GT5 damage modeling.

[amar212]

I agree with your point as I'm working for Mother Company of other smaller companies which are on their own budget.

But as for PD, I guess Kaz and other seniors are shareholders of PD but PD has to be funded by SCEI, since it's a first-party developer studio. Of course, they are separate companies wiith own financial books and so on, but I can imagine that structure of shares would revealed that SCEI is the major-holder of PD's shares in the same way they bougt other independent third-party studios and made them SCE's first-party (Evolution, Guerilla, Cambridge...).

And I reaaly presume that money is not the issue for PD - of course they can't spend on anything what they want, but I'm pretty much certain that they have a budget which is not limited in traditional way. If they know what they want to achieve to make the game better, they'll get the money for it without further asking.

 

[Dave A]

Good point again, especially with regard to the share structure, Sony no doubt would own the majority of the shares. I still dissagree with the budgetting, even PD would have to justify asking for more money from Sony, at the end of the day if PD take an extra 2 million to add something, Sony will want to know that addition wil mean enough more sales to get that 2 million back. I can see a justification in willingly making a lower profit it's a new series, they want to kick it off, they want it to progress into game 2, game 3 game 4 ect, so they'll make a lower pofit on the first one to get what they need to make sure that new game hits the jackpot sales wise. Then again you could apply that to kicking an esablished series of on a next gen console. The reality of it is probably somewhere inbetween, it will obviously depend on the ammount of money being asked for, but as an example ammount, I just can't see PD asking for an extra £1 million and being given it without having to sit down with the Sony big-wig's and justify why they need that £1 million.

 

[Tenacious D]

Well... one thing I would add to this discussion. Since Gran Turismo is Sony's most profitable franchise, selling more games than any other evidently, Sony apparently is only concerned about getting Gran Turismo out the door and into PS3s as soon as possible. I seem to recall some mention somewhere that the budget devoted to Polyphony is unquestioned, meaning as close to a blank check as you can get. Must be nice.

 

[chameleon2]

Hopefully it will be detailed enough to have scratches on your paint, or losing bumpers as easily as in D1 championships. I really hope fixing your car costs a lot of money just as in real life, if you wreck it really bad, there's no way to restore bye bye car. When you dent it or crash it and it's still fixable just do the repairs costs a lot of money etc etc. The thing is, it has come to my attention driving calm and realllllly ease with the throttle usage is an advantage to your driving. So hopefully, if crashing your car costs a lot of money most will start to drive with sanity!
If you wanna practise or something or go wild just head into arcade mode.

 

[Badsight]

I seem to recall some mention somewhere that the budget devoted to Polyphony is unquestioned, meaning as close to a blank check as you can get. Must be nice.

that kind of shows in GT4 as well , the real life tracks in GT4 , especially the Ring , are the closest to accurate ive seen in any console racer

then there is how smooth GT runs on the PS2 - PD know how to program a good game

 

[road kill]

ok yea damage modeling is great and all but what the biggest gripe for gt4 IMO is the wall physchics.... great example chamonix... basically i can win by having a fast car and riding the wall and you can simply BOUNCE OFF THE WALL while losing very little speed i think this definitley needs to be changed cause the snow tracks would be fun but its too easy to wall ride so if ur adding damage modeling you also need better wall physics and a damage model isnt too much to ask IMO again i think it would make us all be better drivers knowing we cant simply bounce off the wall and drive away like nothing happened...

 

[chameleon2]

You can also try to avoid the wall Much bigger challenge!
It would be cool however to have some interactivity in the tracks, being able to damage surroundings. Guess it's too much asked since there's so much other stuff to do, but it would be cool

 

[Master_Yoda]

ok yea damage modeling is great and all but what the biggest gripe for gt4 IMO is the wall physchics.... great example chamonix... basically i can win by having a fast car and riding the wall and you can simply BOUNCE OFF THE WALL while losing very little speed i think this definitley needs to be changed cause the snow tracks would be fun but its too easy to wall ride so if ur adding damage modeling you also need better wall physics and a damage model isnt too much to ask IMO again i think it would make us all be better drivers knowing we cant simply bounce off the wall and drive away like nothing happened...

Then don't ride the walls.........

 

[FWA2500]

just emagine................

EDIT: hmmm....the pic doesnt want to show up...heres the link to it:
http://www.italiaspeed.com/news_2003_touringcars/news_026_02.jpg


should also be flags if there is damage, if you knock somone out, get blacked, etc.....and yellows for debris

 

[un_peacekeeper]

Flags - nice idea.

