Has Anyone Noticed That There's No Damage In GT6?

[VBR]

I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but there is actually no damage in GT6 whatsoever. All that seems to happen is that the cars look a little bit "dusty" after collisions.

See what I mean for yourself here.

Your thoughts?

 

[mcfizzle]

Not sure what you mean but fenders, hoods and other parts do become crumpled a little. To me it's looks a lot better than GT5 but still has a long way to go.

 

[VBR]

Not sure what you mean but fenders, hoods and other parts do become crumpled a little.

I though so at first too, but they don't. It's more like the dust effect after a crash makes them look slightly deformed, even though they're not. It's clever shading, with no actual body deformation. Take a closer look, & maybe try a crash test experiment yourself.

 

[Morphisor]

I'd say they've done it quite well - it's straightforward and simple, yet works well in conveying the severeness of crashing a car has been through. Without completely ruining the look of the car. On top of that, it also looks to be resource efficient, which I believe is rather crucial at this point.

 

[FT-1]

Hahaha no you are the first!

Well done sir!

Maybe if you read into his post more, you'll realise he has found something worth noting, no need for sarcasm. Yes there is no proper damage, but they've done a good job of representing it. The dents look convincing enough and the scratches look like they have depth. It's much better than the awkward body deformations in GT5.

 

[andryush]

I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but there is actually no damage in GT6 whatsoever. All that seems to happen is that the cars look a little bit "dusty" after collisions.

See what I mean for yourself here.

Your thoughts?

Good observing. In GT5 it was possible to deform body of the car, in GT6 there's only scratches as you said...
Yet another downgrade comparing to glorious GT5... Kaz, what have you done... i hope it'll get fixed in future updates.

 

[Streeto]

I hated the deformation in GT5, it looked like your car was melting.

So, while deformation that looks real would be better, I would take GT6 damage over GT5 any day.

 

[Bakemono36]

There damage in GT6, although its not completely realistic.

 

[eSZee]

I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but there is actually no damage in GT6 whatsoever. All that seems to happen is that the cars look a little bit "dusty" after collisions.

See what I mean for yourself here.

Your thoughts?

I think it's a bit more than just some dust but I think they need to abandon visual damage all together.
Waste of processing power.

 

[HuskyGT]

There is damage. Panels do crumble. Check again.

I think it's a bit more than just some dust but I think they need to abandon visual damage all together.
Waste of processing power.

Yes. I totally agree with this. It's too late to take it off the game, but at least they should give us an option to turn it off completely, not only in Arcade mode.

 

[jlmcmillan1978]

I want GT to be as realistic as possible, therefore I want realistic damage. When you drive a game where one wrong move can total your entire race the challenge is so much greater and it's so much more satisfying when you avoid it all to take the checker. Guys get to experience that risk and reward in real life and that's what I'd like to experience virtually in game, and if PD provides an option to turn it off, no-one who doesn't like it should be concerned about it.

The real problem? As others have said it takes processing power that they just don't have. They need to get physics ironed out and sounds improved before they look seriously at damage. I think after the rather sad attempt at damage in GT5 they realised that there isn't the capability for it with the PS3, so they have downgraded the effect for GT6 (like many other things) and freed up some processor for other improvements.

A quick check of the photo forum shows that many are putting the new damage model to good use however. Because it adds a real driven in the dirt, dust, and weather effect to the cars patina, there are some great 'beater' photos being created!

 

[Ameer67]

Slightly off topic but it relates a bit:

Do the WRC cars that were in GT5 (Focus, Citroen, etc.) still have the great damage modeling with stuff like doors popping off, trunks opening?

 

[Master__Shake_]

Slightly off topic but it relates a bit:

Do the WRC cars that were in GT5 (Focus, Citroen, etc.) still have the great damage modeling with stuff like doors popping off, trunks opening?

I noticed that the WRC Subaru in GT5 had great damage rendering, with the rear hatch opening from multiple rear-end collisions, as well as other parts crumpling. I haven't noticed this kind of damage rendering in GT6 yet, but I try to avoid collisions when racing offline.

 

[pyrates]

Slightly off topic but it relates a bit:

Do the WRC cars that were in GT5 (Focus, Citroen, etc.) still have the great damage modeling with stuff like doors popping off, trunks opening?

I haven't seen it at all and I took some of them for pretty wild rides off track at Willow Springs - before 1.04 that is.

 

[JHB434]

I find it funny looking myself. Looks like hail damage. Weird. One thing GT5 did much better.

 

[Morgoth_666]

I have mixed feelings about the new visual damage and visual damage in general.

On the one hand, it does look fairly convincing as a crumpled and dented body panel. On the other hand, it looks really silly when you have a minor tap on the front bumper and come away with the whole hood looking like it's been smashed and banged back into shape a hundred times by a backyard mechanic.

