Gran Turismo 7: Latest news and discussion thread

  • Thread starter sems4arsenal
  • 38,925 comments
  • 4,029,432 views
Just to clarify, I'm talking about blatant using of aimbot cheats and wallhacks. And yeah, it's not something game devs can avoid altogether, however, you have to realise PD selects players for real life events based on the game's online races, not to mention they also stream the races sometimes. I can't imagine something like cheating happening in such cases. It would be a disaster.

Yes I gathered, wall hacks are certainly rife on PS4 as I encounter players from time to time making abuse of 'restricted area's and not being kicked.

To keep it on GT 7 though it would be indeed a PR disaster if it were to happen in a livestream but I think we can be 'fairly' comfortable they have enough secure measures/checks in place for that.
 
Good points, but you didn't adress the hacking concerns.

I'm not sure it needs much addressing. We're proposing releasing on PC at the end of lifespan, so it's not necessary that the PC version be eligible to compete in FIA championships. Arguably that's something that Sony might want to keep as a console exclusive even through a PC release.

And just because a game is on console doesn't mean that it can do without strong anti-cheat solutions. A console can be broken at any time. If they're not doing so already, I'd argue that forcing Polyphony to implement strong anti-cheat can only be for the better. The idea of running an FIA championship, even on console, without any sort of mechanism for detecting and removing cheating makes me rofl ALL over the floor.

Cheating exists on PC in most games to some extent but it's hardly rampant, especially compared to ye olde days of yore. These days it's assumed that any multiplayer game on any platform is making at least some effort to combat cheats, and this has been common for well over a decade.

When there is large scale cheating it seems to come up the most in F2P games, for pretty obvious reasons. On PC you can't really hardware ban someone, and if the game is F2P then banning their account costs them about 5 minutes while they make another one. Failing to cheat in a way that evades detection has a trivial cost to the potential cheater.

This problem is greatly reduced for games that you have to purchase. You just gonna buy another $20 copy of GT Sport every time you get banned?

Regardless, cheating in ranked multiplayer is a big concern, just look at COD Warzone, a series that has a rich history on PC and yet they struggle in keeping cheaters away. I even got killed by cheaters when playing on PS4, with crossplay turned on. Many times actually. I imagine GT would not be so popular in terms of cheating but I think it would be a huge issue.

Considering that the similar games to GT on PC do not seem to have a "huge issue" with cheating, I think you're lacking much support for that argument. If you're basing this opinion only on COD Warzone, that's F2P and very much not in the same boat as a non-F2P Gran Turismo release. A GT PC release has a great many more tools and incentives for people not to cheat than COD Warzone.

And PD is concerned as well, otherwise they wouldn't make online saving mandatory for GT SPORT.

No. Whatever reasons Polyphony have for making online saving mandatory it's not the same as cheating in competitive modes. Cheating in single player or giving yourself access to all cars does not confer a competitive advantage: you're still just as fast or slow as you ever were.

Cheating in multiplayer by altering car performance or physics is an entirely different kettle of fish, as it changes the skills being tested from driving and racecraft to how good can you hack your car.

No matter how butthurt internet elitists want to get, cheating in single player remains totally fine and hurts absolutely no one.
 
...No matter how butthurt internet elitists want to get, cheating in single player remains totally fine and hurts absolutely no one.

I'm fine with your arguments, besides the last sentence. PD has decided to make additional revenue from selling virtual cars for real money, so it kinda hurts them.
 
I'm fine with your arguments, besides the last sentence. PD has decided to make additional revenue from selling virtual cars for real money, so it kinda hurts them.
I'm not and wasn't in the boardroom when PD made that decision. I feel it was an experiment. They put the option out there. Whether people bought cars or not, it's not a fail if noone bought virtual cars. It wouldn't/doesn't hurt their revenue, if noone opted to buy cars with real money. They kept adding DLC cars and continue to gift Daily Workout cars.

It only hurts PD, if noone buy the game.
 
I'm fine with your arguments, besides the last sentence. PD has decided to make additional revenue from selling virtual cars for real money, so it kinda hurts them.

So does playing the game and earning cars through grinding also hurt them? You're not going to spend cash on cars that you've earned through gameplay after all.

