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

[Bogie 19th]

I will take as many delays as they have (any game manufacturer) so long as they put out a good solid game. 6 month, or 6 years, just do it and do it right so I get my $60 worth.

 

[serversurfer]

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

The beginning of June, we saw the E3 trailer, which confirmed that damage was finally coming to the series. Specifically, deformation was shown.

Two months later, in August, the leaked feature list appeared. This told us that damage would be part of the game engine, with no caveats about which cars to which it would apply. It also told us that premium cars would have interior design which corresponded to damage, but we weren't sure exactly what that meant. Because most people assumed "interior design" referred to cockpits in some way, it made deciphering the scraps of information we did have all the more difficult. Some assumed it meant the cockpits of these premium cars would somehow reflect damage, but all cars would have cockpits and be subject to some form of damage. Others assumed it meant only certain cars would have cockpits at all and/or be damageable.

But now we know that if a hood pops open on a premium car, a corresponding model of the engine bay will be seen, and if a door is ripped off, a corresponding model of the cockpit will be seen, but since the glove compartment doesn't come open, there is no corresponding model of its interior. We also know that standard cards aren't subject to this type of damage at all, and consequently have no corresponding interior design. The standard cars will only be subject to deformation.

At TGS, IGN interviewed Kaz, who told them the damage modeling would be dynamic. What does that mean? It means that rather than modeling both a pristine body panel and a damaged body panel, PD taught the physics model how to deform the pristine panels itself. This bit is particularly important.

Why is it so important? Because of how dynamic modeling works. Once you teach the engine how to crinkle the hood of a WRC WRX, it's equally easy for it to crinkle the hood of a WRX production car. It requires no extra work from the developer. In fact, it would require extra work from the developer to prevent the production car from being deformed. Specifically, they would need to add a statement to the effect of "IF raceCar() THEN performDeformationModeling();" instead of simply calling "performDeformationModeling();"

Since a developer would need to be insane to add such a clause to their code, thereby intentionally gimping their game for no apparent reason, we must assume they didn't unless we're presented with evidence that they did. More to the point, even if they had included such a clause, as you're asserting, and they decided to remove it at the last minute due to nerd rage, as you're asserting, the process of removing said clause would not take six months, as you're asserting.

In short, your assertions don't even stand up to even the most casual of scrutiny, and more to the point, all of the evidence we have is against you.

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

No, you don't understand how it works. Yes, if you keep repeating obviously incorrect information, you're a liar, but it's not up to us to provide contrary data. It's up to you to provide supporting data.

For example, I can say, "God has purple hair." If someone questions the accuracy of that statement, the onus isn't then on them to prove He actually has blue hair. Rather, the onus is on me to prove He does indeed have purple hair.

So if you're going to run around claiming that the original release date was pushed back six months due to nerd rage over the fact that 83% of the cars couldn't be damaged, contrary to the evidence we have, then you need to be able to show where someone at PD or Sony actually said this.

… the only thing I have is a reasonable and bleiveable theory and you have a completely ridiculous half baked mess.

You seem to have confused me with you.

One only needs to read how that translation thread played out to see your theory falling apart.

Except now we know the original translation was spot on.

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

lol Irony FTW!

 

[balang_479]

devendander got pnwed!

 

[Devedander]

*sigh* I should know better but...

The beginning of June, we saw the E3 trailer, which confirmed that damage was finally coming to the series. Specifically, deformation was shown.

We saw damage to one car, specifically the Subaru, a race car.

Two months later, in August, the leaked feature list appeared. This told us that damage would be part of the game engine, with no caveats about which cars to which it would apply.

This is the main crux of the issue, we had a leaked list which say damage would be on 170 cars. It did NOT say damage would be on the other cars. I am well aware this does not EXCLUDE the possibility explicitly, but again, we have no proof of anything, the best we can go for is the most reasonable explanation.

If I say "I have 100 cars on my lot with Corinthean leather interior and a CD player, and I have 800 basic cars on my lot". What is the most likely meaning? I am pretty sure if the basic cars had corinthean leather but no CD players, I would still mention the leather wouldn't I?

This is a trend you will see throughout your reaonsing which is what makes it weak, you choose things to go with that aren't specifically excluded, but you ignore how reasonable they are to choose in the face of ther far more likely explanations.

It also told us that premium cars would have interior design which corresponded to damage, but we weren't sure exactly what that meant.

And the crux of THIS particular disagreement is whether it really meant absolutely literally corresponds or whether the translation has enough wiggle room in it that there is another more likely meaning.

You will notice from Angels translation (as I pointed out before) it comes across as this

-170 premium models (with interiors and damage support)
-830 standard models (compatible models taken from GT4)

And means together or essentially correlates.

Because most people assumed "interior design" referred to cockpits in some way, it made deciphering the scraps of information we did have all the more difficult. Some assumed it meant the cockpits of these premium cars would somehow reflect damage, but all cars would have cockpits and be subject to some form of damage. Others assumed it meant only certain cars would have cockpits at all and/or be damageable.

Yes. But let's not forget, the specific example you that if a door flapped open you would be able to see out as the meaning. This makes no sense!

As you said below with dynamic damage, there are some things a programmer would be stupid to leave out.

You said that when doors flop open, fully modeled cars would let you see out from the cabin. Well a programmer would have to be stupid to code the gameso that some cars have two sets of rendering rules, one from outside and one from inside. The one from inside always looking like the door is closed, the one from outside looking like it's open. This makes no sense as the car is always rendered the same no matter what view you use, the camera POV just changes.

But now we know that if a hood pops open on a premium car, a corresponding model of the engine bay will be seen, and if a door is ripped off, a corresponding model of the cockpit will be seen, but since the glove compartment doesn't come open, there is no corresponding model of its interior.

And thus the fully modeled interior CORRELATES to cars with full damage and lack of fully modelled interiors CORRELATES to cars without full damage. Exactyl as I said.

We also know that standard cards aren't subject to this type of damage at all, and consequently have no corresponding interior design. The standard cars will only be subject to deformation.

Yes at this point that's true. And as I always said, two levels of damage. However before I said one of those levels was no damage. If you look at every video up until and inculding TGS, only the subaru had damage and the other cars were invincible.

Your argument is they were always going to all have some level of damage, then explain why they only have damage to one car at the GC/TGS demo, it would make no sense for them to force damage off on all but one car.

Again most reasonable.

At TGS, IGN interviewed Kaz, who told them the damage modeling would be dynamic. What does that mean? It means that rather than modeling both a pristine body panel and a damaged body panel, PD taught the physics model how to deform the pristine panels itself. This bit is particularly important.

