Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Gran Turismo Sport' started by Fat Tyre, May 4, 2015.
No it wasn't .
Amar predicted GT6 would be on PS4.
Which was a prediction, not a statement of fact and therefore not making things up.
He used a cute little poem to cryptically announce that GT6 would be on PS4. It's a prediction because he was announcing it before it actually happened. That's how he does things most of the time, he doesn't come out and make declarative statements. His announcement for GT Sport was a simple, IIRC, "So, GT Sport".
So was I supposed to see laser scanning in that video? I saw GPS equipment, a man taking measurements manually, and stills photography.
See? Confirmation bias.
I didn't see "super-" and thought to myself "left".
I meant what I typed.
And, as I see a replay of a dancing car, I view it through the lens of a director. The director is Yamauchi Kazunori
GT is a crazy expansion. Did WE Do That?
That Polyphony are useless, unproductive, unwanted or expendable when talking about accuracy of modelling?
OK. Seems like a bit of a turnaround from earlier in the thread where you seemed to be making the point that their track modelling was pretty good. I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're trying to say.
Driving the '06 S2000 around SCUBA. It summed it up for me. My more recent post came with the pure intention of community. Kaz/PD left us with an incredible car game. I'm still waiting for drag racing and dune buggies or H1's. At this moment, I can only imagine what it could feel like driving a car around a track in Japan. The Thrill. It's just so unique. this particularly (limited) car show-racing game. It's a different perspective which I know can't be shared with everyone. There are people who think the interwebs can be un-plw dfnbskjfgbjkb jaf a
Is it safe?
It's internet. It'll never be "safe". Toughen up, bud.
Nope. Still not getting it. Is this an explanation for what you were saying was superfluous, or is this something completely different?
I mean, I get how people get involved in the driving in GT and enjoy the experience, that's fine. But how does that relate to underestimating the power of meticulous detail, and Polyphony being superfluous?
I hate to ask this because it's going to seem rude, but is English your first language? I feel a bit like I'm talking to someone through Google Translate. The poor sentence construction and random word choice makes it very hard to understand what you're trying to say.
No, you are supposed to see complete topographic surveying, from GPS mapping (with a magnetometer too I think) to photogrammetry (that's why they take "100k photos") to aerial photography.
The discussion on accuracy when it comes to obtaining particular data is dumb.
Gets even dumber when comparing the representation from different time periods... If I laser-scanned Interlagos five years ago and now and compared I'd be "Oh this is too smooth, all wrong! What's up with the S!".
I wouldn't put past them using laser scanning for road geometry in longer tracks (more expensive as quoted, but shorter work period, doesn't rely on weather and so on). Perhaps that is documented somewhere in the GT4 Bible.
EDIT: And regarding the FIA homologation, it just means that those tracks conform to their real-world regulations. Barriers, run-offs, its relations with track width, paddock sizes and so on.
It is very likely other games have tracks that would conform to it all, but as you can read there, there are fees and procedures to do so, and while I don't know the costs of it, it just might make it all too prohibitive for a regulation approval sticker.
Can you show me a link to the FIA approval process regarding virtual race tracks? Seems like you know how it works so I'd like to see the details for myself as I'm sure others would as well.
Great, and that is relevant to the discussion of whether they laser scanned tracks or not how?
So what are you saying, they test the virtual circuits in the same way they do the real world ones? They've somehow checked the strength and construction of the virtual barriers in regards to how they take impacts, the strength and construction of the virtual tyre walls, the response speed of the track safety team and so?
You talk as if they would even remotely be looking at the same things as they would in a real world safety inspection and rating. It's a virtual track. They can see if it's a good visual representation, that's about it. They can't declare a digital circuit is safety rated as they do a real track.
To suggest game creators would have to pay the same fees as a real world track to have it inspected is frankly laughable.
The discussion was about track accuracy. The hinge on laser scanning is purely on lack of knowledge as observed...
