Does no-one care about the "fixed" fuel tanks??

[zedextreme8177]

Considering how much detail PD has gone into, this seems like a deliberate quirk rather than an oversight.

 

[Exorcet]

Unfortunately, that may never happen. Maybe on premium cars, who knows. Would having four different fuel loads generally do the trick?

Why wouldn't it happen? (Ignoring PD's unwillingness to do it). They just need to put one integer per car model. It's just a number like horsepower. If they can spend 6 months giving me polygons I don't need, I'm sure they can spend 5 minutes typing a number.

 

[shirakawaa]

Considering how much detail PD has gone into, this seems like a deliberate quirk rather than an oversight.

I fear that most of the detail in GT5 has gone into 3D modeling.
There are many other areas where there's an excessive lack of detail and accuracy (or oversimplification) or that PD simply didn't bother fixing since previous games.

 

[dudeondacouch]

If you run any endurance race you'll see your laptimes rise and fall with fuel load. This was clear as day to me in the Zonda R around Grand Valley.

And how did you remove the other variables? Such as: tires, driver inconsistency, and the other cars on the track? How do you know it wasn't a placebo effect?

 

[Bluez_Freak]

And how did you remove the other variables? Such as: tires, driver inconsistency, and the other cars on the track? How do you know it wasn't a placebo effect?

There's no driver inconsistency driving the 2CV...

But if you do not want to believe something just let us believe that fuel has indeed weight on the physics. 99% of the racing games simulate weight change when they simulate fuel consumption and I do not think GT5 is an exception.

 

[shirakawaa]

And how did you remove the other variables? Such as: tires, driver inconsistency, and the other cars on the track? How do you know it wasn't a placebo effect?

In practice mode, go at La Sarthe on the Mulsanne straight and measure with a stopwatch (3-4 times, then compute the average) the acceleration time from 0 to 80 Km/h. Use the automated gearbox in order you remove a possible subjective influence. Then try the same on the 24 hours endurance with fuel consumption enabled.

 

[fasj6418]

The fuel tanks are bad, but not as bad as the never ending pit stops.

A Nascar pit takes 14 seconds. On GT5, it takes 70!

It´s totally bogus. It´s the same pit for every car. 70 seconds to refuel a Formula 1? Yeah, right...

 

[dudeondacouch]

I didn't ask for tips on how to test it myself. I asked if anyone had evidence. I still see none.

 

[shirakawaa]

I didn't ask for tips on how to test it myself. I asked if anyone had evidence. I still see none.

I did some tests back in December:

By the way, I just made a test with a Citroen 2CV on Fuji Speedway:

0-80 Km/h = 35.8s (Arcade mode/Single Race - fuel depletion on)
0-80 Km/h = 39.7s (Online race - fuel depletion on)

Same conditions, start point, gear shifting strategy.

Now that I remember, on arcade single races even though fuel depletion is enabled, fuel weight isn't taken into account. Times are the same as in practice mode without fuel consumption.

 

[dudeondacouch]

Good info, but are you planning to test the same acceleration with a nearly empty tank? If not, are you sure the difference isn't attestable to a difference in traction online?


(I'm not trying to be a pain here, but the difference in dynamics online vs offline is simply too much to be simply the weight of fuel IMO.)

 

[ElSecundo]

Why wouldn't it happen? (Ignoring PD's unwillingness to do it). They just need to put one integer per car model. It's just a number like horsepower. If they can spend 6 months giving me polygons I don't need, I'm sure they can spend 5 minutes typing a number.

Adding one integer per car model is one thing. Incorporating that data and accessing it in a meaningful way in the code is another matter altogether.

Besides, have you ever asked a racing team for specific information regarding details of their race car? Fuel capacity and consumption aren't things they tend to talk about.

So while it's a great idea to have accurate info on fuel tanks in principle, it could be a lot of work and research that would be better spent elsewhere. A more simplistic model could easily do the trick as far as lightening fuel loads for different cars.