It still remains to be seen what this pans out to, because the most recent damage videos that show the cars all with damage, shows some pretty rudimentary damage that doesn't look at all like what I would think dynamic damage modeling looks like. The dents and scratches just look like they apply to the appropriate body panel, not so much depending on the impact.

So here, you are guessing again and then saying it like it's fact. This is the problem you have had the whole time accept this time at least you aren't making a horribly unreaonsable guess.

Why is it so important? Because of how dynamic modeling works. Once you teach the engine how to crinkle the hood of a WRC WRX, it's equally easy for it to crinkle the hood of a WRX production car. It requires no extra work from the developer. In fact, it would require extra work from the developer to prevent the production car from being deformed. Specifically, they would need to add a statement to the effect of "IF raceCar() THEN performDeformationModeling();" instead of simply calling "performDeformationModeling();"

Since a developer would need to be insane to add such a clause to their code, thereby intentionally gimping their game for no apparent reason, we must assume they didn't unless we're presented with evidence that they did. More to the point, even if they had included such a clause, as you're asserting, and they decided to remove it at the last minute due to nerd rage, as you're asserting, the process of removing said clause would not take six months, as you're asserting.

Exactly, which is why it is the far more reasonable thing to believe that the GC and TGS demos accurately displayed the current build at the time (ie they didn't turn off damage just for those demos) and so the addition of damage to the remaining 830ish cars is indeed a recent thing and is indeed contributing to the march 2010 release date.

In short, your assertions don't even stand up to even the most casual of scrutiny, and more to the point, all of the evidence we have is against you.

No, in short my assertions are the most reasonable, make the most sense in the big picture and don't rely on finding things that aren't 100% disproved and then going with them as if they are true rather than the much more reasonable explanantion.

No, you don't understand how it works. Yes, if you keep repeating obviously incorrect information, you're a liar, but it's not up to us to provide contrary data. It's up to you to provide supporting data.

You keep saying that if I can't prove your idea is wrong then mine must be wrong. Sorry... at this point especially there is no proof of anything from back then, all we have a is a timeline and reasonable guesses as to what cauases and fits a timeline like that.

For example, I can say, "God has purple hair." If someone questions the accuracy of that statement, the onus isn't then on them to prove He actually has blue hair. Rather, the onus is on me to prove He does indeed have purple hair.

Yes, you questioned my accuracy, you called me a liar, then offer something besides your own ridiculous understanding of the translation as th the onus is on YOU to prove I am a liar as you are making the claim... you can't and in the end my explanation makes far more sense and has no ridiculous holes (again, cars with doors that appear open from one view but not the other - I keep bringing that up and you keep ignoring it... how convenient).

So if you're going to run around claiming that the original release date was pushed back six months due to nerd rage over the fact that 83% of the cars couldn't be damaged, contrary to the evidence we have, then you need to be able to show where someone at PD or Sony actually said this.

What evidence? There is no evidence! The only evidence you have that any damage was always there was the E3 video which was labled as a concept video and only shows damage to the one car we ever saw damage on (the subaru) and GC and TGS, if anything, say that many cars at the time didn't have ANY damage.

Let's think... GC/TGS demo, Subaru has damage, others are totally invincible. Recent demo showing damage, now shows all cars with some rudimentary damage.

What is the most logical assumption:

Damage was turned off for GC/TGS and when the weak damage was constantly brought up PD and KY never said "oh that's because we turned it off for all cars but the subaru"

Or

Damage wasn't implimented, they showed the demos at GC and TGS and the backlash was more than they expected, PD and KY realized they need more time to remedy this... hmmmm....

Except now we know the original translation was spot on.

Accept your understanding of it wasn't. You have chosen a theory and you have forced everything that comes along to match it, or slyly changed and dodged your original stance to match it as time went on. Again anyone can go back through that big ol translation thread and watch you hang yourself, going for super cocky "I am right ha!" to claiming things mean the opposite of what they do so you can still be right (at one point one of the translators basically said, nope looks like no damage on the majority of cars and you said "Looks like I was right all along" even though it totally negates what you were saying) going to a meek, kiss a** to the translators showing how little you really knew about the big picture and how things were shaping up outside of that one translation thread.

I leave it down to these two points:

1 I said they damage correlates to modeled interior and guess what it does. Cars with full damage have modeled interiors. That's where this all started and I am still right on that.

2 Every step of the way you pick the least reasonable choice, which in a one off view doesn't seem too bad, but string them together and put them in the big picture and it's just ridiculous.

Let's see... both playable demos at GC and TGS have damage only to one car, press and responses are pretty harsh on damage across the board, suddenly damage is shown being implimented on all cars and the release date is now march 2010 which surprised almost everyone and makes no sense marketing wise when an OBVIOUS and HUGE marketing opportunity exists xmas of 09... what is most likely to have happened to bring this about... hmmmm

I think Angel put it quite well when responding to you:

I think you're wanting there to be more there than there actually is. I'm sorry that it's not the case, but most of what you're posting is solid speculation. All cars have cockpit views? All cars featuring exterior damage? I agree that these are things that SHOULD be in the game, but at the moment there is no evidence one way or the other.

And again... doors open from the outside but not from the cabin view?

 

[SUPER NUMBBER]

Like I said before....all this arguing for a list that spent all of 5 minutes online....

 

[RACECAR]

 

[RedSuinit]

Nice pic.

 

[Tenacious D]

Like I said before....all this arguing for a list that spent all of 5 minutes online....

I think we should just defer to new news on the subject, seeing as the game isn't going gold any time soon.

 

[Leadfoot53]

One guess i have about damage is that Kaz is trying to avoid the "damage clip" as i call it. That is when, because of the severity of the impact, parts of the car show through the body panels. That detracts from the experience, and i bet thats one reason for dynamic modelling.

 

[Leadfoot53]

One thing I thought about with the GC/TGS damage is that PD actually had a basic, maybe crude, representation of damage for all the basics. i.e. Bumpers hanging, hood popped, rear hatch popped, doors popped, scratches and missing paint all around. I think what we say was the bare bones BASELINE for damage, while they are busting their butts enhancing it to their (and our) liking...

 

[Earth]

Add NASCAR, rollover, better collisin physics, and deformation

 

[Devedander]

Add NASCAR, rollover, better collisin physics, and deformation

They should model the driver vomitting from crashes like that!

 

[Organ-Donor]

Add NASCAR, rollover, better collisin physics, and deformation

PD should be forced to watch this video every day as they are developing the new physics and damage system.

 

[aspect8]

At TGS, IGN interviewed Kaz, who told them the damage modeling would be dynamic. What does that mean? It means that rather than modeling both a pristine body panel and a damaged body panel, PD taught the physics model how to deform the pristine panels itself. This bit is particularly important.

