GT5 damage modeling.

[un_peacekeeper]

Damage modeling will be a good addition, but the cockpit view will be an even better one. If they could somehow add a focus to it, you know like how your eyes can shift focus while you are driving depending on where you are focusing your vision. Like how when you are focused on the road, you can see quite a lot, but should you look toward the dash, the road view is slightly diminished, but you never feel cooped up in your car. In video games the view is static, the focal point never changes, and you get this cramped feeling in the car, where you see too much of the car interrior and not enough road. Anyone know what I'm talking about? If they can emulate what your eyes do while driving, that will be freaking AWESOME.

that's a great idea!

 

[Dave A]

But impossible to do with a modern TV.

 

[un_peacekeeper]

not really, you can simulate things that are out of focus by blurring them ever so slightly. Just like the depth of field in GT4's photomode.

 

[Dave A]

And your going to hook the TV up to your retina's just how exactley.

 

[skylinevspec2]

May I ask why the majority of GT enthusiasts demand for damage modeling for the future GT5? I know one reason being that fans want to live up to the most realistic level of gaming since GT claims itself the Real driving simulator, but what is another reason besides that? I agree, it is exciting to see the cars flip, crash, and collide but in my opinion. I don't think that's the game's purpose. All I hear from everyone is the craving for damage modeling more than anything else. It is obvious that everyone knows what would likely occur in the event of a vehicle crash. The main objective in the gameplay is to strategize using driving technique in order to successfully win the race. What I don't understand is the player wanting to crash their car intentionally which is irrelevant to the game's role.

If everyone wants to see cars getting crushed in a video game, why not play any of the BURNOUT series or any other game that involves destruction? In addition, I think bumping the car to all kinds of objects is caused by a lack of driving ability, and is not necessary to win the race.

Sorry, but I am just bothered about the fact that Model damage is in great demand besides other options that can make the game even more better. I know there's something else everyone would want more than having the opponents in races trying to bump into you, and it's just a waste of time for the game developers to invest their time into. Personally, I think it's sad to see our dream cars in video games getting damaged. Anyone agree?

 

[Dave A]

One word, immersion. GT claims to be a sim, sure sim's don' need damage, but it does provide a more real and a more immersive experience. The other side is that including damage adds an extra element to the gameplay, the races become more strategic, you get that extra layer added into the game. Do you push a little harder for that extra position and risk a crash or do you keep content with where you are. Do you rush a move or do you bide your time and patiently wait for the perfect opportunity. Do you go for record laps once your ahead and out of traffic or do you drive fast, but clearly within your limits.

All these choice being made during a race would have direct influence from a damage engine. I've not played a single sim that's suffered beacuse it's included damage. The most common argument against it is that people don't want to crash near the endof an endurance race, well yeah, no-one does, but the choice is down to you. Do you keep the car well within your control of do you push for fast laps. Also most of the people that argue against it have never played a true sim, peoplee that play GTR, LFS S2, rFactor ect never have these problems of crashing out of 2 hour races in the last few laps. They may crash in the race, but they just pit in and repair the damage.

You say model damage isn't in great demand, on the contrary, I think it's quite the most demanded thing to be included in the GT series along with decent AI. Theres a difference between wanting damage, and wating to play a destruction derby type game, one is where the purpose is the crash or crashing is a by product of the goal, these games arn't sims, the crashess are there for the wow factor. In a sim it's there to offer that extra level of immersion and it's down to you how you use that.

 

[McLaren]

Hmm, why not implicate Forza's win deal?

If you have damage off, you don't win as much with damage on.

Damage, sounds, interiors, and AI should be the main focus right now.

 

[Nattefrost]

Hmm, why not implicate Forza's win deal?

If you have damage off, you don't win as much with damage on.

Damage, sounds, interiors, and AI should be the main focus right now.

Yup, you would need the extra prize cash for maintenance and repairs, so this seems the way to go. The game could also do with a bonus system, which grants you, well, bonusses for clean races. Everything that encourages you to be a more careful driver is a possible good idea.

 

[Tenacious D]

I know that having invulnerable cars is an arcady aspect. However, I can't see any improvement on that to have pit damage repair. THAT'S not arcady?? Meh.

I seriously doubt that there are more than 5-10% of the fans clamoring for car damage. But there is one thing about it, damage forces you to drive more like an actual racer. You don't grind your way through a pack of cars to get better position on them in real life, you wait for openings and try to pounce on them without either banging into another car, a wall or leave the track. With the much higher definition of reality the PS3 will offer, hopefully the feeling of being in the car will be even greater.