 

[shirakawaa]

Good info, but are you planning to test the same acceleration with a nearly empty tank? If not, are you sure the difference isn't attestable to a difference in traction online?

With just 12 hp (in the case of the Citroen 2CV), even a large difference in traction wouldn't be able to justify 4 seconds of difference in the 0-80 Km/h acceleration times. I don't remember wheels spinning because of lack of traction with that car, anyway.

 

[Bluez_Freak]

Besides, have you ever asked a racing team for specific information regarding details of their race car? Fuel capacity and consumption aren't things they tend to talk about.

Presumably race cars have fixed tank capacities as per regulations and since their power outputs and engine capacities are all very close, the fuel consumptions are also very close as to be indifferent.

But in GT5 we are mostly dealing with normal street cars where the variables should be considerably different from car to car.

 

[dudeondacouch]

With just 12 hp (in the case of the Citroen 2CV), even a large difference in traction wouldn't be able to justify 4 seconds of difference in the 0-80 Km/h acceleration times. I don't remember wheels spinning because of lack of traction with that car, anyway.

Good point. Thanks for your test.

 

[jaycee_xr3]

GT5 is not the "real" real car simulator because otherwise lots of people will be crying in the corners screaming about what hard is the game and wanting his money back

 

[dudeondacouch]

crying in the corners screaming about what hard is the game

wut?

 

[shirakawaa]

GT5 is not the "real" real car simulator because otherwise lots of people will be crying in the corners screaming about what hard is the game and wanting his money back

That's a common misconception. Realistic and accurate driving physics/dynamics don't imply that it would be more difficult to drive cars. If else, they would mostly make it more logic and intuitive, except for the most dramatic aspects of it (damage for example) but that's where driving assists come into play for the less skilled people.

Anyway, I hate this deafeatist reasoning. "The game would be too hard so let's dumb it down". I'm sure that this has been PD's line of thought for many choices that have ruined the game for hardcore/sim racers and old fans and, in general, ended up making the franchise fail to innovate itself after so many years since GT4.

 

[dudeondacouch]

Ah, I see what he was saying now.

True though.. Realistic does not equate to difficult.


The most difficult car to drive in the game is the least realistic.

 

[leper-messiah]

Threads like this are why devs should not listen to the community too much. Games cost a lot to make, they have to justify spending resources on more important things, just a cold hard financial fact. This is to minor to worry about.

 

[Bluez_Freak]

Threads like this are why devs should not listen to the community too much. Games cost a lot to make, they have to justify spending resources on more important things, just a cold hard financial fact. This is to minor to worry about.

Where was the justification of the countless polygons we are offered after 5 years?? That is basically what GT5 is over GT4.

200 premium cars with countless polygons (albeit awesome to the eye) and a basic online platform which is way worse than the competition.

How much effort would they need to make the tanks capacities accurate? Would this make Sony go off-budget??? LOL!!

 

[dudeondacouch]

I agree with Freak.


The simple fact is that one thing was missing from production of this game. Testing.

It is glaringly obvious that this game was shipped before being properly tested. Any decent-sized test group would have identified the majority of the problems that are the most common complaints.

 

[stpatty]

I did find it a bit odd. It's also annoying that the amount of fuel in the car doesn't affect car performance at all but as others have said, there are bigger issues in this game than something that only comes up in a very small amount of the races in game.

 

[Griffith500]

I agree with Freak.


The simple fact is that one thing was missing from production of this game. Testing.

It is glaringly obvious that this game was shipped before being properly tested. Any decent-sized test group would have identified the majority of the problems that are the most common complaints.

Who says they weren't identified? They're probably tacked onto the end of a very long to-do list. I think we should be glad that we're getting updates, although I would be more glad if they weren't needed. Such is life.

 

[Mevon]

One thing they should do to make this problem less significant is to let us chose how much fuel we want to start with before a race. This should be really easy for them to implement.

 

[dudeondacouch]

Who says they weren't identified?