Hahaha it's clear you two didn't even bother reading around the link or else you'd know. What a pathetic joke.
And yes, there's a fee for dossier approval so they'd have to pay for that...
There are hundreds of pages of information there. So instead of taking the usual condescending stance, why don't you just answer the question? What steps are taken for digital track approval? You seem to have all the answers, so sharing them would minimize misinformation.
"What steps are taken for digital track approval?"
The same steps.
You want answers for the other inane questions too?
Yea I know, I was kinda deflecting any S I was get by poorly letting it known I wasn't in the mood to duck-and-cover. I know I don't have thick skin, and even when I first joined this site, I was in a mode of defense, only constantly. Half my posts are probably from the first year I joined 6ish years ago.
Not my first language (for the first 5 years of my life), AND wow, I was very sleep deprived. Still, this is why I can take forever to correct my sentence structure by overthinking among other flaws I have with forming sentences. Still exceeded in English and Math(s).
I say they are superfluous, or really why I meant was just "over-the-top", when it comes to the detail in imagery (and I'm not talking about the trees or Loch Ness monster at Trial Mountain). I'm talking about the entire experience of how artful the experience is when you're driving 45 mph or 300 kph around and around a track within certain, yet limited, circumstantial regards.
I don't really want to carry on about something that I've miscommunicated with what I'm trying to coordinate. There probably won't be any satisfactory end to it. It's funny (70 me) that you mentioned about copying/pasting. I thought I would sound like I was doing... and I DID! Every other single word of these last posts.
I did think I sounded like I was copying and pasting, and funnily enough, I did with about two things. I had to make certain I was spelling Scuba (Tsssssukuba) correctly. I didn't know Tsukuba, a City in Japan, is a city located in the Ibaraki Prefecture. It's crazy.
Which is why I asked if "superfluous" was the word you wanted, because that's not what "superfluous" means. I even gave you the definition, which you must have ignored.
You may mean superlative, or any number of other similar words.
I understand that it can be difficult choosing words in a language that isn't your native one. But if someone points out that what you're writing isn't making any sense then you may want to consider paying attention.
I see what you mean. I stand corrected. Although, I wasn't able to clearly see - literally, my vision was adding to my confusion - and my thought process was clouded. Typing on a phone on top of watching sports, hearing it in the background with sometimes annoying commentary, couldn't have been good when I was stating my case.
But by superlative, I meant to signify a bit more of that and less of the literal meaning of superfluous, if taken very, VERY literal in its definition. PD take it too far in the graphics department at times to their detriment (these past two iterations), while in turn, possibly helping in the long run. The adaptive tessellation on the PS3 being a case in question; it was something that was seemingly impossible - through the eyes of the industry if I'm not mistaken - to do whilst at the level of PD's hardware-overload!!! *queue alarms... and 3, 2, 1 erratic camera shaking* standards.
I sincerely hope I'm not continuing to misconvey anything, while at the same time, thinking it's the end of the world as we know it. I repeat, iiiit's the end of the world as we know it.
Crickets in the front row are chirping, with crooked antennae on their heads, look to one another. In the bewilderment of the befallen scenes, in the sea of insects, cows, toads and other types of organism within the animal kingdom, Dolphin, the ironically named porpoise of the owner of thee carwash on Main, then whispers to his (or her!) self, "What the hell did we waste our $9.50 on?"
Goat, sister of the Alpha Gamma Delta sorority, neighs.
*overheard camera shot*
A porpoise doesn't have a brain equivalent to that of a three year old child, does it? What I'm really asking is, is a porpoise the same type of deal we have with a dolphin?
Yes but my point is they are only inspecting the visual reproduction of the safety elements, in the real world they also have to check how the safety equipment physically performs.
If they went to a track and the barriers weren't properly secured or weren't made to the correct specification the track would be downrated. The catch fencing has to be made strong enough, and tested. None of that applies to a digital track.
