Mechanical Failures - Yes or No?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CodeRedR51
  • 121 comments
  • 7,445 views

Mechanical Damage in GT?

  • Yes!

    Votes: 243 82.9%

  • No!

    Votes: 29 9.9%

  • Don't really care...

    Votes: 21 7.2%
  • Total voters
    293
Possibly...Yes. What I'd like to see more though is realistic damage. Meaning hitting something would have actual consequences rather than oh, You hit a wall at 200 MPH? That's cute, Here have a bit of wheel damage. The car would deform properly, and all the sub-system of the vehicle itself would get affected. Think headlights, engine mounting, frame, aerodynamic profile, radiator, etc..
 
hell yeah , doing some burnouts and drifting and suddenly boom engine failure .

its would simply awesome .
 
ugabugaz
Possibly...Yes. What I'd like to see more though is realistic damage. Meaning hitting something would have actual consequences rather than oh, You hit a wall at 200 MPH? That's cute, Here have a bit of wheel damage. The car would deform properly, and all the sub-system of the vehicle itself would get affected. Think headlights, engine mounting, frame, aerodynamic profile, radiator, etc..
Click to expand...

I'd doubt that is gonna happen unless you want a fridge sized IBM in your room.:(
 
Most of the time people would not know what they did wrong to cause a clutch, gearbox, engine, to fail. Therefore they would be angry that the game short changed them.
Online races won because the fastest guy in the room won a random engine failure would not have the same satisfaction level as winning by actually beating the other driver.
Offline we would have a rash of kids posting on the forums whining about how they lost the 4 hours of Tsubaka after 3.75 hours when their Miata shut down for no reason.
 
frontrunner91
Most of the time people would not know what they did wrong to cause a clutch, gearbox, engine, to fail. Therefore they would be angry that the game short changed them.
Online races won because the fastest guy in the room won a random engine failure would not have the same satisfaction level as winning by actually beating the other driver.
Offline we would have a rash of kids posting on the forums whining about how they lost the 4 hours of Tsubaka after 3.75 hours when their Miata shut down for no reason.
Click to expand...

1 -- So don't play with failures on. Options are cool.

2 -- Random really shouldn't play a part in it, particularly online. Anybody hardcore enough to want failures caused by "defective parts" or "crew mistakes" isn't going to view GT as anything other than a kiddie arcade game, ever.

3 -- See answer 1, and would that really be any different than some of the silly and/or naive complaints we get now?
 
ugabugaz
Possibly...Yes. What I'd like to see more though is realistic damage. Meaning hitting something would have actual consequences rather than oh, You hit a wall at 200 MPH? That's cute, Here have a bit of wheel damage. The car would deform properly, and all the sub-system of the vehicle itself would get affected. Think headlights, engine mounting, frame, aerodynamic profile, radiator, etc..
Click to expand...

Erm... Windshield, steering wheel, seats. 200mph :scared:
 
The X2010 would be even less used if this were to happen 👍.
 
savage388
I'd doubt that is gonna happen unless you want a fridge sized IBM in your room.:(
Click to expand...

Model THIS, Polyphony!





More footage of the crash itself for those unfamiliar:





And lets not forget, every single one of those little bits needs to be able to cut a tire or fluid line, pierce a radiator, wedge itself into an aerodynamically sensitive spot, mark up a windscreen, et cetera. PD really needs to get off their lazy butts and get on this, now.
 
Last edited:
I think the parts failure was great in Colin Mcrae 2005, after every two stages you go back to service, you get a percentage value for a parts performance, say exhaust at 60%, you had two hours for repairs, exhause was a 15 minute job, so 1 and 3/4 hours left for other repairs, and a time penalty for going over. If the exhaust is 95%, use the time elsewhere, say change tyres etc. This would be great for GT, not sure how it would be implemented but, would be nice for rally, enduro's, and championships!
 
Morgoth_666
1 -- So don't play with failures on. Options are cool.

2 -- Random really shouldn't play a part in it, particularly online. Anybody hardcore enough to want failures caused by "defective parts" or "crew mistakes" isn't going to view GT as anything other than a kiddie arcade game, ever.

3 -- See answer 1, and would that really be any different than some of the silly and/or naive complaints we get now?
Click to expand...

1. Most people arent gonna know why it broke so they'll think it is random.

Yes options are cool no I didn't say people had to use it.

2. Really stretching to get the most out of my choice of the word random lol.

never mentioned a pit crew in my post

yes breakdowns should be random to be realistic

3 Didn't say it would be different. It would happen
 
frontrunner91
1. Most people arent gonna know why it broke so they'll think it is random.

Yes options are cool no I didn't say people had to use it.

2. Really stretching to get the most out of my choice of the word random lol.

never mentioned a pit crew in my post

yes breakdowns should be random to be realistic

3 Didn't say it would be different. It would happen
Click to expand...

Just trying to say while those things will happen, they don't have to be deal breakers. Not that I am fully on the side of wanting this stuff in GT - I wouldn't mind but I'm not sure how important it is. I would however like to see tires pop instead of turning to stone(not that it would change much), and - perhaps - suspension breaking from massive impacts.

