Outdated Tracks

[Devilb0y]

Any idea why PD doesn't update tracks like Monaco, Daytona (the chicane), and Indy Road Course? It's not like they have to rescan the whole thing, or do they? Are there any other tracks that I miss?

 

[Tornado]

Laguna Seca is still using the layout it had in 2001.





And Monaco isn't updated because it was (purposely) never correct from the first place, because it's not "really" Monaco. That's why it's glass smooth and twice as wide in places. As to why it still looks exactly the same as it did in 2001 (not even retextured like Trial Mountain and the like)...

 

[SkierPS3]

To accurately redo the tracks they'd have to at the very least visit the track in person when it was set up to document the changes necessary. It really isn't worth the effort on their part. Also I'm curious, what's inaccurate about Daytona and Indy Road? (Tornado already explained the Monaco issue)

 

[dj-smurph]

The indy layout is the old f1 track. It got rredesigned for motogp. Grand am and indy cars use that layout

 

[Devilb0y]

Laguna Seca is still using the layout it had in 2001.





And Monaco isn't updated because it was (purposely) never correct from the first place, because it's not "really" Monaco. That's why it's glass smooth and twice as wide in places.

Didn't know about Laguna. "Monaco" is rather wide, but it does resemble a lot the old Monaco, 80's (look at onboard from Senna) specially around the swimming pool

 

[Tornado]

Also I'm curious, what's inaccurate about Daytona and Indy Road?

Indianapolis no longer has the layout that it had for the USGP. Many of the turns have been redone so the track can be more safely used with MotoGP.

That's also not counting the new changes that it had put in just this year (which was some minor turn reprofiling and a new raised section so the track has an elevation change) for the IRL race on the road course.

 

[ed24]

GT series doesn't generally add bike layout (eg Suzuka) so i can see why the MotoGP layout didn't make it, but for GT7 i could see them adding the new Indy layout.

 

[Devilb0y]

Indianapolis no longer has the layout that it had for the USGP. Many of the turns have been redone so the track can be more safely used with MotoGP.

That's also not counting the new changes that it had put in just this year (which was some minor turn reprofiling and a new raised section so the track has an elevation change) for the IRL race on the road course.

So was the USGP lay out completely scraped? Or is it still used by other major series besides MotoGP?

 

[Devilb0y]

I'm curious, what's inaccurate about Daytona and Indy Road? (Tornado already explained the Monaco issue)

The bus stop chicane is way shorter than the one on GT.

 

[Tornado]

It's gone. They tore up the concrete that was there and replaced it with the current layout. You don't have to use the chicane that bypasses the banked portion of the track, obviously, but the hairpin turns are gone and some of the other corners are a bit more open. The MotoGP infield, but utilizing the F1 direction and banked section is what FM4 used.

GT series doesn't generally add bike layout (eg Suzuka) so i can see why the MotoGP layout didn't make it, but for GT7 i could see them adding the new Indy layout.

That's actually what the issue is with Daytona. Well, they also repaved the track since it was modelled, so it isn't as bumpy as it used to be; but the current model of the track didn't emulate that very well anyway so the main issue is that the bus stop chicane is the one that the cars use and the second smaller one together:

The real layout

And then GT5's.

 

[Mubble]

I'm already fearing that GT7 on PS4 will only have about 10 to 20 tracks at most. Considering how long it takes to photograph, map and render a track, PD are going to have to re-do all the tracks from scratch at some point.

 

[Devilb0y]

Also don't any of you think valuable run off area is being blocked on some tracks, e.g Monza, both chicanes are blocked, I know maybe it to prevent people from cheating but for some of us that race clean does are valuable parts of the track that are just not there. I thought they would remove those since no we can cut across the middle of some tracks.

 

[Zuku]

I'm already fearing that GT7 on PS4 will only have about 10 to 20 tracks at most. Considering how long it takes to photograph, map and render a track, PD are going to have to re-do all the tracks from scratch at some point.

Doubt that they've already just redone these tracks most of them should be ready for GT7 in fact I expect that PD will have at least 50 tracks not counting layouts.

Little off topic, but that is a pet peeve I have with PD counting different layouts as a new track if it's from the same one. Even going so far to count Reverse as well as separate track.

 

[ukfan758]

Indianapolis no longer has the layout that it had for the USGP. Many of the turns have been redone so the track can be more safely used with MotoGP.

That's also not counting the new changes that it had put in just this year (which was some minor turn reprofiling and a new raised section so the track has an elevation change) for the IRL race on the road course.