Clearly they didn't rate the impact of the barriers since in all of the GT tracks all barriers have the property of concrete. 100% solid with no absorption. How on earth can a track be safety rated if the tyres and tecpro don't absorb any impacts? They clearly don't meet the FIA standards and should have failed instantly.
When they say the two tracks need a little work they simply mean it doesn't quite match the visual appearance of the real track, nothing more.
Still awaiting your response. Please point to the specific sections that deal with virtual tracks, the approval criteria etc.
In the real world they perform an inspection, like any engineering inspection done after construction, so it's non-destructive. That is, they don't check "how safety equipment physically performs."
They verify if everything is placed and in accord to their set requirements. As said in the document.
Spoiler: The inspection
12.2 Edges, verges and lateral areas All edges, verges and lateral areas should be level with the edge of the track and all areas behind kerbs filled in and level. In all grasscovered areas, the grass should be kept trimmed; dry grass and all vegetation should be removed. Vegetation should be removed from gravel beds. All lateral areas, up to the first protection, should be kept clear of any obstruction.
12.3 Guardrails All guardrail supports should be checked for firm location in the ground. All nuts and bolts should be checked for tightness. Correct overlaps must be maintained. The maximum spacing between the bottom rail and the ground and between the upper rails should be 4 cm. The circuit engineer should certify the specifications of the installation. Where guardrails are supported by wooden posts, these should be regularly inspected for deterioration and moisture impregnation.
12.4 Tyre barriers Tyre barriers should be checked for firm location to existing structures and tight attachment together. Tyres should be bolted tightly in piles before installation.
12.5 Spectator and debris fencing These fences should be checked regularly for support and tensioning. The fences should be checked for deterioration.
If anyone performs physical tests, it would be the engineer(s) and technicians responsible for the construction and during it. They may check concrete mixtures, fence installations and so on. There are engineering standards and procedures to construct these objects though.
And if you buy TECPRO barriers, you buy them assuming TECPRO has ran all safety certifications and they'll probably send a technician to oversee their installation.
You won't buy them, install them and throw a car at them to check.
I suppose you clicked the "Safety Barrier Standard" text where it shows the test for barriers/inserts, but that's for applications of new methods to see if they comply with FIA requirements.
They wouldn't be "downrated". They shouldn't be "rated" at all with safety issues.
The grading is about what type of cars are sanctioned to race at any such circuit.
And yes, they do apply to digital models, because at that, the state of every object is "ideal".
If you ever used Solidworks, you'd notice there are plenty of bolts, hinges, and what not from "real world" brands, that are modeled according to their approved physical properties and specifications.
And in GT...
I suppose this is imagined to be a sharp observation but...
First let us think about collision in the GT universe.
We know there's conservation of momentum and energy (dissipation as well) in it. Look at cars hitting cones, loose tires, or other cars.
Now a car crashing into those immovable barriers, perfectly inelastic. Where does the energy go? Car doesn't deform, barrier doesn't deform, the noise is the same "clank" at any speed, no visible heating.
It stands to reason it must be something in the barriers.
These barriers surpass every and any standard.
I can't even remember the last time a car stopped functioning, or a driver was injured after hitting one of them.
From the section above:
And yes [...], the state of every object is "ideal".
They are not comparing visual appearances though. It is as if... you didn't read anything.
They can paint Brands Hatch's trees and grass blue, and all kerbs yellow and pink, and it still would pass verification.
It's all about the circuit area plan.
Interlagos sections had to be reformed last year (putting astroturf in some areas, chaging kerbs, repaving) to conform to the newest FIA standards and renew homologation.
That is, if PD modelled 2012's Interlagos 1:1 (in area plan), it would fail certification today.
Or if they modelled 2015's Interlagos, but placed barriers inside the S so people don't go offroad jumping, and having barriers there is not safe, it would fail certification today. It's possible too that barriers there are totally safe and it would pass.
That's how it works.