On the one hand, it's nice that the cars no longer melt and get crazy deformed headlights and body panels. On the other hand it's a little disappointing that none of the panels detach and flop around like they used to.

Damage is something that is really nice for the whole completeness and atmosphere of a game, but I'm much more concerned with how the cars drive and how the game functions, so I'm not too worried about it anyway -- particularly in a game on console that attempts to approach simulation. I'd actually put mechanical damage as a higher priority than visible body damage.

 

[LS Chiou]

Compared to the deformations on skin, would it be any harder or easier to alter the performance?

After collisions, it would be nice to loose some portion of front end DF or distortion on front suspension (misaligned toe or something like that).

But if those are going to degrade the FR, then don't bother.

 

[Bhowe83]

Having good visual damage is useless when physical damage is non-existent offline

 

[Blank_Redge]

Hm. Is there any console game that's a good compromise between driving physics and damage modeling?

GRID: FANTASTIC damage modeling (with appropriate consequences.) Arcade-y physics.

 

[Devil240Z]

I have been thinking this since day one.
GT5 had actual damage to the body of the car. but in GT6 it just looks like you smeared some dust onto the car.

 

[pyrates]

Hm. Is there any console game that's a good compromise between driving physics and damage modeling?

GRID: FANTASTIC damage modeling (with appropriate consequences.) Arcade-y physics.

I liked the damage in Shift 2. Physics were sort of ok but the lag killed it unfortunately.

 

[HBR-Roadhog]

Hm. Is there any console game that's a good compromise between driving physics and damage modeling?

GRID: FANTASTIC damage modeling (with appropriate consequences.) Arcade-y physics.

NFS Porsche Unleashed was the best I have saw. I never actually played the console version but I played the PC version a lot. I assume the console version had most of the same features. Good damage modeling both visual and physical, could damage/repair individual parts on the car, could get pretty expensive trying to repair the car after a crash and of course winning was out of the question if you did much damage to the car. While you could not damage the car enough that it would not move you could surely damage it enough that it was not fast enough to win.

I also liked the fact that there was no option to turn damage off in evolution mode and that the damage was present after the race. You could enter a damaged car into a race but if the engine, drivetrain, springs, dampers, tires, aero were shot then ....

Why NFS has not released a game like this since is just mind boggling as it was quite possibly the best racer of its day and in many ways better than anything they have released since.

 

[f1webberfan]

I like the damage model of GT6! https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/who-likes-the-new-crash-models.297566/
I don't need more.
I don't like crashed cars - they all look ugly.

 

[Lewis_Hamilton_]

Hm. Is there any console game that's a good compromise between driving physics and damage modeling?

It's not released until later in the year and only headed for PC at the moment, but if BugBear's Next Car Game recieves enough backing, (was on Kickstarter, now on Steam) they will release it on console as well. I've already donated/pre-ordered, the early access demo is amazing.

Cars feel heavy, and contact with other vehicles feels weighty and solid. Seeing cars rolling, flicking up clouds of dirt and ripping themselves to shreads in the process looks amazing.

 

[SavageEvil]

Not new to me, but I don't really care for crumpled up cars, but I do like watching my car get dusty after dipping wheels in the dirt. I'm appalled that I cannot turn on mechanical damage in arcade mode...why is the option not there PD? I don't care for damage in GT mode as that mode is too easy and there is always the restart option should I wash out on the final lap except in championships. I hope when they allow mechanical damage toggle I get to feel brake fade and can damage suspension parts as well as transmission and gearbox and engine, perhaps fuel should be affected by how much we dip into the pedal. So many things to simulate to get the balance right is going to be a finicky affair.

 

[CBH]

I though so at first too, but they don't. It's more like the dust effect after a crash makes them look slightly deformed, even though they're not. It's clever shading, with no actual body deformation. Take a closer look, & maybe try a crash test experiment yourself.

I would call them more like scuff marks. Not bad having a crash at 300kmp/h and all you get is a few scuff marks.
BY the way VBR Good post 👍.

 

[gambleboyen]

I'd like to see that when a Veyron goes 400 km/h straight into a wall, you can't drive it any longer.

 

[VBR]

I would call them more like scuff marks.

Yes, I think they are supposed to be scuff marks, or scratches as others have pointed out, that's what PD seems to have been aiming for. However, they look more like dirty dust marks than scuffs or scratches to me.

 

[CBH]

Yes, I think they are supposed to be scuff marks, or scratches as others have pointed out, that's what PD seems to have been aiming for. However, they look more like dirty dust marks than scuffs or scratches to me.

Even if they look like scuff marks or dirty marks they still look terrible after just a small crash but no damage on car. GT5 did much better than this game.

 

[eran0004]

Well, there's damage but there doesn't seem to be mesh deformation. It looks like it's based on textures and bump-mapping. It works at a distance, but not at close inspection.