Vision GT vs Red Bull X Cars

[MonGnoM]

Well, the RedBull were never called X1, and i don't know where that term came from, the first one was named X2010 then the X2011 prototype, and then the X2014

Well, i call the RBX

 

[RACECAR]

Well, the RedBull were never called X1, and i don't know where that term came from, the first one was named X2010 then the X2011 prototype, and then the X2014

 

[MonGnoM]

When uploading a video on youtube, you can choose whatever you like as title.
We all know what the X1 is, so he put "X1" in the title.

 

[R5]

Well, the RedBull were never called X1, and i don't know where that term came from, the first one was named X2010 then the X2011 prototype, and then the X2014

Well, i call the RBX

Because its a shortened version, it's not unheard of for people to shorten things...

 

[MatskiMonk]

When uploading a video on youtube, you can choose whatever you like as title.
We all know what the X1 is, so he put "X1" in the title.

The X2010 was laucnhed as the X1 before a name change. It's not made up, it's a fact.

 

[R5]

When uploading a video on youtube, you can choose whatever you like as title.
We all know what the X1 is, so he put "X1" in the title.

That's the official GT YouTube account.

Not some guy.

 

[sparkytooth]

The original Red Bull X car was known as the X1 during GT5's late development, they changed this name to X2010 when the game was released.

 

[RACECAR]

When uploading a video on youtube, you can choose whatever you like as title.
We all know what the X1 is, so he put "X1" in the title.

Except in the actual videos, it says "X1".

I guess Jordan also choose to put X1 in the title when hit wrote this article as well?

 

[pokemonfan58]

I don't know how you can compare the two. For a fact that the RedBull X cars were design for driving at incredible speeds, it's guaranteed that they would destroy the VGT.

VGT offers concept cars with unique designs. Many people criticize them for their lack of interiors and to me, it sounds stupid. If you can understand standard model cars since they have no interiors for a reason. Then why not VGT? If all Standard cars were given a interior, that would be too much space for the game to meet the system requirements. I believe this might be one of the reasons why nearly all of the VGT cars have no interiors.

They were able to get the VIZIV just right without an interior mainly because of the engine sound. So if people want a VGT car that isn't powered by a V16 Vacuum Cleaner engine *even though the VIZIV isn't powered by a V16 engine* then there you have it.

Apparently I'm going with VGT. While the X1 cars are sometimes fun to drive, VGT sure offers some interesting concept cars. Heck I can't wait to see Fords futuristic Grand Prix car gets released. Might be a very good competitor against the Rocket.

 

[pokemonfan58]

Well, the RedBull were never called X1, and i don't know where that term came from, the first one was named X2010 then the X2011 prototype, and then the X2014

Well, i call the RBX

They were originally going to be called the X1 but I have no clue why they changed the name to X2010. In GT5 people called them X1s. Now on GT6 people just call them RedBulls. Funny how everyone is referring to them by its manufacturer. It's like calling the Rocket, Light Car.

 

[MonGnoM]

That's the official GT YouTube account.

Not some guy.

The other video is.

They were originally going to be called the X1 but I have no clue why they changed the name to X2010. In GT5 people called them X1s. Now on GT6 people just call them RedBulls. Funny how everyone is referring to them by its manufacturer. It's like calling the Rocket, Light Car.

They changed the name, because it was reffering to the X1 by BMW i think, i read that somewhere

 

[R5]

The other video is.




They changed the name, because it was reffering to the X1 by BMW i think, i read that somewhere

State that next time, then.

Also, they most likely changed it because of the new generation (X2011), as I dount BMW would care, because the general target market for their mini-SUV aren't the people to even know who Adrian Newey is.
Edit: Isn't this all beside the point of the thread, anyway? Let's keep to VGT vs X1, rather than naming conventions adopted by people because X2010, X2011, X2014 Junior, X2014 Standard and X2014 Fan Car are just too long for most people.

 

[wvmgmidget]

If I had to choose Vision GT but we have both. Also welcome to GT Planet or Haternation or Defendernation.

 

[LosCules24SFA]

Thanks everyone!

 

[LosCules24SFA]

Guys what do you think about making our own VGT? I think we can Based it on my design

 

[R5]

I asked this to a good friend of mine and he gave me an interesting response:

"Honestly, the X1 because the only interesting design in VGT is the Chaparral. I mean the DP100 is a bit of a shock one, but it isn't exactly a huge one, the others are just corporate shapes made prettier/more aggressive.

