- 5,739
- USA
- TPC_Raccooon23
- CRaccoon23
You should check your sources because there has only been one official release date, and that is December 6th.
We are very hard on PoDi
- Thread starter Zlork
- 236 comments
- 15,667 views
You should check your sources because there has only been one official release date, and that is December 6th.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,029
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
The AUP you agreed to when you joined is quite clear on not using text speak.....
AUP
...please ensure that you follow the AUP at all times.
light driver
(Banned)
- 216
- Hjørring - Danmark
- light-driver
Oh I see. I had NO IDEA what AUP was, I`m not native English. So when You staff guys use "shorts" You should make a list of what these "shorts" means pal... Do You happen to know the "shorts" we use in Danish language? No? I know A LOT OF the English shorts, but not every one. But OK, now I know one more (or in fact I don`t, I have NO IDEA what AUP stands for, but I guess that the P stands for "phrase" right???) AI??? I know it`s the computer controlled cars, but what AI STANDS FOR, nu clue... Hey wait, "All Idiots" off course.... I could google it, but too lazy. Anyway, I now know that AUP means You are not allowed to use "sound-language" - But You dear Scaff, should still give the meaning of the three letters AUP...
Last edited:
- 4,004
- Croatia
This is the beginning of the beautiful friendship.
- 301
- Washington
- Chippy569
- Chippy569
AUP stands for Acceptable Use Policy, or in simple terms the rules for posting on the forums. If you scroll to the absolute bottom of the page, you can click Acceptable Use Policy and read up.
AI stands for Artificial Intelligence and it is a field of computational science that strives to mimic thought processes.
Laziness is not an excuse for violating the terms of the AUP.
AI stands for Artificial Intelligence and it is a field of computational science that strives to mimic thought processes.
Laziness is not an excuse for violating the terms of the AUP.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,029
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Its odd that you have no idea what it is, given that it was presented to you (and titled both in full and as an abbreviation) when you joined the site.
You had to check a box to state that you had both read it and agreed to it as part of your membership.
All of which is a moot point, given that the quote I used clearly outlined what the issue was with your post.
I strongly advise that you cut back the attitude and take notice of my post and the AUP that you agreed to follow when you joined, as continuing in this manner will see your membership cut very short.
- 10,944
- Canada
👍
- 349
- Midwest
- McLOVIN5489
December 6 was the only official date set. And to be quite honest, delays aren't uncommon in general gaming. That's not a PD exclusive problem.
Last edited:
- 926
- machschnel
""During the GT6 press session at Gamescom 2013, Kazunori Yamauchi referred to the game’s new Course Maker feature as “fundamentally different” from what was seen in GT5, and noted that players would be able to “lay out their [custom] tracks freely” in an area “100 kilometers by 100 kilometers” in size.""
Last edited:
- 1,410
- London, UK
- Shirrako
Didn't Kaz say that it's difficult with the PS3 hardware and the course maker will be 20x20 or 50x50?
- 349
- Midwest
- McLOVIN5489
machschnel
The only thing that changed was the area.... 20x20 is still PLENTY... A lot of people here agreed that while 100x100 would have been cool, its still outrageous...
dr_slump
Premium
- 7,425
- Switzerland
- the_dr_slump / GTP_dr_slump
- 349
- Midwest
- McLOVIN5489
dr_slump
5 times smaller^
- 2,827
- Curitiba
Then again, why did he said that in the first place?
- 11,343
- Chicago, iLL
- GTP_Nismo
- 349
- Midwest
- McLOVIN5489
wowbaggerBR
Because that's what was projected. It's still a significantly unique feature that will be significantly upgraded from the last iteration even in its current projection/state. 100x100 could have possibly been deemed excessive and purposely scaled down for focus on other features. There could have been unexpected issues technically. Who knows? The only change has gone from outrageous to pretty darn huge.
Update: measurements were in km and already in km by km format(lat AND long).....100x100/20x20=5x5 don't overthink it, #1 rule of math..
Last edited:
- 8,698
I don't think positivity has anything to do with it, since if the game ends up really bad, those thinking "positively" will probably be devastated, whereas the negatives will be vindicated in their pessimism. Information is information, at the end of the day.