I do admire people who drive in cockpit or nose cam, because it's so difficult to get a sense of what's going on around them, how close competitors are and how much more you can press them. Those who can do that get big kudos from me.

 

[Dave A]

Pit repairs isn't arcady, not at all. Don't you ever watch GT racing, or motorsports in general. I've seen entire gearboxes replaced mid-race, radiator problems fixed, aerodynamic parts replaced, it all happens in real races. In car camera's only seem hard to people that arn't used to them, you get the hang of where the car is on track very fast and once your used to it, thereward is great.

 

[Tenacious D]

Well.... yeah, but the games I'm familiar with have complete repair in the pit which is rather gamey. But then again, if you're going to repair a car, you might as well go all the way. Don't mind me, I guess I'm just typing to hear myself type.

 

[Master_Yoda]

Well.... yeah, but the games I'm familiar with have complete repair in the pit which is rather gamey. But then again, if you're going to repair a car, you might as well go all the way. Don't mind me, I guess I'm just typing to hear myself type.

Your typing for a high post count.

 

[Dave A]

Why's it gamey because the games you've played have complete repairs in the pit, where should they repair them, on the track? Car's don't often get pushed into the garage, they can replace a lot of replacable parts in a matter of minuets, theres no point wasting time pushing the car into the garage for most pit repairs.

 

[McLaren]

Watch a lot of the FIA GT races from 1995-1999 Tenacious if you can find them.

The race I was at in '97, I think, was at Laguna Seca in which one Storm had been spun into a wall by a Porsche.
The car was brought into the pits, and with some time and some duct tape, it was out again and managed to reclaim 7th.

The only thing about a full-detail car repair in games is developers don't want to a car to be totalled, and then have the player spend the realistic amount of time it would take to fix everything.

 

[MasterDriver]

you'd need at least a 1GB memory card with high-speed data transfer .

You have a nice understanding, but not to pull hairs. 1GB is a lot of memory to store a model. I mean i have made games, where a meg of so was used as a model file; However You need to store atleast 2 meshes.. The current and the Default Mesh for when you repair it. I'm sure they wouldn't put in 'staged repairing'.

anyway... Definetly not a GB of memory is needed for one model. id say 4MB's If that.. depending on the density of the PS3 models.. just my 2 cents

 

[Tenacious D]

For you above discussing both in-game and real-life pit repairs, I am aware of that. I've seen races where fender walls have been recreated with duct tape. And I do know that those crews do everything they can to get a damaged car back out to manage what they can for a finishing position.

What I'm quibbling about is how somethings being "arcady" are bad, while other arcady things are okay. A racing sim which gave you a 100% racing experience would actually be a chore. I'm all for glossing over reality here and there. Spending 10 minutes watching my pit crew trying to salvage a wreck isn't my dream of "the complete racing game."

Oh, and as for the damage model, it's entirely possible that PD or some consulting company could come up with a system of defining a car model so that whether it was damaged or not, it took up the same amount of memory. I'd be fascinated to see just how these game companies are working on this aspect of their games, and how that data is being managed. I still want to be able to save my cars as wrecks.

 

[McLaren]

What I'm quibbling about is how somethings being "arcady" are bad, while other arcady things are okay. A racing sim which gave you a 100% racing experience would actually be a chore. I'm all for glossing over reality here and there. Spending 10 minutes watching my pit crew trying to salvage a wreck isn't my dream of "the complete racing game."

Which is exactly why it isn't implicated into most sims.
They play the Sims to feel what it's what like to "drive" the real thing.

 

[Master_Yoda]

can't PD just BUY the car, and damage it how ever they feel like?

 

[Tenacious D]

McLaren: fair dinkum.

Hopefully with a system which has the potential to outperform a similarly spec'ed PC, the game will give everyone what they want. Well... except for blingification. I still have trouble with that.

 

[GT-driver]

can't PD just BUY the car, and damage it how ever they feel like?

They'd need a budget of about $20 milion

 

[Master_Yoda]

They'd need a budget of about $20 milion

They have alot larger budget of that.

 

[Bentley]

One thing I'm absolutely curious about is how would they vividly test out damage modeling for Gran Turismo 5 or Vision whichever, for some of the most rarest cars, including the Ferrari FXX or someother other models, since they are trying to make this more realistic will they actually intend to damage real cars, kind of doubtful, but knowing KAZ and his wicked imagination you never know whats safe or not. Bring the fact the there is only "20 Ferrari FXX" and rarest of all there is one that is "black".