I will wait for the Alpine, Lamborghini and Alfa Romeo ones though (he didn't know Alfa has dropped their VGT...)"

 

[charles98]

Can't people not name the Redbull(s) "X1"?

The X1, a marvel of its own, is very much real (and not in GT6): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrightspeed_X1

View attachment 262503

That's also an X1.

Stick to Fan/standard car with the year, please.

The reason people call the redbulls "X1s" is because it was originally called that in gt5

 

[Niku Driver HC]

I asked this to a good friend of mine and he gave me an interesting response:

"Honestly, the X1 because the only interesting design in VGT is the Chaparral. I mean the DP100 is a bit of a shock one, but it isn't exactly a huge one, the others are just corporate shapes made prettier/more aggressive.

I will wait for the Alpine, Lamborghini and Alfa Romeo ones though (he didn't know Alfa has dropped their VGT...)"

Interesting answer, but it is true. Very few brands have actually been bold about their VGT projects, which is a pity. Aside from Chaparral, Aston and perhaps Mercedes, the other brands have either recreated an old concept car as a racy car or have done a design far too sensible. The "corporate shapes", as your friend put it. Maybe Lambo, Alpine, (not) Alfa (because there won't be one), Bertone (if PD can salvage that car from Bertone's wreck) Nike\Jordan and Daihatsu can give the VGT project some properly bold cars to contrast with the general mould the other brands have used.

And all this is the reason why Redbull's project is a better proposition because it has been consistently bold and visionary. VGT lacks that sort of consistency, which hurts it a bit.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Interesting answer, but it is true. Very few brands have actually been bold about their VGT projects, which is a pity. Aside from Chaparral, Aston and perhaps Mercedes, the other brands have either recreated an old concept car as a racy car or have done a design far too sensible. The "corporate shapes", as your friend put it. Maybe Lambo, Alpine, (not) Alfa (because there won't be one), Bertone (if PD can salvage that car from Bertone's wreck) Nike\Jordan and Daihatsu can give the VGT project some properly bold cars to contrast with the general mould the other brands have used.

And all this is the reason why Redbull's project is a better proposition because it has been consistently bold and visionary. VGT lacks that sort of consistency, which hurts it a bit.

There's Bold, and then there's Bull poo. The Chaparral is mostly the later, and I think the VGT project would have much less credibility if it just started allowing people to make-stuff up, to that degree at least. The thing with the Red Bulls and the Chappy, is they don't need to carry any particular brand values, or styling cues, they can be based around one concept, they can be totally function over form. The reason why the Subaru looks like a Subaru, the BMW looks like a BMW, the Mitsu looks like a Mitsu, and so on... is because they are designed by those brands, to promote those brands, and to carry those brand values forward, or to represent them in a fashion that might not otherwise happen in the real-world. Sure, some of the forth coming designs like the Lambo, or whatever, might be more out there... but really, there's a reason why cars look like cars, they've evolved pretty effectively to do what they do. An outlandish design, for outlandish designs sake is silly....

 

[Niku Driver HC]

There's Bold, and then there's Bull poo. The Chaparral is mostly the later, and I think the VGT project would have much less credibility if it just started allowing people to make-stuff up, to that degree at least. The thing with the Red Bulls and the Chappy, is they don't need to carry any particular brand values, or styling cues, they can be based around one concept, they can be totally function over form. The reason why the Subaru looks like a Subaru, the BMW looks like a BMW, the Mitsu looks like a Mitsu, and so on... is because they are designed by those brands, to promote those brands, and to carry those brand values forward, or to represent them in a fashion that might not otherwise happen in the real-world. Sure, some of the forth coming designs like the Lambo, or whatever, might be more out there... but really, there's a reason why cars look like cars, they've evolved pretty effectively to do what they do. An outlandish design, for outlandish designs sake is silly....