They provide a service that unlocks cars. You can choose to use that service or not, and choosing not to is not "hurting" the company any more than growing my own vegetables is hurting the local supermarket. People who alter their single player saves are not necessarily people who would otherwise have spent money on microtransactions. Without the option to "cheat" they might have spent money, or they might not and kept grinding, or they might have decided that the game wasn't fun and stopped playing altogether.

Look at it this way: if I choose to fix my own car I'm not hurting the mechanic down the road that I might otherwise have paid to do the work for me. There's a whole argument over manufacturers trying to set up monopolies on repair and it's generally considered to be very, very anti-consumer.



Me doing what I like with code that's running on my hardware and that never interacts with another user is not hurting Polyphony, it's simply me choosing to do the work to unlock access to content myself instead of paying them to do it for me. That is a completely reasonable option that I have, no matter how much Polyphony and Sony might try to restrict it with toothless terms of service.
 
Regardless, cheating in ranked multiplayer is a big concern, just look at COD Warzone, a series that has a rich history on PC and yet they struggle in keeping cheaters away. I even got killed by cheaters when playing on PS4, with crossplay turned on. Many times actually. I imagine GT would not be so popular in terms of cheating but I think it would be a huge issue. And PD is concerned as well, otherwise they wouldn't make online saving mandatory for GT SPORT.
They really aren't struggling as much as you keep pretending they are, really. You tried making this argument before and ran away from the argument and instead tried to insult those arguing against you. I'm not denying the existence of cheaters, but it's not really as massive of an issue as you want to pretend it is. Last time you told me that I don't see them in my games because I just suck at the game. Ironically, that statement was quite wrong, and actually the other way around.
 
Last edited:
just look at COD Warzone, a series that has a rich history on PC

COD does not have a 'rich' history on PC and that's as a on again, off again fan of COD, lmao. COD has always been more popular on consoles - and aside from Warzone, will quickly return to that once other series (mainly, Battlefield) get back off the ground on the PC side of things.

and yet they struggle in keeping cheaters away.

Mainly because it's easier then ever to buy hacks. And try as Activision might to cut off hacks and mass delete suspected hacking accounts, they have no desire to change their ultimately laughable anti-cheat system, because someone who plays the game ultimately is fattening up the player count numbers that they have already massive numbers of. And that's all that matters considering Warzone's F2P nature.

This, of course, doesn't mean that in a hypothetical situation, Polyphony wouldn't be on the ball with cheats. They very well could be. This is all hypothetical though.

And PD is concerned as well, otherwise they wouldn't make online saving mandatory for GT SPORT.

...which has proven to be absolutely pointless, and has only served as a way to more or less make the game a paperweight if the connections from the previous online save don't match up with the connection currently, effectively making the game always online. Great system to prevent cheating in a game where *checks notes* the vast majority of bad behavior comes from people who are too aggressive in the corners and don't care about arbitrary safety rating numbers, not cheating and changing of save file structures.

I'm fine with your arguments, besides the last sentence. PD has decided to make additional revenue from selling virtual cars for real money, so it kinda hurts them.

Imagine caping for a development company as independent as Polyphony is, who doesn't give a **** about you other then as a number in a quarterly stock earnings report about microtransaction sales and player numbers. What an absolute mark, lmfao.
 
Was watching this Bruce Canepa Facility tour, and noticed the Dan Gurney Indycar that won the Pebble Beach Gran Turismo award in there. I wish PD would also scan the 917 Can-Am car and R15 TDI along with it tbh
I sort of think the R15 would be a bit redundant, between the two iterations of the R18 and especially if the R10 TDI returns. I'm also not sure about Can-Am in general, as there hasn't been much representation in previous GT games aside from the Toyota 7, IIRC.
 
Which is why we need more. Cars they add need to have as many natural/real world competitors as possible, otherwise they're doomed to Group X or extreme BOP.
And that’s why I propose that PD add at least three classes. One for vintage prototypes like the Ferrari 330 P4, one for vintage Grand Tourers like the Shelby Daytona Coupe, and another for the cars that entered the 1954 24 Hours of Le Mans, like the Jaguar D-Type.
 
And that’s why I propose that PD add at least three classes. One for vintage prototypes like the Ferrari 330 P4, one for vintage Grand Tourers like the Shelby Daytona Coupe, and another for the cars that entered the 1954 24 Hours of Le Mans, like the Jaguar D-Type.
I disagree. The better way to handle this is to just put those cars in a simple 'Vintage class'.