It's more a question of inevitability, or even futility. If it happens, it happens; it comes when it comes - good or bad.
If we accept that, it still doesn't diminish any discussion about the game, either. Although a lack of new info might make things a bit stale, but the rate that new information is absorbed, processed and analysed before being argued every way you can imagine means that that newness doesn't last long anyway. We're like junkies, basically. Or a tank full of hungry piranha.
In that respect, it's probably better if we're not spoon-fed, if there's scope for interpretation and investigation it keeps us occupied longer, and talking about the game more...
- 11,343
- Chicago, iLL
- GTP_Nismo
- 23,800
- Philippines
- 7,830
- U S A
- Tetsumura
- Nigel Fox
Sure. After all, having a few dozen people constantly complaining about the defects of a game they've never played is so much more apropos. I'm sure.If everyone was patient and understanding and held back their frustrations, this entire forum would be Ten D and Toko confessing their love to each other about Kaz and all things PD and nothing else. What fun would that be? Who would the fanboys have around to try and convince us of the Godly vision that all GT games are, even the forthcoming version they know very little about?
Take this little nugget of "struth":
The problem with this is that Standards are not returning, not as is. They are going to be reworked into a condition which makes the divide between Premium and the former Standards unnecessary. And yet, people still gripe about the same old Standard cars returning. We try and point out that sounds are improving to those complaining incessantly about sounds being rubbish, and are talked down to as if we're deaf, that of COURSE the sounds are rubbish and nothing (much) has changed. The A.I. is dirt stupid, except when pointed out that A.I. in other games isn't really anything to cheer about, then we're just mindless defenders of PD... and on it goes.
Any time we try and point out that other developers have similar issues, especially with a certain competitor which is the only real comparison point in every sense to Gran Turismo, we (some of us, anyhow) are leaned on by the mods to keep our notions to ourselves or else. Meanwhile, it doesn't matter the criticism or how true it is, complaining about real or imagined flaws in GT6, Polyphony, Kaz or even SONY in any form or fashion is just fine.
Yeah, this is quite a level playing field... and is the basis for a few messages from friends leaving GT Planet. It doesn't matter much to me, but it is sad that some people just can't bring themselves to post here, because to say anything good about Kaz, PD or Gran Turismo is an invitation for a shout down from any number of members here. Which is completely backwards.
- 1,708
- GTPlanet
- Cosbuster
That's not exactly what Kaz said. We still have no idea what that reworking actually is, whether it affects all cars and how much while we do know there won't be a cockpit view. Frankly, we have no evidence the standards are getting an overhaul that brings them to acceptable levels other than a very vague statement that can be interpreted in any number of ways. You're doing exactly what you accuse others of, jumping to conclusions about something you haven't seen or played.
How exactly are they improving? All we know is that we're getting the same old "rubbish" at release and we might get an update at some point. I'm not sure how you can claim they are improving when all evidence so far leads to the opposite direction.
- 28,471
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Sure. After all, having a few dozen people constantly complaining about the defects of a game they've never played is so much more apropos. I'm sure.
Cosbuster beat me to it and I agree with him. And by the way, if it's true that people are, "constantly complaining about the defects of a game they've never played ", how can you in turn defend a game you've never played? All we have to go on at this point is the thread bare amount of information we've received from PD. Of course there are new cars and tracks that's a new brainer, but what else there is beyond physics we really have no idea other than vague references to features with no detail or samples whatsoever.
You know the area where PD is really weak is in communication with it's fans. It's supposed to have the most loyal, dedicated fanbase of any driving game to be sure, and perhaps any videogame period. I believe this to be true. But all of this squawking and complaining could almost entirely rectified with clear communication. On sounds for example, I believe we'd all accept this:
"Yeah fellas we'd really like to update the sounds for GT6 but the architecture and memory issues of the PS3 won't allow us to do what we really want to do. We can technically do better but it's a ton of work for little improvement. So rather than doing something half assed and having to reinvent the wheel for GT7 we'll concentrate those sound resources on other things like adding more cars, tracks, improving physics etc. We are really going to go at this for GT7 on the PS4 and we promise you you won't be disappointed. We thank you for your patience and support over the years and about 2 months into the game we will be sending out some free DLC to thank you for your patience"
Yes, some people would still b*tch because that's what they like to do, but they'd be shouted down by the vast majority of people who want better sounds, but now have a clear path to understanding what is happening and when they will get what they want. It's all the not knowing that frustrates the crap out of people.