Why is it so important? Because of how dynamic modeling works. Once you teach the engine how to crinkle the hood of a WRC WRX, it's equally easy for it to crinkle the hood of a WRX production car. It requires no extra work from the developer. In fact, it would require extra work from the developer to prevent the production car from being deformed. Specifically, they would need to add a statement to the effect of "IF raceCar() THEN performDeformationModeling();" instead of simply calling "performDeformationModeling();"

First of all, I admit you guys turned out right, it looks like all cars will have some level of damage. Why this wasn't ready for Gamescom is a mystery, but irrelevant now. This is awesome, GT5 needed this to be taken seriously in my mind.

Second:
If Polyphony are really doing dynamic deformation of materials, I will be absolutely gob smacked. I'll believe it when I see it though. Do you have any idea how much effort it takes to correctly deform even a simple shape programmatically? Let alone a complex collection of materials such as that found in a car! Add in rules stipulated by manufacturers regarding damage limits, collisions between the parts of the car, etc etc. I can't see Polyphony doing it in house.

I guess they could leverage some pre-existing tech, such as the DMM engine found in Force Unleashed, but that would require extensive work to integrate it into 1000 cars, each with at LEAST half a dozen different damageable materials. I haven't worked with DMM myself so I can't say for sure how it works, but their website suggests these deformation properties have to be baked in at a modelling level. Perhaps they could do it for their premium cars, but what we saw of the Subaru certainly wasn't dynamic deformation at all. So, again, I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[vaioleto]

Like I said before....all this arguing for a list that spent all of 5 minutes online....

Wait, there was a list? What was it?!?!?!

 

[serversurfer]

I'm going to make this as short as I can, because it's becoming clear that Deve is a lost cause and will continue making false assertions in spite of the fact that all of the evidence is against him.

-----------------------------------------------------

We saw damage to one car, specifically the Subaru, a race car.

Yes, exactly. Specifically, we saw deformation on that car. We now know deformation is dynamic, and therefore, will be applied to all cars. Therefore, we know the plan was to apply deformation to all cars as recently as E3, and obviously, a bit before that as well, since they had at least a rudimentary model ready to go so they could make the trailer.

In case that wasn't clear to you… We know, for a fact, that no later than June 2009, they had planned to make to make all cars damageable. This was long before the feature list was leaked, and long before we saw damage in a playable form at GC, and long before you and I started arguing about whether or not all cars would be damageable.

This is the main crux of the issue, we had a leaked list which say damage would be on 170 cars. It did NOT say damage would be on the other cars. I am well aware this does not EXCLUDE the possibility explicitly, but again, we have no proof of anything, the best we can go for is the most reasonable explanation.

If I say "I have 100 cars on my lot with Corinthean leather interior and a CD player, and I have 800 basic cars on my lot". What is the most likely meaning? I am pretty sure if the basic cars had corinthean leather but no CD players, I would still mention the leather wouldn't I?

Yes, I already knew why you came to the wrong conclusion, but thanks for explaining it again.

What I'm failing to understand is why you continue to cling to the notion your wrongness was somehow right.

And the crux of THIS particular disagreement is whether it really meant absolutely literally corresponds or whether the translation has enough wiggle room in it that there is another more likely meaning.

You will notice from Angels translation (as I pointed out before) it comes across as this

-170 premium models (with interiors and damage support)
-830 standard models (compatible models taken from GT4)

And means together or essentially correlates.

I understand that, and now we know that Angela's translation was the lesser of the two. While not "inaccurate," it didn't explain things as accurately as we now know the original translation did. Her translation didn't contradict what we now know to be the facts, but it also didn't mesh as well with them as the original translation of "interior modeling, which corresponds to damage" did.

Yes, "correlates" could be used without being inaccurate, but "corresponds" is a better fit, as it perfectly describes what we know to be the case. Clearly, "corresponds" was the accurate translation, and "correlates" is a word you pulled out of your ass in a desperate attempt to bolster your "83% without damage" assertions, because the accurate translation—"corresponds"—didn't support your argument.

Also, keep in mind that the word "correlates" doesn't even appear in what you're trying to present as the proper translation. (More to the point, it's clearly not the proper translation, so I'm not sure why you'd bring it up at all&#8230 Angela said, "support for damage," and said she thought the two phrases were basically unrelated to each other, but we now know the two phrases are intimately related. But again, I don't understand why you continue to belabor this point, when it's clear that the leaked list was telling us premium cars would have interior design which corresponded to damage, while standard cars would not have interior design which corresponded to damage. The difference has always been in the presence of interior design, not the presence of damage.

I realize you're desperately clinging to the whole corresponds/correlates thing because it's the only thing left that gives even the vaguest appearance you ever had any idea what you were talking about, but even your revised assertion is tenuous at best. You're now claiming there is a correlation between interior design and damage because the presence of interior design indicates the possibility of damage. While technically true, this statement is almost entirely meaningless, because the presence of tires also indicates the possibility of damage. Similarly, we can say there is a correlation between windshields and damage, or between transmissions and damage, etc.

"Corresponds" is clearly the logical/best translation, because it actually imparted useful information to us. "These cars can be damaged in a way that allows you to see inside of them and look at bits you wouldn't normally see." Unfortunately, at the time, no one realized that's what it was saying.

But let's not forget, the specific example you that if a door flapped open you would be able to see out as the meaning. This makes no sense!

Actually, let's go ahead and forget this, because it doesn't make any sense, which is why I said at the time I didn't understand exactly what "interior design which corresponds to damage" was actually referring to.

So I'm going to concede that I guessed wrong about this aspect of the translation, thereby taking away your little strawman which I have chosen to ignore until now.

If you look at every video up until and inculding TGS, only the subaru had damage and the other cars were invincible.

At TGS, they showed production cars being damaged as well. A Merc, and IIRC, a Ferrari.

Your argument is they were always going to all have some level of damage, then explain why they only have damage to one car at the GC/TGS demo, it would make no sense for them to force damage off on all but one car.

Becuase it's an early build, and they wanted to keep performance up to acceptable levels? Because they wanted to highlight the damage by only applying it to a single car? Because the AI sucks and they didn't want to show exactly how often it hit the walls?

I certainly hope you're not trying to present that as some sort of evidence that they only intend to allow one car per race to be damaged.

Exactly, which is why it is the far more reasonable thing to believe that the GC and TGS demos accurately displayed the current build at the time …

Actually, they said what was shown at TGS was an old damage build.

(ie they didn't turn off damage just for those demos)

No, they turned it on for those demos. Again, code branches.