Repeating: Perhaps GT's Le Mans/Spa is 1:1 to whatever period they've done it, and it just so happens it would fail in 2014. Or GT has alterations like moving barriers closer to track edges to avoid cutting or just saving geometry and that causes it to fail.
And again, they are not measuring against say "Le Mans - 2008" pictures and old CADs, and going "Oh yeah! That's 1:1! Approved!".
That's why even GT tracks follow the 3 year homologation validity too.
See, you keep trying to say they inspect the digital tracks in the same way as the real world tracks then even post things yourself that don't back that up. They can't check guardrail supports. They can't check nuts and bolts are tight. They don't ask PD how the virtual rails were installed. The virtual wooden posts don't need to be inspected for rot. The tyre barriers cannot be checked for how they were installed and if they were properly packed together. They can't check if the fences are properly tensioned and they won't regularly check.
Like I said, they are looking at the visual reproduction and nothing more. Not the colour of trees or kerbs, just the visual recreation of the real world safety features at the track. They do not carry out any of the physical checks or tests.
You can't actually be serious with that response, can you? Again you claim they follow the exact same standards as real world inspections, so they would not be taking into account gameplay at all. They would inspect the barriers at the track and find they all have the properties of concrete.
Well I stopped caring for GT, ever since GT6 disappointed me and I discovered GRID: Autosport and Forza so I won't even be buying new GT games with Kaz retires anyway. GTs current direction doesn't suit how I play racing games it seems judging by how GT has developed after GT4, so it is clear I'm not GT material.
No. F1 97 and TOCA both were as much of a sim as the original GT was and both released before it on the PS1.
NUmbers and Pikes Peak I would agree on, but gameplay was an evolution of GT and no way beyond the PS1.
I would agree on most of this, but then GT3 is still my favorite of the entire series.
However physics wise it was no match for either Richard Burns Rally or Enthusia, both also PS2 titles.
Graphics yes, however Sega GT 2002 had a photomode way before GT4 and the ability to save replays was in the GT series (and other series) well before GT4
V Rally 2 (on the original Playstation) had a better course maker back in 1999, 3D murdered the performance of GT5 and the X1 was a pointless distraction for me.
Great technical game and excellent racing on the PSP, just had no career at all. GT Pokeman on the PSP.
Both of which I could well have done without, a vanity project at the expense of releasing DLC with up to date real world cars (both race and production) and a waste of time in terms of modelling.
Overall GT has managed a lot of 'firsts' however not as many as people like to think and not all of them worth being first on (moon racing is one of the key ones in this for me).
Somewhat related to the above.
I wasn't clear enough.
You send the CAD (> computer aided design <) circuit area plan along with the dossier that says what is it for.
At this point already you have everything laid out.
What type of gravel from what company, what grass, concrete mixtures, guard-rails from what company and its specifications (what bolts go on it, what material), type of pavement and so on.
They run simulations on it.
Exemple: There's a curve following a straight where cars may escape the line at speeds up to 120 km/h.
Your project has pavement on trackside for 25 meters then guard-rail.
- Step 2.1:
They notify you: Hey, your Curve X is alright for A cars but for B cars you'll need a tire-wall, and C cars you'll need to remove that guard rail and pave another 10 meters then tires. And so on with marshall posts, kerb placement, medical facility, access areas.
- Step 2.2:
You fix it for C cars and re-send.
- Step 2.3:
They run simulations on it.
They notify you: Hey man, your track is alright. You can build it now, exactly as planned though, because that's the project we approved. (Notice each track configuration must be homologated separately too).
You build it.
They inspect it if you built as the approved plan.
If you used normal road pavement when you said it would be a F1 grade pavement, they'll say: "No deal".
And I know, that's exactly what you already knew and has been saying: Step 4 and 5 do not happen IN A DIGITAL MODEL (because there's nothing to be physically built as planned)!
I am very aware of that, and of course, they are very aware of that.