After that, PD should bring back GT5's simple (and underrated) method of restricting cars so we can race cars from the correct periods, and correct classes together. (In your case, 'Le Mans Prototype - 1954')


The current N.--- and Gr.- class system isn't meant to be specific enough to have a new class made for different eras. If you do that for too many eras and subclasses, eventually we are going to start getting into the realm of having 20-30 classes in the game (combined with what we have already), and that's just going to be really messy.

Which is why we need more. Cars they add need to have as many natural/real world competitors as possible, otherwise they're doomed to Group X or extreme BOP.

Makes me wonder if PD intends on adding much more vintage open wheel cars along with the Gurney Eagle so it has some friends. Would only make sense.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. The better way to handle this is to just put those cars in a simple 'Vintage class'.

After that, PD should bring back GT5's simple (and underrated) method of restricting cars so we can race cars from the correct periods, and correct classes together. (In your case, 'Le Mans Prototype - 1954')


The current N.--- and Gr.- class system isn't meant to be specific enough to have a new class made for different eras. If you do that for too many eras and subclasses, eventually we are going to start getting into the realm of having 20-30 classes in the game (combined with what we have already), and that's just going to be really messy.

Agreed, you need two systems to cleanly and fairly group cars. Whilst in the real world it makes sense to have a massive amount of groups and regulations across hundreds of racing series around the world that would just fragment and confuse a gaming community. In the real world nobody is faced with choosing from all groups, and you don't have historical classes unless you specifically get into historical racing.

You need one to broadly group cars of the same type (No more than 10-12) and then another to further apply the hundreds of smaller filters, of which only a handful will apply to the broad group.

Makes me wonder if PD intends on adding much more vintage open wheel cars along with the Gurney Eagle so it has some friends. Would only make sense.

It would but we all know PD are not known for always doing what makes sense. We already have a raft of vehicles in GT6 and GTS with no obvious competition where it does exist.

PD are not the only ones guilty of this though, Forza has done the same in the past. Probably a result of licensing hurdles and project management issues.
 
I disagree. The better way to handle this is to just put those cars in a simple 'Vintage class'.

After that, PD should bring back GT5's simple (and underrated) method of restricting cars so we can race cars from the correct periods, and correct classes together. (In your case, 'Le Mans Prototype - 1954')


The current N.--- and Gr.- class system isn't meant to be specific enough to have a new class made for different eras. If you do that for too many eras and subclasses, eventually we are going to start getting into the realm of having 20-30 classes in the game (combined with what we have already), and that's just going to be really messy.

I think you're trying to say something that I agree with. I think the current class system (which originated in GT Sport) is largely fine, but we need more events - both in the campaign and online - that restricts the eligible cars to a subset within each class, such as the Sport Mode Daily Races that limited players to using the Group C racers within Gr.1. That said, I'm not sure if the 1954 Le Mans cars, the late 1960s prototypes, and the 1960s grand tourers can all be placed in a catch-all "vintage" class. Indeed, I recall hearing Kaz mention that each class is roughly based on the general pace they set, with BoP mostly touching things up just a tiny bit.

I do notice that for any given car in GT Sport that's affected by BoP, it's mostly by a very tiny amount, and not necessarily to make sure all cars within a group have the same power, or weight. See Gr.1 for a notable example of this. It's as if PD wants to preserve as much character as possible for each car, even after BoP affects it. So I suppose we'd have to see what sort of times PD gathers from these vintage racers that went to Le Mans, and see if it's worth creating a new group, or two, or even three.

As for that vintage Indy racer that won at Pebble Beach, I don't think it's likely it'll get any friends to race with, and I foresee it being reserved essentially for one-makes in Gr.X. Though if it was able to race with something else in a group, I certainly wouldn't mind.

But back to my main point, I think that if the Aston Martin DB3S, the Shelby Daytona Coupe, and Ferrari 330 P4 all notably differ in their general paces, then it'll warrant the creation of more classes. I, for one, cannot see the Ferrari 330 P4 (plus the Jaguar XJ13 and Ford Mark IV) not being overpowered compared to the former two cars; at least two new classes seem likely.