Indianapolis MotorSpeedway really needs a re-scanning in my opinion. I have a picture of the first turn chicane from my seats at the 2013 Indianapolis 500. In GT6, the track's barrier extends almost to the track and the old F1 road course layout still exists, which today, no longer exist.

 

[ederss7]

it seems they have not laser scanned the Le Mans track since 2005. major modifications were made at the Dunlop chicane and Tertre Rouge in 2006 and 2007. also in 2011 the Mulsanne straight was repaved.

 

[Mubble]

Doubt that they've already just redone these tracks most of them should be ready for GT7 in fact I expect that PD will have at least 50 tracks not counting layouts.

I disagree. Most of the original tracks will need to be re-done, with the exception on Autumn Ring, GT Arena, Matterhorn, Apricot - and that's assuming those 4 were modelled for GT6 with GT7 in mind. Again Silverstone, Brands, Willow, Ascari, Panorama are new for GT6 and might be good enough for GT7, but I doubt any of the others are. That's only 10 or tracks potentially good enough for PS4.

Little off topic, but that is a pet peeve I have with PD counting different layouts as a new track if it's from the same one. Even going so far to count Reverse as well as separate track.

I agree. All this '30 locations with 70 layouts' crap from GT5 caused a lot of confusion prior to release. You'd think PD would just say '30 tracks'.

 

[Buck-O]

I agree. All this '30 locations with 70 layouts' crap from GT5 caused a lot of confusion prior to release. You'd think PD would just say '30 tracks'.

"30 Locations with 70 Layouts" is only confusing to people who have problems with reading comprehension.

 

[XPOWER180]

"30 Locations with 70 Layouts" is only confusing to people who have problems with reading comprehension.

Exactly. To me for example, Silverstone is the location. Yet it has 4 clear and distinctivly different layouts to offer.

 

[ColouredBadger]

I think they need to pull their fingers out their arse and actually make an effort. Monaco (which isn't Monaco) and Tokyo Route 26452645 (what ever it is) haven't changed since GT4, the textures and edges are still poor. All of the tracks from GT5 have been copied and pasted into the game and if you drive a GT5 premium car on a GT5 track in GT6 then you cannot tell the difference between the two games. It's just them being lazy saying "We have 1200 cars and 70 tracks" when in actual fact they have 500 cars and 700 unfinished ones and 30 tracks with different layouts. There are 5 layouts for Sarthe, all the same, just with slight differences. We don't need a non-day/night transition track and the exact same track with day/night transition. Just have the day/night transition and use the HDD space saved to remodel the tracks that haven't been done since 2004/2005 and to update the GT4 content such as standards and the poor tracks. There are 2 versions of each layout of Daytona (exactly the same), 2 layouts of Motegi (exactly the same) and the list goes on and on.

On a side note they need to add the Bugatti Circuit at Le Mans. Take out the 2005 version, the none day/night versions and add Bugatti. Also they should add Valencia to it as well. it was in Tourist Trophy and all they'd have to do is update it. Somehow I don't think it will happen though as Polyphony is all about Quantity over Quality and if they don't pick their game up soon then the PS4/Xbox One titles will take over. GT is a very outdated thing as a whole and they need to do something about it.

Rant over.

 

[varmintx]

I think their time would be better spent putting in new tracks rather than re-doing old ones. I don't particularly care if a track is up-to-date; in fact, I would be happy if "classic" versions of tracks were a touted feature.

 

[chzsln485]

Exactly. To me for example, Silverstone is the location. Yet it has 4 clear and distinctivly different layouts to offer.

Wasn't it like this in GT4 and GT5 Prologue? You selected a location and then forward or reverse layouts from within that menu, if I am remembering this rightly. If this was the case, why oh why did they take a step backwards and just stick them all in a disorganised list?

 

[XPOWER180]

My referance with Silverstone is that as a world circuit it has no reverse configuration but instead has 4 unique layouts. To me that is perfect, it provides a global location with 4 different challenges each suited to different types of cars.

