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

[dudeondacouch]

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...

1. There is no way they didn't know the amount of people that would be hellbent on playing the game, forsaking all else in life. This is the way of hardcore gamers. (I'm not one, but I am not so silly as to pretend they aren't out there in numbers.)

2. If they did know prior to release that this was an issue, wouldn't they have issued a simple patch to fix it right away, before everyone knew how poorly the system was implemented? Seems logical to me, but instead we got this: "Oh, the exp thing is garbage... Hmmm... I know! We'll just give them boatloads on those seasonal A-spec events so it looks like we knew what we were doing!"

Sadly, for people without internets, there is no reprisal from the grinding that they will be FORCED to do if they want to continue to progress in the game.

 

[ElSecundo]

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.

Maybe I should put it a different way: what are we willing to give up in order to have this feature? If PD drops what they are doing to work on this, what feature or fix are we willing to live without? I'm sure they're working on some big items, but you can't do everything at once, or nothing will get done.

 

[leper-messiah]

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!!

You mean Gt4 had online? photo mode? improved physics? Seasonal events? damage for online races? Rally? nascar? Day and night? Weather? etc...

You seriously are way off base with this post, and neglected many things that have changed since gt4.

 

[Griffith500]

1. There is no way they didn't know the amount of people that would be hellbent on playing the game, forsaking all else in life. This is the way of hardcore gamers. (I'm not one, but I am not so silly as to pretend they aren't out there in numbers.)

2. If they did know prior to release that this was an issue, wouldn't they have issued a simple patch to fix it right away, before everyone knew how poorly the system was implemented? Seems logical to me, but instead we got this: "Oh, the exp thing is garbage... Hmmm... I know! We'll just give them boatloads on those seasonal A-spec events so it looks like we knew what we were doing!"

Sadly, for people without internets, there is no reprisal from the grinding that they will be FORCED to do if they want to continue to progress in the game.

If what you say is true, then it surely is a terrible thing.

You know, for some reason I have not felt the need to grind at all. I just drive my cars. I earn some money, buy more cars. Then I drive some cars. If others want to pursue "success" at warp 9, then I don't really see the point of having a game surrounding that pursuit. They might as well just be awarded the "success" from the outset to save them the bother of having to interact with the game at all...

I'm not saying that the game isn't flawed, it really is (and most of my niggles seem to be against features that facilitate the above-mentioned pursuit.) To suggest that PD had no idea what their XP system would play out like is frankly ridiculous, and to suggest that the Seasonal Events infrastructure could be implemented from scratch in around two weeks is also fairly ridiculous. In my opinion, PD planned the Seasonal Events before release, it fits into the high-level XP requirements and gives players a weekly schedule to operate around. Kaz had stated that GT5 would be tied into "online" functionality, and it seems he really meant it - updates and all.

I'm looking forward to ambling my way up to level 40, just by "faffing". PD obviously want players to be involved for the long-term. Why would that be, if they've already got our money?

Maybe I should put it a different way: what are we willing to give up in order to have this feature? If PD drops what they are doing to work on this, what feature or fix are we willing to live without? I'm sure they're working on some big items, but you can't do everything at once, or nothing will get done.

They don't have to "drop" anything, just slot it in the to-do list and they'll get it done when they get around to it. It's not game breaking, it's no emergency. I'm sure that this is how the world works for most things. I know we live in the era of "everything on-demand", but it's still provided and administered by people, who presumably have some sort of life outside of slavery...

If gamers can't wait, it's their loss. If gamers vote with their wallets the next time around, it's Sony's loss. Personally, I don't see that happening anyway. Pandering to the needs of the most vocal of gamers (usually not the ones who are mostly satisfied), or to simply sell the game en masse in a tiny space of time, is the sort of attitude that has ruined other series in the past.
I don't think anyone wants that for Gran Turismo.

 

[dmeech]

i dont understand why make a post about this. The feedback section was made to avoid these kinds of repetitive posts that ultimately clutter up the place. Not start a trend of people submitting a suggestion then go to the forum to promote it.

 

[ElSecundo]

They don't have to "drop" anything, just slot it in the to-do list and they'll get it done when they get around to it. It's not game breaking, it's no emergency. I'm sure that this is how the world works for most things. I know we live in the era of "everything on-demand", but it's still provided and administered by people, who presumably have some sort of life outside of slavery...