Hum, that's a lot to take into account. If I understood your words correctly (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong otherwise), you're saying that it would be better if most of the VGT projects need to represent their brands in a way without being excessively outlandish. In short, more realistic, down-to-earth concepts that carry their brand's values without diluting them for the sake of looking outlandish. But the problem is when brands start to make designs that borrow details from other cars. Take a look at the Infiniti, for example; yes, there is a brand identity, but it is being diluted behind a design that takes cues from both the Nissan and the Mercedes. Then what do we have? Sure, the car looks like a car, that objective has been achieved, but do we really have a unique car or a blend of already existing concepts? Only a few details on the Infiniti (Boomerangue wing, flying butresses) are unique, but are those enough to define it as a 100% unique car? Sorry if these questions might sound silly, but when everybody starts to follow the same mould, looking unique in their own way and in the way compared to others becomes a tricky exercise, if I may say so.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Hum, that's a lot to take into account. If I understood your words correctly (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong otherwise), you're saying that it would be better if most of the VGT projects need to represent their brands in a way without being excessively outlandish. In short, more realistic, down-to-earth concepts that carry their brand's values without diluting them for the sake of looking outlandish.

Yep that's what I meant.

But the problem is when brands start to make designs that borrow details from other cars. Take a look at the Infiniti, for example; yes, there is a brand identity, but it is being diluted behind a design that takes cues from both the Nissan and the Mercedes. Then what do we have? Sure, the car looks like a car, that objective has been achieved, but do we really have a unique car or a blend of already existing concepts? Only a few details on the Infiniti (Boomerangue wing, flying butresses) are unique, but are those enough to define it as a 100% unique car? Sorry if these questions might sound silly, but when everybody starts to follow the same mould, looking unique in their own way and in the way compared to others becomes a tricky exercise, if I may say so.

I understand what you mean... but to be fair, Infiniti probably just designed what they though a slightly futuristic version of an Infiniti GT might look like. It will be interesting to see how similar this is to the forthcoming Q60. When you're talking about cars that are typically front engined two seat hard top coupes.... how different can you expect it to look? If you want a car that looks 100% unique, you end up with something ridiculous (like the X2, or a Youabian puma!??!). At the end of the day, bodystyles are categorised, and if you look at any group of cars of a given bodystyle for log enough, you'll probably come to the conclusion that they are all generic.

Don't get me wrong some have managed to move further away from the core brand ideals than others. The BMW... much as I love it, is about promoting the 2 series to young affluent gamers, by putting a 2 series based car in the game, and calling it a VGT - sure they could have done something different, but it would still have had a hoffmeister kink, a kidney grille, a derivation of the twin headlamps etc. etc.

To do something totally different, you've got to do something that doesn't make much sense.. if it did make sense, the car manufacturers would already be doing it... but as it is, doing something totally different in this case, would just be for the sake of it.... to be fair some players might prefer that, and it's not inherently right or wrong compared to my opinion... my only real beef is with the Chapparal, because it's essentially science fiction, and I don't think that is what GT should be about.

For my money, the company that has done the best job of presenting something that captures the essence of their design and brand, whilst at the same time as doing something pretty far out of the scope of what they normally do.. are these guys..

And that isn't even a "Vision Gran Turismo"!

 

[lbpomg95]

The Red Balls (spelling mistake intended) have been the bane of many and online game. The Junior aside, in my opinion, they shouldn't be in Gran Turismo.

 

[Niku Driver HC]

I understand what you mean... but to be fair, Infiniti probably just designed what they though a slightly futuristic version of an Infiniti GT might look like. It will be interesting to see how similar this is to the forthcoming Q60. When you're talking about cars that are typically front engined two seat hard top coupes.... how different can you expect it to look? If you want a car that looks 100% unique, you end up with something ridiculous (like the X2, or a Youabian puma!??!). At the end of the day, bodystyles are categorised, and if you look at any group of cars of a given bodystyle for log enough, you'll probably come to the conclusion that they are all generic.

Don't get me wrong some have managed to move further away from the core brand ideals than others. The BMW... much as I love it, is about promoting the 2 series to young affluent gamers, by putting a 2 series based car in the game, and calling it a VGT - sure they could have done something different, but it would still have had a hoffmeister kink, a kidney grille, a derivation of the twin headlamps etc. etc.

To do something totally different, you've got to do something that doesn't make much sense.. if it did make sense, the car manufacturers would already be doing it... but as it is, doing something totally different in this case, would just be for the sake of it.... to be fair some players might prefer that, and it's not inherently right or wrong compared to my opinion... my only real beef is with the Chapparal, because it's essentially science fiction, and I don't think that is what GT should be about.

For my money, the company that has done the best job of presenting something that captures the essence of their design and brand, whilst at the same time as doing something pretty far out of the scope of what they normally do.. are these guys..

And that isn't even a "Vision Gran Turismo"!