EDIT: I don't know what the lap times these cars set at Le Mans, but I am able to see how many laps their most successful entrants completed in their respective iterations of the event, alongside their class:

1967
Ford Mark IV - P +5.0 - 388
Ferrari 330 P4 - P 5.0 - 384

1966
Jaguar XJ13 - P 5.0 (hypothetical) - N/A

1965
Shelby Daytona Coupe (as the AC Cobra Daytona Coupe) - GT 5.0 - 304
Alfa Romeo TZ2 - GT 1.6 - DNF

1962
Ferrari 250 GTO - GT 3.0 - 326

1954
Aston Martin DB3S - S 5.0 - DNF
Jaguar D-Type - S 5.0 - 301
Cunningham C4-R* - S 8.0 - 283
Maserati A6GCS* - S 2.0 - DNF

* Pebble Beach winner, has yet to be added to Gran Turismo.

Other notes:
-1954 was apparently the first year that the 24 Hours of Le Mans was televised. There was also only a single class among all entrants.
-For the classes, the number next to a class is the car's approximate displacement in liters. P stands for "prototype," while "GT" stands for "grand tourer," though I'm not sure what the "S" stands for in the 1954 iteration - perhaps "sport"?
-Although the Jaguar XJ13 never competed, we can deduce that its likely class would've been P 5.0, given that it was both a prototype and its engine displacement was 5.0L.

But back to my main point. Between all these Le Mans racers, there's a difference of over a hundred laps, specifically between the Cunningham C4-R, who has the lowest amount of laps among these cars (283) and the car with the most, the Ford Mark IV (388). If you think the Cunningham C4-R can compete with the Ford Mark IV - even after BoP - then no offense, but I think you're insane.
 
Last edited:
I think you're trying to say something that I agree with. I think the current class system (which originated in GT Sport) is largely fine, but we need more events - both in the campaign and online - that restricts the eligible cars to a subset within each class, such as the Sport Mode Daily Races that limited players to using the Group C racers within Gr.1. That said, I'm not sure if the 1954 Le Mans cars, the late 1960s prototypes, and the 1960s grand tourers can all be placed in a catch-all "vintage" class. Indeed, I recall hearing Kaz mention that each class is roughly based on the general pace they set, with BoP mostly touching things up just a tiny bit.

I do notice that for any given car in GT Sport that's affected by BoP, it's mostly by a very tiny amount, and not necessarily to make sure all cars within a group have the same power, or weight. See Gr.1 for a notable example of this. It's as if PD wants to preserve as much character as possible for each car, even after BoP affects it. So I suppose we'd have to see what sort of times PD gathers from these vintage racers that went to Le Mans, and see if it's worth creating a new group, or two, or even three.

As for that vintage Indy racer that won at Pebble Beach, I don't think it's likely it'll get any friends to race with, and I foresee it being reserved essentially for one-makes in Gr.X. Though if it was able to race with something else in a group, I certainly wouldn't mind.

But back to my main point, I think that if the Aston Martin DB3S, the Shelby Daytona Coupe, and Ferrari 330 P4 all notably differ in their general paces, then it'll warrant the creation of more classes. I, for one, cannot see the Ferrari 330 P4 (plus the Jaguar XJ13 and Ford Mark IV) not being overpowered compared to the former two cars; at least two new classes seem likely.


Keep in mind, the 2017 Ford GT is in the same class as the 4,400lb Dodge Charger currently (N700). It's brutal. But its a sign that the purpose of the current class system isn't to make fair races.

I don't know about you, but I have NEVER done an online race that was only regulated by the class, and nothing else. It ALWAYS has either been assisted by BoP, weight/power regulations set by host, or a specific group of cars selected for a daily race. If that's how its going to be in GT7 as well, then I don't see the point of making an entirely separate class for each era of vintage Le Mans race cars. Especially if they end up having a way of regulating cars in a race based on specific categories of racing, along with PP on top of that.


I understand you want it to be easy to race the correct le mans cars together, but the way you suggested of making that happen would make the class system even more confusing than it already is.
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind, the 2017 Ford GT is in the same class as the 4,400lb Dodge Charger currently (N700). It's brutal. But its a sign that the purpose of the current class system isn't to make fair races.
Which is why I think it'd be good to keep the current class system, but have vehicle eligibility restrictions for most events, rather than simply permit all vehicles within that features class. For example, the daily races in GT Sport that only permitted the Group C racers within Gr.1. I think we can agree that in most Gr.1 races, there's a clear meta that develops. Just with Le Mans itself, the Group C racers become dominant when there's no chicanes on the Mulsanne Straight, and the modern LMPs become the best picks when the chicanes are present. This is why I think that not only should most events restrict players to a certain sub-set of cars, but when all cars are permitted, perhaps tuning should be permitted to some extent, if only so that some players can tune their favorites so that they can stand a chance.