 

[Tenacious D]

One thing about that aspect, is that it's possible that Sony could purchase the crash damage data and film on all those cars from the manufacturers. Although... on the other hand, I can see how such a cost would make such data prohibitively expensive, and thus we may not see any damage in GT5 at all. How many games with car damage have 600+ vehicles in it??

On the other other hand, Gran Turismo is such a hot franchise that most manufacturers might go to whatever lengths it took to get included, so who knows.

 

[Dave A]

They have alot larger budget of that.

I doubt GT4 will have cost PD even $20 million to make, PD don't make £30 on each copy of the game sold, they make maybe £3 on each copy of the game, say GT4 sells 20 million copies, thats £60 million net profit, then you take away local taxes and your left with at best £40 million, then you take away development costs, say it did have £15 million for arguments sake, that leaves £35 million, then you have company wages for all 70 staff who worked on GT4 for thoes 4 years, say an average wage of £20k per year for each employee, that's 70 x 20000 x 4 years thats £5.6 million so now you have £29.4 million, then you have the office and running to pay for, that's not cheap and time that by the 4 years development and that's going to be a similar figure to the wages. All of a sudden that net profitl is over %60 less, and I've not covered all the things PD will spend money on each year. Sure they'll end up with a nice profit, but isn't that the point, it's possible they have a budget over $20 mill, they'd still make a profit, but I don't see any reason the budget would be that high.

Oh and for PD to crash test every car in GT4 for real, that would push development costs well over $20 million, the car's alone would cost that much then you have licensing, legal, and all the other gubbins you have to pay for in a games development so it's would in effect cost roughly $20 million on top of whatever budget they have for development. Then they wouldn't make much of a profit, not enough to justify the extent of the development anyway. Fortunately, we all know they don't have to really crash every car, sometimes a developer will crash some old bangers to get an idea of what the impacts in the game should look like, but your talking about cheap cars that won't pass their next mot and maybe spending a few thousand on the whole thing.

 

[Bentley]

I doubt GT4 will have cost PD even $20 million to make, PD don't make £30 on each copy of the game sold, they make maybe £3 on each copy of the game, say GT4 sells 20 million copies, thats £60 million net profit, then you take away local taxes and your left with at best £40 million, then you take away development costs, say it did have £15 million for arguments sake, that leaves £35 million, then you have company wages for all 70 staff who worked on GT4 for thoes 4 years, say an average wage of £20k per year for each employee, that's 70 x 20000 x 4 years thats £5.6 million so now you have £29.4 million, then you have the office and running to pay for, that's not cheap and time that by the 4 years development and that's going to be a similar figure to the wages. All of a sudden that net profitl is over %60 less, and I've not covered all the things PD will spend money on each year. Sure they'll end up with a nice profit, but isn't that the point, it's possible they have a budget over $20 mill, they'd still make a profit, but I don't see any reason the budget would be that high.

Oh and for PD to crash test every car in GT4 for real, that would push development costs well over $20 million, the car's alone would cost that much then you have licensing, legal, and all the other gubbins you have to pay for in a games development so it's would in effect cost roughly $20 million on top of whatever budget they have for development. Then they wouldn't make much of a profit, not enough to justify the extent of the development anyway. Fortunately, we all know they don't have to really crash every car, sometimes a developer will crash some old bangers to get an idea of what the impacts in the game should look like, but your talking about cheap cars that won't pass their next mot and maybe spending a few thousand on the whole thing.

Talk about getting right down to the facts of it all, talk about technicality.. So wonder what KAZ really has in store for this issue.

 

[chickenz]

PD has what I think is a viable option.

1.Limit the initial number of cars/tracks in the game at release.

2.Get everything right about those tracks/cars including damage modeling, sound, and physics.

3.Using Sony's online system for ps3, release new cars/tracks/features/tweaks as they are completed for download.

This allows them to release the game closer to ps3 launch and generate more sales of GT5 as the game evolves. Retail versions can be code updated annually or something. Anyone should be able to either download updates via ps3 or for those with low bandwidth they can get updates off the discs in PSM magazines or something.

I think it's about time for consoles to utilize the ability of the internet to deliver game content and not just the ability to play online. A driving simulator whose polish only increases over time would probably have a higher value in most gamers minds than a fixed in stone product that will never see improvment (until you fork over another 60 bucks 4 years later for the sequel).

