Please tell me you're trolling.
Any trolling you see is simply a reflection of the logic you've already used in this thread to try to shut down the OP's feature request.
If the current state and technology of "simulators" disappoints you in every single way, then forget about them and do the real thing instead.
"The current state of technology of 'simulators'" already has something like what the OP is talking about
in this exact game; and it was fairly widely publicized by PD in the leadup to the release date of
this exact game. This only leads me to further believe that you're simply trying to continue moving the goalposts to hit an argument that might work after you blatantly misread what the OP was saying with your first post.
I was talking about disk space when rendering the open world (including textures), not the collision detection.
So you're referring to the disk space that is:
1:
Already used for the most obvious use of the thing the OP talked about, because the track creator generates the track overlaid over an environment that is already in the game and most of the rest of the tracks are fully enclosed.
2: Is in huge abundance, because GT6 came nowhere near filling up the Blu-Ray disk it shipped on just like GT5 didn't before and GT7 will ship on a system with at minimum a 500GB hard drive.
3: Is treated as superfluous by PD
in pretty much every other context, since up to this point they have been perfectly content loading the player up with
hundreds of megabytes worth of "more important aspects" like intro videos of cars for cars that are also in that patch anyway. There isn't a track in the game that would "waste" as much disk space as the 100 second 1080p tribute video they originally shoved into the 980 MB Ayrton Senna patch.
And with regards to collision detection, that one is more memory-intensive than disk space-intensive. The memory that would be used for extraneous collision detection when going off some 50 meters off of the track could be used to render more cars in the field instead, which a lot of people prefer.
That's strange:
I would think an area on a track behind an invisible wall would be the
definition of "extraneous collision detection," and yet there it is. Not only is it fully driveable and mapped to the track environment a good hundred yards outside of the track boundary before the collision flattens, but it also has the offroad properties applied to it in correct areas. Someone should have told the track asset creators to not do that, so they could have had 16 car races at that track...
Oh.
And I have to ask, how much more do you think needs to be kept in memory as far as collision data goes for a 6.2 mile long course maker track (as, again, the most obvious example) to have 50 meters of runoff space that isn't exceeded in memory used when GT6 is running the 15.7 mile long Nurburgring 24 hour course?
The correct answer is "none". Graphic designers, who are the ones who would be making the tracks, have little to do with the people who program the physic engines. So, no, someone spending time adding textures to a runoff area of a track is not someone who could have gone on to make the physics engine better. And someone who would normally be tasked with modelling cars likely also isn't someone who would be working on the track collision areas or even be the one who worked on the tracks. No matter how many more physics engine programmers or car modelers they hire, that will remain the case because modern game development studios don't hire people to do everything.
Perhaps you should try watching those videos you advise others to see.