… and so the addition of damage to the remaining 830ish cars is indeed a recent thing …

Definitely not, and I've just explained to you again how we know this is not the case.

… and is indeed contributing to the march 2010 release date.

Now, that is entirely possible, and even likely. Specifically, I'm referring to the possibility that the bulk of the next six months will be spent improving the damage modeling. In fact, Kaz even hinted that was going to be their main focus between now and the release.

But to be perfectly clear, this does not mean they're "adding it to the other 830 cars," because as I've already explained, the type of modeling they're doing applies equally to all cars.

You keep saying that if I can't prove your idea is wrong then mine must be wrong.

No, that's not what I said at all. I said that you need to prove your theory is right, but you've been unable to do so. The fact that I've already shown another explanation to be true simply serves to make your theory look all the more ridiculous.

Yes, you questioned my accuracy, you called me a liar …

Indeed. I'm sorry to inform you that when your theory is shown to be wrong, and you insist on repeating it in multiple threads, that does make you a liar.

… as th the onus is on YOU to prove I am a liar as you are making the claim...

lol Again, that's not how it works. If you go around making completely unfounded claims, and someone points out that they're unfounded, you don't get to say, "Well, then prove they're unfounded." You have to prove they are founded in reality, or wear the label of Scheißter.

For example, you've asked me to show how we know that damage was always going to be included for all cars, and I've done exactly that, more than once.

The only evidence you have that any damage was always there was the E3 video which was labled as a concept video …

He said the video was not CG, and therefore it showed a functional deformation model. (Though it's quite likely it was only barely functional at that point.)

Damage was turned off for GC/TGS and when the weak damage was constantly brought up PD and KY never said "oh that's because we turned it off for all cars but the subaru"

AFAIK, no one ever asked him why only the player-controlled cars were getting damaged. Possibly because only a retarded person would think the answer could be anything other than, "Well, we only enabled it for the player-controlled car; it's just a demo, you know," and the gaming press did not want to appear retarded.

They did ask him why the damage shown was a bit "underwhelming," to put it nicely, and he explained that what was shown was merely a "first step," and not even the current implementation. It was just a taste of what was to come, so to speak.

You have chosen a theory and you have forced everything that comes along to match it, or slyly changed and dodged your original stance to match it as time went on.

Again, I fear you may have the two of us mixed up in your head.

My stance has always been all cars would be damageable, and that premium cars would have "interior modeling*" that was somehow reflective of the damage the car had suffered. We now know this has always been the case, and my stance hasn't changed at all.

Your original stance was that only the premium cars could be damaged. When it was verified that in fact, all cars would be subject to damage, you then decided to claim that you were right about 83% of the cars being invulnerable at the time, and are now asserting that Kaz felt your rage and decided to go ahead and spend the time to model damage on that 83%. You continue desperately cling to this false notion, despite the fact that I have explained, both clearly and repeatedly, how we know that damage across the board was "always" the plan.

The only one getting shifty and trying to cover their ass is you.

*Admittedly, I wasn't clear on what form this interior modeling would take, and I said so at the time. Now we know it was referring to engine bays and the like. However, the fact that at the time, I was unable to guess what specific form this interior design would take does not negate the fact that I was asserting it was going to reflect the damage in some way, nor the fact that this is precisely what it does.

Again anyone can go back through that big ol translation thread and watch you hang yourself, going for super cocky "I am right ha!" to claiming things mean the opposite of what they do so you can still be right (at one point one of the translators basically said, nope looks like no damage on the majority of cars and you said "Looks like I was right all along" even though it totally negates what you were saying) going to a meek, kiss a** to the translators showing how little you really knew about the big picture and how things were shaping up outside of that one translation thread.

Ironic that you chose to highlight the part of the conversation where SIM was telling me I'd be eating crow come TGS when it would be confirmed that only the premium cars would be damageable, when it turned out that I was right all along.

Look, dude, it all comes down to this. I looked at the original translation and said, "Well, as I understand it, it's saying XYZ, though I'm not really clear what Z is supposed to mean." Then you came along and said, "No, no… were supposed to change it around until it says ABC!" And now that we've learned that XYZ really was accurate, you're now saying, "But, but… they changed it after the fact!!!" even though there is no evidence they changed it, plenty of evidence they didn't, and it said XYZ and we are in fact getting XYZ.

-----------------------------------------------------

Sorry, that wasn't very short at all. Deve sure does blather on. It's almost like he hopes to simply bury his opponent in meaningless drivel.

-----------------------------------------------------

… but that would require extensive work to integrate it into 1000 cars, each with at LEAST half a dozen different damageable materials.

It's really not as complicated as you think. Sure, there are a half-dozen materials that can go in to a car, but once you teach the engine how to bend metal and shatter carbon fiber, it's just a matter of tagging each part as the appropriate material. There's really no "integration" to be done beyond going through the parts and tagging them, "metal, metal, rubber, metal, carbon, metal…," and for all we know, they did the tagging when they did the initial modeling. (That's when I would've done it, at least. Let the physics nerds figure out what to do with the tags later. )

 

[Devedander]

For all those who don't want to wade through this ridiculously long wall of text, this is really all you need to know:

https://www.gtplanet.net/yamauchi-clarifies-questions-about-damage/

Basically: At least as recently as GC KY's official stance was not all cars would have damage modeling and previously KY had alluded that only race cars would have damage. Basically exaclty what I have always said because I acutally paid attention to the big picture and didn't focus narrowly on what I thought one translated list meant.

I'm going to make this as short as I can, because it's becoming clear that Deve is a lost cause and will continue making false assertions in spite of the fact that all of the evidence is against him.

Now YOU are confusing me with you.

Yes, exactly. Specifically, we saw deformation on that car. We now know deformation is dynamic, and therefore, will be applied to all cars. Therefore, we know the plan was to apply deformation to all cars as recently as E3, and obviously, a bit before that as well, since they had at least a rudimentary model ready to go so they could make the trailer.

Yes we saw deformation on that car, but it is an ASSUMPTION that that was not a one off render and was actually indicative of the game engine. Note the assumption being the foundation of the next assumption... it's a trend.
News the fact that deformation is dyanmic does not necessitate that all cars will have damage, it seems likely but you cannot say therefore. It's entirely possible to have dynamic deformation on some cars. Again an ASSUMPTION (this time as to why and not what).

No, we do not know the plan was to apply deformation to all cars, in fact all comments, interviews and demos point to to the opposite, that at least some cars were planned to not have damage.

And in this I include where KY specifically says some cars will not have damage and the sets are still being decided.

What do we learn here? A flawed line of assumptions can lead to a known WRONG conclusion.

