Would YOU have waited two more years for GT5?

[Mubble]

It's a strange question. Of course everyone would have waited. What's the alternative?

 

[Eric W]

Well, I waited till GT5 had a solid release date before I even bought the PS3. So, if PD waited too long they may have lost more customer to Forza. Fortunately, PD had a life long fan in me.

 

[occasionalracer]

That's the problem... everyone focuses on polygons as if thats the only thing that will change...

GT4 cars were super high poly counts for the time (photo mode models especially) but guess what? No interiors modeled... that right there killed any kind of future proofing.

So the assumption that GT5's high poly cars make them future proof is flawed again becasue it focuses on just that one factor... what if the future allows for things like advanced damage model of an actual chasis and includes thickness and strengths of different materials? GT5 cars have none of that recorded.

What if advanced features like modeling actual weight distribution based on every part is used? What if damage actually skews weight in real time? GT5 cars do not have every part weighed, just overall car weight with possibly some overall weight distribution info.

How about undercarage wind resistance based on actual part shape? Not just cars that have a flat textured bottom...

And the assumption it would take so long to model is also just a guess... PD seems to do things the really hard way which takes a LONG time... but laser scanning has come along and who knows what techniques are coming down the pipes for the future? Plus pretty much every new car has really detailed computer modeled version from the factory already... that would save you a LOT of work.

See there is a reason almost nothing is ever future proof... you can't account for what might get invented in the future.

Graphics cards are never future proof no matter how fast the GPU because a new shader comes along or physix is the next big thing.

RAM is never future proof no matter how fast because a new architecture comes out... remember when DDR first came along?

4Ghz P4 processor? Oh look dual core...

8 USB ports, 2 Esata and 6 SATA ports? That's nice, does it have USB3?


Future proof is always a joke. GT5 cars are no more future proof because of their poly count than GT4 cars were.

Obviously future proofing is a very tricky thing these days, but seriously, some of these things you mention will never matter to video game simulation.
For a videogame developer to get into specific car specs such as material thickness, mass and density for each part for EACH car, which could have 1.000.001 different variations of impact angles, is really beyond the scope of possibility. I not even sure the automotive industry has come that far when designing and modeling vehicle safety and airbag features, and believe me the big companies do eveything to perfect engineering through computer models before going ahead with their prototype manufacturing.

As far as having the weights of individual components to replicate weight distrubution/ weight shifting, again, with so many parts it's something no videogame developer needs to bother with. However, I'm certain PD has done alot of homework in this department, and have very closly simulated the weight of motors/tranny and the chassis within their models to match real world counterparts close enough. If you think about it's already a big chunk of the physics engine, and having individual component weight is irrelivant, when all that matters is simulating the points at which the mass lies within the car model, which I'm sure they have meticoulasly worked on since at least GT3.

They could possibly work on having undercarage aerodynamics, but I'm not so sure it would help much for gameplay. I'm also not sure that manufacturers would just give up their computer models for PD to use, and the question is would PD even be able to make those work for their PS3 modeling system. I don't know, I have no clue about modeling software, but I'm sure it's not all so simple.

I'm relatively sure though as far as their premium car modeling goes, they are future proofed for at least the PS4. They're not gonna toss all that hard work in the garbage and start with a new direction of car modeling. PD is already looking to the future, and they must have some inside information on the specs that will be available for PS4. We're not moving away from 1080p resolution anytime soon, so there shouldn't be any major affordable technology shockers in the next 5 years at least.

I agree with you on the laser scanning technology though, especially when it comes to scanning the RL tracks, this would truly be the last major piece in making the game that much more true to life.

It's really easy to assume that PD could do things better and easier, but the amount of trial and error that has gone on at PD to get things right, is likely the highest out of any other game developer out there. I love how they strive for perfection, even though the GT community always finds things to pick at. Good things take time and amazing things come from many lessons learned, I think PD is on the right path.

 

[Akira AC]

Obviously future proofing is a very tricky thing these days, but seriously, some of these things you mention will never matter to video game simulation.
For a videogame developer to get into specific car specs such as material thickness, mass and density for each part for EACH car, which could have 1.000.001 different variations of impact angles, is really beyond the scope of possibility. I not even sure the automotive industry has come that far when designing and modeling vehicle safety and airbag features, and believe me the big companies do eveything to perfect engineering through computer models before going ahead with their prototype manufacturing.

