Soft-Body Crash Physics; Yes or No?

[OHM_fusion]

But not in racing games.

racing games = no human can die
GTA= Cars can kill people

And we didn't talked about one topic yet. Maybe GTA developer didn't care about licensed cars. Why people want to use manufacture as an excuse so often? It can have several other reasons. Manufacture are just one possible reason.

Ok, maybe GTA developer didn't care about licensed cars. But do you really think that it's a coincidence that developers of games such as Burnout, GTA and many others who have the most advanced damage models on the market just happen to "care" about unlicensed cars? If you would somehow make the list of racing games sorted by the amount of damage the cars take the top of that list would be - arcade games with unlicensed cars.

Several sources that think it is not possible. I talked about a better damage model than GT has and this is clearly possible because other racing games show this. Including sims. Again i don't talk about soft body physics.

Well if you aren't talking about soft- body physics than this argument is a bit silly since it started when you disagreed with me that manufacturers wouldn't allow soft-body physics.

Released racing game= best source ever

Yes, and this what I've been using as an example to prove my theory since the beginning.

No i only said Project cars has a better damage model.

Well, you said it here :

Project Cars is a Simulation too and has licensed cars with better damage model.

We will see if they allow soft body physics.

Wait. Didn't your sources said typically racing games don't have a damage model with licensed cars and this was the problem for GT? And now you disagree with your sources and agree with me?

You missed the point. You keep mentioning that one sentence which is obviously wrong (Everyone knows most racing games with licensed cars usually have at least some form of damage. I don't know why they wrote that, but it's obviously wrong). The point was that some manufacturers don't want to see a lot of damage on their cars, and reasons why that is. But instead of responding to that, you discredit those sources because they wrote one stupid sentence.

Thx that you agree with me. But how do you know what manufacture want?

I can't be 100% sure, but logic and evidence tells me what they want. As you said - released racing games are the best source.

But honestly, I think we are talking about different things here. I'm mostly talking about soft body physics, while you seem to think that I'm defending GT for having a worse damage model than other sims. But I'm not. Read my posts from the last few pages and you'll see.

 

[ch3ng]

Ok, maybe GTA developer didn't care about licensed cars. But do you really think that it's a coincidence that developers of games such as Burnout, GTA and many others who have the most advanced damage models on the market just happen to "care" about unlicensed cars? If you would somehow make the list of racing games sorted by the amount of damage the cars take the top of that list would be - arcade games with unlicensed cars.

I think Grid for example has a better damage than some arcade racer with unlicensed cars.

Well if you aren't talking about soft- body physics than this argument is a bit silly since it started when you disagreed with me that manufacturers wouldn't allow soft-body physics.

Yes i disagreed. Because we don't know if manufacture wouldn't allow soft body physics. You said

One thing people seem to forget here (expect for the fact that manufacture wouldn't allow it)

You said it would be a fact, but you don't have a manufacture source. In the past people said manufacture don't allow damage. This was wrong. What makes you 100% sure that they don't allow a soft body physics?

But i also said i doubt that we will see soft body physics for different reasons.

Yes, and this what I've been using as an example to prove my theory since the beginning.

Go back in the past and use games like GT1-4 to prove that manufacture don't allow a damage model.

The fact that we didn't saw a damage model in GT1-4 don't proof that they don't allow it. GT5, Forza and many other racing games show that.

Well, you said it here :

No i didn said Project cars has soft body physics. I said.

Project cars is a simulation too and has a better damage model.

We will see if [the manufacture] allow soft body physics [in racing games].
This has nothing to do with Project Cars as you hopefully can see.

You missed the point. You keep mentioning that one sentence which is obviously wrong (Everyone knows most racing games with licensed cars usually have at least some form of damage. I don't know why they wrote that, but it's obviously wrong). The point was that some manufacturers don't want to see a lot of damage on their cars, and reasons why that is. But instead of responding to that, you discredit those sources because they wrote one stupid sentence.

No i don't miss the point. We don't have a manufacture statement so we can only guess.

Your sources said:
- Forza isn't a Sim
- typically racing games with license cars don't have a damage model
and so on.