If gamers can't wait, it's their loss. If gamers vote with their wallets the next time around, it's Sony's loss. Personally, I don't see that happening anyway. Pandering to the needs of the most vocal of gamers (usually not the ones who are mostly satisfied), or to simply sell the game en masse in a tiny space of time, is the sort of attitude that has ruined other series in the past.
I don't think anyone wants that for Gran Turismo.

I agree, and maybe 'drop' isn't the right word. But the choice for developers is always where things need to go on the priority list. So, if accurate fuel tanks are demanded by gamers, where would we want PD to put that on the list? Does this go high up there, or on the list for a year down the road?

There is also a cost associated with each task. Someone will have to research the fuel capacity of 1031 cars at current count. One PD team will have to deal with the cost of changing the fuel interface (in the pit screen, and in the cockpit of all premium cars?). The physics engine team will have to deal with the ramifications of the fuel load. The car modeling team will have to deal with how each model handles the data and interfaces with the work done by other teams. Depending on how the project is structured, several teams may be involved, so the task could be quite expensive. If this task isn't tackled until the next budget cycle, the task could be dropped because of its cost.

Some of this is just the logistics of software development, and pieces can get chopped out simply for budgetary reasons. If an item isn't going to be fixed today or in the very near future, it's a toss-up whether it will be done at all. I'd like to see accurate fuel modeling, for sure, but I could see it being dropping off the radar for other considerations very easily.

 

[jaycee_xr3]

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.

May be my answer was too short and unclear. Sorry if my english is not very accurate

I was trying to mean that drive a simulated car that performs like a real a car with a sixaxis will be a nightmare, and if the AI car were good opponents will even more hard.
The game is made easy if you have the Cr. to tune your ride (even you can enter most race with cars that are absolutelly out of leage) , the seasonal events are easier yet (giving you enough Cr. and XP to buy anything).

If both (driving and Cr./XP managment) were harder lots of people will be not happy.




(thanks for try to understand my post 👍 )

 

[Griffith500]

I agree, and maybe 'drop' isn't the right word. But the choice for developers is always where things need to go on the priority list. So, if accurate fuel tanks are demanded by gamers, where would we want PD to put that on the list? Does this go high up there, or on the list for a year down the road?

There is also a cost associated with each task. Someone will have to research the fuel capacity of 1031 cars at current count. One PD team will have to deal with the cost of changing the fuel interface (in the pit screen, and in the cockpit of all premium cars?). The physics engine team will have to deal with the ramifications of the fuel load. The car modeling team will have to deal with how each model handles the data and interfaces with the work done by other teams. Depending on how the project is structured, several teams may be involved, so the task could be quite expensive. If this task isn't tackled until the next budget cycle, the task could be dropped because of its cost.

Some of this is just the logistics of software development, and pieces can get chopped out simply for budgetary reasons. If an item isn't going to be fixed today or in the very near future, it's a toss-up whether it will be done at all. I'd like to see accurate fuel modeling, for sure, but I could see it being dropping off the radar for other considerations very easily.

The interesting thing about games development, though, tends to be the passion behind it (as well as a "can-do" attitude - you seem to be throwing up barriers at every turn! ) If I were on the team, I'd get most of those 1030-odd fuel capacities inside of a week. PD / Sony have ties with manufacturers, so for most of the cars, it's a simple email via the legal* department. For the race cars, it might be trickier, but governing bodies will have records of regulations going back long enough for most of the affected cars.

Fuel load is already modeled, apparently, so it really would just be a case of expanding the car's "data points" by one and filling in the gap with "100 litres", or the actual capacity.
It's not for us to say where or when this could be slotted in, PD would know best - however, it's quite a trivial task, and it oughtn't be difficult to find another non-time-critical task in someone's schedule to append this to.

* this might actually be the reason all cars have 100 litre tanks. Manufacturers getting pissy about the potential to be seen in a bad light...

 

[ElSecundo]

All I'm saying is that there's usually more to the process than it seems from the outside. Another poster referred to it as "adding one digit". I've done my share of software development, and the 'simple fix' envisioned by the end user is rarely that simple. In this case, we don't know, because we haven't seen how the software is built. There are times when a simple fix is just as simple as it looks (generally not), but there are times when the apparently simple fix requires rebuilding the entire structure of the software.