Again, the E3 trailer is not confirmed to be anything more than a 1 off render and may not have even been done with the game engine. You see all your assumptions keep leading you down these flawed paths... I keep laying it out simply for you but you keep ignoring it.

In case that wasn't clear to you… We know, for a fact, that no later than June 2009, they had planned to make to make all cars damageable.

Fact? Prove it. Where is your fact comming from? Your long list of flawed assumptions based on a flawed assumption?

Again, it was specified at one point (after E3) that some cars would not have damage and the sets were being decided on still.

Yes, I already knew why you came to the wrong conclusion, but thanks for explaining it again.

What I'm failing to understand is why you continue to cling to the notion your wrongness was somehow right.

The conclusion that only cars with the better class of damage would have fully modeled interiors? Yeah, try again.

I understand that, and now we know that Angela's translation was the lesser of the two. While not "inaccurate," it didn't explain things as accurately as we now know the original translation did. Her translation didn't contradict what we now know to be the facts, but it also didn't mesh as well with them as the original translation of "interior modeling, which corresponds to damage" did.

Wait... so suddenly a translation can be discounted because it doesn't make sense with the big picture? Whoa there's a 180 from your original "must be literal" stance... guess that works when it suites you huh?

So please explain to me how correlates with damage isn't accurate.

Again, all cars with premium damage have fully modeled interiors. They correlate. Cars with lesser damage are the ones without fully modelled interiors. Show me where that is wrong.

Yes, "correlates" could be used without being inaccurate, but "corresponds" is a better fit, as it perfectly describes what we know to be the case. Clearly, "corresponds" was the accurate translation, and "correlates" is a word you pulled out of your ass in a desperate attempt to bolster your "83% without damage" assertions, because the accurate translation—"corresponds"—didn't support your argument.

Clearly you are so desperate to be right you can't admit that someone else actually is. Again, what was that thing you came up with to explains corresponds? Oh yeah multiple door animations for seperate views... kind of proves you were talking out your a** there doens't it?

Also, keep in mind that the word "correlates" doesn't even appear in what you're trying to present as the proper translation. (More to the point, it's clearly not the proper translation, so I'm not sure why you'd bring it up at all&#8230 Angela said, "support for damage," and said she thought the two phrases were basically unrelated to each other, but we now know the two phrases are intimately related. But again, I don't understand why you continue to belabor this point, when it's clear that the leaked list was telling us premium cars would have interior design which corresponded to damage, while standard cars would not have interior design which corresponded to damage. The difference has always been in the presence of interior design, not the presence of damage.

I keep on it becuase at the time I said corresponds where correlates is the real meaning is an easy mistake to make in translation, the words are similar enough in meaning and useage it could easily happen. What I really meant is totally clear, I have bullet pointed it and even spelled it out in my guesses at TGS thread - again Cars with premium damage will be the ones with fully modeled interiors and the others won't. Simple as that and look where we are today!

I realize you're desperately clinging to the whole corresponds/correlates thing because it's the only thing left that gives even the vaguest appearance you ever had any idea what you were talking about, but even your revised assertion is tenuous at best. You're now claiming there is a correlation between interior design and damage because the presence of interior design indicates the possibility of damage. While technically true, this statement is almost entirely meaningless, because the presence of tires also indicates the possibility of damage. Similarly, we can say there is a correlation between windshields and damage, or between transmissions and damage, etc.

I keep using it because it was the original issue at hand and you will recall that this whole second tirade of yours started when a few posts back I brough up translation inaccuracies and specifically mentioned corresponds vs correlates.

I am not saying there is a correlation BECAUSE of anything, a correltion BECAUSE of something is causation. I am just saying there exists a correlation, which is what I always said and guess what? It's true!

"Corresponds" is clearly the logical/best translation, because it actually imparted useful information to us. "These cars can be damaged in a way that allows you to see inside of them and look at bits you wouldn't normally see." Unfortunately, at the time, no one realized that's what it was saying.

So something that no one knew was the best translation vs something that meant what most people already suspected and (again unless you want to go on some long train of flawed assumptions) was the most reasonable expectation, that some cars had damage and some didn't?

Actually, let's go ahead and forget this, because it doesn't make any sense, which is why I said at the time I didn't understand exactly what "interior design which corresponds to damage" was actually referring to.

Actually let's not because this proves that you were just guessing. Your whole argument so far has been that this was the logically clearest and best meaning... well if it was, you would have had to understand the logic leading up to it. Since you clearly didn't had had to use some broken reasoning to get there, it undermines you whole self righteous attitude about it. At best you guessed at something which isn't proven wrong but only arrived at that guess by flawed logic.

I can wildly guess at things but if I am going to claim they are the obviously and most logically sound reasons then I should probably be able to give a legitimate example of that logic shouldn't I?

So I'm going to concede that I guessed wrong about this aspect of the translation, thereby taking away your little strawman which I have chosen to ignore until now.

Sorry, that's not a strawman... I didn't create a problem just to break it down. It's a flaw you created and then tried to ignore out of existence and which proves that you were just guessing, not basing your statement that it was the obvious and best meaning on an actualy understanding of the meaning.

At TGS, they showed production cars being damaged as well. A Merc, and IIRC, a Ferrari.

Some people spotted some blurry marks on certain cars they speculated were damage. But this was never confirmed, and it looked neither like the premimum damage we had seen at GC nor the newer lower level damage we have seen recently.

It was widely accepted these were just oddities and we were just given the GC demo again.

Becuase it's an early build, and they wanted to keep performance up to acceptable levels? Because they wanted to highlight the damage by only applying it to a single car? Because the AI sucks and they didn't want to show exactly how often it hit the walls?

I certainly hope you're not trying to present that as some sort of evidence that they only intend to allow one car per race to be damaged.

I hope you aren't trying to provide that as some kind of evidence that damage was actually there.

BTW there you go again, reaching for an "it's not disproven 100% so I am going with it".

Again, reasonability says that everything leading up to now (including KY saying only certain sets of cars would have damage) says that there was no extenuating circumstances, this was what they had to show... at possibly the biggest gameshow before launch... even more so if you are not one of the few who holds out a q4 09 release was originally intended.

Actually, they said what was shown at TGS was an old damage build.

Where did they say that? What was the exact wording? I mean we all know it was an old damage build as in it was the same one as at GC, but are you infering that they had a better one at TGS they just chose not to showcase? BS. Which passes the most reasonable test again?

No, they turned it on for those demos. Again, code branches.

So they turned it partially on... for one car... to showcase their new damage? Right...

BTW I honestly have never heard of this code branching thing... I get what you mean but is that really a term that is used?