FWA 2500, your link still doesn't work.

 

[road kill]

Then don't ride the walls.........

actually i dont but id like to know that something will happen if i do hit the walls

 

[Uncle Harry]

Hopefully it will be detailed enough to have scratches on your paint, or losing bumpers as easily as in D1 championships. I really hope fixing your car costs a lot of money just as in real life, if you wreck it really bad, there's no way to restore bye bye car. When you dent it or crash it and it's still fixable just do the repairs costs a lot of money etc etc. The thing is, it has come to my attention driving calm and realllllly ease with the throttle usage is an advantage to your driving. So hopefully, if crashing your car costs a lot of money most will start to drive with sanity!
If you wanna practise or something or go wild just head into arcade mode.

The only problem I see with paying to fix cars is that players will hit the restart button on the PS3 after a big crash and all that extra programming is wasted.
Get the AI better before implimenting damage and damage repair please.

 

[JohnBM01]

I wanted to start a seperate thread, but in an attempt to avoid being caught for not searching, I decided to step into this thread.

I've read a lot of stuff on GTPlanet. I've read about someone liking the idea of damage so much, that one person was talking about "maybe it (GT5) can encourage crashing." It was the dumbest shizzle I've read on GTPlanet on this issue. A post from (another message board) shown a video of what looked to be a JGTC race from the late 1990s. What happened was that a Wako's Porsche spun out after a rolling start. The Momo Corse Toyota MR2 (or was it a Ferrari? Hard to tell) spins out and bangs into the Right-Front of the Porsche. Next thing you know it...

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

I think both cars caught fire. Thankfully, both drivers got out of their respective cars and seemed to be okay. You can find the video with this link (Windows Media Player required): { http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/content/japancrash.wmv }. This would be automotive damage at its almost extreme levels. Would I want this? No way. I usually say that crashes shouldn't a cheap way to get into racing games. As far as a damage model goes, it has to be a realistic one looking at every aspect of a car getting damaged from front-bumper-meets-rear-bumper-of-leading-car all the way to something similar to crashing into the tire barrier at Laguna Seca's corkscrew. As much as I'd want to imagine realism at its absolute unforgiving, I don't want crashes to be like... life-threatening or completely destroy a car until it can't be repaired anymore. There should be separate crash models for many types of cars. Think about the engine placement in cars, the drivetrain, body covering of the tires (closed-wheel vs. open-wheel), maybe even where the gas cap is. That's the thing I'm notcing in looking at this video from the link I've provided. The gas cap on Porsches are normally at the right-front panel of the car. Where the red car hit the Porsche, it basically was a head-on crash to the Porsche's gas cap. The hit to that part of that part of the Porsche was enough to barbeque both cars.

Again, make the damage model realistic, just don't make it ridiculous or anything close to a Burnout game. I want to race, not crash. Even I've won races in ToCA Race Driver 2 with badly-damaged cars. They'll need to make something quite interesting to make the damage model work in GT5. I'm not going to intentionally crash cars just to realize if they can be damaged like some people do. I'll just get into some hard racing and see how the damage stacks up. I hate damage and destruction, but if I'm going to pay the price for bad driving or suffer from an idiot's mistake, then so be it. You know? The worst combination of bad AI and car damage was "Pro Race Driver." It was probably one of the few games I've played in which I was driving perfectly, until some motherf:censored: straight up bangs into me, taking me to the gravel trap. You talk about the GT series' AI, I've seen/played worse. Believe me. Please?

 

[McLaren]

That video from my understanding implicated an investigation of the course officials as it was claimed they did not get to the Ferrari driver fast enough during his explosion.

 

[FWA2500]

the driver of the Ferrari sued and finally won fairly recently.......i saw a photo of his helmet and damn.........the visor was completely melted and the whole thing was starting to deform........he was preaty damn lucky to get out alive........

well, in GPL, you can get killed in a crash.......should they take it to that level in GT5 asuming you can crash that heavily?

 

[JohnBM01]

My answer is going to be no. Even if there was an emphasis on the driver as much as the car, I'd want the driver to be perfectly healthy. For the sake of realism, I like realism... but I also don't want the realism to be completely unfair or too challenging to gamers. I'd like to think of other gamers besides myself on issues like this. Not everyone is going to be on the same level as myself. I'm not conceited or think I'm better than everyone else. I know that realism is likely going to play a big part of GT5. Granted we have more information on what to likely expect in GT5, I'm not going to judge for sure. I certainly won't favor a feature which only frustrates gamers rather than give gamers a chance.

