- 379
- Rio de Janeiro
- Rod__Carvalho
Don't worry, this feature will be added to the franchise in a future update...
Project Morpheus VR headset and GT7
- Thread starter KilzoneStrife
- 102 comments
- 7,992 views
vasiliflame
(Banned)
- 1,321
- Cardiff
- no thanks
- 6,425
- KCCO
I think we just expected what you said to be what you said, coming from an experienced GTP'er...
I was referring to how cool it would be to play Battlefield with VR, being able to move your head and look around, giving the sensation that you're actually running around "dodging bullets and explosions". I think you and Griffith took me too literally 👍
- 2,498
- Iowa, USA
- LVracerGT
- 6,425
- KCCO
- 2,498
- Iowa, USA
- LVracerGT
- 13,740
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Great now we have an excuse for when GT7 turns out to be pants.
Just as people used 3D to excuse GT5s faults (But Sony MADE them do it!), Morpheus will be used to excuse any faults in GT7.
"But Sony MADE them do it! Morpheus took away development time and they couldn't make the game properly because there's not many of them and they're a small family and they're too busy being artisans and hugging."
Just as people used 3D to excuse GT5s faults (But Sony MADE them do it!), Morpheus will be used to excuse any faults in GT7.
"But Sony MADE them do it! Morpheus took away development time and they couldn't make the game properly because there's not many of them and they're a small family and they're too busy being artisans and hugging."
- 15,529
- Cairo, Egypt
- GTP_SEMS
So much for the "Insider guy" http://www.teamvvv.com/en/news/comments/DriveClub-wont-support-Sonys-Project-Morpheus-VR-Headset
- 8,698
I agree in principle, but it will always be a consideration. It should be a bit less "marginal", performance wise, on PS4 compared with PS3, though. They've also broken the back of the 3D rendering task itself, it's just the head tracking part now (Sony's job, surely - PD might get all Saab about it, though).
It's interesting that GT6 doesn't have 3D; probably due to the extra depth in the HDR now requiring too much "pixel bandwidth" (as I'll somewhat ignorantly call it). Makes you wonder if the low colour depth (effectively) in GT5 was due to having to design shaders and texture formats etc. for the "lowest common denominator" of the 3D mode in the first place. Of course, Prologue was the same (albeit at a higher resolution), so that would imply forward thinking - and that's beginning to be a pattern...
- 13,740
- Adelaide
- Neomone
If that's true, then their "forward thinking" is starting to seriously cripple their games.
I'd rather have jam today than jam tomorrow. It's far too easy to get into the mode of ALWAYS designing for the next big thing at the sacrifice of current quality, such that the current product is never actually as good as it could be with current tech.
- 8,698
Definitely, feature creep almost certainly dragged GT5 down (retrospectively speaking). I meant more that they had an idea of where they wanted to be on PS4, and found themselves squeezing bits of that onto PS3 once they realised they could (because they were waiting so long for cars and tracks to be made, also because they were being made with PS4 in mind). It's sort of a necessary tactic to keep costs down and guarantee you'll get jam today and tomorrow, even if today's jam is some flavour you don't like as much (although that wouldn't have been the intent, I'd imagine). Perhaps.
- 13,740
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Except that if there's one game that doesn't need to keep costs down, it's GT. They've got a relatively tiny staff (and presumably, staff costs) and a relatively enormous budget, at least as far as what was demonstrated from GT5. I don't see why they would have got shortchanged for GT6, they certainly sold enough copies of GT5 and GT5P.
This is not a tiny studio where they're having to be as efficient as possible in order to make sure that they can keep up with the big boys. GT is the big boys, they're the ones that should be throwing money at the game to make sure each iteration is class leading. If that means ultimately less efficient work, then that's what it takes.
Games like AC are the ones that should be emphasising working efficiently for the long term goal. They have to, or they can't possibly compete. Games like GT can just beat problems with money and manpower.
Feature creep is almost certainly dragging GT6 down too, while we're at it. They could have included the online we had in GT5 from the word go. They didn't because they thought they could do better, and the consumers are still waiting. Ditto B Spec. Ditto Course Maker. Ditto mobile/online integration.
They've intentionally left features out with the intention of incorporating presumably awesome, upgraded versions of them later, instead of simply giving the consumer the functional versions they have right now. That's going to be great when (if) these upgraded features come, but at the moment they've got a crippled game that is functionally a step back from it's predecessor. The stuff you can do is improved, but the range of stuff you can do has been severely limited.
- 8,698
I'd argue that cost effectiveness is just as important for the big boys. PD aren't as big, relative to other studios, as their budget would imply, so they are big spenders - the bigger cost at this point in time for PD would have been to have to re-do all the assets again now for PS4, having only just got them all done for GT6 / PS3. That's the kind of thing that transcends "budget" in the usual sense.
The difference between GT5 and GT6 is that it's the same features, and they're at the stage now they would have been even if they weren't in GT5. Arguably, actually, they're in a better place having endured a round of feedback. It's that "parallel production" capability that is actually PD's strength, it just sucks that we have to keep waiting for it when they run into problems. But we'd be waiting for it no matter what.