With increasing development costs and gamers failing to see the value in increasing game retail prices, I think this business model makes a lot of sense for the future. It can be done and other companies are already using this business model.

 

[Bentley]

PD has what I think is a viable option.

1.Limit the initial number of cars/tracks in the game at release.

2.Get everything right about those tracks/cars including damage modeling, sound, and physics.

3.Using Sony's online system for ps3, release new cars/tracks/features/tweaks as they are completed for download.

This allows them to release the game closer to ps3 launch and generate more sales of GT5 as the game evolves. Retail versions can be code updated annually or something. Anyone should be able to either download updates via ps3 or for those with low bandwidth they can get updates off the discs in PSM magazines or something.

I think it's about time for consoles to utilize the ability of the internet to deliver game content and not just the ability to play online. A driving simulator whose polish only increases over time would probably have a higher value in most gamers minds than a fixed in stone product that will never see improvment (until you fork over another 60 bucks 4 years later for the sequel).

With increasing development costs and gamers failing to see the value in increasing game retail prices, I think this business model makes a lot of sense for the future. It can be done and other companies are already using this business model.

I must say that I absolutely agree with your idea, this idea will help make the release date of the game more accurate, and with downloadable updates it will make it a greater game. 👍

 

[Tenacious D]

I'd still rather see a Gran Turismo 4.5 upgraded, and a full fledged high content GT5 when it can be released with tons of tracks, cars, music, races, etc. If GT5 was like GT3, but upgradeable in a year or so, I'd be sorely disappointed, especially if it was $60, and upgrade cost of $20. I'd riot all over Sony's front lawn.

 

[amar212]

I doubt GT4 will have cost PD even $20 million to make, PD don't make £30 on each copy of the game sold...

PD studios is subsidiary company of SCEI, not a third-party developer. PD is the first-party, making all of theirs employees SCEI's employees - on the SCEI's payrole - as I presume.

Which closely corresponds with the turnover and the profit, as first-party developers do not have to pay for various fees as other (third-party) should: developer kits, hardware scripts, preformance analysers, various console-related hardware, fee for PS development, fee from game retails, etc.

GT series is THE most important game-sofware for SCEI, period. Ever, period. Notice that Sony is the licence holder for all the brands, cars, imagery and so on on the company level, not PD. Also notice thhat Sony Company has great relationship with all japanese car manufactorers, together with all big world-players, such as Daimler-Chrysler Group, WV Group and so on.

Many of companies pays Sony to be featured in GT series, some are in for free, while some requires to be paid. I can not speak about the exaqct data, but I can imagine that overall financing is in the fat-plus for SCEI.

Also notice that PD is obviousely a developer who gets most support from SCEI. GT series is superior to all other PS software in technical terms, coding, programming and hardware-usage. GT was the ONLY game on PSone that had magnificant 50fps mode, GT3 was the first game to feature double horizontal resolution on PS2, while list of technical marvels in GT4 is too long to be written, so I'll just stick to progressive-scans.

Majority of senior-staff is probably under the management contracts with SCEI. And do not forget that Kazunori is vice-president of SCEI.

What is my point? GT series budget has nothing to do with PD. And wrecking 100+ cars is no pbolem when GT series is in question. If they need to do it, they'll do it. Whatever they want to do, they can do it. Money is not the issue. Period.

It's nice to live in PD world .

 

[Dave A]

You make a good point but PD may be owned by Sony, but it is not Sony, all PD employee's will be on PD payrolls and PD will have thier own money pot, they'll get funding from Sony from time to time if they need it and Sony think the funding will come back in extra profit, but Sony and PD are two seperate companies. At the end of the day, PD have a budget to stick to and a set profit to be made to justify the budget, just like any company. I've worked for many companies owned by another company, for example I used to work for a company called Masterserver, owned by a company called TBS (not TSB), I was on Masterservers payroll, Masterserver had it's own bank accounts, they were a seperate company and could run as a seperate company they just got funding from TBS while they were being set up, once they were set up they had to justify anything they did by bringing in a profit, if Masterserver didn't make a profit, it was Masterserver who lost money and TBS wouldn't chuck cash at them for no reason. That's just one example of many that are all similar. You get a job at PD, your on PD's payroll. And money is THE issue, it always is in business, PD is a business, they have to make a profit overall or their business is not a viable one and will shut down. Sony may hold the licenses ect which make sence because it simply makes it easier for Sony to use thoes licenses for other projects. But the cost of thoes licenses still has to be made up, and I presume Sony will lookl to make thoes costs back from profits from publishing the game.