The Damage Thread - Best Buy Demo, Now Thats More Like It!

[Devedander]

He also said it was real. Aren't you the one bringing up things being lost in translation? Yet now you're using something that was translated to bash someone else... Bad form... 👎

Yes I said if the translation doesn't make sense you need to apply some logic to figure out what's most likely, that translation made sense just how it came across and the chosend words for the translation didn't leave much room for reasonable other meanings or ambituity.

 

[serversurfer]

Yes I said if the translation doesn't make sense you need to apply some logic to figure out what's most likely…

Translation: "If a translation doesn't fit my argument, then I'm free to change it until it does, but translations that do fit my argument should be taken as written."

… that translation made sense just how it came across and the chosend words for the translation didn't leave much room for reasonable other meanings or ambituity.

"Concept video" could simply mean "a demonstration of what the final game will look like." It doesn't necessarily mean, "We faked it," particularly when he also explicitly said it was made using the game engine.

 

[Devedander]

Translation: "If a translation doesn't fit my argument, then I'm free to change it until it does, but translations that do fit my argument should be taken as written."

No, when the wording is slightly wrong for the situation and a similar word fits much better and more reasonably that is quite likely the issue.

For exampe, corresponds vs correlates.

"Concept video" could simply mean "a demonstration of what the final game will look like." It doesn't necessarily mean, "We faked it," particularly when he also explicitly said it was made using the game engine.

How would you show what the game would finally look like way before it's anywhere near complete without rendering it somewhere else?

 

[RedSuinit]

Yes I said if the translation doesn't make sense you need to apply some logic to figure out what's most likely, that translation made sense just how it came across and the chosend words for the translation didn't leave much room for reasonable other meanings or ambituity.

Sorry, but I disagree, the one where he said "Of course it's real!" didn't leave room for ambiguity either...

 

[serversurfer]

For exampe, corresponds vs correlates.

Except you were utterly wrong about that entire argument, and it turns out that the "corresponds" translations were accurate.

You were trying to argue that it was a mistranslation, and that it was clearly saying that only the premium cars would have cockpits, and only the premium cars could be damaged. Except, "interior design that corresponds to damage" was spot on, because we now know that that the premium cars have stuff like the engine bay modeled, so that when the hood gets ripped off, we see the engine instead of an empty void. Ditto for the doors and the cockpit.

In short, you were totally wrong, and I was totally right, so don't go around trying to claim that anything that counters your FUD is simply a mistranslation, and especially don't give examples that demonstrate exactly the opposite.

How would you show what the game would finally look like way before it's anywhere near complete without rendering it somewhere else?

Go learn about code branches and come back later.

 

[Devedander]

Except you were utterly wrong about that entire argument, and it turns out that the "corresponds" translations were accurate.

You were trying to argue that it was a mistranslation, and that it was clearly saying that only the premium cars would have cockpits, and only the premium cars could be damaged. Except, "interior design that corresponds to damage" was spot on, because we now know that that the premium cars have stuff like the engine bay modeled, so that when the hood gets ripped off, we see the engine instead of an empty void. Ditto for the doors and the cockpit.

No, you are selectively remembering. I said that the fully modeled was going to tie into damage. At the time that was correct.

It turns out that fully modeled interior did indeed refer to engine, which if you look back I actulaly said was also possible although interior could also mean "inside the cabin" which I thought was more likely.

At the time, it was correct, in that "fully modeled interior" did tie to damage. The only difference now is that it ties to the "better" damage however that's aside as when I was talking about that, the announcement to move to all cars damaged had not been made yet.

The correct term was correlates, but corresponds is an eays word to mistakenly input as their meanings are easily confused and as it turns out the reasonable understanding (that damage tied into the fully modeled) was correct.

In short, you were totally wrong, and I was totally right, so don't go around trying to claim that anything that counters your FUD is simply a mistranslation, and especially don't give examples that demonstrate exactly the opposite.