You used the word random, so I assumed you meant random(which many games have actually seemed to be). And I thought it was obvious that "defective parts" and "crew mistakes" were simply what you would call those random failures to make them seem realistic. :)
 
And one more stupid post on the topic of "random." To me, it seems most sensible if one were to do this to have a certain threshold of driver-caused-damage(overrevving, stupid shifting, severe curb-blasting) at which point there would begin to be a very low percentage of things "randomly" failing, and building from there as further damage is caused. So if you drive super-clean you shouldn't see any failures unless you want to truly frustrate people. But if you ride the rev limiter all the way down les Hunaudieres every lap for 12 hours you can be pretty well assured of a kablammo.

But if it isn't perfect it can easily be terrible(F1 2010 punctures, anyone?) so I would really not expect to see stuff of this sort outside of serious sims on PC in anything but it's simplest form for a long time. Partly because of course everyone wants to play on the "hardest" level and as stated, a lot of them will get really angry when their car dies "for no reason."

So for GT, probably not worth it.
 
It'd be a very cool inclusion, but I would prefer it to be switchable (like current mechanical damage), but only in an on/off scenario, as apposed to weak and strong settings.
 
I don't want mechanical damage that bad really.

However I do want cars to rust over time, and engines to increasingly misfire when worn out.

♥
 
Mechanical failures and stuff like blown engine if pushed to much on the rev limiter etc would be awesome...
Also, like brakedisc wear over time, and suspension failures, blown tires etc too...

However IF they will make such features in GT5/future GT's, they will need to make a system that works really good...
Not blown engines in every race etc etc...

But yes please, mechanical damage thank you! :dopey:
 
Nope.

... unless there's a separate physics "setting" that includes these mechanical failures that we can choose.
 
Those saying "it's not worth it" I think skipped the part in my post where I said you could turn it off. ;)
 
R1600Turbo
Those saying "it's not worth it" I think skipped the part in my post where I said you could turn it off. ;)
Click to expand...

A lot of people did seem to miss that part.

I think it isn't worth it [for them to spend the time] because GT is very much a mass market game. While it can be frustrating for some Burnout fans for sure, PD still has to make decisions based on a huge percentage(millions!) of its customers NOT being highly dedicated, racing-educated sim fans. I'm fairly sure most casuals won't want it at all, so how much time can you expect them to devote to something that can easily go very very wrong?

Look at the awesome damage system we have now. More comprehensive failures absolutely must be done miles better than that, and do you really think they will be? I don't. Kaz may like racing, but GT from it's inception has been Virtual Showroom first, Racing Simulator second.


Summary: Too popular a game means too many casuals plus PD's history equals they'll **** it up.
 
I'd want!
Perhaps it should happen depending on how well maintained the car is. How many times it has been crashed, distance driven when broken, and times repaired.
 
I like the idea of different types of mechanical failures due to abusing your car. If you are constantly redlining your engine you will be shortening the life of your engine therefor having to rebuild it more frequently.
 
Imagine 20 hours into a 24 hours endurance. You suffered a transmission failure, from first position to DNF. Must be a real FML moment.
 
deadcat777
Imagine 20 hours into a 24 hours endurance. You suffered a transmission failure, from first position to DNF. Must be a real FML moment.
Click to expand...

It'll give endurance racing another meaning, as you've got to keep the parts in your car in good shape, just like in real life.
 
counter345
It'll give endurance racing another meaning, as you've got to keep the parts in your car in good shape, just like in real life.
Click to expand...

Although it will be annoying for your B-Spec driver to have that happen. It would also mean you may need to babysit the driver all 24 hours.:ouch:
 
deadcat777
Imagine 20 hours into a 24 hours endurance. You suffered a transmission failure, from first position to DNF. Must be a real FML moment.
Click to expand...

That would be the end to my ps3 my controller and possibly my tv.:D way too frustrating for a game, I mean I'm not trying to stroke out from some video gaming :lol: I could certainly do without that feature.
 
Yes this would be a great feature to the game. Espically teaching drivers the consquences of if you rev too long or pushing the car way beyond the limit of a stock or tuned and built to the teeth cars.

But if you can turn it on/off as a pre-race setup before any event or like Eric W said in a earlier post, in a more professional level mode that's optional to play for anyone who wants a challenge.
 
deadcat777
Imagine 20 hours into a 24 hours endurance. You suffered a transmission failure, from first position to DNF. Must be a real FML moment.
Click to expand...

Makes me flash back to rFactor. Never drove that long, but lots of 3-6 hour races.

You're running along several hours in. Had a few moments near the start but managed to pull through ok, some bodywork fixed up in the pits and back at it you went. Closing in on the leaders in your class. Then you look in your mirror and see a thin trail of smoke behind you and you KNOW you're done.

Nothing you can do, nothing your crew can do. You don't know when it's going to happen but you know sometime in the next 30-45 minutes you're going to park, and the finish line is an hour twenty away. So you just drive on like a zombie, dying a little more inside every time you look behind you, praying that this will be the one time it holds together for two hours. But it never does.

20 hours would just make it even better.

Damn I love racing. :D
 

Latest Posts

Back