The ultimate irony in all of this is the fact that the Citröen GT, which is not even a VGT, manages to look and drive like one (although it is not as fast as some). Perhaps in a way, it was the inspiration that PD used to start this whole VGT thing...

When you design a car, there is a chance that making a 100% unique design can work. The problem is how far do you take it. That is the problem with the 2X; GM took the most extreme approach possible and as a result, created a incredibly polarizing car. You either love it or you hate it. It does uphold Chaparral's brand values, but it does so at the cost of some "credibillity" design-wise. Its boldness is both its biggest strength and its biggest curse; as one of the most unique VGTs, it has paid a high price for being so bold. And sure enough, efforts such as Merc's and Nissan's should not be underestimated; both have created their own designs while showcasing brand values, which is good.

On the other hand, efforts such as BMW's and Mitsubishi's are lacking. Instead of inovating that extra bit more, they created cars that don't inovate enough. BMW's project, as you explained, could have been easily repackaged as the future M1 (or whatever the name is). For that sake, isn't it easier to give players the M1 as a separate DLC while creating a more unique car that still uses BMW's trademark design cues? (like the one BMW's old VGT sketch showed, which was more akin to the I8)

But yes, all in all, VGT's are allowed to be whatever their brands want them to be. But in cases such as the 2X's, you can push it too far and forget where the limits are. Breaking limits can be a good idea, but in this project, perhaps a more sensible approach might be more favorable to some people such as yourself. Not saying your opinion is wrong, it's just how it works. With these designs, you either go bold all the way or you stick to your guns. The most important thing is to promote both your design centres and your brand values.

And I still think I'd rather have a 2X over a Puma, haha. The Puma is what you do when you try to be bold without the skills to make it look good, that's the wrong approach.

 

[R5]

The Red Balls (spelling mistake intended) have been the bane of many and online game. The Junior aside, in my opinion, they shouldn't be in Gran Turismo.

I've had plenty of bad experiences with M4 drivers, and GTR drivers come to think of that. Should they be removed too?

No. Why not? Because these cars don't make the decisions of a driver.

Same with the X1 Really, it is a weapon rather than the attacker. Plus, hosts can limit things like BHP and PP in their rooms and insist X1s aren't used at all. And to deny the few who can drive the X1 the possibility to do so is a ridiculous proposition.

 

[lbpomg95]

I've had plenty of bad experiences with M4 drivers, and GTR drivers come to think of that. Should they be removed too?

No. Why not? Because these cars don't make the decisions of a driver.

Same with the X1 Really, it is a weapon rather than the attacker. Plus, hosts can limit things like BHP and PP in their rooms and insist X1s aren't used at all. And to deny the few who can drive the X1 the possibility to do so is a ridiculous proposition.

I'm not saying they shouldn't be in the game because some people can't drive them. I don't want them in the game mainly because they don't exist. Granted the VGTs don't really either, though a working model has been made of the Nissan, no? Frankly if I had my way, neither would be in the game, leaving PD to focus on the real - but then that's not what the thread is asking

Must be said though - does anyone else hate the literal scream the standard bull makes at something like 14k revs?

 

[R5]

I'm not saying they shouldn't be in the game because some people can't drive them. I don't want them in the game mainly because they don't exist. Granted the VGTs don't really either, though a working model has been made of the Nissan, no? Frankly if I had my way, neither would be in the game, leaving PD to focus on the real - but then that's not what the thread is asking

The Red Balls (spelling mistake intended) have been the bane of many and online game. The Junior aside, in my opinion, they shouldn't be in Gran Turismo.

You can see why I don't believe your backtrack.

As for non-existent cars: remind me... How many others in game don't actually exist? They all have a right to be in GT because GT is a look at the automotive culture as a whole. Concepts, vapourware and all others, RBXs and VGTs included.

For further debate feel free to DM me, let's not derail the thread.

 

[sk8er913]

I've had plenty of bad experiences with M4 drivers, and GTR drivers come to think of that. Should they be removed too?

No. Why not? Because these cars don't make the decisions of a driver.

Same with the X1 Really, it is a weapon rather than the attacker. Plus, hosts can limit things like BHP and PP in their rooms and insist X1s aren't used at all. And to deny the few who can drive the X1 the possibility to do so is a ridiculous proposition.

don't forget the SLS GT3. They always attract the worst drivers in gt3 races. lol. Z4 tends to attract the best drivers because it is more difficult; but faster than all the others ones after you master it.