I think "complete reality" has its limits. I've always believed in making games challenging, but not at the expense of unforgiving reality. Simply put... this is the long way of saying "no, there shouldn't be deaths in GT5. And no, they shouldn't take it extremely far."

 

[Badsight]

they dont need some of the greatly complex things that have been mentioned in this thred

if it was just similer to what is in GTR currently - it would be fantastic

 

[F1GTR]

But it wouldn't be up to 'next gen' standards.

 

[Master_Yoda]

But it wouldn't be up to 'next gen' standards.

Exactly, and thats were MC gets carried away, and make bad games with good graphics.

 

[mflintjer]

I wanted to start a seperate thread, but in an attempt to avoid being caught for not searching, I decided to step into this thread.

I've read a lot of stuff on GTPlanet. I've read about someone liking the idea of damage so much, that one person was talking about "maybe it (GT5) can encourage crashing." It was the dumbest shizzle I've read on GTPlanet on this issue. A post from (another message board) shown a video of what looked to be a JGTC race from the late 1990s. What happened was that a Wako's Porsche spun out after a rolling start. The Momo Corse Toyota MR2 (or was it a Ferrari? Hard to tell) spins out and bangs into the Right-Front of the Porsche. Next thing you know it...

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!

I think both cars caught fire. Thankfully, both drivers got out of their respective cars and seemed to be okay. You can find the video with this link (Windows Media Player required): { http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/content/japancrash.wmv }. This would be automotive damage at its almost extreme levels. Would I want this? No way. I usually say that crashes shouldn't a cheap way to get into racing games. As far as a damage model goes, it has to be a realistic one looking at every aspect of a car getting damaged from front-bumper-meets-rear-bumper-of-leading-car all the way to something similar to crashing into the tire barrier at Laguna Seca's corkscrew. As much as I'd want to imagine realism at its absolute unforgiving, I don't want crashes to be like... life-threatening or completely destroy a car until it can't be repaired anymore. There should be separate crash models for many types of cars. Think about the engine placement in cars, the drivetrain, body covering of the tires (closed-wheel vs. open-wheel), maybe even where the gas cap is. That's the thing I'm notcing in looking at this video from the link I've provided. The gas cap on Porsches are normally at the right-front panel of the car. Where the red car hit the Porsche, it basically was a head-on crash to the Porsche's gas cap. The hit to that part of that part of the Porsche was enough to barbeque both cars.

Again, make the damage model realistic, just don't make it ridiculous or anything close to a Burnout game. I want to race, not crash. Even I've won races in ToCA Race Driver 2 with badly-damaged cars. They'll need to make something quite interesting to make the damage model work in GT5. I'm not going to intentionally crash cars just to realize if they can be damaged like some people do. I'll just get into some hard racing and see how the damage stacks up. I hate damage and destruction, but if I'm going to pay the price for bad driving or suffer from an idiot's mistake, then so be it. You know? The worst combination of bad AI and car damage was "Pro Race Driver." It was probably one of the few games I've played in which I was driving perfectly, until some motherf:censored: straight up bangs into me, taking me to the gravel trap. You talk about the GT series' AI, I've seen/played worse. Believe me. Please?

I must agree with you on these points -- I would want damage to be realistic but not at the disadvantage of poor racing experiences

 

[JohnBM01]

I don't know how to say this, but I'll try. Many people want the absolute hardest. Many people want the absolute perfect. Many people are likely sick of seeing politcally correct or extremely fair. Many people want to take as much damage as possible and be able to have the game completely change at each state of damage. For example, people will want to probably see all sorts of things like people walking around and working in a 30-story downtown building while a race is going on, rather than the first few floors and the rest made out of textures. Many want real people than "cardboard people." People will want to see cars go from showroom shine to jalopies in a junkyard... charred and fried and beaten. There were complaints in GTs 1-3 about invisible pit crews, which was ultimately solved in GT4. Some even said the pit crews in GT4 don't seem to do much of anything, especially as someone was talking about why you don't see the pit crew work on the rear tires. People will have all sorts of beef with all sorts of games, and the Gran Turismo series is no different. I don't think there will ever be a GT game that has all of our concerns addressed in one package. I'm not talking about damage and driving dynamics in general, but stuff like better focus on racing sim, completely human-like AI, completely detailed damage and driving dynamics, etc. In other words, if you can see and do it in real life, then so you should be able to have all these things simulated in a game like the Gran Turismo series. Perfect takes time, and no one game or series can be perfect in every last aspect. Even as people feel bad about delays (I do too, but I don't feel completely violated), things are only perfect in the mind of the person who fantasizes what is perfect.