In the aforementioned Gr.1 at Le Mans example, where you might have an all-inclusive Gr.1 race, just allowing downforce tuning alone would help a lot to prevent one group of cars from becoming overly-dominant. The modern LMPs and VGTs would be able to have lowered downforce for the layout without chicanes, and the Group C racers would be able to increase it to stand a chance on the layout that includes chicanes on the Mulsanne Straight.

I understand you want it to be easy to race the correct le mans cars together, but the way you suggested of making that happen would make the class system even more confusing than it already is.
I think it'd be quite simple to have two or three new groups. I just can't see a mid-1950s racer being even remotely competitive when facing a late 1960s prototype. At best, I could see one group for the vintage prototypes - a proposed "Gr.1V" - and another for both the 1960s grand tourers and the mid-1950s racers.
 
Last edited:
That's what PD have failed to option in. They do it for Sport Mode races, but leave players with no option to select separate cars to modify classes.
 
That's what PD have failed to option in. They do it for Sport Mode races, but leave players with no option to select separate cars to modify classes.
It definitely would have made open lobby races more fun if we had those same options, as we did in GT5. Not even having the option to setup one-make races is inexcusable.
 
Last edited:
I think you're trying to say something that I agree with. I think the current class system (which originated in GT Sport) is largely fine, but we need more events - both in the campaign and online - that restricts the eligible cars to a subset within each class, such as the Sport Mode Daily Races that limited players to using the Group C racers within Gr.1. That said, I'm not sure if the 1954 Le Mans cars, the late 1960s prototypes, and the 1960s grand tourers can all be placed in a catch-all "vintage" class. Indeed, I recall hearing Kaz mention that each class is roughly based on the general pace they set, with BoP mostly touching things up just a tiny bit.

I do notice that for any given car in GT Sport that's affected by BoP, it's mostly by a very tiny amount, and not necessarily to make sure all cars within a group have the same power, or weight. See Gr.1 for a notable example of this. It's as if PD wants to preserve as much character as possible for each car, even after BoP affects it. So I suppose we'd have to see what sort of times PD gathers from these vintage racers that went to Le Mans, and see if it's worth creating a new group, or two, or even three.

As for that vintage Indy racer that won at Pebble Beach, I don't think it's likely it'll get any friends to race with, and I foresee it being reserved essentially for one-makes in Gr.X. Though if it was able to race with something else in a group, I certainly wouldn't mind.

But back to my main point, I think that if the Aston Martin DB3S, the Shelby Daytona Coupe, and Ferrari 330 P4 all notably differ in their general paces, then it'll warrant the creation of more classes. I, for one, cannot see the Ferrari 330 P4 (plus the Jaguar XJ13 and Ford Mark IV) not being overpowered compared to the former two cars; at least two new classes seem likely.

EDIT: I don't know what the lap times these cars set at Le Mans, but I am able to see how many laps their most successful entrants completed in their respective iterations of the event, alongside their class:

1967
Ford Mark IV - P +5.0 - 388
Ferrari 330 P4 - P 5.0 - 384

1966
Jaguar XJ13 - P 5.0 (hypothetical) - N/A

1965
Shelby Daytona Coupe (as the AC Cobra Daytona Coupe) - GT 5.0 - 304
Alfa Romeo TZ2 - GT 1.6 - DNF

1962
Ferrari 250 GTO - GT 3.0 - 326

1954
Aston Martin DB3S - S 5.0 - DNF
Jaguar D-Type - S 5.0 - 301
Cunningham C4-R* - S 8.0 - 283
Maserati A6GCS* - S 2.0 - DNF

* Pebble Beach winner, has yet to be added to Gran Turismo.

Other notes:
-1954 was apparently the first year that the 24 Hours of Le Mans was televised. There was also only a single class among all entrants.
-For the classes, the number next to a class is the car's approximate displacement in liters. P stands for "prototype," while "GT" stands for "grand tourer," though I'm not sure what the "S" stands for in the 1954 iteration - perhaps "sport"?
-Although the Jaguar XJ13 never competed, we can deduce that its likely class would've been P 5.0, given that it was both a prototype and its engine displacement was 5.0L.

