Gran Turismo 7: Latest news and discussion thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter sems4arsenal
  • 50,904 comments
  • 7,890,324 views
With all the recent Pikes Peak talk here & posts by Gran Turismo themselves, here's a link to the official raceday livestream, which is scheduled to start at 1PM GMT (UTC 0)

Now that the 3 main favourites have ran, here are the results & this years King of the Mountain, bar any unbelievable surprises:
Romain Dumas is 99% this years King of the Mountain, driving the Ford Super Mustang Mach-E (EV)
IMG_2081.webp

IMG_2080.webp

Robin Shute a likely 2nd in his custom-built Sendycar V1, while Simone Faggioli & Diego Degasperi were both using Nova Proto NP01's.
Edit: All runs complete. Top 4 remained the same as above. Here's the winning run:
 
Last edited:
I hope this "track" never shows up in GT. You could have four normal tracks for the same effort. It's pretty easy too name four tracks that you can race on rather than one track that is only for time attacks.
 
I hope this "track" never shows up in GT. You could have four normal tracks for the same effort. It's pretty easy too name four tracks that you can race on rather than one track that is only for time attacks.
Kuala Lumpur, Hockenheim, Sugo, Road America, Sebring, Dubai, Donington, Paul Ricard... List can be extended easily by a few more tracks i'd like to see before Pikes Peak
 
Citation needed
Why. Four tracks instead of that? How would that need citation. Anyone can think up four tracks they'd like in the game. Sebring, Indianapolis, Road America and Mosport for a start
 
Why. Four tracks instead of that? How would that need citation. Anyone can think up four tracks they'd like in the game. Sebring, Indianapolis, Road America and Mosport for a start
How do you know for the same Effort, 4 tracks could be added

Edit: PD don’t just think of a track and it’s suddenly available in GT7 :lol:
 
Last edited:
Does GT7 model the loss in power that you suffer due to changes in altitude? If not, PD just seem like the kind of studio who wouldn't be satisfied with just releasing Pike's Peak without implementing that.
 
I don’t know. I don’t think there was power loss in GT2. Plus, there’s no dirt physics to model like the classic course. I’d love to know why the course hasn’t been in GT3-6 and why it hasn’t been in GT Sport or May or may not not be in GT7?
 
How do you know for the same Effort, 4 tracks could be added

Edit: PD don’t just think of a track and it’s suddenly available in GT7 :lol:
By watching the video of the winner onboard. If that doesn't tell you how much effort is required nothing will.
 
Last edited:
By watching the video of the winner onboard. If that doesn't tell you how much effort is required nothing will.
This is what you said:
I hope this "track" never shows up in GT. You could have four normal tracks for the same effort. It's pretty easy too name four tracks that you can race on rather than one track that is only for time attacks.

How does watching an onboard mean that Pikes Peak takes as much effort as 4 normal tracks would? Where’s the evidence for this (hence citation required).

Please educate yourself on how the English language works because you’re extremely vague now, do you mean the effort to drive up pikes peak is 4 times more than a regular circuit track? Because that’s not what you said
 
Last edited:
This is what you said:


How does watching an onboard mean that Pikes Peak takes as much effort as 4 normal tracks would? Where’s the evidence for this (hence citation required).

Please educate yourself on how the English language works because you’re extremely vague now, do you mean the effort to drive up pikes peak is 4 times more than a regular circuit track? Because that’s not what you said
because it took 10 bloody minutes to do so it's not exactly Brands Hatch indy is it.
 
because it took 10 bloody minutes to do so it's not exactly Brands Hatch indy is it.
How does that mean PD could have 4 normal tracks instead of Pikes Peak though? Lap time is irrelevant to whether having PikesPeak in the game vs 4 “normal tracks”

look at what you posted
 
Last edited:
DK
Does GT7 model the loss in power that you suffer due to changes in altitude? If not, PD just seem like the kind of studio who wouldn't be satisfied with just releasing Pike's Peak without implementing that.
This would of course be awesome however I'd assume this feature would be too complex to implement for each indivual car in a videogame (or at least all ICE cars). In the same way how the hybrid deployment of the WEC Hypercars and LMP1 cars is simplified in the game as well.
 
Last edited:
How does that mean PD could have 4 normal tracks instead of Pikes Peak though? Lap time is irrelevant to whether having PikesPeak in the game vs 4 “normal tracks”

look at what you posted
10 minutes mate 10. That's longer than the 'Ring and it's not even a race track. It's a time attack route.
 
10 minutes mate 10. That's longer than the 'Ring and it's not even a race track. It's a time attack route.
The Pikes Peak hillclimb isn't bigger than the Nordschleife (12.42 miles vs 12.944).

Regardless of length, I don't see how PD creating a track that's only a road going through a forest and up a mountain would "take the same effort as 4 other normal tracks". Quite arbitrary.
 
Last edited:
10 minutes mate 10. That's longer than the 'Ring and it's not even a race track. It's a time attack route.
I think the fundamental issue here is how exactly this translates into approximately the same amount effort for Polyphony Digital to get it into the game as [insert four other tracks here].

Personally, I don't see how that adds up.

Licensing alone would be four times the effort for four other tracks, because they'd need to negotiate with four other bodies, four times, for four licences instead of one (one which they seemingly already have). Landscape scanning would be much lower time budget for one Pikes Peak than four other circuits (and probably two). Trackside object scanning for a permanent circuit would be an order of magnitude higher than Pikes Peak which commonly features somewhere between nothing and a guardrail. There'd be little-to-no need to create AI splines for Pikes Peak, and quite a lot of need to make multiple (okay, one and a half) for any other track. And so on.

It's a long, difficult track to drive, but I'm not sure how that becomes a case of "four normal tracks for the same effort" of getting it into the game on PD's behalf.

Could you expand on why you think it would be?
 
Saying that building one 10-minute Gran Turismo track takes the same amount of work as building four 3-minute tracks is like saying that if a builder can construct one large house in a year, they could have built three smaller houses in that same time.

That sounds reasonable at first if you're only looking at the total square footage, but that's not how construction works. Every house needs its own foundations, site preparation, utility connections, permits, inspections, planning, and project management. Those aren't things you do once and then get three houses for free. You have to repeat them for every separate house you build.

Track development works much the same way. The length of the track is only one part of the job. Every individual track needs its own layout design, terrain work, scenery, landmarks, AI racing lines, pit lane setup, timing sectors, optimization, testing, bug fixing, and countless polish passes. A lot of that effort is per-track overhead, not something that scales directly with lap time.

So if you compare a single 10-minute track to three separate 3-minute tracks, you're not comparing one big project to three thirds of a project. You're comparing one project to three projects, each with its own design, implementation, and testing requirements.

The total amount of asphalt might be similar, but game development isn't just laying asphalt. That's like judging house construction purely by floor area and pretending foundations, plumbing, permits, and inspections don't exist. The reality is that three separate tracks often require significantly more work than one longer track because so much of the effort has to be repeated for each one.
 
I think the fundamental issue here is how exactly this translates into approximately the same amount effort for Polyphony Digital to get it into the game as [insert four other tracks here].

Personally, I don't see how that adds up.

Licensing alone would be four times the effort for four other tracks, because they'd need to negotiate with four other bodies, four times, for four licences instead of one (one which they seemingly already have). Landscape scanning would be much lower time budget for one Pikes Peak than four other circuits (and probably two). Trackside object scanning for a permanent circuit would be an order of magnitude higher than Pikes Peak which commonly features somewhere between nothing and a guardrail. There'd be little-to-no need to create AI splines for Pikes Peak, and quite a lot of need to make multiple (okay, one and a half) for any other track. And so on.

It's a long, difficult track to drive, but I'm not sure how that becomes a case of "four normal tracks for the same effort" of getting it into the game on PD's behalf.

Could you expand on why you think it would be?
Adds up because four tracks at 3 and a bit miles would take as long to scan as Pikes and be a lot more useful to most players.. Hell they could restrict that to Japanese tracks to cut down on travel. I wasn't on about licensing at all since there's no real way you can find hard figures for that.
 
Whatever one thinks of it, for or against, they have proven time and again that they don't care.

Back in GT6 days they added the Red Bull Ring and Mid-Field Raceway, updated Brands Hatch and Monza in a completely unexpected way, also updated Suzuka. That didn't stop them from adding on top of that, a fictional 27km circuit accompanied by a unique game mode which could be ran on a PS3....
 
Adds up because four tracks at 3 and a bit miles would take as long to scan as Pikes and be a lot more useful to most players.
That's just the track surface, which isn't even close to the hard bit - and you can scan at quite some pace these days. With a couple of scanning cars you could do the whole 12.4 miles in barely an hour, as it's not a wide road. Notably a wider track surface would require more cars - Silverstone would need at least four of them - but that doesn't mean more time unless you don't have access to that many cars.

Everything else is the hard bit. Trackside photography would be far easier for Pikes Peak than virtually any other track because there's sod-all there for most of it - sometimes literally. There's no buildings, structures, infrastructure, signs... just rocks and drops. To be fair, there's a lot of rocks, but they are just rocks.

Environmental scanning would be easier than for virtually any other track on the same basis - this is what Willow Springs already looks like, 1.5 miles from the track in direct line-of-sight:


1782383198374.webp


And there's a chunk they don't need to scan because you'll never see it (if you add free camera boundaries) due to being obscured from view at any angle from the track surface by virtue of being a load of hairpins up a mountain. Pikes Peak might be long but only has a comparable footprint to a permanent circuit is - being generous, the whole course is about 2.4 square miles, while the Silverstone site is about one.

It just wouldn't take four times as long to model Pikes Peak as [pick a circuit]. Twice as long... maybe. That's part of why it's baffling that in the umpteen years so far we've still not seen the bloody thing in the game.


And while I've used Silverstone as an example, we can all pretty much forget about it.
 
I hope this "track" never shows up in GT. You could have four normal tracks for the same effort. It's pretty easy too name four tracks that you can race on rather than one track that is only for time attacks.
We already have a lot of racing circuits in the game, adding one hillclimb track would bring more value than four more racing circuits.
 
Rumor: They're happy to add the things people don't want.
Just like that passionate SUV.

When you think, "I don't need this," it's actually added. So, think you need it!
 
Back