GT Sport will have damage

[Fat Tyre]

Mechanical damage should be in every serious race game. It;s the only way of making sure there are consequences for actions. Visual would be nice yes, but at the end of the day it's eye candy and not anywhere near as important.

Visual damage can be just as important sometimes if what has gotten damaged for instance limits your visibility or it gives you a visual clue from the cockpit as to how nurse the car until you make a pit stop (say you are in an open wheel car and smashed the front right suspension slightly for example).

I remember doing a V8 race at Bathurst and smashing my mirrors against the walls, my windshield cracked into pieces. Mechanically the car was fine but having limited visibility coupled with not being able to use my mirrors to defend for position added a degree of excitement. So yeah, I think it should be both.

 

[Tassie_tiger]

Visual damage can be just as important sometimes if what has gotten damaged for instance limits your visibility or it gives you a visual clue from the cockpit as to how nurse the car until you make a pit stop (say you are in an open wheel car and smashed the front right suspension slightly for example).

I remember doing a V8 race at Bathurst and smashing my mirrors against the walls, my windshield cracked into pieces. Mechanically the car was fine but having limited visibility coupled with not being able to use my mirrors to defend for position added a degree of excitement. So yeah, I think it should be both.

Good point. 👍
I hadn't considered that.

 

[Matej]

Visual damage can be just as important sometimes if what has gotten damaged for instance limits your visibility or it gives you a visual clue from the cockpit as to how nurse the car until you make a pit stop (say you are in an open wheel car and smashed the front right suspension slightly for example).

I remember doing a V8 race at Bathurst and smashing my mirrors against the walls, my windshield cracked into pieces. Mechanically the car was fine but having limited visibility coupled with not being able to use my mirrors to defend for position added a degree of excitement. So yeah, I think it should be both.

I'm sure most people would than simply change the camera view from cockpit to hood or third-person until they fix the damage. They would also know how to nurse the car just by looking at the car damage icon on the screen.

It's a good point, but only works in reality. While playing a video game, there are so many shortcuts you can take that makes featuring visual damage quite meaningless, in my opinion.

 

[cutmeamango]

A shattered windshield would require you to pit and probably abandon. Losing a side/rear-view mirror could face a similar fate depending on car/category.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Why are we basing the argument against physical damage on what would or wouldn't fly on a real circuit? When has that ever been an important aspect of the racing presented in the GT franchise?

 

[Johnnypenso]

I'm sure most people would than simply change the camera view from cockpit to hood or third-person until they fix the damage. They would also know how to nurse the car just by looking at the car damage icon on the screen.

It's a good point, but only works in reality. While playing a video game, there are so many shortcuts you can take that makes featuring visual damage quite meaningless, in my opinion.

You may have the option to force cockpit view although I highly doubt it.

 

[Matej]

I believe it would be far more easier and valuable to properly model how vehicles respond when touching each other. That mixed with decent mechanical damage, and you get a great result.

 

[Imari]

I'm sure most people would than simply change the camera view from cockpit to hood or third-person until they fix the damage. They would also know how to nurse the car just by looking at the car damage icon on the screen.

It's a good point, but only works in reality. While playing a video game, there are so many shortcuts you can take that makes featuring visual damage quite meaningless, in my opinion.

I think that if you're featuring multiplayer then it plays a fairly important role in allowing you to estimate the condition that other cars are in. I know that's the case in iRacing, you can make some decent assumptions on the damage and how their car will be affected from what it looks like, and that can inform how you drive.

 

[glassjaw]

GT5/6 had damage but not visual?

Wow, I had actually forgotten how bad it was.

 

[MisterWaffles]

GT5/6 had damage but not visual?

I'd rather not have damage at all than look at that waste of a 458 all race.

 

[MXH]

The damage model in GT5 was pathetic. The cars looked as if they were melting, rather than actually being damaged. GT6 was only slightly better, if I recall correctly.

 

[Matej]

Yeah, the melting damage doesn't look good. I would rather blacken points of impact without deforming the car, it looks better and is probably easier to program as well:

 

[AKps3]

The Subaru had a pretty good damage model

 

[Michelin Man]

The Subaru had a pretty good damage model

Yea I remember the licensed rally cars in GT5; i.e. the C4, Impreza, Focus etc, actually having quite a good damage model. I remember playing with a mate and being impressed at the level of damage as the door on his C4 WRC fell off

 

[MXH]

Yea I remember the licensed rally cars in GT5; i.e. the C4, Impreza, Focus etc, actually having quite a good damage model. I remember playing with a mate and being impressed at the level of damage as the door on his C4 WRC fell off

Did that really carry over to GT5? I only remember seeing it being shown off in demos at conventions/game shows - which did look great, and still does.

 

[Ameer67]

Did that really carry over to GT5? I only remember seeing it being shown off in demos at conventions/game shows - which did look great, and still does.

Yep. I think there was even a trophy for losing one part of the car. (I earned it by losing the driver's side door, because weight reduction. )

 

[Physical]

I feel like people are forgetting the implications to visual car damage in racing games. I just want to write this so that it is clear to those who do not understand the problem with car damage.

It is not the devs fault but the car manufacturers fault. Car manufacturers DO NOT like their cars being totalled in racing games. They don't want consumers to think that their cars impact capabilities are being realistically represented in the racing game, cause they're not. This especially in a sim.

Now I know what you're thinking..."oh but the older game had better damage". Yes, yes they did. However things have changed and car manufacturers are more strict on what kind of damage can be done to their cars more now than ever before.

Notice how any non licensed cars (fictional cars) in games have fantastic damage, but licensed cars do not?

