT4 carry-over has 0.5+1 - 1.5." makes no sense.