Wasn't your claim that on standard cars if the doors popped open, the inside view wouldn't reflect that? Despite the fact that

1: that makes no sense, the standard cars didn't even have doors that popped open

2: that would just be ridiculous looking and sloppy

So you were totally right about something that makes no sense, and couldn't have happened anyway and when I said that the damage was going to tie to the same cars as fully modeled interiors it turns out that's exactly what happened means I was totally wrong?

What are you talking about? Code branches? Please explain, becuase in my world (where you can't time travel and get the final game before it's made) if you show the final product before it's anywhere near done, you are showing what you think it will be and must have created that in something else.

 

[serversurfer]

No, you are selectively remembering.

No, you are selectively remembering. Here is your post where you explained at length how only the premium cars would have interiors and be subject to damage. An excerpt…

The way I read it

full interior modeling, the interior corresponds to vehicle damage

Says that the cars with full interior modeling will be the ones with damage.

I do not think that this means the interiors will reflect damage in the way you suggest. From what you say it sounds like you think this means some cars will have damage that is NOT reflected from the interior. So in the case of a door flapping open or being ripped off, what do you think you would see when looking out the hole where the door used to be on a car that is one not one of these special interior model cars?

I think it absolutely means that cars that have damage will have full interior modeling (whatever that is) and the ones that do not have full interior modeling will also not have damage. That is how they correspond to each other.

So, umm, yeah. WRONG!

Wasn't your claim that on standard cars if the doors popped open, the inside view wouldn't reflect that?

I said I didn't know how the interior design was going to correspond to damage, only that it would. I suggested that as a possibility, when you asked what the cockpit view of a standard car would look like after the door had been ripped off. It turns out, the doors simply don't come open on the standard cars, because they don't have the interior modeling that corresponds to damage. They have cockpits, and they have damage, which is what I was suggesting all along. However, they don't have interior design that corresponds to damage, which, not coincidentally, is exactly what the original translation said.

What are you talking about? Code branches? Please explain, becuase in my world (where you can't time travel and get the final game before it's made) if you show the final product before it's anywhere near done, you are showing what you think it will be and must have created that in something else.

A code branch is a section of code that's "in progress." It's not complete, or fully functional, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't function at all. For example, it may function well enough to create a trailer, but not well enough that you'd want to include it in a trade show floor demo that's going to be played (and talked about) by thousands of people. A program that's in development may have hundreds of such branches, and as individual branches are deemed complete and fully functional, they are merged in to the main trunk. Linky

So while "your world" may not allow for such possibilities, I assure you they do exist. In the real world, some people actually understand how things work before they spout off about them, but I guess that's not how it's done in "your world."

 

[Dravonic]

Can we stop with the "I'm right, you're wrong" talk and take a look at this? (translated from spanish by me)

MeriStation: Let's talk about damage deformation in Gran Turismo 5. A hot topic. Perfection in every aspect was always a Gran Turismo characteristic. The graphics, driving, etc. Can we expect perfection in the accidents and damage also?

Yamauchi: I'll just tell you one thing. Our engineering team did not want to do something you had already seen in other games. No. We wanted something different and new.

Yes, expect perfection.

Talking about NASCAR, Yamauchi said that the deformation and damage in those high speed races will be incredible and realistic, with turns, spins, rollovers, etc. We will have to see to believe.

I only hope this MeriStation website (the one in the recent GTP news) can be believed, because the news are as awesome as they can be.

Source

 

[RedSuinit]

Devendander, stop, and start re-reading your posts... You're stooping to their level, you're normally a bigger man than this.

 

[Devedander]

No, you are selectively remembering. Here is your post where you explained at length how only the premium cars would have interiors and be subject to damage. An excerpt…


So, umm, yeah. WRONG!

Umm what? I didn't say only premium cars would have interiors... I said only premium cars would have "Fully modeled interiors" note I even say "whatever that means" as I thought it was most likely something to do with the cabin but also included that it's might well be somethign to do with the engine.

Nice try twising my words but if you read the post it clearly makes these points:

There is something called "fully modeled interior"

There is somethign called premium cars

There is smoething called standard cars

Only premium cars will have fully modeled interior

standard cars will not have fully modeled interior.

ie premium cars will have fully modeled interiors - they correlate.