I'm sure game devs can work something out with manufacturers to create better damage, but it will cost the devs a ridiculous amount to do it. Remember theres like 50+ manufacturers in racing games now, so devs have to make agreements with all of them... Yikes!! This will realistically never happen.

People need to stop expecting insane high caliber visual damage in licensed racing games and need to face the facts...IT MOST LIKELY WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

 

[Ameer67]

People need to stop expecting insane high caliber visual damage in licensed racing games and need to face the facts...IT MOST LIKELY WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

I really do not think anyone is expect Burnout-level damage as you're making it out to be...

 

[Johnnypenso]

I feel like people are forgetting the implications to visual car damage in racing games. I just want to write this so that it is clear to those who do not understand the problem with car damage.

It is not the devs fault but the car manufacturers fault. Car manufacturers DO NOT like their cars being totalled in racing games. They don't want consumers to think that their cars impact capabilities are being realistically represented in the racing game, cause they're not. This especially in a sim.

Now I know what you're thinking..."oh but the older game had better damage". Yes, yes they did. However things have changed and car manufacturers are more strict on what kind of damage can be done to their cars more now than ever before.

Notice how any non licensed cars (fictional cars) in games have fantastic damage, but licensed cars do not?

I'm sure game devs can work something out with manufacturers to create better damage, but it will cost the devs a ridiculous amount to do it. Remember theres like 50+ manufacturers in racing games now, so devs have to make agreements with all of them... Yikes!! This will realistically never happen.

People need to stop expecting insane high caliber visual damage in licensed racing games and need to face the facts...IT MOST LIKELY WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

Facts you say? Here's a dev saying that limited vehicle damage is an urban myth and that other companies use it as an excuse to not include damage. The only limitation is on blood and guts:

 

[Pillo-san]

Was a long time I watched the interview, but AC have not the best damage out there to be honest. So does it mean that he is implying they are lazy? hehe

 

[Physical]

Facts you say? Here's a dev saying that limited vehicle damage is an urban myth and that other companies use it as an excuse to not include damage. The only limitation is on blood and guts:

And here's a dev saying otherwise...

 

[NixxxoN]

Yeah, the melting damage doesn't look good. I would rather blacken points of impact without deforming the car, it looks better and is probably easier to program as well:

This is about as bad and as far from realistic as the melting one of GT5. It doesnt "look" quite as bad, but its still as bad.

The Subaru had a pretty good damage model

This is kinda good but still far from realistic. That's the problem, there's far more than those few pieces falling off.

See thats the problem, its extremely hard and resource hogging to implement some realistic damage model. Look at the euro NCAP crash tests for example to see how much bits and pieces flying that would require, plus extremely complex formulas to make it look realistic depending on the impact



This is extremely complex guys, be realistic

 

[Michelin Man]

The Subaru had a pretty good damage model

To be honest, I'd be perfectly happy with that level of visual damage we saw on the rally cars in GT5, coupled with with at least a basic mechanical damage setup. Otherwise I won't lose sleep over it, but that's just me I guess .

 

[Tired Tyres]

And here's a dev saying otherwise...

I know which one I'd believe and it isn't the wookie.

 

[Pillo-san]

I know which one I'd believe and it isn't the wookie.

Yet the wookie has implemented better Damage model in his game

 

[bremics]

Yet the wookie has implemented better Damage model in his game

I made sure to completely strip every car I could in PCARS at least once just for giggles.

 

[Robbks]

All I really care about for damage is, busting out the lights, knocking off mirrors and a few crumples in the panels/ bumpers. maybe take some chunks out of the front bumpers

I Would like to see aero damage implemented like F1 does.
i.e if you smash into the rear of someone and rip off bits of the bumper, then your front end grip goes south, or adds extra drag in a straight line..
it should reduce the amount of rear ending that goes on.

Steering and tyre damage is always a good one to make people keep it on the road, even way back in the original Colin McRae Rally, if you stacked it into teh trees from pushing too hard, you suffered until the next service point.
It taught you how to drive without hitting things

 

[Griffith500]

...

This is extremely complex guys, be realistic

But this same argument applies to mechanical damage.

If you're going to the trouble of representing any kind of physical deformation within the physics engine, for the purposes of affecting the driving physics, and that isn't just a case of binary switches and pre-set "damaged" states thresholded out according to "impact strength", then things are immediately more complicated than any purely visual system.

At that point, it's very easy to tag on a visual representation, as long as you build the data structures etc. to account for that usage from the start.

 

[Matej]

If you're going to the trouble of representing any kind of physical deformation within the physics engine, for the purposes of affecting the driving physics, and that isn't just a case of binary switches and pre-set "damaged" states thresholded out according to "impact strength", then things are immediately more complicated than any purely visual system.

I think GT2 had the same system (impact strength + impact location). With few more refinements, it could work great.

...

I was thinking about this, offline career mode should have a system to encourage and reward clean driving. Something like "no-contact" achievement that would award you with extra money after each race or even a rare bonus car if you clear all the races without hitting anything.

 

[NixxxoN]

But this same argument applies to mechanical damage.

If you're going to the trouble of representing any kind of physical deformation within the physics engine, for the purposes of affecting the driving physics, and that isn't just a case of binary switches and pre-set "damaged" states thresholded out according to "impact strength", then things are immediately more complicated than any purely visual system.

At that point, it's very easy to tag on a visual representation, as long as you build the data structures etc. to account for that usage from the start.

I disagree... mechanical (and not visual) damage has to be much easier to implement because you dont need to work on 3D models of all cars, plus all the bits and pieces, but only on formulas to alter the behavior of the car in a crash.