Now, how did all that relate to damage? Well, it's simple. People have needs and wants in life. Need means that it's required for survival. Want meants something not required for survival, but essential for personal happiness or satisfaction. If people want the absolutely harsh reality of racing games, people would like to be able to have catastrophe translated into button mashing and analog stick tilting. If a racer can have his/her car ripped to shreds in high speed racing in real life(for example: Talladega or Daytona), then the discriminating racing gamer wants to see the car he/she saved up to eventually purchase get smashed and demolished. Should the damage extend to stuff like complete domination and even the driver dying or getting injured? I stated earlier that even "complete reality" has its limits. Don't think about damage in the sense that you won't be happy if you PWNED your car. Learn to accept the positives with the negatives. Beat up your car really bad or just for fun, and you won't have much of a car to race with. That just makes the game harder for you to succeed on the track. Crashing is fun (in the minds of many), right? Well how would you like having to pay for the damages and end up losing more money to do so than the money you make winning races? It's just a game, I know. But you all want hardcore realism, right?

That's why I'm not excited about crashes. I never bank my opinion of a game on only one usually non-important aspect. It will add to the challenge, but nothing revolutionary or ground breaking. Nothing that hasn't been done before or adds to fun. Having said this, I wanted to make the point that people want the most hardcore damage model regardless of what gamers of different ages and experience levels daresay. While not fair, at least it's telling the truth to gamers. Where's the middle ground? That's for PD to know and for us to figure out.

 

[Jim Prower]

I don't even want damage. (gasps and horror for sure) I very much dislike driving in a bent up racer. And I SURE AS HELL don't want to pay for it when i'm done.

If i must concede to having a damage algorithim, at least make it so that the more difficult races don't require you use it, or make it Arcade Mode only.

we've gone without damage for four games, now. why should we have damage for the fifth?

 

[mflintjer]

I don't even want damage. (gasps and horror for sure) I very much dislike driving in a bent up racer. And I SURE AS HELL don't want to pay for it when i'm done.

If i must concede to having a damage algorithim, at least make it so that the more difficult races don't require you use it, or make it Arcade Mode only.

we've gone without damage for four games, now. why should we have damage for the fifth?

With respect to damage modeling -- it would make people try to drive better during the simulation mode -- by charging to repair your bent up ride -- i just see it as a way to improve your own driving habits while racing

 

[Dave A]

Agreed, and the more difficult races, there are no difficult races in GT, there never has been exept when you enter in a notably underpowered car. Games like RD3, LFS S2, GTR ect all benefit from damage, I don't see any reason GT5 can't. It makes for a more immersive experience and it makes you think more about your racing technique, thus improving that said technique. some people say, but I never crash, thoes people are lying, not often maybe but everyone crashes be it them spinning or the AI hitting them. Even if you don't get involved ina crash, the fact the damage is there still has an effect on how you should race. And what happens when two AI cars collide, damage is immersive, it's more realistic and most importantly it's never, not once been a negative point in any racing sim I've ever heared of or played, it's always made the game bettter.

 

[Jim Prower]

I've got this thing against driving a car with bent up sheetmetal. I find it annoying that i can't go as fast as I used to. I'm also afraid that totaling a car would pretty much be "Game over" for first-timers. Perhaps they shouldn't do stuff that real racers have to deal with, like bent frames, drivetrains broken in half....

You know, something that could cost you a brand new Cr 10,000,000 car.

 

[Uncle Harry]

Agreed, and the more difficult races, there are no difficult races in GT, there never has been exept when you enter in a notably underpowered car. Games like RD3, LFS S2, GTR ect all benefit from damage, I don't see any reason GT5 can't. It makes for a more immersive experience and it makes you think more about your racing technique, thus improving that said technique. some people say, but I never crash, thoes people are lying, not often maybe but everyone crashes be it them spinning or the AI hitting them. Even if you don't get involved ina crash, the fact the damage is there still has an effect on how you should race. And what happens when two AI cars collide, damage is immersive, it's more realistic and most importantly it's never, not once been a negative point in any racing sim I've ever heared of or played, it's always made the game bettter.