It's apparent to me that the issues were NOT identified prior to release. For proof, see the fact that they changed the Cr/Exp rewards for races and made the rewards for the seasonal events RIDICULOUSLY high compared to A-spec events. It's not hard to figure out that these implements are solely to hide the fact that the Exp/Cr reward curve simply DID NOT match the actual content of the game.

If you have gotten a "Gold" trophy on every available event, yet have not earned enough experience to unlock the next event, there is a fundamental progression flaw in the game. This is a fact, and one that proves to me that no one sat down and attempted to actually play through the game.

 

[Griffith500]

It's apparent to me that the issues were NOT identified prior to release. For proof, see the fact that they changed the Cr/Exp rewards for races and made the rewards for the seasonal events RIDICULOUSLY high compared to A-spec events. It's not hard to figure out that these implements are solely to hide the fact that the Exp/Cr reward curve simply DID NOT match the actual content of the game.

If you have gotten a "Gold" trophy on every available event, yet have not earned enough experience to unlock the next event, there is a fundamental progression flaw in the game. This is a fact, and one that proves to me that no one sat down and attempted to actually play through the game.

Again, this does not prove that the issues were not known. If anything, the addition of special events proves that the particular issue you mention was known. How else would they know to "fix" it? On the other hand, they may have fully expected to "have to" supplement A-Spec with Seasonal Events - they probably didn't anticipate the sheer number of people who would play the **** of the game in the first few weeks of its release!

In general, knowing the problem and fixing it are two different things. Knowing PD, they maybe couldn't fix certain things to a satisfactory level before release. This may be why so much other stuff was omitted at release - it wasn't "ready". The problem is that PD are so inconsistent with what they deem to be "ready" for inclusion, and vary from feature to feature...

 

[ElSecundo]

Presumably race cars have fixed tank capacities as per regulations and since their power outputs and engine capacities are all very close, the fuel consumptions are also very close as to be indifferent.

But in GT5 we are mostly dealing with normal street cars where the variables should be considerably different from car to car.

Yeah, that's a good point.

I was just looking at the IMSA rulebook, and LMP is restricted to 90 liters, GT is restricted to 110 liters. I wonder if this is where PD decided "let's just make it a hundred and call it a day".

Street cars should have published specs on fuel capacity, so the information is out there. But is it worth the time and effort?

 

[Griffith500]

Yeah, that's a good point.

I was just looking at the IMSA rulebook, and LMP is restricted to 90 liters, GT is restricted to 110 liters. I wonder if this is where PD decided "let's just make it a hundred and call it a day".

Street cars should have published specs on fuel capacity, so the information is out there. But is it worth the time and effort?

Yes.

 

[MowTin]

So no-body cares about this for the "real driving simulator"??

When I play online almost everyone plays with no damage or light damage (which should be renamed "temporary light damage"). Sadly, I don't think most people care about realism. They want to crash into walls at 100mph and then get back in the race.

About the fuel tanks, Even I don't care about that. Fuel only becomes a factor in endurance races. And different cars with different fuel capacity would only matter if you had mixed cars in an endurance race. Would cars have different mpg?

In a game there are just so many compromises to realism that this fuel tank thing has to fall to the bottom of the list.

 

[Griffith500]

When I play online almost everyone plays with no damage or light damage (which should be renamed "temporary light damage"). Sadly, I don't think most people care about realism. They want to crash into walls at 100mph and then get back in the race.

About the fuel tanks, Even I don't care about that. Fuel only becomes a factor in endurance races. And different cars with different fuel capacity would only matter if you had mixed cars in an endurance race. Would cars have different mpg?

In a game there are just so many compromises to realism that this fuel tank thing has to fall to the bottom of the list.

They already do. It's probably only based on engine power output aggregated over time, but that's all it needs to be to be close to realistic for most cars. What might be missing is the advantages of different fuel delivery systems in the low-load / closed-throttle areas. Carburettors, for instance, are not great for fuel economy off-load...

I won't argue, though, that it is fairly low priority. But I've got time to wait.