Every task has a cost, and passion for the game only goes so far before you actually have to cut checks for 60 developers. Tasks can and do get cut out as being too expensive for the expected return -- even small tasks.

 

[sk0pe]

Relax, just messing with you, does ANYONE here have a sense of humor?

No. Sense of humour in a thread will be locked. Whinging will be stickied.

 

[ElSecundo]

No. Sense of humour in a thread will be locked. Whinging will be stickied.

*grin*

 

[SS_1182]

What is this word, "whinging"?

"Whining"?


One is in the dictionary, the other is not. I ask because I see this particular spelling all the time.

 

[Exorcet]

"adding one digit". I've done my share of software development, and the 'simple fix' envisioned by the end user is rarely that simple.

Nothing is certain, but I find it hard to believe that GT was coded in such a way to make adding correct fuel numbers overly difficult.

There is probably no fuel amount tied to specific cars, unless PD is using the constant fuel amount as a place holder and plans to fix it later. However, 100 L of fuel is probably coded somewhere. I'd imagine that to get the right fuel tank size, all they'd have to do would be add a parameter to the car data file, something like

fuel = .5

Then where ever the actual fuel amount is, make a change

gas tank = 100 to gas tank = 100*fuel

"fuel" is just a simple multiplier of the baseline 100 L, so this car would have 50 L.

But hey, I'm not a coder. And I'm certainly not a PD coder.

 

[ElSecundo]

Nothing is certain, but I find it hard to believe that GT was coded in such a way to make adding correct fuel numbers overly difficult.

There is probably no fuel amount tied to specific cars, unless PD is using the constant fuel amount as a place holder and plans to fix it later. However, 100 L of fuel is probably coded somewhere. I'd imagine that to get the right fuel tank size, all they'd have to do would be add a parameter to the car data file, something like

fuel = .5

Then where ever the actual fuel amount is, make a change

gas tank = 100 to gas tank = 100*fuel

"fuel" is just a simple multiplier of the baseline 100 L, so this car would have 50 L.

But hey, I'm not a coder. And I'm certainly not a PD coder.

Yup, it just depends on how the fuel algorithm is handled. If every car is assumed to have 100 liters, and it's not a property for each car, then adding it isn't that simple. If it IS a property of each car, then it's very easy to change for each car, and all they'll have to do is change the pitstop interface, and possibly the gas gauges on all the cars with an in-cockpit view.

Even so, the work is probably divided into groups of coders, so in the simple scenario, somebody researches the fuel capacity of all the cars, the interface team meets with the physics team and the cockpit interface team. Wouldn't be too crazy in that scenario.

 

[FlourescentBlak]

I popped in to this thread and I am slightly miffed to find out that all cars have a fixed fuel capacity. I was hoping to incorporate consumption and capacity into my endurance strategy and car choice.

Is consumption the same or does that vary?

 

[Bluez_Freak]

You mean Gt4 had online? photo mode? improved physics? Seasonal events? damage for online races? Rally? nascar? Day and night? Weather? etc...

You seriously are way off base with this post, and neglected many things that have changed since gt4.

I said the difference of GT5 over GT4 is countless polygons + a basic online platform which is worse than other games. I never said GT4 had online.

But YES GT4 had rally didn't it??? And in fact I remember it was more fun than this stupid special events with the wide gravel/snow roads in the middle of nowhere (generic toscana/alaska scenic) resembling nothing to RL rally.

Nascar I do not care - going round and round does not mean much to me and they did not improve anything significant by adding it. It's just another car with different attributes than others in the game.

Seasonals were a "correction" for the poor leveling/XP system of the game. Don't take this as a "feature".

Physics were already good. They are improved but nothing revolutionary here.

Damage??? LOL... This has been exhausted in these forums. If you are happy with this damage model you have low expectations for such a game.

Day/Night is pretty useless (unless in 24h endurances) and weather is also rather basic and not available for all tracks. (WTF??).

 

[marshy10156]

What is this word, "whinging"?

"Whining"?


One is in the dictionary, the other is not. I ask because I see this particular spelling all the time.

Not a spelling, it is a different word. I don't know if it is UK word or not but it basically means the same thing, just like moaning, complaining, etc.

whinge (hwnj, wnj)
intr.v. whinged, whing·ing, whing·es Chiefly British
To complain or protest, especially in an annoying or persistent manner.