Last edited:
- 10,944
- Canada
This. That is indeed true, and another reason why people call GT6 GT5-- I can't say it.
But yes, we need more info on GT6, just to be sure it improves in other areas such as events, customization, you know stuff like that. Let people know more what's in the game despite cars and tracks, this is the future so it's going to be more harder than the past this time.I know how T.D. feels, but it is kinda frustrating when you don't know what else is in store. I'm still alittle disappointed about not hearing about the livery editor at TGS, I was really looking forward to it. >_<
Last edited:
- 8,698
I believe the rule was check your sums. That's 1/5th x 1/5th = 1/25th the size.
Yes; 1/25th the area. "Size" is ambiguous. A car might be 5m long, but what's its volume?
Some statistics:
From here and here.
So it seems that as area increases, the roads that are in that area (in the real world) tend to increase in length roughly as to the power of 1/√2. That's either scarily coincidental, or we've stumbled upon something scary about the universe!
Anyway, it would imply that a generated road, like those in the real world, made in an area 1/25th the size would tend to only be 1/10th the length.
It also implies we could get realistic road networks up to about 550 km total length from 400 km²; if PD are working on generating road networks and not just single loops and point-to-point, then that'd be incredible.
But then, those are average figures (contrast with the high density in Ronda), and a game isn't bound by the tedium of reality, either. The above numbers may even be total rubbish, probably, but basically the decrease in area isn't as catastrophic at it might seem, especially given we probably weren't going to make best use of the larger area in the first place...
- 2,827
- Curitiba
I would be very happy, and even confident, about the game if we hear something like that.
- 8,698
Shock: being told what you want to hear makes you feel better!
Well, if that's all it'd really take, I'd be surprised.
Well, if that's all it'd really take, I'd be surprised.
- 23,800
- Philippines
Yes; 1/25th the area. "Size" is ambiguous. A car might be 5m long, but what's its volume?
Some statistics:
From here and here.
So it seems that as area increases, the roads that are in that area (in the real world) tend to increase in length roughly as to the power of 1/√2. That's either scarily coincidental, or we've stumbled upon something scary about the universe!
Anyway, it would imply that a generated road, like those in the real world, made in an area 1/25th the size would tend to only be 1/10th the length.
It also implies we could get realistic road networks up to about 550 km total length from 400 km²; if PD are working on generating road networks and not just single loops and point-to-point, then that'd be incredible.
But then, those are average figures (contrast with the high density in Ronda), and a game isn't bound by the tedium of reality, either. The above numbers may even be total rubbish, probably, but basically the decrease in area isn't as catastrophic at it might seem, especially given we probably weren't going to make best use of the larger area in the first place...
Well, if you build it like the Complex String, we can definitely max out the area.
Personally, I don't mind not having a place to lay out a 100 kilometer stretch of arrow straight road.
Besides, someone already did that better:
-
A car's volume should be about 14m3? (removing that wedge of air over the hood) Which would be the same space occupied by 14 tons of water.
Which raises the question... will PD give us submarines in GT6?
Last edited:
- 2,827
- Curitiba
Shock: being told what you want to hear makes you feel better!
Well, if that's all it'd really take, I'd be surprised.
No. The thing I want to hear is that: "guys, the new sounds technology will be in GT6 day one. And there is more: offline event editor will be part of the game, so you could make your own tracks and your own races and championships".
- 349
- Midwest
- McLOVIN5489
niky
In strict km, yes.... But on a squared format, its scaled down 5 times....there lies the difference.... i grouped 100km squared as one unit (PD tended to keep it that way when they started cutting down "100 km^2 to 50 km^2 to 20") so I would put it (in better terms than before) 100km long by 100 km wide....let's call it (100x*100y) to keep that clear......5(20x*20y)= 100x*100y.....in strict km terms, its 25 & slump is correct. In terms of long & wide as separate but equal units, its 5 times contracted....both are true pending how you want to spin it, lol
Last edited:
