Embarrasingly low res cars!

[599GT]

GT5 is like a really hot singer, on stage under bright lights. Looks amazing when everything is set up right, but back stage you see that her mascara is lumpy, she's 10 years older than you thought, and her silky smooth legs are really just skin coloured stockings.
IMO GT5's visuals are only as good as their weakest link, and some of the standards are very weak indeed. The big concern here, though, is that if PD didn't even take the time to rectify some of the vehicles OBVIOUS visual flaws, can one also assume that the physics for each car have also had the same lack of attention? Not just that, but so many cars have incorrect info - like saying that the latest WRX has a 2.0ltr motor when it's actually a 2.5ltr. It just makes me wonder when playing - is this car really driving like it does in real life? Is this accurate at all? How would I even know?
I think the standards, more than anything, rob PD of a LOT of credability when it comes to their claims of perfectionism and attention to detail. It's all PR bulls**t if you ask me...

Not really, PD messed up all the settings (everything's inverted in the settings menu).
That brings GT5's realism into question...

 

[SoCal Senator]

Noticed a bad one tonight. The Merc CL600. The rendering is awful. Gorgeous IRL, but this one looks like a kid drew it.

 

[AssassinTuner]

Not really, PD messed up all the settings (everything's inverted in the settings menu).
That brings GT5's realism into question...

What?!?!?

 

[alx-ndr]

I think the headlights are stickers, like a Nascar.

Pikes peak is always run during the day, as are most hillclimb events so it has no need for headlights.

 

[Sir Tuddle]

one of the worst culprits is my pontiac gto. On the bonnet it is evidently meant to have two wing mirrors but instead of sticking up they are simply painted to the car, flat on the surface, like it's been flattened...

lol

 

[oatmeal so good]

Any variation of the S2000 looks terrible.

 

[eran0004]

They just waste time for crap nobody cares about.

- The premium Tesla. I have yet to see somebody using that car online or just making a photo from it to post it here on gtplanet
- Schwimm/Kübelwagen. Honestly, WTF. Why this 2 stupid cars with 00000000000000 racing heritage, they could have have modelled a pre WWII grand prix car (Mercedes anyone?! Or Auto Union)
- Toyota Prius... WTF! This stupid car instead of a Toyota GT-One or anyother great race car? Or epic stock cars like a Supra etc.

- The premium Testa is great for online races. Awesome torque for races up untl 470 pp. I recommend it. I use it a lot.
- Schwimm/Kübelwagen are only in the game because of the Volkswagen history. It's probably some sort of collaboration with Volkswagen, as the Sambabus is also in the game as a premium model. Personally I like them, but I would have liked a 1920's GP car as well.
- Prius (and the other hybrids/electric cars) is in the game to promote hybrid cars and alternative fuels. I don't really think they can be put against "another great race car", because at least the Honda hybrids are in the game because of collaboration with Honda, I bet there are some serious sponsorship involved there. Without sponsorships of that type, the game would perhaps not have 200 premium cars, maybe they would only have resources to model 150, or just 100? So, you get two Honda hybrids and a Toyota hybrid + another 50-100 other premium cars.

 

[eran0004]

IMO GT5's visuals are only as good as their weakest link, and some of the standards are very weak indeed. The big concern here, though, is that if PD didn't even take the time to rectify some of the vehicles OBVIOUS visual flaws, can one also assume that the physics for each car have also had the same lack of attention? Not just that, but so many cars have incorrect info - like saying that the latest WRX has a 2.0ltr motor when it's actually a 2.5ltr. It just makes me wonder when playing - is this car really driving like it does in real life? Is this accurate at all? How would I even know?
I think the standards, more than anything, rob PD of a LOT of credability when it comes to their claims of perfectionism and attention to detail. It's all PR bulls**t if you ask me...

But are the standard cars really such a weak link to the game? Yes, the flaws show up pretty clear when you take photos (although there are techniques to make the standards look better in photomode), but when racing the difference between premium and standard is more difficult to distinguish.
And again, the reason for including the standard cars into the game was NOT to showcase their claims of perfection and attention to detail, but to bring another aspect to the game: variation. And I'm not talking about variation in detail, although that is a result if this, but variation in the flora of cars. When it comes to the claims of perfectionism and attention to detail, they have been pretty clear to say that the premium range of cars represents this aspect. It's also pretty clear that the future work of PD will hold the quality of the premium cars - not the standard cars.