Definitely not, and I've just explained to you again how we know this is not the case.

No, you explained a string of assumptions on which you have based your belief that is not the case. And I just explained to you why it's flawed.

Now, that is entirely possible, and even likely. Specifically, I'm referring to the possibility that the bulk of the next six months will be spent improving the damage modeling. In fact, Kaz even hinted that was going to be their main focus between now and the release.

And again, it is the most reasonable (considering the big picture and all other info) conclusion that it will be their main focus because they skipped the 09 xmas relesae season alongside the PS3 because they realized they needed damage, so they will be focusing on it as they need to cram as much work as they can in to get it done by release.

But to be perfectly clear, this does not mean they're "adding it to the other 830 cars," because as I've already explained, the type of modeling they're doing applies equally to all cars.

Well by adding it to 830 cars, I don't necessarily mean one at a time, certainly they may be building the damage engine that will apply to all cars. And for a wide variety of cars with a variety of materials and different shaped (Even number) of panels this could be very complex code.

No, that's not what I said at all. I said that you need to prove your theory is right, but you've been unable to do so. The fact that I've already shown another explanation to be true simply serves to make your theory look all the more ridiculous.

The fact that your showing me involves you taking and assumption and basing countless other assumptions off it is what looks ridiculous.

You called me a liar, you do so, you back it up. And not just with assumptions. You want proof? We got statements that not all cars will have damage, sets are being chosen, PD suddenly misses q4 09 release date and suddenly damage is shown on all cars - this in the face of protional posters listing q4 09, a santa commercial and KY stateing that GT5 will release very shortly after GTPSP.

There's proof and the obviously conclusion drawn from that is that something last minute and big caused a delay in release and that someting big was damage in response to the negative feedback on damage shown at GC/TGS.

Indeed. I'm sorry to inform you that when your theory is shown to be wrong, and you insist on repeating it in multiple threads, that does make you a liar.

First off they haven't been shown to be wrong, only your flawed string of assumptions has been put out there.

What would make me a liar is if you could actually show something that shows I am wrong, not just what you think is different.

Again, all the things leading up until now, comments from KY, promotional items, what we have seen at game shows, taken as a big pictuer (not a microcosm view of a few select items that rean't disproven) says what I have come up with is the most reasonable string of events.

Here it is all spelled out for you once again https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3567563&postcount=1

Tell me where that doesn't make sense or sound reasonable.

lol Again, that's not how it works. If you go around making completely unfounded claims, and someone points out that they're unfounded, you don't get to say, "Well, then prove they're unfounded." You have to prove they are founded in reality, or wear the label of Scheißter.

I made claims, I backed them up with plenty of reasoning and logci and broke down why they are the most reasonable conclusion to come to.

You called me a liar, then came up with a string of broken assumptions based on a broken assumption.

Ball is still in your court.

For example, you've asked me to show how we know that damage was always going to be included for all cars, and I've done exactly that, more than once.

No you have shown me why YOU think damage has always been included for all cars.

Lemme put this out there for you nice and simple straight from GT News:

“The next detail Kazunori touched on was regarding damage models. I can confirm that not every car in Gran Turismo 5 will sport damage models — it will only be select sets. "

He said the video was not CG, and therefore it showed a functional deformation model. (Though it's quite likely it was only barely functional at that point.)

Where did he say it wasn't CG? All I recall was him saying it was a concept video.

And regardless, you look at the subaru damage on the video and compare it to the damage we say at GC... they appear noteably different.

AFAIK, no one ever asked him why only the player-controlled cars were getting damaged. Possibly because only a retarded person would think the answer could be anything other than, "Well, we only enabled it for the player-controlled car; it's just a demo, you know," and the gaming press did not want to appear retarded.

Or maybe you are making an assumption again and just grasping at something that could be true to try and save your point of view.

Let's see... from GTP news again:

"That’s consistent with Yamauchi’s previous comments, when he mentioned that only “race cars” could be damaged in the game. "

Hey wait! Maybe that's why!

They did ask him why the damage shown was a bit "underwhelming," to put it nicely, and he explained that what was shown was merely a "first step," and not even the current implementation. It was just a taste of what was to come, so to speak.

If I recall he said this was PD's first step in damage and didn't mention anything about what implimentation it was.

Again, I fear you may have the two of us mixed up in your head.

My stance has always been all cars would be damageable, and that premium cars would have "interior modeling*" that was somehow reflective of the damage the car had suffered. We now know this has always been the case, and my stance hasn't changed at all.

See link at top of post.

Your original stance was that only the premium cars could be damaged. When it was verified that in fact, all cars would be subject to damage, you then decided to claim that you were right about 83% of the cars being invulnerable at the time, and are now asserting that Kaz felt your rage and decided to go ahead and spend the time to model damage on that 83%. You continue desperately cling to this false notion, despite the fact that I have explained, both clearly and repeatedly, how we know that damage across the board was "always" the plan.

Yes I said I was wrong about the other cars not having damage in the end, but I still hold it was a valid position to hold amongst othe reasons that it's still the most reasonable thing to bleieve that PD have pushed back release to work on damage. At the time, the comments and lists would have all been based on pre last minute decision state of affairs.

Ironic that you chose to highlight the part of the conversation where SIM was telling me I'd be eating crow come TGS when it would be confirmed that only the premium cars would be damageable, when it turned out that I was right all along.

Did you click the link? I highlited the part where one of the translators clearly said you were in the wrong and you said "so it looks like I was right all along!"

Look, dude, it all comes down to this. I looked at the original translation and said, "Well, as I understand it, it's saying XYZ, though I'm not really clear what Z is supposed to mean." Then you came along and said, "No, no… were supposed to change it around until it says ABC!" And now that we've learned that XYZ really was accurate, you're now saying, "But, but they changed it after the fact!!!" even though there is no evidence they changed it, plenty of evidence they didn't, and it said XYZ and we are in fact getting XYZ.

No it comes down to this, you looked at the translation and with little or no knowledge of the other events that make up the big picture (ie all the news and info from before the leaked list) went on to pick your own understanding. Which is fine and all consideirng a limited scope, but then you went on to call out others who knew more about what was going on and so had a better foundation on which to base their understanding of the lists meanings.

Sorry, that wasn't very short at all. Deve sure does blather on. It's almost like he hopes to simply bury his opponent in meaningless drivel.

I am nothing if not long winded, I certainly give you that!

