Sorry, but that makes no sense.
Corresponds means "to be in agreement or conformity" or "to be similar or analogous." It doesn't mean "one implies the other." That's what
correlates means.
Yes I would think correlate better represents what I think was being said, either due to poor translation or making the best meaning in English you can out of a difficult to translate idiom in Japanese.
But I still say in agreement with or comformity with sounds a lot like "when you have one, you have the other". I know technically that's correlates, but that's still how it sounds to me.
See, you said, "correlates," but that's not what the translation says.
You're right... and correlates definitely is the correct word for the meaning, but I feel that corresponds fits so poorly where it is in the translation that either it's a poor translation it was a difficult portion to translate (while it seems it should be easy) that resulted in best guess situation. I am saying this not because I want it to be that way, it just seems the most reasonable from a "what makes sense to happen" standpoint.
The reason I say that is that I think any car with the door open you will see the door open from the inside. This is for two reasons:
1 I don't think the inside the car view will prevent you from seeing exterior polygons, that's just usually not how its done and I think would be more difficult (you would have to code the game to decide when to show you what set of polygons and that invites clipping if you have moving parts). So I think no matter what car you have, if the hood pops up, you see it from all views, if a door flops open, you see it from all views etc. This leads to-
It sounds like there won't be a hole. The inside of the car always looks the same.
2 It would just look sloppy and odd that your door would be floppy and open from outside the car, but once inside the car (one one of these not fully modeled) ones you just see a closed door in good condition all the time? No... that makes no sense. It's actually harder to do that than just always showing the open floppy door for anyone.
Here's a better example:
Premium shirts have screen printing; the screen printing corresponds to the color of the shirt
Standard shirts are also available
Then you and SIM conclude, "Obviously, the standard shirts are transparent."
The problem is corresponds is such a poor word for the spot... it just begs of being poorly translated or just a wrong word. For instance if you were to take the meaning of corresponds properly there, you would get out of it that the screen printing is the same color as the shirt as it corresponds to that color.
And in your example I would assume the standard shirts do not have screen printing.
So you guys are
hoping only 170 cars can be damaged?
No, it was an in general answer. Sometimes people read into it something they want because that's what they hope for, sometimes they just are doing their best with a translation that clearly is rough and doesn't come out in concise proper english.
Example sometimes people hope all the cars will have damage, so they find a way to read it in.
Some times people think what's reasonable and likely and they look to see if the translation might support that.
But in order for that to work, the cabin needs to be modeled out of polygons. Yes?
Yes. Everything in a 3d game is polygons probably with textures and maps applied.
But where you said:
It doesn't say anything about checking the positions of other cars on the track or anything mundane like that. It talks about how it's gonna be super neato to be able to look around at the inside of your "premium car" while you're driving around.
And the translation says:
the movement of Cockpit Camera interface (confirmed in full 3-D. The camera can be fully manipulated and you can opt to have your head tracked by the PSEye)
It says neither anything about being able to check positions of other cars (which it would be assumed you could because the glass in the car should be clear and you could see out) nor about how spiffily you can look around the inside of your car (which it is also assumed you could simply by virtue of the fact nothing should stop you) so I am not really sure what conclusion you are trying to draw that relates to how many cars have damage etc from that.
Actually I am not sure why you even included that part at all...
Yes, that's what I was saying. The cabins in the premium cars would be exact recreations of their real life counterparts (i.e. "fully modeled"), and the cabins of the standard cars wouldn't be. Whether that means the standard cars get a generic "cabin," or just an empty void remains to be seen. My guess would be the former, especially since the CCI section describes the cabins as "fully 3D."
I would suppose it could mean that the non premium cars look like weight reduced vehicles with all interior removed and you just see a stripped interior everywhere.
Fair enough, but as far as we know, the translation is reasonably accurate. (We have no reason to think otherwise, do we?) Regardless, I think we should be basing any speculation on what the translation actually says, and it certainly doesn't say anything along the lines of, "Only the premium cars can be damaged," or, "The standard cars will be using PS2 art." All it seems to be saying is that some cars will have really nice interiors and those really nice interiors will reflect the damage the car takes. Period. It says nothing at all about what cars can and can't be damaged.
Yes we have no reason to think it's not "reasonably" accurate, but reasonably means room for doubt and not perfect.
I base my speculation on a combination of what it says, what I think is logically likely and what I think would be more clearly mentioned if it were true.
I think the "corresponds" part does (poorly) mean we will see some cars without damage. I just think it's a result of translation that it comes across so poorly. Logically the other option (you don't see doors opening etc from in the car view) seems much less feasible.
In short, you are changing the translation to suit your argument, whereas I am taking the translation as written. Do you speak Japanese? Do you have good reason to believe the translation is simply wrong and the original text should be translated as "The presence of such an interior indicates a damageable car," or, "These cars can be damaged," instead of, "The interior corresponds to vehicle damage"?
In short I am considering it's a translation, taking it's accuracy with a grain of salt and using logic and information from outside the translation (like the GC video where some cars do not have damage) to make an educated guess.
As I said, who really knows what is lost in translation and KY has said things before that changed or maybe even things that the majority of poeple didn't understand the same way he did. In this case we aren't even dealing with KY said, we are dealing with something KY confirmed to be accurate, between lost in translation and how carefuly KY scrutinizes the meanings of everything on that page before saying it's accurate, there is a lot of wiggle room.
You are going off the list as if it's gospel, and ironically (like the Bible) it's been translated and needs to be interperated. When you interperate it, you need to factor in things outside of it's literal meaning. Look at what we have seen so far, feel the general air of where KY and PD are taking the game and consider the ramifications of what might happen in the finished game. All those have to go together when trying to pull meaning from this translated list.
My guess so far:
170 cars will feature cosmetic damage and it's likely it will be broken down by street car vs race cars or some such. This becuase it is the most graceful way to make the seperation and it will result in less cases where cars that have cosmetic damage are mixed into races with cars that don't.
Those 170 cars will have fully modeled interriors which I am going with means everythign inside is there and accurate.
The remaining cars will not have cosmetic damage (no idea on the mechanical damage although I really hope so and it seems likely)
The remaining cars will have either a lower quality, generic or empty interior.
Basically the foundation behind these guesses is that PD is running behind schedule and having the release forced on them. I think they couldn't finish everything to the level of perfection they wanted, so they finished what they could and then drew some kind of deliniation where they could gracefully cut off working on the finishing touches.
I am thinking that deliniation was that they were working on final touches which were cosmetic damage and fully modeled interiors. This time consuming task couldn't be completed so the deliniation was made at some arbitrary point (likely race cars vs street production cars) and the decision was made to put these features in in a limited fashion to prove that PD could do it (so as not to release a game into a bunch of people criticizing PD for not having damage and speculating on why PD doesn't care about damage or why PD is lying when they say "we have damage but it's just not polished enough to release - ie something to pre empt some anti PD flames) and give PD the plausible deniability to say "We aren't giving you less than a complete game, we are just testing what you want" kind of how like MS didn't say "we didn't leave HD drives out of the 360, we gave you an option if you want to buy it as a peripheral". Basically spinning a difficult situation into one where you should be happy we care about you so much to do it this way.
That's my take at least.
means literally "twenty course more than" or in proper english, "more than 20 courses".