Thes just guess and make false statements while i use released racing games as a source to proof that manufacture allow a better damage model than GT has. Again i'm not talking about soft body physics, because we don't know if manufacture allow it or not.

I can't be 100% sure, but logic and evidence tells me what they want. As you said - released racing games are the best source.

👍

But you need to be careful with them. You can't predict the future with those sources. That means you can't say manufacture don't allow Soft Body physics. It can have other reasons that we still have no game with Soft body physics.

My GT1-4 example above showed that.

 

[OHM_fusion]

I think Grid for example has a better damage than some arcade racer with unlicensed cars.

It does, but it doesn't feature production cars, only race cars.

Yes i disagreed. Because we don't know if manufacture wouldn't allow soft body physics.

You said it would be a fact, but you don't have a manufacture source. In the past people said manufacture don't allow damage. This was wrong. What makes you 100% sure that they don't allow a soft body physics?

What makes me sure is logic and the fact that this (and similiar) technology exists but no games with licensed cars are using it (even if we forget the hardware demands). As I've said before, if such a game comes out soon I will gladly admit that I was wrong.

Go back in the past and use games like GT1-4 to prove that manufacture don't allow a damage model.

That has more to do with the fact that PD decided not to bother with a damage system before GT5. I think you will agree here.

The fact that we didn't saw a damage model in GT1-4 don't proof that they don't allow it. GT5, Forza and many other racing games show that.

I know.

No i didn said Project cars has soft body physics. I said.

Project cars is a simulation too and has a better damage model.

We will see if [the manufacture] allow soft body physics [in racing games].
This has nothing to do with Project Cars as you hopefully can see.

Okay, I misunderstood you. My mistake.

No i don't miss the point. We don't have a manufacture statement so we can only guess.

Well, since I doubt a car manufacturer will send out a public letter saying "hey we don't want our cars damaged beyond a certain point", neither of us have proof, so we are going to agree to disagree here.

Your sources said:
- Forza isn't a Sim
- typically racing games with license cars don't have a damage model
and so on.

And you just keep repeating those sentences that both you and I know are false.

Thes just guess and make false statements while i use released racing games as a source to proof that manufacture allow a better damage model than GT has. Again i'm not talking about soft body physics, because we don't know if manufacture allow it or not.

But you don't need to prove me that manufacturers allow better damage than GT5. I know that. I even said it myself on the previous page.

No i don't miss the point. We don't have a manufacture statement so we can only guess.

Well okay then. Let me sum up my opinon for you:

1.Do car manufacturers allow more damage than GT? Yes. (This is the part we agreed on since the beginning)
2.Do car manufacturers allow damage like soft body physics? (This is the part where we disagree, and let's just leave it at that because you won't be convinced until a manufacturer says so, and that's not going to happen.)
3.Are we going to see soft body physics in GT6? Most likely not, because of many different reasons.

 

[gamerdog6482]

Go back in the past and use games like GT1-4 to prove that manufacture don't allow a damage model. The fact that we didn't saw a damage model in GT1-4 don't proof that they don't allow it. My GT1-4 example above showed that.

GT2 had a damage model.

 

[Tenacious D]

I suggest anyone who wants the scoop on car manufacturer's attitude on damaging of their cars in racing games should PM Scaff about it. He was once involved in the automotive biz and posted a number of times about it. Search may have a poor time digging anything up, since it has very strict limits since 2008, but you could give it a shot.

But he did say that different manufacturers had different attitudes and standards, and some like Ferrari were quite hard to deal with on the matter of damage. Evidently, they required quite a bribe to allow damage.

 

[Tornado]

Maybe the cut the better damage model to get a better performance or run GT5 on a PS3 or fix the issue with the damage model, before they release it.

I just noticed it. They didn't modeled the engine of the cars. Look at your pictures. It is just black.

So it is 90% sure that they didn't include this GT5 model you mentioned for developer reasons. It has nothing to do with the manufacture as other racing games show.

They didn't model the engines in the cars Earth posted because they are all mid-engined and those pictures are all from the front of the cars...


