So I played DOS NFS and noticed this...

[Tornado]

Show that it wouldn't.

I'm pretty surprised that you of all people have decided that the standards of proof required for something is "claim something without demonstrating any basis; then deem it right until proven wrong when questioned ."

 

[Beat the Beat]

It would take up a megabyte at most, I doubt that's as much as the memory difference used between a standard vs a premium outside and in. There's no need to use a single fullscreen picture, most of it is glass so you'd cut it into sections to avoid wasting all that space. You'd also use a dxt texture format which work out at 1byte per pixel.
The problem is it's just too much work and wouldn't look that nice. Would you use a stock steering wheel or would your driver be grabbing another flat cardboard cutout?

 

[Rafael F]

Indeed, the black cockpits are horrible. I know it's never gonna happen, but at least, they could have applied a dashboard view for standard cars. It would be easy to model any fake dashboard for those cars, I think.

Pic from GRID Autosport.
By the way, I would welcome this view for all cars.

 

[Beat the Beat]

How about starting commercial cars with a black dash but then you can buy from a choice of racing cockpits.

 

[Griffith500]

I'm pretty surprised that you of all people have decided that the standards of proof required for something is "claim something without demonstrating any basis; then deem it right until proven wrong when questioned ."

So you weren't implicitly stating the opposite? As though it were obviously the case, a priori?

It's a ridiculous suggestion, I just wanted you to see that for yourself by attempting to prove the opposite, instead of arguing for the sake of it.

 

[Tornado]

So you weren't implicitly stating the opposite?

Maybe I was. Or maybe I was simply using the example of the amazing incredible Premium car interiors that Zer0 has a history of talking at length about to try to get a basis of comparison for what requires more resources when he made a definitive statement about it.


That being said:

As though it were obviously the case, a priori?

It's been quite a while since I bothered doing anything directly related to car modeling (NFS IV was the last, and really only, game I did too much with), but I don't see what's too terribly wrong with drawing the conclusion that a highly complex, 270°-viewing-angle 3D interior (including on many cars parts of the exterior as well) that is completely textured on an exponentially higher detailed car model would be less resource intensive when running the game than changing the black interior outline on a psuedo-bumper cam to a suitably compressed photograph would be.

It's a ridiculous suggestion, I just wanted you to see that for yourself by attempting to prove the opposite, instead of arguing for the sake of it.

Thanks Dad.


I'd suggest you draw lines in the sand over a viewpoint somewhat more defensible in the future, though; to prevent the appearance of you "arguing for the sake of it."

 

[avens]

But the point is it had six cars, even if it is from '95 you can't compare a game with 6 cars to one with 1000+.

GT6 doesn't have interiors for all cars because of how much time it would take, not because they don't have the technology to do so.

1. GT6 does not have 1000+ unique cars by any means. This has been discussed to death already.
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/car-list-demographic.307635/

2. To put it in perspective, Turn10 has done those interiors with that same amount of "unique" cars (those that count because the rest is just copypasting) therefore it is not impossible to PD by any means, mind you them with a lesser budget and less time.

3. Finally, you are thinking there's only one solution to that problem, which would be "adding interiors" to those cars. In reality what should be done is the opposite, what every single company does besides PD, which is removing cars and assets that aren't up to par, those from over 10 years ago. PD has not done that for the same reason this game has so many duplicates: car count, marketing.
Imagine if Capcom were to use the street fighter 3 sprites and earlier in ultra street fighter 4, like it was a MUGEN game with hundreds of fighters just to claim it has so many characters, even though there's 100 ryu variants, 90% look beyond awful and the game is laughably inconsistent. That mindblowing and unprofessional job is what PD does with the GT series and somehow people don't complain about that as much as they should. No quality control whatsoever, mind you which goes beyond graphics for instance in handling simulation (comparing a standard GT car to iRacing or to real life is unbelievable).
PD has to be the only example in AAA videogames that uses assets from over 10 years ago in their main products, then somehow for that very reason some people defend them on the grounds of that there's too many assets to improve, furthermore say that 2001 ryu sprite shouldn't be removed. That's absurd, all four of them.