What does it turn out to be?

Cars with full damage have fully modeled engine bits and what not because yo ucan see them when parts fall off.

Cars that aren't premium (at the time of this translation that meant that don't ahve damage, since PD have pulled back and are now adding smoe kind of damage to all cars, standard just means damage which does not result in being able to see into the cars engine area) do not have fully modeled interior.

So as far as correlating... hmmm... cars with full damage DO have the fully modeled interior. Cars that don't have full damage DONT have fully modeled interior...

What did you say?

"the interior corresponds to vehicle damage"
What does that mean? Well, it seems pretty clear the extra-slick cabin views will reflect any damage the car takes. So for example, if your door gets ripped off, and you look to the side, you'll actually be able to see out of the gaping hole and watch the track surface whiz past your face. It certainly does not say that no other cars can be damaged.

Well let's see, that amounts to:

You are saying the cabin will be visible from outside the car should say a door get ripped off.

Problems with that interperetation (and hence why I said your reasoning for the tranlsation being your way doesn't work, because when you decide a translation is likely wrong, it must be because a more likely result is achieved from a slightly different meaning than the translation actually says):

Cars without damage weren't going to be having doors ripped off anyway, so WTF are you talking about? You are making a reason for something that coudlnt' happen.

You can see into the car through the windows already. Sure you can't see EVERYTHING in the car, but you can see all around the cabin, front seats, back seats etc, so what would be left to "fully" model that you can't see through a window but can see through an open door? A floort matt?

(aside from the fact that it couldn't happen) do you honestly think it sounds likely that you end up with doors flopping around from outside view, but not from inside view on standard cars? That makes sense... totally goes against the polish PD puts on their products.

So again, the only time we were both wrong was we both thought it meant cabin and it turns out it pretty much means engine.

But as far as correlates and corresponds... well my idea makes sense and look, all the cars that have premium damage have fully modeled interiors.

All the cars that don't have premium damage, don't have fully modeled itneriors...

Your idea makes no sense and would look like total crap and it turns out correlates really was what happened.... so hmmm....

I said I didn't know how the interior design was going to correspond to damage, only that it would. I suggested that as a possibility, when you asked what the cockpit view of a standard car would look like after the door had been ripped off. It turns out, the doors simply don't come open on the standard cars, because they don't have the interior modeling that corresponds to damage.

Again, you can see into the cars through the windows, they have the itnerior of the cabins modeled. KY's recent interview on the issue makes it sound pretty much like it's engine bits that's the problem as he doesn't want a hood flapping up to reveal an empty engine bay.

A code branch is a section of code that's "in progress." It's not complete, or fully functional, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't function at all. For example, it may function well enough to create a trailer, but not well enough that you'd want to include it in a trade show floor demo that's going to be played (and talked about) by thousands of people. A program that's in development may have hundreds of such branches, and as individual branches are deemed complete and fully functional, they are merged in to the main trunk. Linky

So while "your world" may not allow for such possibilities, I assure you they do exist. In the real world, some people actually understand how things work before they spout off about them, but I guess that's not how it's done in "your world."

So you think the rendering engine was up to that level back when they made the E3 video? I can't fully discount it but consider that KY said they only worked on damage for 2 months and at GC the damage was about what showed at E3... if they had damage that far along at E3 wouldn't they likely have had it further by GC and TGS?

 

[serversurfer]

Cars that aren't premium (at the time of this translation that meant that don't ahve damage, since PD have pulled back and are now adding smoe kind of damage to all cars, standard just means damage which does not result in being able to see into the cars engine area) do not have fully modeled interior.

You're the one twisting things here. At no time did anything from PD say that the standard cars wouldn't have damage. You were the one saying that, and now you're trying to twist the original, accurate translation to fit your argument, just as you did before. But in fact, the original translation was both perfectly accurate and fit perfectly with what we now know to be the full story.