Or am I missing something?

 

[OHM_fusion]

They didn't model the engines in the cars Earth posted because they are all mid-engined and those pictures are all from the front of the cars...


Or am I missing something?

Correct, but what he means is that the cars are not modeled beneath the surface (except a few). If a car has it's engine visible from the outside then it's modeled, if not then it usually isn't. That's why the hood doesn't open in a crash, because there is nothing underneath, just black empty space where the engine would be (although that obviously varies depending on the car) so it would look silly.

 

[Samus]

They don't even model the inner side of the tyres/wheel. It's just a solid tyre.

 

[bradykhuber]

What do you guys want for online wrecks?

 

[porthillking]

The titanic? I kid, I kid.
What do you mean by online wrecks?

 

[BJBEOSmitty]

Damsels in distress

 

[The guy who did]

Reallism.

 

[Furinkazen]

Cars able to flip over.

 

[The guy who did]

Cars able to flip over.

That too.

 

[sk8er913]

Cars able to flip over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9MLofOWw8A
Just buy a Beetle and set up a Beetle only room.

 

[bradykhuber]

Maybe totaling you're car, getting ripped apart, physics online flips more realistic stuff etc.

 

[Quakebass]

If it's an improvement on the current model, here's what I want:

Physical:
-More dislodge-able parts (and on all cars, not just a select few premium models [which I'm hoping won't even exist - no premium/standard classes, all Hi-res]).
-More "realistic" dents, as in more believable paint scratches, minute wear-and-tear after extensive driving, and smaller bumps being able to do visible damage.
-Cracked and/or shattered windows where applicable.
-Actual car crumpling (maybe bending or warping if the accident is bad enough [and if it's even possible in the current engine, and worth PD's time) in the event of a large accident.
-All physics and modeling/deformation is the same offline or online.

Mechanical:
-Seriously damaged aero parts have noticeable aerodynamic "drag" effects (we already sort of get that on the current line-up of cars that can lose doors - when the doors open on a car, the car experiences drag on that side, which causes the car to turn when at speed. Basically more advanced than this with all sorts of parts on the cars.)
-Random mechanical failures increasingly more likely on old/heavily used/damaged (or vehicles with high mileage to keep it simple) to occur. Also various other mechanical failures.
-Pit body and/or mechanical repair - make it possible for some parts or minor failures to be replaced and/or fixed in the pits.
-Dislodgeable wheels - self explanatory. with Mechanical damage off, this won't be possible. with light, it won't cause other mechanical issues (like with the brakes) and can be replaced in the pits. On heavy, wheels coming off can result in damaged brakes or other failures if the dislodge was extensive enough. May or may not be ab;e to be fixed in the pits.
-Damage to vehicles stays until fixed in GT mode (or even in pits if not very extensive) - this would give more things to do and more purpose to GT Auto. And more care for your cars would be necessary. It's up for grabs if online damage would stay on your vehicle in GT Mode - this could lead to more features like being able to "sue" per say, for damage repair costs if an accident is purposely (or stupidly) caused by someone online. Could be up to a vote from online players in the lobby - not possible if under 3 people count as "voters". If sue is called, timeframe is given (can last up to a literal year to be fair to the player if internet goes down, or counted by cr. per hour of in-game play time).

EDIT: Also the ability to total a car. Allow a rebuild, the likes of which would likely cost more than just buying a new version of that car.

That's all I could see being done, but I would LOVE if they were able to use soft-body physics for visible damage. It won't happen any time soon.