 

[Griffith500]

Maybe I was. Or maybe I was simply using the example of the amazing incredible Premium car interiors that Zer0 has a history of talking at length about to try to get a basis of comparison for what requires more resources when he made a definitive statement about it.

I must remember to update my faction list more regularly to better ignore these occurrences, then.

That being said:

It's been quite a while since I bothered doing anything directly related to car modeling (NFS IV was the last, and really only, game I did too much with), but I don't see what's too terribly wrong with drawing the conclusion that a highly complex, 270°-viewing-angle 3D interior (including on many cars parts of the exterior as well) that is completely textured on an exponentially higher detailed car model would be less resource intensive when running the game than changing the black interior outline on a psuedo-bumper cam to a suitably compressed photograph would be.

So you don't know. The issue isn't just about sticking a texture overlay on the screen, as has been discussed already. It just wouldn't work within the existing aesthetic framework of the game, and any attempts at getting it to "work" would be a waste of effort first, and a waste of computational resources applied to such attempts in-game.

Thanks Dad.
I'd suggest you draw lines in the sand over a viewpoint somewhat more defensible in the future, though; to prevent the appearance of you "arguing for the sake of it."

Sure, two wrongs don't make a right ("thanks Dad"). You still said what you said, for the reasons (top) that you admit you chose to say them, and not for the purposes of getting to the "truth" pertinent to this thread. I was not aware of your little vendetta against Zer0, nor his "history", when I posted.

 

[Quakebass]

I don't know but is probably that the default texture memory reserved to map the interior of a premium car is much lesser than the required for a 24bits 1080p texture.

There is a massive difference between displaying a ~1080p image (some is cut out of the window) and running a 3-D model made out of quite a lot of polygons. The textures applied to the 3-D map combined are likely well over the size of a 1080p image, as the textures are set up to be zoomed in on.

Let's say you move the in-game camera away from the said 1080p image - there is still a 1080p image being processed, along with over resources loaded on the map. But it's only a static image that doesn't get affected by lighting elements - all the other textures are being affected by their positioning and the "light" landing on them. There are therefore far more complex parts generated in the screen image.

Just because you can't physically see it on your screen, it doesn't mean it's not being processed. That's part of why Adaptive Tessellation was harnessed - to lessen the detail (and therefore necessary hardware resources) of distant or non-viewed processed assets, and to improve the appearance of closer objects. The game still processes positioning and effects of A.I. cars from all over the track, there are still unseen portions of the track loaded while only viewing sections you use, the list goes on.

...It's kinda ridiculous to assume that an image would take so much more hardware resources than any one of these other processes...

 

[FoRiZon]

Indeed, the black cockpits are horrible. I know it's never gonna happen, but at least, they could have applied a dashboard view for standard cars. It would be easy to model any fake dashboard for those cars, I think.View attachment 155029
Pic from GRID Autosport.
By the way, I would welcome this view for all cars.

Wait. So the next grid would only have a generic interior for all cars? Dissapointing. But welcomed on GT Standards though.

 

[omgsean1]

Wait. So the next grid would only have a generic interior for all cars? Dissapointing. But welcomed on GT Standards though.

Same here, I don't even bother this game anymore as I prefer GT series and Pcars for now.

 

[mistersafeway]

1. GT6 does not have 1000+ unique cars by any means. This has been discussed to death already.
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/car-list-demographic.307635/

2. To put it in perspective, Turn10 has done those interiors with that same amount of "unique" cars (those that count because the rest is just copypasting) therefore it is not impossible to PD by any means, mind you them with a lesser budget and less time.