You tried changing the original translation in an effort to convince people that 83% of the cars were undamageable, but we now know that's not the case, and the original translation never said anything of the sort. All it did say was what in fact turned out to be the case; 170 cars would have interior views that corresponded to the damage the car had suffered.

So you were totally wrong, and now you're desperately trying to make it seem like you were sorta right, except you were entirely wrong.

Cars without damage weren't going to be having doors ripped off anyway, so WTF are you talking about? You are making a reason for something that coudlnt' happen.

Dude, are you broken? You're the one that said, "Well, then what happens when a door gets ripped off of a standard car?"

Again, you can see into the cars through the windows, they have the itnerior of the cabins modeled. KY's recent interview on the issue makes it sound pretty much like it's engine bits that's the problem as he doesn't want a hood flapping up to reveal an empty engine bay.

He also mentioned seeing in to the cabin after the doors had been ripped open/off.

So you think the rendering engine was up to that level back when they made the E3 video?

Clearly, it was. That's how they made the video.

I can't fully discount it but consider that KY said they only worked on damage for 2 months and at GC the damage was about what showed at E3... if they had damage that far along at E3 wouldn't they likely have had it further by GC and TGS?

I see you still don't have the slightest idea how code branches work.

Kaz said that the damage model we saw at TGS represented about two months of work. He never said when those two months of work were actually accomplished. They may have done the entire two months of work three years ago. They may have done three weeks of work last year, and then five more weeks of work between E3 and TGS. We have no idea when they did they work. We only know that that branch has had two months' work put in to it.

That's the beauty of code branches. It doesn't matter when you do the work, or how far along it is at any given time. It exists as a separate entity that can be added to (or removed from) the main trunk at any time, and it can be worked on separately. It can also "sorta work," and still be used for testing and demonstration purposes.

"Is the damage modeling done yet?"
"No, sorry, boss. Not even close. We've been focused on collision physics, and haven't done anything beyond some very basic deformation modeling."
"Well, E3 is coming up. Are we at least at the point where we can show some deformation in the trailer?"
"Oh, sure, we can do that. It's just not ready to go in to any playable builds yet."
"Well, I'd really like to have some damage working for the TGS floor demo. Can we have something ready to go by then?"
"Oh, sure. We can probably even have something basic ready for Cologne."
"Excellent. Good work, team."

Every aspect of the game—driving physics, collision physics, damage modeling, weather modeling, lighting, etc.—exists as a wholly separate branch, and those branches are added in to the trunk as they are completed, and they can be added in temporarily for a quick trailer or demo as need be.

 

[Tenacious D]

Hopefully Deve is finally getting some satisfaction. GT5 is getting improvements in just about every area, and we'll see the fruits of this as we approach the release date. Of course, we'll know for sure if he stops arguing about old GT5 builds... or not. Or, maybe...

"Devedan, look!" (points) "The Forza 3 demo is out!"

 

[Maggot666PL]

You guys discuss what you want, I just wanted to address the statement (concerning the WRC2008 damage from GC/TGS) that "hood wouldn't stay open like that, it would just fly off".

Well yes, it wouldn't stay open exactly like this, and no, it wouldn't just fall of (too much GTA). Just some minor proof:
[Rally]
[youtubehd]uacmcFOL_Rs[/youtubehd]
[youtubehd]2M30esJxn20[/youtubehd]
[Race]
[youtubehd]vsfLv0WdanQ[/youtubehd]
So they're not spot on, but it could change. And certainly having your hood opened even in not perfectly real way is better than having it flown off, since it really impairs your vision in cockpit view.

Hope it wasn't thoroughly discussed already.

 

[Dravonic]

Come on Davedander and serversurfer... take this discussion to PMs since, I believe I speak for nearly everyone else here, we've grown tired of it already.

More awesome damage confirmation, and quite a few other great confirmations too (translated from french by google):

European Release Date: March 2010 near / announcement imminent
Race day... and night
Back to racing in the rain
Tire wear: refining loss of adhesion
A garage of 950 vehicles
20 locations around the world
70 variations of circuits
New vehicle physics
Damage by deformation of each parts of the car... depending on the speed and direction of impact
Upload his replay on YouTube
Exports Enhanced TV videos from the PS3 to the PSP
From the day of launch: the possibility to upload hundreds of vehicles obtained in the GT on PSP to Gran Turismo 5

It looks like we will be getting the epic damage shown in the E3 trailer after all. I can't put on words how awesome I'm feeling right now.