They know it's a virtual simulation. They are not asking how will they send virtual technicians and engineers to verify if the in-game track was modeled exactly as the model suggests it is.
What I tried to explain with the last post is:
The CORE of circuit safety approval and circuit grading is in the circuit planning.
There are standards for objects, and at plan stage you agree to meet them.
The approved CAD has every feature in its ideal state.
The inspection is to verify you met them, as agreed.
That's why they (FIA) said they follow the same standards.
They verify through simulation if everything from kerb type to run-off distances to marshall post's visibility are compatible with any given and planned, use.
Regardless of whether it is a 1:1 visual representation of 2000's Le Mans, or 2016's Willow Springs.
They'll run the simulations and say: Hey, it's cool that you got 2000's Le Mans perfectly down to the famous pigeon poop of '99, it doesn't meet the safety standards of today for LMP1 racing. You'll have to change this and that.
Again, that's why it follows the same procedures and standards.
- They won't care if PD makes a digital circuit safer than its real counterpart in 2016.
- The licenser may.
And yes, all of that means original tracks may be homologated.
Hope it's clearer now.
But I'll repeat anyway:
The CORE of circuit safety approval and circuit grading is in the circuit planning. The materials used, the distances and areas, etc.
And one last: If it doesn't pass this stage, your circuit won't ever be approved by FIA and run FIA events even if you go ahead and build it anyway. The same goes for reforms.
"I suppose this is imagined to be a sharp observation but..."
"I can't even remember the last time a car stopped functioning, or a driver was injured after hitting one of them."
I was mocking your point and playing with its premise about object's behaviour in game.
If they were to verify how it all behaves during in-game simulation, they'd find out most materials in that universe have some really magical properties they'd wish were accessible in real life.
Conversely, "gameplay" would be how things are "physically" checked.
End-point interaction with the subjects under the physical laws that govern the system.
After all of that:
If you think that because in a simulation debris can't kill drivers, cars don't shatter with engines crushing legs and guard rails don't bend and run through windshields and doors, that makes it all moot, that's cool.
If you still think that they can't say it's the same procedure and standard requirements because nothing was ever built physically, there's nothing anyone can do to stop you.
If you still think that they are comparing if Spa's kerbs with their real-life counterparts, then oof...
But yes, it is understandable that, if you make a 1:1 replica of a recently (re)homologated track, it will too pass the tests and receive equal grade.
So don't count on the full Ring having "FIA Sanctioned" events with "Single-seater racing cars of Groups D (FIA International Formula) and E (Free formula) with a weight/power ratio of between 1 and 2 kg/hp".
I have yet to read which specific tracks were "certified", because the announcement doesn't state it, nor FIA nor PD. Without that very basic info it's really hard to believe there's a procedure to begin with.
Then, I still haven't seen proof of FIA requiring those tests to be made for certification of virtual or digital tracks. The previous links don't include that, nor imply it.
What you are quoting are the tests they run for real tracks, not virtual, while assuming they used the same procedure for the GT tracks.
In itself that real life procedure doesn't make much sense for virtual tracks, as for virtual tracks the results depend 100% on the game/sim/physics used to test them. What would though is comparing FIA's own laser scans (not merely the CADs), which I doubt they exist otherwise videogame companies would straight off get the licensing rights for them instead of scanning the tracks themselves.
Same thing happens with the claim of PD laser scanning the Nordschleife back in 2004: very hard to believe that happened, no proof whatsoever of that, plus with the claim coming from a dubious source.
Not my problem, really.
While that too is not my problem, I'll help you out. Bathurst, Brands Hatch, Suzuka and Silverstone.
That one is really not my problem, but you can try tagging Amar, I'm sure he still torture-reads this forum. Or PMing the other guy at NeoGAF.
Yeah that's why I never said, quoted or pointed they run driving tests. I think that's a concern for the track staff, running test events.
The simulations (if that's what you meant) are ran in their own proprietary software.
And they are not interactive driving tests.