It's really not as complicated as you think. Sure, there are a half-dozen materials that can go in to a car, but once you teach the engine how to bend metal and shatter carbon fiber, it's just a matter of tagging each part as the appropriate material. There's really no "integration" to be done beyond going through the parts and tagging them, "metal, metal, rubber, metal, carbon, metal…," and for all we know, they did the tagging when they did the initial modeling. (That's when I would've done it, at least. Let the physics nerds figure out what to do with the tags later. )

I haven't ever done anything as complicated as GT, but having programmed a fair number of rather complex functions and worked with many who have programmed some rather impressive bits, I can say it really isn't that easy... you have to deal with a lot of things going on the least of which is how it all looks when it's done.

If it was that easy... well lets just say Forza's damage wouldn't look like it does still

 

[cicohipe]

Wow, seriously?

 

[hardvibes]

*scroll down*
You guys are just wasting your time.

 

[chepe371]

Ya i couldnt picture you two announcing saturday EPL, "it was a header" "it was a handball" someone just flew down the steps with a mic around his neck.

 

[pricey2003]

I haven't ever done anything as complicated as GT, but having programmed a fair number of rather complex functions and worked with many who have programmed some rather impressive bits, I can say it really isn't that easy... you have to deal with a lot of things going on the least of which is how it all looks when it's done.

Care to reiterate?

 

[Tenacious D]

Oh dear God, no... just leave Deve alone, so he can crown himself in peace...

 

[pricey2003]

No. I want more text

 

[Bogie 19th]

This looks like the online version of the Wall Street Journal. Holy crap.

 

[Devedander]

Come on you guys love the wot!

Gimme credit, I posted a shorty header right

But hey if the news page link to where I got my info pretty much straight from ky doesn't put an end to this, then there is obviously no level or reasoning or logic that will...

But then considering the personality and history of strings of assumptions as fact and self righteousness from good ol ss... Well we'll see

 

[seanchump]

I think you are both wrong. Wrong for making me read too much banter.

We all know PD is going to use the awesome Forza 3 physics engine, so what's the big deal?

 

[serversurfer]

Yes we saw deformation on that car, but it is an ASSUMPTION that that was not a one off render and was actually indicative of the game engine.

Wrong. It's not an assumption. Asked, answered, and verified. The trailer was generated by the game engine. Conveniently, this both shoots down the bulk of your subsequent arguments, and verifies that my assertions were correct. We may finally be getting somewhere.

Again, it was specified at one point (after E3) that some cars would not have damage and the sets were being decided on still.

True enough. Since there are only two "sets" of cars, race cars and production cars (or if you prefer, premium cars and standard cars), it doesn't make much sense that they were still determining which of the two sets would be damageable, but they did know for sure that at least one of the two (premium) would be damageable and they also knew that one of the two (standard) would not be damageable, does it? It seems that either, it had been determined despite the fact he stated it hadn't, or there was a possibility of both or neither being damageable despite the fact he stated 1-99% would be, or "sets" refers to something else entirely. Clearly, it would seem either Kaz is a liar and/or brain damaged, or we misunderstood his meaning of "sets," just as we misunderstood PD's meaning of "interior design." The latter seems the safer assumption, wouldn't you say?

As I stated earlier, it's entirely possible that he was referring to the "Mercedes set," with whom they were still negotiating, and the "Volvo set," who at the time seemed dead set against any visual damage on their cars, but have since apparently relented. This is the only explanation I can think of which would allow "some sets, but not all sets, but we're still determining which sets" to be an accurate statement. However, that's just a guess on my part, and I'd be happy to entertain alternate theories.

The conclusion that only cars with the better class of damage would have fully modeled interiors?

lol No, that's your new conclusion. Your original conclusion was that only the cars with fully modeled interiors would have any damage at all. When you were finally proven wrong about that, you flipped it around changed it up a bit so you could continue to claim it's possible to wedge "correlates" in there somewhere.

Wait... so suddenly a translation can be discounted because it doesn't make sense with the big picture? Whoa there's a 180 from your original "must be literal" stance... guess that works when it suites you huh?

That's not what I said at all. Originally, we had the translation the GTPers came up with collectively; the one that was deemed accurate enough to be posted on the front page. This is the one that said, "interior design which corresponds to damage," just to be clear. I was saying that since we had no reason to assume that was an inaccurate translation, there was no reason for you to come along and say, "Clearly, they're telling us that 830 cars will be invulnerable, and if you change the word 'corresponds' to 'correlates'—which sound sorta similar in English, so it's obvious that's what we must do—then the translation clearly backs up my assertion." Then Angela came along and said, "AFAICT, it doesn't say 'corresponds' or 'correlates.' It just says they have 'interior design' and it also says they have 'support for damage.' I have a hard time believing that's what they're actually going to do, but that's how I'm reading it."

I don't speak any Japanese, so I wasn't prepared to argue with her, but at the time, I did note to myself that the Japanese phrasing was very similar to the phrasing used for "20 courses, which have more than 60 layouts." Specifically, Dravonic was saying that the の normally indicated ownership of some sort, but he didn't see another noun that would be "in possession of" the layouts. When I suggested the missing noun was the "20 courses" that appeared before the comma, Dravonic's response was something along the lines of "Oh, duh. Yes, that's exactly what it says."

Then Angela said that 対応 could mean "correspond, or react or interact or support or any of a number of other words." Because she felt that the comma indicated completely separate clauses, she dismissed the "corresponds" possibility and focused on the "supports" possibility, because she didn't see anything for the damage to correspond to.

At the time, I was thinking it was likely it worked just like the bit about tracks—where the second clause is dependent on the first clause for its real meaning—but again, I wasn't prepared to argue the point, because I've never studied Japanese at all. But now we know the two clauses about premium cars are indeed interdependent—just like the two clauses about tracks were—and in fact, the accurate translation is literally "internal design, which corresponds to damage." Despite the fact I know nothing about Japanese, this comes as no surprise to me, because in my experience, while a language's grammar may not correspond directly what to an outsider expects to see, it's usually at least internally consistent.

So please explain to me how correlates with damage isn't accurate.

I've already agreed that it can be fit in to what we now know to be the truth, but as I pointed out, it doesn't fit nearly as well as "corresponds," because "correlates" doesn't really tell us anything. Again, tires correlate equally to damage, so the statement effectively tells us nothing, but "interior design which corresponds to damage" tells us that you can see the car's internals when the externals are ripped away. Hey! That's useful and interesting information there! We should be sure to include that phrasing on our feature list!