Source

 

[serversurfer]

The IGN interview confirmed damage would be dynamic, and it makes sense, since it's far easier to teach the game engine how to deform a body panel than it is to hand-model a broken version of every body panel on nearly 1000 cars. I thought we'd discussed this before, actually, but it might've been in another thread.

Anyway, sorry for the thread derail. It's hard to resist the urge to respond to his crap.

 

[Devedander]

You're the one twisting things here. At no

CLIP CLIP CLIP

and they can be added in temporarily for a quick trailer or demo as need be.

I'll keep it short and sweet as this thread doesn't need another wall of text.

I always said (and posted it in my guesses about TGS) that it would break down to 170 cars with premium damage and the rest standard cars. The premium damage cars would have fully modeled interiors (whatever they ended up being) and the standard cars would not.

Considering the recent news that GT5 is heald up until 2010 while they impliment scratch and dent on the remaining (non premium) cars and that the reason KY gave was that modeling the interior (parts you see when other parts fall off ie engine bay) was a lot of work it seems I was spot on at the time.

So in short, I was right at the time. PD have now pushed out to add damage to the standard cars, but that's after the fact.

The translation was either incorrect or subtly different and following translations had no mention of that word in there at all.

Where are we now? There are still 2 classes of damage, and on the premium classes when pieces fall off, you can see engine bits and suspension that need to be modeled whereas standard ones don't neet it. On all cars the cabin is pretty much fully modeled (you can see it by looking in the windows and I think we both agree that you will be able to control the camera inside the car to see it all at some point).

The only place I was wrong is that I said some cars would have NO damage. Again at the time I was right, and now I am wrong because PD responded to critique and pushed back GT to put scratch and dent damage on the remaining cars as they rightly realized that 830 cars with no damage at all was goig to draw a lot of fire from people come release time.

In short, I was right and your idea still makes little to no sense but all that is aside as the original issue was the word correspond vs correlate.

Well since it seems the cars with full damage will be the ones with modeled interiors, then it seems I as right, they do correlate as they are one and the same group. So again...

 

[PAPPACLART]

http://www.thesixthaxis.com/2009/10/02/gran-turismo-5-rumoured-info-from-japan/

Only gossip...

 

[Earth]

Speaking of NASCAR, Yamauchi noted that the deformation and damage in these high-speed races will be absolutely amazing and true to life, with turns, spins, rollovers, and so on. We will have to see to believe.

This sim provided the best recreation of NASCAR crashes ever, over 6 years ago. Don't get shown up by a 6 year old sim Kaz

 

[Tenacious D]

Err... that video was funnier than it was impressive. I think that's an example of physics which are just a wee bit exaggerated. Now I agree that at 190 mph, cars can careen around like pinballs, sort of, just not quite that much. We'll see.

 

[Organ-Donor]

^ Man that video just put a smile on my face thinking about GT5 online NASCAR races. With the proper damage and collision physics it could be so fun (and could get ugly ).

 

[RedSuinit]

This sim provided the best recreation of NASCAR crashes ever, over 6 years ago. Don't get shown up by a 6 year old sim Kaz

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not... Because some of those crashes are great, then some are just ridiculous, like at 1:10.

 

[kohanson]

The crashes are great but as what RedSuinit has said, at 1:10, the car is spinning too fast. I like it when the cars started crashing and the dust fills up the whole area causing the vehicles behind to hit onto each other, and the skid marks add to the realism.