 

[Griffith500]

What is this word, "whinging"?

"Whining"?


One is in the dictionary, the other is not. I ask because I see this particular spelling all the time.

It is in "the dictionary". As mentioned, it's similar to whining - except in the UK whining can be more evocative of the sound (like a whimpering child) whilst whinging is just general belly-aching... But that varies. In essence, they mean the same thing. Broaden your palette

EDIT: didn't read the other post answering you properly. I missed the definition, somehow...

All I'm saying is that there's usually more to the process than it seems from the outside. Another poster referred to it as "adding one digit". I've done my share of software development, and the 'simple fix' envisioned by the end user is rarely that simple. In this case, we don't know, because we haven't seen how the software is built. There are times when a simple fix is just as simple as it looks (generally not), but there are times when the apparently simple fix requires rebuilding the entire structure of the software.

Every task has a cost, and passion for the game only goes so far before you actually have to cut checks for 60 developers. Tasks can and do get cut out as being too expensive for the expected return -- even small tasks.

I agree that software development is less than straightforward most of the time, and that outsiders have no real chance of understanding the code environment in question. But all this rigidness you're talking about can be detrimental to a large team's flexibility when it comes to taking on new tasks. Who knows, perhaps PD have been working on it for years, but it just hasn't made the cut yet. There's lots of stuff that was mentioned over the years but has yet to see the light of day.

PD have rebuilt GT from the ground up, so if this was ever planned to be a reality, it will already be accounted for. They've made a few games now, so I think they've got an idea of the type of backbone required to hang the rest of their code off.

 

[ElSecundo]

I agree that software development is less than straightforward most of the time, and that outsiders have no real chance of understanding the code environment in question. But all this rigidness you're talking about can be detrimental to a large team's flexibility when it comes to taking on new tasks. Who knows, perhaps PD have been working on it for years, but it just hasn't made the cut yet. There's lots of stuff that was mentioned over the years but has yet to see the light of day.

PD have rebuilt GT from the ground up, so if this was ever planned to be a reality, it will already be accounted for. They've made a few games now, so I think they've got an idea of the type of backbone required to hang the rest of their code off.

I hope that's the case! (and it very well could be)

Sorry to make the process sound rigid. It is, but it isn't. Typically for large teams on big projects, tasks will be split so that teams can focus on processes that are similar. One group will be focused on screen interfaces, for example, so they do menus all day long. One team will be responsible for moving data in and out of databases, stuff like that. When a new process is proposed, the process typically involves pieces that affect several teams, so those teams need to meet to discuss how to make the flow the smoothest. This generally results in making sure that no major pieces are left out, accidentally creating emergency situations down the line as the project progresses. When these processes are adhered to, you tend to get a coherent whole, with a better chance of bringing the project in on time and within the budget. I suspect that this project was managed from an artist's perspective rather than an IT perspective (let the artists run free!), and they missed the balance between artistic vision and project management structure. End result -- flashes of brilliance in a somewhat incomplete and very late project.

 

[MustangRyan]

I thought everyone knew by now...

All cars that compete in any Gran Turismo sanctioned race are required to use a universally standard 100 Liter fuel cell, for safety purposes.

Every single dealership, whether selling new cars or used cars, is required to swap out the stock fuel tank and replace it with the much safer proprietary PD Fuel Cell, at absolutely no extra cost to you, the buyer. What they don't tell you is that the cars actually run on albino unicorn urine, which has no harmful emissions, making the cars extra shiny in photo mode.

Now you never have to wonder again.

 

[ElSecundo]

I thought everyone knew by now...

All cars that compete in any Gran Turismo sanctioned race are required to use a universally standard 100 Liter fuel cell, for safety purposes.

Every single dealership, whether selling new cars or used cars, is required to swap out the stock fuel tank and replace it with the much safer proprietary PD Fuel Cell, at absolutely no extra cost to you, the buyer. What they don't tell you is that the cars actually run on albino unicorn urine, which has no harmful emissions, making the cars extra shiny in photo mode.

Now you never have to wonder again.

Dude, you just took all the mystery out of it for me.

Spoiler alert!

 

[Union]

It's a game, chill out.