But back to my main point. Between all these Le Mans racers, there's a difference of over a hundred laps, specifically between the Cunningham C4-R, who has the lowest amount of laps among these cars (283) and the car with the most, the Ford Mark IV (388). If you think the Cunningham C4-R can compete with the Ford Mark IV - even after BoP - then no offense, but I think you're insane.
Expanding on this, the cars shouldn't be categorised any more than they need to be, which is by a simple (but as accurate as possible) performance rating. If the car laps the average track in x time it has y rating which is similar to z car which laps in a similar time regardless of when the car was built, what it was built for etc. Beyond that, it's the events that should restrict the cars fromentering by allowing certain types of cars made in certain windows of time with certain perforamnce stats etc.

What I don't want to see if anytihng like Foza 7 where inside the career mode you only race Hot Hatches against Hot Hatches, 90's Supercars against 90's Supercars etc. That career mode was super dull. Have those events that restrict entry to specific cars to replicate the grids (as best as the game can ) of real events, sure, but mix it up a bit as well and use the events to restrict what can enter not the cars themselves.

So for example have an event that is for Hot Hatches that is restricted to hatch backs with 300bhp or whatever, but then have an FF car event where you can also race your hot hatch in a different state of tune maybe restricted to 260bhp, maybe also a junior touring car inspired event where you can also race your hot hatch in yet another state of tune etc.
 
Last edited:
Expanding on this, the cars shouldn't be categorised any more than they need to be, which is by a simpole (but as accurate as possible) performance rating. If the car laps the average track in x time it has y rating which is similar to z car which laps in a similar time regardless of when the car was built, what it was built for etc. Beyond that, it's the events that should restrict the cars fromentering by allowing certain types of cars made in certain windows of time with certain perforamnce stats etc.

What I don't want to see if anytihng like Foza 7 where inside the career mode you only race Hot Hatches against Hot Hatches, 90's Supercars against 90's Supercars etc. That career mode was super dull. Have those events that restrict entry to specific cars to replicate the grids (as best as the game can ) of real events, sure, but mix it up a bit as well and use the events to restrict what can enter not the cars themselves.

So for example have an event that is for Hot Hatches that is restricted to hatch backs with 300bhp or whatever, but then have an FF car event where you can also race your hot hatch in a different state of tune maybe restricted to 260bph, maybe also a junior touring car inspired event where you can also race your hot hatch in yet another state of tune etc.
There are events where the grid need to be restricted, like Super GT (earlier GT complaint for me was the lack of restriction in those, where you can use LMP cars inside that), but yeah if the event is only limited to same type of cars racing the same type of cars, then IMO it doesn't make up the huge car count of various car type well. IMO the benefit of huge car count of various type is getting to know how will a certain car type fare against another (like, both Stagea and Skyline have 276 hp, but how far is the gap between them, or road car vs race car). GT previous event wise do have events that doesn't restrict to only 1 car type (although it means other type instead, like drivetrain, engine type like boxer, etc.).
 
Project Cars was able to add a large variety of categories, so why can't Gran Turismo? It's not "confusing"

Because completely rebuilding the class system into something like Project Cars wasn't what neither of us were talking about.
 
Last edited:
There are events where the grid need to be restricted, like Super GT (earlier GT complaint for me was the lack of restriction in those, where you can use LMP cars inside that), but yeah if the event is only limited to same type of cars racing the same type of cars, then IMO it doesn't make up the huge car count of various car type well. IMO the benefit of huge car count of various type is getting to know how will a certain car type fare against another (like, both Stagea and Skyline have 276 hp, but how far is the gap between them, or road car vs race car). GT previous event wise do have events that doesn't restrict to only 1 car type (although it means other type instead, like drivetrain, engine type like boxer, etc.).
I completely agree, having a good mix of events replicating real world series and the more open ones where you can be more imaginative with what you enter is ideal.
 
Which is why we need more. Cars they add need to have as many natural/real world competitors as possible, otherwise they're doomed to Group X or extreme BOP.
Group X is a huge mess... They could have at least made it like the N class...
It should have been like this :
X100
X200
X300
X400
X500
X600
X700
X800
X900
X1000
 
PD will always make us race various nerffed LMP cars along with buffed SUPER GT and GT3 cars anyway. It’s what makes GT GT, as Kaz said...
No, they won't. As far as I can tell, those cars respectively would be placed in Gr.1, Gr.2, and Gr.3. Right? Or did I miss something?
 
Last edited:
Back