 

[Earth]

I laughed at the spinning car too, that bug does occur in the physics but rarely. Overall NASCAR 2003 does a fine job of physics. iRacing uses an improved NASCAR 2003 physics engine

Richard Petty 1988 Daytona 500 flip


Richard Petty 1988 Daytona 500 flip (NASCAR 2003)


Ryan Newman Daytona 2003 flip


Ryan Newman Daytona 2003 flip (NASCAR 2003)


Tony Stewart 2006 Blowover @ Talladega


Tony Stewart 2006 Blowover @ Talladega (NASCAR 2003)

^ Man that video just put a smile on my face thinking about GT5 online NASCAR races. With the proper damage and collision physics it could be so fun (and could get ugly ).

Haha ugly is an understatement. I've been in NASCAR 2003 online crashes where the whole field gets swallowed up in one turn.

 

[Devedander]

Can you imagine being in the car for that 1:10 carsh? It would be super vomit inducing....

 

[serversurfer]

The only place I was wrong is that I said some cars would have NO damage. Again at the time I was right…

No, you were never right about that.

… and now I am wrong because PD responded to critique and pushed back GT to put scratch and dent damage on the remaining cars as they rightly realized that 830 cars with no damage at all was goig to draw a lot of fire from people come release time.

Back that up or shut your pie hole.

No, saying, "Well, it's obvious," doesn't back it up. Show some proof, or admit you're a liar.

 

[Devedander]

No, you were never right about that.

Why don't you back that up, and just what you thought it meant doens't cut it.

Back that up or shut your pie hole.

No, saying, "Well, it's obvious," doesn't back it up. Show some proof, or admit you're a liar.

I don't think you understand how that works, to be a liar I have to be wrong, put up some proof.

At the end of the day, since PD has pushed back GT neither of us has any proof, the only thing I have is a reasonable and bleiveable theory and you have a completely ridiculous half baked mess. One only needs to read how that translation thread played out to see your theory falling apart.

Sorry... done with you, I feed way too many trolls as it is.

 

[Dravonic]

Why don't you back that up, and just what you thought it meant doens't cut it.

I don't think you understand how that works, to be a liar I have to be wrong, put up some proof.

At the end of the day, since PD has pushed back GT neither of us has any proof, the only thing I have is a reasonable and bleiveable theory and you have a completely ridiculous half baked mess. One only needs to read how that translation thread played out to see your theory falling apart.

Sorry... done with you, I feed way too many trolls as it is.

The problem with what you're saying is you're assuming the game was pushed back and you know the reason why. Well that's not true is it?

We can only speculate if it was really delayed, and the reason is even wilder speculation. Basing your whole arguments in guesses won't convince anyone.

 

[frank-jaeger]

“The damage physics are going to be applied to things like a bent suspension arm, tires hitting the wheel wells of a car, deformation of the body affecting alignment, the loss of power to the engine,” says Yamauchi. “We’re actually still working on setting the sensitivity level of the damage. You can have it so if you have a single hit your car isn’t going to be able to be driven anymore. It’s a matter of adjustment.”


http://gameinformer.com/games/gran_turismo_5/b/ps3/archive/2009/09/30/preview.aspx

 

[El Drifto]

“The damage physics are going to be applied to things like a bent suspension arm, tires hitting the wheel wells of a car, deformation of the body affecting alignment, the loss of power to the engine,” says Yamauchi. “We’re actually still working on setting the sensitivity level of the damage. You can have it so if you have a single hit your car isn’t going to be able to be driven anymore. It’s a matter of adjustment.”


http://gameinformer.com/games/gran_turismo_5/b/ps3/archive/2009/09/30/preview.aspx

Wow.
That's some serious stuff.

I love it! 👍

 

[Earth]

“The damage physics are going to be applied to things like a bent suspension arm, tires hitting the wheel wells of a car, deformation of the body affecting alignment, the loss of power to the engine,” says Yamauchi. “We’re actually still working on setting the sensitivity level of the damage. You can have it so if you have a single hit your car isn’t going to be able to be driven anymore. It’s a matter of adjustment.”


http://gameinformer.com/games/gran_turismo_5/b/ps3/archive/2009/09/30/preview.aspx

Ability to adjust damage sensitivity anyway you want even to life like levels? WIN

If this is what they are working on these next 6 months I'll take the delay anyday