As far as having the weights of individual components to replicate weight distrubution/ weight shifting, again, with so many parts it's something no videogame developer needs to bother with. However, I'm certain PD has done alot of homework in this department, and have very closly simulated the weight of motors/tranny and the chassis within their models to match real world counterparts close enough. If you think about it's already a big chunk of the physics engine, and having individual component weight is irrelivant, when all that matters is simulating the points at which the mass lies within the car model, which I'm sure they have meticoulasly worked on since at least GT3.

They could possibly work on having undercarage aerodynamics, but I'm not so sure it would help much for gameplay. I'm also not sure that manufacturers would just give up their computer models for PD to use, and the question is would PD even be able to make those work for their PS3 modeling system. I don't know, I have no clue about modeling software, but I'm sure it's not all so simple.

I'm relatively sure though as far as their premium car modeling goes, they are future proofed for at least the PS4. They're not gonna toss all that hard work in the garbage and start with a new direction of car modeling. PD is already looking to the future, and they must have some inside information on the specs that will be available for PS4. We're not moving away from 1080p resolution anytime soon, so there shouldn't be any major affordable technology shockers in the next 5 years at least.

I agree with you on the laser scanning technology though, especially when it comes to scanning the RL tracks, this would truly be the last major piece in making the game that much more true to life.

It's really easy to assume that PD could do things better and easier, but the amount of trial and error that has gone on at PD to get things right, is likely the highest out of any other game developer out there. I love how they strive for perfection, even though the GT community always finds things to pick at. Good things take time and amazing things come from many lessons learned, I think PD is on the right path.

Not sure what to think because the Source Engine developed by Valve already do most of these things(regarding weight distribution), it should also be said that the fuel tank and its respective weight do affect the car's performance and some of its characteristics because its weight changes, and this affects the car's center of gravity. Having each individual component integrated into the engine can also improve the accuracy of the simulations as each component can also be scripted to receive damage improving the accuracy of the damaged simulated.

It should also be accounted that most of this stuff can be done based on the Source Engine(and other types of game engines, including game engines for racing games), implementing such algorithms and system architecture for a driving simulator can also be made, most of the cars that are modelled these days are also modelled with their respective engine bay, it wont be to hard to implement different parts scripting as it only represents an scripting section on an individual piece of the car.

Apart from that, GT5's engine lacks in some areas, there is not tyre temperature and grip simulations, there aren't many advances on AI development and something that should be acknowledged is that many PC sims(and recently console sims)have reached far more complexity on their game engine.

 

[vandaliser]

one word. No

 

[Tornado]

I'd say that by very nature of being done with modern modeling techniques (rather than the at that point already anachronistic ones used in GT4), the GT5 models are already considerably more future proof than the ones in GT4 had any hope of ever being.

 

[evilKnoxville]

@TO
No offense, but I think this is a rather *** question. People tend to wait every day and while you are at it; why not waiting "for a game" another couple of month? Life goes by anyway, you probably buy other games in the meantime, but at some point in time: zomg there it is GT5, GT6, etc. and of course, you are going to buy it.

The people who tell you no ... well, let's see.

@Toronado
You are right - we have reached a quite acceptable number of polygons; it could get rounder, etc. but it is already very good where it is today.

 

[dylansan]

I agree, it's a poorly worded question. What are the options? If PD decided to delay it, it wouldn't be possible to not wait for it, unless you decided to never ever buy it, which is pointless. If the question was "should PD have delayed it 2 years" the answers may have been much different (though I think there's a very obvious answer to that question too).

 

[evilKnoxville]

I agree, it's a poorly worded question. What are the options? If PD decided to delay it, it wouldn't be possible to not wait for it, unless you decided to never ever buy it, which is pointless. If the question was "should PD have delayed it 2 years" the answers may have been much different (though I think there's a very obvious answer to that question too).

👍

 

[another_jakhole]

I completely agree with the last two posters. Some of these polls are blahh. They mean nothing.

The one with choosing our favorite tracks, or tracks we want as DLC, should have stayed open because that was actually useful for PD. It clearly showed them what we wanted most instead of looking through posts, a poll would have been smarter.