Official GT Blog: "Pit Stop" by Polyphony Digital

  • Thread starter Dionisiy
  • 2,207 comments
  • 199,978 views
Status
Not open for further replies.
paris_12.jpg

 
Last edited:
Just saw the Peugeot 208 commercial that won an award. It's so crappy, compared to the original, because it's all computer animated (and very poorly animated).

Here's the original 205 commercial, back in the 80's before computers destroyed the art of making films.

 
Just saw the Peugeot 208 commercial that won an award. It's so crappy, compared to the original, because it's all computer animated (and very poorly animated).

Here's the original 205 commercial, back in the 80's before computers destroyed the art of making films.


Well, the new ones has a nice throwback atleast.

Pretty much whats wrong with CGI nowadays tbh. Cars move surreal.
 
Just saw the Peugeot 208 commercial that won an award. It's so crappy, compared to the original, because it's all computer animated (and very poorly animated).

Here's the original 205 commercial, back in the 80's before computers destroyed the art of making films.



So because of crappy animated ones like this, computers have completely "destroyed the art of making films". Have you seen Jurassic park?
 
So because of crappy animated ones like this, computers have completely "destroyed the art of making films". Have you seen Jurassic park?

I have, it wasn't bad. What's bad though is when film makers can't bother shooting live action and just makes a computer animation instead. Even if they had made good animation work in this film I would still prefer the original film because regardless of how well you animate a Hercules plane the real deal is always better.
 
I have, it wasn't bad. What's bad though is when film makers can't bother shooting live action and just makes a computer animation instead. Even if they had made good animation work in this film I would still prefer the original film because regardless of how well you animate a Hercules plane the real deal is always better.

And what if said maker didn't have access to said C-130 and CGI was the only realistic option, then what?

I'm just saying that you proclaiming "Computers destroyed the art of making Film" is rather broadsweeping and seems more based on your severe dislike for POS animation (which I despise too, its why I hate the Scyfy channel) rather then fact. I bring up Jurassic park because its a great example of not only using something in place what isn't available (dinosaurs in this case) and how not all Computer Animation is terrible and if anything, its the benchmark of using it the right way.
 
Last edited:
And what if said maker didn't have access to said C-130 and CGI was the only realistic option, then what?

Then perhaps they should keep looking for a script where they can do a quality job instead of needing to half-ass it.

I agree with you that there's nothing innately wrong with CGI, but there are times when it's not appropriate. Unfortunately, a lot of film makers seem to use it as a cheap get-out-of-jail-free card for difficult shots, instead of using it to make their film better. Computers didn't destroy the art of making film, but it made it a lot easier for hacks to just fob work off on animators, instead of doing their job and thinking about how best the shot could be made.
 
Then perhaps they should keep looking for a script where they can do a quality job instead of needing to half-ass it.

I agree with you that there's nothing innately wrong with CGI, but there are times when it's not appropriate. Unfortunately, a lot of film makers seem to use it as a cheap get-out-of-jail-free card for difficult shots, instead of using it to make their film better. Computers didn't destroy the art of making film, but it made it a lot easier for hacks to just fob work off on animators, instead of doing their job and thinking about how best the shot could be made.

Oh I absolutely agree. Again, I bring up the Scy Fy channel because it is a massive example of this lazy, asinine shooting at its worst (look at most of their original movies. Just nothing but dry acting, bad pacing and terrible abuse of CGI). All I'm saying is that Computers didn't destroy the art of making film, lazy people have destroyed the art of making film.
 
Could be devkit workings. Some of the details do look better. Then again, it's been a while since I've played GT6, so I could just be seeing things I hadn't before.
 
Interesting! I knew the dirt was procedural, just didn't think it was that detailed in most cases.

But if it's actually, technically, damage, then it sort of makes sense it's the same in both shots. It still seems like a mistake to be so apparently detailed.
 
Interesting! I knew the dirt was procedural, just didn't think it was that detailed in most cases.

But if it's actually, technically, damage, then it sort of makes sense it's the same in both shots. It still seems like a mistake to be so apparently detailed.
WAIT THE SECOND!

It turns out the pattern is exactly the same i swear! The PD pitcure is indeed a damage!

20150210_kom_03.jpg

mount-panorama-motor-racing-circuit-jpg.308240
 
So, Midfield is back. :bowdown: And a photomode location to go with it... the photographers of GT6 will enjoy that.

Also, based on the blog entry, it looks like the 2X will be paintable... maybe the Mazda as well?

It should be noted that 1.16 of timing in the MAZDA LM55 VGT of updates, so you are lifting of the ban is paint of Chaparral 2X VGT, here also please by all means try to check.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back