The thing that messed up GT5 was that the game wasn't really designed around the features that eventually crept into it. With GT6, those things just aren't there, so presumably, the game will be updated to take advantage of those features once they're ready, in a modular fashion (that was something that wasn't really properly anticipated for with GT5, a flexible and powerful update "feature" built into the lowest levels of the game, like GT6 has).
I don't know why they didn't just include the old versions, though, as you say, unless they never intended to wait as long as they have.
- 13,740
- Adelaide
- Neomone
That's the assumption. There's no way any sane company plans to have the dearth of updates seen with GT6 after the marketing they put out pre-release. They almost certainly intended to have some of the features implemented by now.
But that comes back to the working on a shoestring thing again. The most efficient way is to leave out the old features (to avoid unnecessary bug testing and compatibility work) and just put in the new ones again. The most robust way is to include the basic implementation from the beginning, and upgrade as you go.
The robust way is more expensive up front and more complex, but if something goes wrong at least you've got a fallback. The efficient way ends up being not so efficient if you're having to put extra work into it, and it's costing you sales and goodwill.
research
Premium
- 847
- Ohio
- ecko_driver81
I have experimented with the Rift a bit. Lots of good info here:
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/oculus-rift-virtual-reality-and-gt6.279460/
Lag was not an issue during my experience. Movement was quick and felt very real. Only resolution is holding the OR back, for now. Still, I was thrilled with how it felt. Great fun. I did get a little bit nauseous during some fast, hectic, jumping around gameplay- but I do not foresee fixed-position vehicle simulators causing these troubles.
👍
Last edited:
vasiliflame
(Banned)
- 1,321
- Cardiff
- no thanks
Lol I heard this all before in the 90's its the next big thing
I used a stand up machine when I was a little youth from what I can remember it was heavy front heavy that made me look down slightly , at the players feet , think the lawnmower man movie kicked this all off from what I can remember. It was a bit of a flop back then and even now they look exactly the same the idea of VR hasn't changed since then only the components used maybe lighter. Here's a few pic of the machine I used and a race version. There's also some video footage from the company who made them from Britain
So is this the future sadly no it's just a revival of an idea like 3d its old news it's old tech it's just a plain old
Attachments
- 2,643
- Finland
- OdeFinn
- 2,143
- The Track
- youngun_great
I did read this else where, few problems is that you would need camera to track the head movements. A wheel and seat so that its really VR, and eveything in the game at 1080p inside and out at at least 60fps.
But its would cut out the standards and reduce cost for triple screen set up.
But its would cut out the standards and reduce cost for triple screen set up.
- 8,698
Lol I heard this all before in the 90's its the next big thing
I used a stand up machine when I was a little youth from what I can remember it was heavy front heavy that made me look down slightly , at the players feet , think the lawnmower man movie kicked this all off from what I can remember. It was a bit of a flop back then and even now they look exactly the same the idea of VR hasn't changed since then only the components used maybe lighter. Here's a few pic of the machine I used and a race version. There's also some video footage from the company who made them from Britain
So is this the future sadly no it's just a revival of an idea like 3d its old news it's old tech it's just a plain old
So many people have said the same thing. Even John Carmack did, ever skeptical as something of a "VR" / games veteran, until he actually tried the first prototype of the Rift that Palmer Lucky had put together.
Now he's Oculus' Chief Technical Officer, having quit id Software, and is probably partly responsible for honing the incredible response and precision the current Rift dev kits have (they use similar directional tracking that his rockets have, now augmented with external optical tracking) from the already impressive first prototype.
I'm not going to sensationalise this, because it's up to the individual's experience, but the display tech is there, the rendering power is there, the on-device processing and tracking etc. is also well and truly there, the collaborators have even figured out a lot of the vomit issues (amazingly), but the big challenge is making games now. That has never been the case in the past, I just hope the industry handles it properly.
- 3,435
- Earth, SS, MW
Nooooo all my favorite cars are standards. How is that a bonus?!
- 298
It's 82, it says so on the official Gran Turismo website, in the section guide about multi-monitors.
The question was about GT FOV not Morpheus dev kit FOV.
As we know it's 82 FOV in GT we know in GT VR it would be a wider view if they used the 90degree FOV.
http://www.gran-turismo.com/us/support/02_0005539.html
Some other information is that Some of the Sony demos were running "above 1080p" on the PS4 hardware. The display is 1080p. So i guess they mentioned that to show they have potential for Morpheus consumer version to have beyond 1080p capability. Which would be useful if they wanted it suitable for PS5.
The question was about GT FOV not Morpheus dev kit FOV.
As we know it's 82 FOV in GT we know in GT VR it would be a wider view if they used the 90degree FOV.
http://www.gran-turismo.com/us/support/02_0005539.html
Some other information is that Some of the Sony demos were running "above 1080p" on the PS4 hardware. The display is 1080p. So i guess they mentioned that to show they have potential for Morpheus consumer version to have beyond 1080p capability. Which would be useful if they wanted it suitable for PS5.
- 15,529
- Cairo, Egypt
- GTP_SEMS