3. Finally, you are thinking there's only one solution to that problem, which would be "adding interiors" to those cars. In reality what should be done is the opposite, what every single company does besides PD, which is removing cars and assets that aren't up to par, those from over 10 years ago. PD has not done that for the same reason this game has so many duplicates: car count, marketing.
Imagine if Capcom were to use the street fighter 3 sprites and earlier in ultra street fighter 4, like it was a MUGEN game with hundreds of fighters just to claim it has so many characters, even though there's 100 ryu variants, 90% look beyond awful and the game is laughably inconsistent. That mindblowing and unprofessional job is what PD does with the GT series and somehow people don't complain about that as much as they should. No quality control whatsoever, mind you which goes beyond graphics for instance in handling simulation (comparing a standard GT car to iRacing or to real life is unbelievable).
PD has to be the only example in AAA videogames that uses assets from over 10 years ago in their main products, then somehow for that very reason some people defend them on the grounds of that there's too many assets to improve, furthermore say that 2001 ryu sprite shouldn't be removed. That's absurd, all four of them.

Lesser budget for Turn 10 (I'm forced to assume so because you also said less time...)? I hate to be the one to say this, but proof? I've never seen any budgetary info on PD (nothing solid on Turn 10, for that matter) and Microsoft have a habit of throwing huge amounts of money around, even if there's no chance of making it back, just to give a competitor a bloody nose. Add in Turn 10 having a reportedly larger team size and outsourcing (which neatly covers the less time aspect I also bolded: two hundred people can do in two years that which would take one hundred people four years, for example) and it looks nigh on impossible that PD have a higher budget.

 

[Griffith500]

There is a massive difference between displaying a ~1080p image (some is cut out of the window) and running a 3-D model made out of quite a lot of polygons. The textures applied to the 3-D map combined are likely well over the size of a 1080p image, as the textures are set up to be zoomed in on.

Let's say you move the in-game camera away from the said 1080p image - there is still a 1080p image being processed, along with over resources loaded on the map. But it's only a static image that doesn't get affected by lighting elements - all the other textures are being affected by their positioning and the "light" landing on them. There are therefore far more complex parts generated in the screen image.

Just because you can't physically see it on your screen, it doesn't mean it's not being processed. That's part of why Adaptive Tessellation was harnessed - to lessen the detail (and therefore necessary hardware resources) of distant or non-viewed processed assets, and to improve the appearance of closer objects. The game still processes positioning and effects of A.I. cars from all over the track, there are still unseen portions of the track loaded while only viewing sections you use, the list goes on.

...It's kinda ridiculous to assume that an image would take so much more hardware resources than any one of these other processes...

If you look closely at a lot of PD's texture-work, it's all decal projections and small tiling details giving a very sparsely textured result (the rest is handled with shaders). They don't use full coverage textures much, if at all, except on scenery.

 

[Rafael F]

Wait. So the next grid would only have a generic interior for all cars? Dissapointing. But welcomed on GT Standards though.

They have also a cockpit view, but from the gameplays it looks a bit blurry. I think it won't be detailed as the cockpits in GRID 1.

But the whole game seems way better, a lot of cool stuff as qualifying, tyre wear, gearbox damage and more. The dashboard view is a new addition.

 

[Allek]

I guess the blurry cockpit is an artistic option, based on the fact that the faster we drive the further away we focus on, hence things that are closer look out of focus. NFS Shift 2 did something like that too.

 

[FoRiZon]

They have also a cockpit view, but from the gameplays it looks a bit blurry. I think it won't be detailed as the cockpits in GRID 1.
View attachment 155410
But the whole game seems way better, a lot of cool stuff as qualifying, tyre wear, gearbox damage and more. The dashboard view is a new addition.

Looks like FGT's Cockpit with blur effect.

Question: On GRID, will it have a working indicator or not ( Like GT6 )?

 

[Rafael F]

Looks like FGT's Cockpit with blur effect.

Question: On GRID, will it have a working indicator or not ( Like GT6 )?

I think there won't be working speedometer and stuff on cockpit view, but anyway, the gameplay looks so fun

You an see the cockpit view at 1:20

 

[grog]

Another run away thread, I mean a very productive thread (sarcasm).

Haven't we hashed out this argument enough already?

 

[YZF]

For starters they weren't 3d interiors, and you haven't mentioned the fact there's only like 6 driveable cars in that game.