Also, I feel compelled to point out that you seem to be laboring under the delusion that instead of translating "対応" as "corresponds to [interior design]," Angela translated it as "correlates to [interior design]," when in fact, she translated it as "offers support for [damage]." So again, I'm not understanding why you're attempting to use it to back up anything you're saying here, because not only has her translation been shown to be wrong, it doesn't even support your claim. She said sometimes it means corresponds, but in this particular case, she thought it means supports. She never said it meant correlates or anything of the sort. In fact, she implicitly excluded that possibility when she said the two clauses weren't interdependent. Also, can you see how all of the possible definitions she provided described "things interacting with one another" and none of them described "things indicating another thing's presence"? That right there should tell you that the mystery phrase isn't "correlates," but rather, "corresponds;" one of the very words she used to define the phrase, in fact.

To sum up, you're either intentionally mistranslating a word for which we already know the proper translation ("corresponds"), or your intentionally adding a word to bolster your argument (claiming "correlates" still needs to go in there somewhere despite the fact Angela already said the unclear word was "supports"). Either way, that doesn't make a very strong case.

I keep on it becuase at the time I said corresponds where correlates is the real meaning is an easy mistake to make in translation, the words are similar enough in meaning and useage it could easily happen.

Except they're not similar in meaning and usage. They just happen to start with the same few letters in English, and the two words in Japanese may be entirely different from one another. Furthermore, the translation you're presenting as The Truth said "supports damage," which isn't anything like "damage is a correlate of an interior design," either in meaning, usage, or even pronunciation.

In short, don't assume others can't immediately recognizes the difference between corresponds and correlates simply because you don't. As I've already explained to you, the two words are not interchangeable, even if you think they are.

… again Cars with premium damage will be the ones with fully modeled interiors and the others won't.

Except that's not what you were saying. You were saying only the cars with fully modeled interiors could be damaged at all. Again, you are flipping your original assertion around and modifying it to fit with the explanation we were eventually given in a lame attempt to make it appear you were always right, when in fact, I was always right, and you were always wrong.

Simple as that and look where we are today!

Indeed.

I keep using it because it was the original issue at hand and you will recall that this whole second tirade of yours started when a few posts back I brough up translation inaccuracies and specifically mentioned corresponds vs correlates.

Right. I meant I didn't understand why you continue to bring up "corresponds Vs. correlates" as support for ignoring/altering translations that don't suit you because you've already been shown to be utterly and in every way wrong about the entire "corresponds Vs. correlates" debacle.

Sorry, that's not a strawman...

That's exactly what it is. From the link I provided you…

"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To 'attack a straw man' is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the 'straw man'), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position." (emphasis mine)

What you are saying is, because I was wrong about interior design meaning cockpits, we should disregard anything and everything I said about interior design and damage, and their relation to one another. That's a textbook strawman.

Some people spotted some blurry marks on certain cars they speculated were damage. But this was never confirmed, and it looked neither like the premimum damage we had seen at GC nor the newer lower level damage we have seen recently.

Umm, you are aware that the "blurry marks" and "newer damage" are in fact from the same build? The build that was shown at TGS? The only difference is how clear the shaky-cam shots were.

It was widely accepted these were just oddities and we were just given the GC demo again.

No, it's pretty clear the GC and TGS demos were different.

I hope you aren't trying to provide that as some kind of evidence that damage was actually there.

Okay, maybe you really are broken. Are you seriously trying to claim that the existence of damage in a playable build is not proof of the existence of damage?

Where did they say that? What was the exact wording? I mean we all know it was an old damage build as in it was the same one as at GC, but are you infering that they had a better one at TGS they just chose not to showcase? BS.

It was from the MeriStation article. As translated by Tenacious D, "He also told us that the demo version that was installed on both the Tokyo Game Show and the booths present at the premises of the company lacked the latest damage build."

The GC demo and the TGS demo are not the same demo.

It's quite common for old builds to be demonstrated, especially when they're going to be playable by the public, as old builds of a work in progress are generally more stable than the current build. It's far better to show a less-impressive implementation than a crashtastic one—no pun intended—and doubly so when you're showing it to the general public. Joe Sixpack has a far easier time believing quality will improve before launch than he does believing bugs will ever be fixed.

Which passes the most reasonable test again?

I suspect many things would seem more reasonable to you if you actually had some idea what you were talking about.

BTW I honestly have never heard of this code branching thing... I get what you mean but is that really a term that is used?

Yes, code branches are real.

Well by adding it to 830 cars, I don't necessarily mean one at a time, certainly they may be building the damage engine that will apply to all cars. And for a wide variety of cars with a variety of materials and different shaped (Even number) of panels this could be very complex code.

They don't need to hand-write different code for every shape of panel. That's the whole point.

What would make me a liar is if you could actually show something that shows I am wrong, not just what you think is different.

I have already shown how you're wrong.

No you have shown me why YOU think damage has always been included for all cars.

Lemme put this out there for you nice and simple straight from GT News:

“The next detail Kazunori touched on was regarding damage models. I can confirm that not every car in Gran Turismo 5 will sport damage models — it will only be select sets. "

Yes, and it's clear now that the damage model they're using will automatically apply to all cars, but that doesn't preclude specific sets of cars, such as the Volvos, from being explicitly exempted from damage modeling.

No it comes down to this, you looked at the translation and with little or no knowledge of the other events that make up the big picture (ie all the news and info from before the leaked list) went on to pick your own understanding. Which is fine and all consideirng a limited scope, but then you went on to call out others who knew more about what was going on and so had a better foundation on which to base their understanding of the lists meanings.

So what you're saying is, despite not being fully informed, and not understanding a lick of Japanese, I still managed to nail the translation perfectly? Wow! Go, me!

I haven't ever done anything as complicated as GT, but having programmed a fair number of rather complex functions and worked with many who have programmed some rather impressive bits, I can say it really isn't that easy... you have to deal with a lot of things going on the least of which is how it all looks when it's done.

I'm an amateur programmer myself, and I have to say, if you've contributed to some "impressive bits," I'm kind of surprised you don't seem to know anything about code branches, procedural modeling, how trailers and demos are put together 6-9 months before the final product is scheduled to be ready, or how much things can change over those 6-9 months. (Hint: There's a reason most projects aren't given public showings until ~3 months before launch, and why apparent quality improves so dramatically between then and launch.)

Oh dear God, no... just leave Deve alone, so he can crown himself in peace...

To be fair, I can understand his need to attempt to salvage at least a little bit of credibility. After all, without that, how could he ever expect to effectively continue sowing FUD? That's really his whole purpose here, so I completely understand his desire to cling to it in the face of clearly insurmountable odds. Kinda admirable, in a sense.

The sad thing is though, I fear he doesn't realize he's just digging himself a deeper and deeper hole…

 

[SUPER NUMBBER]

This thread makes me want to cry

 

[RedSuinit]

Deve, and server, PLEASE stop this madness.

 

[serversurfer]

Fair enough. I believe I've made my point anyway.