If you don't want to race a car just because the graphics will make it look bad when taking photos afterwards, then why are you even playing GT5? Is it because of the photography simulator or is it because of the driving simulator?

 

[Supermelon]

Not just that, but so many cars have incorrect info - like saying that the latest WRX has a 2.0ltr motor when it's actually a 2.5ltr.

JDM WRX STI do have a 2.0L engine. The rest of the world gets a 2.5L engine.

 

[cuco33]

But are the standard cars really such a weak link to the game? Yes, the flaws show up pretty clear when you take photos (although there are techniques to make the standards look better in photomode), but when racing the difference between premium and standard is more difficult to distinguish.
And again, the reason for including the standard cars into the game was NOT to showcase their claims of perfection and attention to detail, but to bring another aspect to the game: variation. And I'm not talking about variation in detail, although that is a result if this, but variation in the flora of cars. When it comes to the claims of perfectionism and attention to detail, they have been pretty clear to say that the premium range of cars represents this aspect. It's also pretty clear that the future work of PD will hold the quality of the premium cars - not the standard cars.

If you don't want to race a car just because the graphics will make it look bad when taking photos afterwards, then why are you even playing GT5? Is it because of the photography simulator or is it because of the driving simulator?

I don't like disparity, 1 bit. So I never liked this split of premiums and standards. Sure you can modify, tune and race the standards almost like you can the premiums but many people were not happy that you couldn't change wheels (and then there's the performance effects from getting a lighter, stronger, wider wheel isn't implemented in the game at all). You didn't have many spoilers and kits options (not that there was much to begin with) but the biggest culprit was the lack of cockpit view. I don't normally race in this view but I know some people didn't even buy the game because not all cars had cockpit view (80% to be exact!!).

Not all standards look like crap ports from PS2 and some I'd love to take to these photo mode locations; for photo taking fans another feature locked out of the standards.

 

[ZEROX]

Well, almost all cars/race cars with sponsor and stickers looks horrible upon close up.
But hell, i don't care too much about that. All i want is just to drive the car, whether it have awful render or not. 👍

And 1000th post in a couple of month. Wuzzah!

 

[Hoodie]

But are the standard cars really such a weak link to the game? Yes, the flaws show up pretty clear when you take photos (although there are techniques to make the standards look better in photomode), but when racing the difference between premium and standard is more difficult to distinguish.
And again, the reason for including the standard cars into the game was NOT to showcase their claims of perfection and attention to detail, but to bring another aspect to the game: variation. And I'm not talking about variation in detail, although that is a result if this, but variation in the flora of cars. When it comes to the claims of perfectionism and attention to detail, they have been pretty clear to say that the premium range of cars represents this aspect. It's also pretty clear that the future work of PD will hold the quality of the premium cars - not the standard cars.

If you don't want to race a car just because the graphics will make it look bad when taking photos afterwards, then why are you even playing GT5? Is it because of the photography simulator or is it because of the driving simulator?

I agree with you here - I actually use Standard cars more than Premiums because I only ever use bumper cam and rarely watch the replays. But then this is the concern, if I can drive Standard vehicles that 'seem' to be as accurately modelled physics-wise as the Premiums, but at the same time have GLARING visual faults that could have been easily rectified, it really starts to make me wonder how much time and effort was put into the physics of all cars.
Don't get me wrong, there's no doubt that GT5 handles realistically in general, but I just wonder how realistic the physics of each car, premium or standard, actually are compared to their real world conterparts when PD have taken a look at some of these Standard car models and gone - "good enough".
Oh, and my bad about the 2.5 WRX thing. Did not know that.

 

[Corpsey]

The Castrol TOM'S SUPRA '00 has a really bad texture map

Like in GT Auto, the tires "Michelin" logo is totally blurred out.. they didnt even attempt to get the curves looking smooth or detailed. Not to mention it's slapped on a low res model.