Not knocking the game as I loved if back in the day, just not really comparing apples with apples.

You didn't mention how many people created first NFS

 

[FoRiZon]

I think there won't be working speedometer and stuff on cockpit view, but anyway, the gameplay looks so fun

You an see the cockpit view at 1:20

Oh god. See I think PD isn't very as bizzare as Codemasters after all. I mean they implemented cockpit in GRID 1 but completely removes it in the sequel and now they reimplemented it like GRID 1 was never happened.

 

[Tornado]

I must remember to update my faction list more regularly to better ignore these occurrences, then.

Please be sure to do so. Zer0 stating such things in such a fashion is not at all an uncommon occurence, so it's quite odd that you've never seen one before. I'll be the first to admit that there are occasions where he does surprise and backup his statements with clear and concise evidence (the bit about GT4's resolution stuff being the most recent example) and I tip my hat to when he does so; but I also feel quite safe in making those judgments in advance nonetheless when half of the time the closest he comes to doing so is a deliberatly out of context interview quote and the other 45% of the time he doesn't bother at all.

So you don't know. The issue isn't just about sticking a texture overlay on the screen, as has been discussed already. It just wouldn't work within the existing aesthetic framework of the game, and any attempts at getting it to "work" would be a waste of effort first, and a waste of computational resources applied to such attempts in-game.

Ah. So a bunch of things I never said since I was never arguing that they should do it in the first place; just questioning the assertion that there were technical hurdles that apparently weren't in place for Premium cars.

Thanks.

You still said what you said, for the reasons (top) that you admit you chose to say them, and not for the purposes of getting to the "truth" pertinent to this thread. I was not aware of your little vendetta against Zer0, nor his "history", when I posted.

And now you do know. And since I stand by what I said completely since the member in question has years of posting similar sentiments and intentionally misrepresenting (and occasionally even outright fabricating) evidence to support them, if he even bothers at all; my only hope is that in the future perhaps you won't jump so quickly to lecture other posters when they treat a post with immediate skepticism just because you're ignorant of why.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I'd be happy just seeing the hood of the car I'm driving...

 

[CeeJay]

I'd be happy just seeing the hood of the car I'm driving...

This is what really kills the blacked out interior view. To remove the hood from the cockpit view just makes driving in that view SO frustrating for me that I can't stand it!! The most frustrating part is GT on the PSP got it right!! (as right as the blacked out interior can be!)



You can see the hood when driving in the interior view.. yet when they added the black interiors to the PS3.. the hood was gone.. totally ruins it..

 

[Griffith500]

Please be sure to do so. Zer0 stating such things in such a fashion is not at all an uncommon occurence, so it's quite odd that you've never seen one before. I'll be the first to admit that there are occasions where he does surprise and backup his statements with clear and concise evidence (the bit about GT4's resolution stuff being the most recent example) and I tip my hat to when he does so; but I also feel quite safe in making those judgments in advance nonetheless when half of the time the closest he comes to doing so is a deliberatly out of context interview quote and the other 45% of the time he doesn't bother at all.

You probably could have said that in the first place.

Ah. So a bunch of things I never said since I was never arguing that they should do it in the first place; just questioning the assertion that there were technical hurdles that apparently weren't in place for Premium cars.

Thanks.

I made the mistake of assuming you might want to discuss the issue. Sorry.

And now you do know. And since I stand by what I said completely since the member in question has years of posting similar sentiments and intentionally misrepresenting (and occasionally even outright fabricating) evidence to support them, if he even bothers at all; my only hope is that in the future perhaps you won't jump so quickly to lecture other posters when they treat a post with immediate skepticism just because you're ignorant of why.

I didn't lecture you. I'm sorry I don't follow your battles, but that's not going to change.

 

[ClydeYellow]

To be fair, most racing games from the late 80s / early 90s featured a cockpit cam. Then for almost a decade the cockpit car became a rare beast, as game developers switched from 2D and hybrid games to full polygonal 3D, which is far more tasking on the hardware and requires a lot more dev time.

You're really comparing the proverbial apples with oranges, here.