 

[BrandonW77]

I think they need to pull their fingers out their arse and actually make an effort. Monaco (which isn't Monaco) and Tokyo Route 26452645 (what ever it is) haven't changed since GT4, the textures and edges are still poor. All of the tracks from GT5 have been copied and pasted into the game and if you drive a GT5 premium car on a GT5 track in GT6 then you cannot tell the difference between the two games. It's just them being lazy saying "We have 1200 cars and 70 tracks" when in actual fact they have 500 cars and 700 unfinished ones and 30 tracks with different layouts. There are 5 layouts for Sarthe, all the same, just with slight differences. We don't need a non-day/night transition track and the exact same track with day/night transition. Just have the day/night transition and use the HDD space saved to remodel the tracks that haven't been done since 2004/2005 and to update the GT4 content such as standards and the poor tracks. There are 2 versions of each layout of Daytona (exactly the same), 2 layouts of Motegi (exactly the same) and the list goes on and on.

On a side note they need to add the Bugatti Circuit at Le Mans. Take out the 2005 version, the none day/night versions and add Bugatti. Also they should add Valencia to it as well. it was in Tourist Trophy and all they'd have to do is update it. Somehow I don't think it will happen though as Polyphony is all about Quantity over Quality and if they don't pick their game up soon then the PS4/Xbox One titles will take over. GT is a very outdated thing as a whole and they need to do something about it.

Rant over.

Because those tracks and cars are so old they were created in software that can't produce better quality. They've managed to make them compatible with and import them into the new game but they probably can't modify the quality much beyond what it is now. In order to do that they would have to completely re-do them from scratch which is quite time intensive. So they chose to just import the old versions and spend their time elsewhere, and I agree with that decision. They could have just left them out, but I'd rather have a slightly lesser quality track/car than not have them at all.

Same applies to including multiple versions of the same track. The day/night/weather tracks are likely completely separate files/builds and while they could opt to only include the day/night/weather tracks, if they have this other file of the standard track sitting around they might as well toss it into the game. It's not just to boost track/car counts, it's likely more a case of "we have them here and while they're not quite on par with the newer builds we might as well include them since it takes little-to-no effort."

Our only real hope for this to change is if the PS4 architecture makes things so much easier that they can cut the time to produce a car/track by 50-75% and just re-do all the old ones in a short amount of time.

 

[nowcontrol]

I think they need to give us a layout option on the Matterhorn with all the barriers removed at the intersections so that may ride freely around the whole thing in whichever direction we choose, able to turn left or right at any of the intersections.

Also it would make for some fun destruction derby type roaming.

 

[Chrix12]

I think they need to give us a layout option on the Matterhorn with all the barriers removed at the intersections so that may ride freely around the whole thing in whichever direction we choose, able to turn left or right at any of the intersections.

Also it would make for some fun destruction derby type roaming.

OR! just have it as a layout for the track editor so you can design your own track on it (add/remove barriers).

 

[MatskiMonk]

Same applies to including multiple versions of the same track. The day/night/weather tracks are likely completely separate files/builds and while they could opt to only include the day/night/weather tracks, if they have this other file of the standard track sitting around they might as well toss it into the game. It's not just to boost track/car counts, it's likely more a case of "we have them here and while they're not quite on par with the newer builds we might as well include them since it takes little-to-no effort."
.

I think whatever the file/programming architecture is, doesn't really matter, it's basically about the navigation as far as the player is concerned. It doesn't matter how the get the tracks in to the game, the track selection process could be slicker.

 

[Tornado]

Because those tracks and cars are so old they were created in software that can't produce better quality. They've managed to make them compatible with and import them into the new game but they probably can't modify the quality much beyond what it is now. In order to do that they would have to completely re-do them from scratch which is quite time intensive. So they chose to just import the old versions and spend their time elsewhere, and I agree with that decision. They could have just left them out, but I'd rather have a slightly lesser quality track/car than not have them at all.

The problem with this is that they did update a few of them, but left others unaltered. Monaco is completely untouched since GT3 (and it looks it), but Trial Mountain and Deep Forest were both touched up for GT5. Furthermore, if they are going to not even bother with some of the tracks from a quality perspective, there is no reason to not just include everything. If quality wasn't a concern so much as quantity (as it appeared to be, just like it was for the cars), where are all of the GT4 tracks that haven't been seen again? It's not a licencing issue, because almost all of the ones gone since GT4 were fictional and city courses. If you're going to cut corners because you believe people would prefer you to, why go halfway on that of all things?

Same applies to including multiple versions of the same track. The day/night/weather tracks are likely completely separate files/builds and while they could opt to only include the day/night/weather tracks, if they have this other file of the standard track sitting around they might as well toss it into the game. It's not just to boost track/car counts, it's likely more a case of "we have them here and while they're not quite on par with the newer builds we might as well include them since it takes little-to-no effort."