 

[bzking23]

If it's an improvement on the current model, here's what I want:

Physical:
-More dislodge-able parts (and on all cars, not just a select few premium models [which I'm hoping won't even exist - no premium/standard classes, all Hi-res]).
-More "realistic" dents, as in more believable paint scratches, minute wear-and-tear after extensive driving, and smaller bumps being able to do visible damage.
-Cracked and/or shattered windows where applicable.
-Actual car crumpling (maybe bending or warping if the accident is bad enough [and if it's even possible in the current engine, and worth PD's time) in the event of a large accident.
-All physics and modeling/deformation is the same offline or online.
etc

i doubt almost any of this will be in gt6 because it would take a lot of manpower and time to impliment while containing the visuals of gt5, and even if they did it wont work well with the casual players who will get frustrated when their car randomly kills itself

 

[avens]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9MLofOWw8A
Just buy a Beetle and set up a Beetle only room.

still looks happy after flipping over

 

[Slash]

i doubt almost any of this will be in gt6 because it would take a lot of manpower and time to impliment while containing the visuals of gt5, and even if they did it wont work well with the casual players who will get frustrated when their car randomly kills itself

The game is getting past casual. Go play NFS if you don't want a challenge.

 

[symustafa1996]

Demolition derby with old used cars you happen to have or don't want!

 

[bzking23]

The game is getting past casual. Go play NFS if you don't want a challenge.

casual players make up a great amount of the game's sales, i am attempting to become a hardcore player so far im halfway there , what im saying is if gt6 becomes something more like iracing, the sales will actually be less than any in the gt series, its a bad thing but its the truth

 

[Quakebass]

i doubt almost any of this will be in gt6 because it would take a lot of manpower and time to impliment while containing the visuals of gt5, and even if they did it wont work well with the casual players who will get frustrated when their car randomly kills itself

Some seems plenty possible - more likely the physical stuff, less likely the mechanical stuff. It's just adjustments to the current engine for more advanced deformation, and I don't think it's too hard to program more dislodgeable parts. PD'll likely be adjusting AI algorithms and various other performance aspects in this engine, so it seems logical that the damage may have some improvements. I highly doubt ALL of these will be done in the next game, but this is more a realistic wish list of what I'd like to see being done to the current model.

 

[tpark103]

Shattered glass and tires off the rim

 

[Spagetti69]

The game is getting past casual. Go play NFS if you don't want a challenge.

NFS has damage doesn't it?

 

[mustangfan663]

I don't care that much about damage but collision physics should be more realistic.

The damage should be more realistic too

 

[Jerwin]

Isn't the mechanical damage enough? Sure, you won't total your car, or get it deformed, but it already punishes you by reducing performance and handling. Making realistic car deformations and explosions would just delay GT6 and cause unwanted hype.

 

[MrGrado]

If you want crash realism, break your own legs if you make a bad crash.

 

[CJSpencer77]

You can roll the car offline but not online, it would be nice to see this implemented online

The rally cars have detachable parts, but the other premiums dont.

Hopefully we will see these kind of graphics and physics in GT6 because in my mind the real driving simulator shouldnt have play dough cars ( ie std cars )

 

[eran0004]

Isn't the mechanical damage enough? Sure, you won't total your car, or get it deformed, but it already punishes you by reducing performance and handling. Making realistic car deformations and explosions would just delay GT6 and cause unwanted hype.

Mechanical damage is the most important in my opinion. The problem is that it's not being implemented and that it's not severe enough. There's no damage in a-spec or b-spec, so you can only have it online. And nobody wants it online because they can't be arsed to go back to the pits to repair. There's also the problem with people crashing into other people, by mistake or on purpose or by having extreme lag. In real life racing those drivers gets punished, but there's no punishment in GT5.

I think damage should be mandatory in Gran Turismo. Sure, it would be like game over if you total your car and that would be bad, but in most games, if you make a bad mistake, it means game over. I think it would make you a better driver too, because extreme risk taking would not pay out.

I think damage would add some spice to the endurance races too. Not only crash damage, but stress damage too. And different damage would take different amount of time to repair. You could be staying in the pit, repairing the car for two hours if you're in bad luck, but so could the AI.

About punishment online, perhaps there could be a rating system. If you're never involved in any collisions you get a higher rating and then you could set a minimum required rating to your online lobby... Like, everyone starts at 0 points. For any online race you complete without a crash you get +0.1 and for every crash you were involved in you get -0.1 points. The maximum points would be +10 (after 100 races without crashes) and minimum would be -10 (after 100 crashes). And the host could chose wether the ranking feature would be on or off, so if you just want to have a fun crash fest online you could do that too.