PD added 5 sec penalties in GT4 to try to make people drive better and avoid crashing.
All we heared was negative feedback of this feature. Basically it did not work.
Seeing how all previous GT games never had damage I personally feel it wont be in GT5.
I dont see how damage can enhance the game. I drive to win when playing video games, if I crashed in GT5 and it had fatal damage I wont be finishing that race. I and many others would be hitting the reset and trying again.
The GT games dont need damage to make them immersive and more realistic. Think about it, these are video games we are playing for fun, and not to replicate real life situations.
If damage was so important to realism I wonder why I only have 4 driving games (all being GT titles) and not bought all those other wonderful games that have damage which makes them better. Is it because the basic games suck and all they have is damage.
Also I wonder why GT games have such a huge following and sales success around the world when they do not feature game enhancing damage effects.

 

[mflintjer]

PD added 5 sec penalties in GT4 to try to make people drive better and avoid crashing.
All we heared was negative feedback of this feature. Basically it did not work.
Seeing how all previous GT games never had damage I personally feel it wont be in GT5.
I dont see how damage can enhance the game. I drive to win when playing video games, if I crashed in GT5 and it had fatal damage I wont be finishing that race. I and many others would be hitting the reset and trying again.
The GT games dont need damage to make them immersive and more realistic. Think about it, these are video games we are playing for fun, and not to replicate real life situations.
If damage was so important to realism I wonder why I only have 4 driving games (all being GT titles) and not bought all those other wonderful games that have damage which makes them better. Is it because the basic games suck and all they have is damage.
Also I wonder why GT games have such a huge following and sales success around the world when they do not feature game enhancing damage effects.

It's not that the 5 sec penalty didn't work -- I was able to complete all of the races in the Special Condition Arena -- I just didn't like the fact that they don't necessarily prepare you for it -- and maybe PD should have added that same penalty to all of the other races in the game 👍

 

[Uncle Harry]

It's not that the 5 sec penalty didn't work -- I was able to complete all of the races in the Special Condition Arena -- I just didn't like the fact that they don't necessarily prepare you for it -- and maybe PD should have added that same penalty to all of the other races in the game 👍

I think you misunderstood me.
Yes it worked in giving 5 second penalties when you hit something, but it did not work to make you a better driver.
For an example take the wet Tasubaka races.
Easy 200 point race. All you have to do is hit the AI car at the first corner really hard, you get 5 second penalty, AI ends up in the sand for 20 seconds, you proceed to easy win. In that sense it does not work.
Also it did not work when AI hits you in the back, gets no penalty, and you end up touching a wall and cop a 5 second penalty.

I dont want to have to fix damage caused by being hit by wayward AI cars.

 

[mflintjer]

OK -- I see what you meant -- yes, you're right. I think those aspects would HAVE to be adjusted for it to work properly for everyone 👍

 

[Tenacious D]

I agree with Uncle Harry. 👍

This "better driving, more immersive" stuff is just blather. I haven't known a single person - other than a handful of weirdoes here - who was excited to find that a race game featured damage. I drive GT4 as if it featured damage but I sure as heck don't miss it.

Now occasionally I'll get silly and ram a car which is irritating me, or spin out into a wall at a finish, but typically I drive as an "aggressive gentleman" and don't do an Earnhardt nudge on a bot's bumper on a turn to get him out of the way, or try and blow through a narrow gap between two cars or a wall.

Mostly what damage does is eat up your money. It's nearly impossible to race in these games or real life without some shaved bodypanels, at least, and it's not cheap to fix. And Racing components cost big time. Does being a good driver mean I don't have damage in a race? Probably not. Do I think it's great to loose some money every race? Heck no. Will I put up with it in GT5? It depends.

As Harry pointed out above, the 5 second penalty was more of an annoyance than an assist to improved driving. Rather than sharpen your skills and allow you to become a bold samirai, it made you a timid little girl half the time, creeping around turns and tip-toeing around the bot car to keep from being gigged. It would have worked better if the bot car suffered the same penalty. Now I HAVE seen it get gigged before, but it's rare. And since it's a cheap aspect of the rally courses, if I had my choice, I'd kill that stupid penalty and race on as I would in real life.

So if damage is cheap and easy to come by in Gran Turismo 5, I'll either tune it down or disable it completely. It depends on how it works out. And I have no doubt whatsoever that the percentage of people who leave it all the way up all the time will be 7-9%, or less. I guess the rest of us won't be "immersed" in the joys of the bodyshop.