"30 Locations with 70 Layouts" is only confusing to people who have problems with reading comprehension.

Except it's really not that clear cut in the way it was presented, and it's arguably less clear the more attention you paid to the pre-release marketing. At various times during the run up to release of GT5 and GT6 the terms "locations" and "layouts" were used almost interchangebly; which was the source of much of the confusion.

In addition, the "variation" label loses quite a bit of its meaning when it is applied to outright duplicates of variations. There is no real benefit for the players to include Daytona Road Course with no weather or time change when you have a version included that does both, just like there isn't for the 2 dozen fake Miatas in the game that are identical to the real ones. The full featured versions with night/weather can already perfectly emulate the cut down versions without either, yet in quite a few cases both were included anyway. What reason is there for that beyond boosting the track count?

 

[ColouredBadger]

They haven't made much of an effort in my opinion. It's just easy to copy and paste things that have already been done and I agree that it is time consuming to remake the tracks and cars but I would sooner wait twice as long for a polished game with half the content than what it is at the minute. The Vision GT cars don't have interiors (lazy), the MX5's/Miata's are just premium bodied remakes with no interiors (Lazy), the Lister Storm has more sharp edges than a bow saw and is untouched from GT4 (again lazy). The tracks that were in GT4 which got cut were the best ones in the series in my opinion and would stand up well if redone. The ones that were left in however haven't evolved at all since then. The layouts of all tracks date back to 2005 (GT4) and it's only the small handful of new tracks that have received any treatment at all but they have massive frame rate issues which could be fixed but they didn't fix it. (again, lazy). They've shoved GT6 out of the door to make it aline with the 15th anniversary stuff and the fact that they are adding the course maker, B-Spec, vision GT cars and much more as updates at a later date again shows that they are just being lazy.

The entire game is outdated bar the few Premium cars and the odd real world track that has had some TLC. I just hope that for the next game they rework the entire thing, start again, create a game dedicated for the PS4 instead of making a PS2 game sparkle. I would gladly wait until the year 2017 for a properly made game that has all of the features that a current gen game should have, let alone the next gen but, and it's a very big but, the ideal release date for GT7 is this year or next year which again shows more copying and pasting PS2 HD models that have very little reworking done to them which will be a terrible shame for the game as a whole.

When you look at games like Forza (the curse word for this forum), Assetto Corsa and Project CARS, they all have detail so fine that they even make the effort to put grass at the side of the road. If they can spare the time to put in grass that you will never see at 100mph then why can't Polyphony make a slight effort to make the PS2 cars and tracks up to date?... I know the content is nowhere near as extensive as GT6 but those games look exceptional compared to Polyphony's latest offering and potentially the next offering and all it would take is for Polyphony to take a step back and look at how they made GT4 the PS2 graphical icon. The exact same processes can be used for the future and the way technology has come on since 2005 they can make twice the game of GT4 in the same amount of time but they choose not to.

I think GT6 should get rid of the title of "The Real Driving Simulator" and change it to "The Real PS2 Emulator" because that is pretty much what it is at the minute.

Don't get me wrong, I love the series and I will always buy the games no matter what condition they are in but I still play GT6 everyday thinking it's disappointing on so many levels, wishing I had a working PS2 so I can experience the last great Gran Turismo game.

 

[Zuku]

"30 Locations with 70 Layouts" is only confusing to people who have problems with reading comprehension.

Oh no I understand it and I think everyone gets it my problem is you only gave us 30 tracks, but using the 70+ layouts as a way to say oh we gave you more tracks basically that's what I don't like plus if not mistaken Reverse is counted as a layout that's not a brand new track.

It's like using the 1200 cars when there are a lot of copies of certain cars in the game so really I'd be better served if they told me straight up 900 cars instead of that 1200 with all those copies.

 

[Buck-O]

Oh no I understand it and I think everyone gets it my problem is you only gave us 30 tracks, but using the 70+ layouts as a way to say oh we gave you more tracks basically that's what I don't like plus if not mistaken Reverse is counted as a layout that's not a brand new track.

It's like using the 1200 cars when there are a lot of copies of certain cars in the game so really I'd be better served if they told me straight up 900 cars instead of that 1200 with all those copies.

By the same logic, over simplification is equally as misleading, if not more so.

Again, the only way it would confuse you is if you have reading comprehension problems, or are being a pedantic twit. The later, I think, fits most who complain of something so trivial.