Your thoughts about "standard" vs. "premium"

  • Thread starter LP670-4 SV
  • 10,183 comments
  • 666,515 views

What would you have rather had PD do about "premium" vs. "standard" cars

  • Keep everthing the same

    Votes: 324 19.1%
  • Release the game later with all the cars "premium"

    Votes: 213 12.6%
  • Not do "premium" cars at all but focus on other features i.e. dynamic weather

    Votes: 134 7.9%
  • DLC packs after the release

    Votes: 844 49.8%
  • Wished PD didn't get are hopes up, lol

    Votes: 179 10.6%

  • Total voters
    1,694
437
Perhaps they went overboard with all those features while they had to focus on something much more important: the cars. All premium with cockpit.

For me it's not that big of a deal. I'm still more than happy with the things that GT5 has to offer. I do not know however how big the difference will be between driving in highly detailed and beautifully modelled premium cars with cockpit view versus standard cars from GT4 without cockpit. I will have to wait and see.

But I don't think about that! I'm focussing on the good parts, which are... everything else! All I can say is: suck it up, deal with it, and move on. :)
 

Spagetti69

Is not my real name.
Premium
10,403
GTP_Spag69
spagetti69
Seismica
:dopey: My bad, apologies :D

But the option to create point to point rallys in the track creator is promising, it shows they have been listening, or that they've got the right idea with WRC.

Let's hope they have thought about including the appropriate delayed starts for online. Forza totally messed up in that regard and didn't bother with a patch.
 
Let's hope they have thought about including the appropriate delayed starts for online. Forza totally messed up in that regard and didn't bother with a patch.

Yes staggered starts, repair penalty times, expand the track borders, proper points tracking etc...

(FM3=3 yrs)
(PGR4= 3yrs)
(NFS shift= 2yrs)
(Toca= 2.5 yrs)
(v rally 2= 2 yrs)
(dirt 2= 3.5 yrs)

So 5 years of development for 6.5 games,bad management to make 6.5 games in 5 years(while COD takes 2 years of development each)

no sense by me or no sense by you guys?what do you think....

Totaly no sense by you :lol:

You are adding up the time it took to make each game seperately... that would be like saying a movie with fighting, a love story, a car chase and an airpane dogfight should take as long to produce as 4 sepereate movies, one about fighting, one about car chases, one about airplane dog fighiting, and a chic flick love story... I mean that's like 8 years of movie making done in just 2 years, awesome! :D
 
Last edited:
4,366
Antarctica
Antarctica
Totaly no sense by you :lol:

You are adding up the time it took to make each game seperately... that would be like saying a movie with fighting, a love story, a car chase and an airpane dogfight should take as long to produce as 4 sepereate movies, one about fighting, one about car chases, one about airplane dog fighiting, and a chic flick love story... I mean that's like 8 years of movie making done in just 2 years, awesome! :D

Not quite because you cannot produce a movie with galactic wars plot and then switch it into a medieval plot(unless it is that movie that I saw last night,quite a bad trip that was),or in that manner you had to add to NFS characteristics like a track editor, rallying,livery editor,Nascar and F1,may use the same sort of movie(racing) but the plot is quite different.

(BTW how many time took avatar in being produce(question not sarcasm))
 
Not quite because you cannot produce a movie with galactic wars plot and then switch it into a medieval plot(unless it is that movie that I saw last night,quite a bad trip that was),or in that manner you had to add to NFS characteristics like a track editor, rallying,livery editor,Nascar and F1,may use the same sort of movie(racing) but the plot is quite different.

(BTW how many time took avatar in being produce(question not sarcasm))


And you didn't choose a game list that features parts of plumber platformer and simulation car driving together either, point?

Your argument totally makes no sense and just drives home further my conviction you simply don't understand and fathom what happens
during game development.

That and your ability to logically analyze a situation is apparenlty laughable at best... I honesty can't believe you really think your addition of build times for games thing makes any sense at all :lol:
 
4,366
Antarctica
Antarctica
And you didn't choose a game list that features parts of plumber platformer and simulation car driving together either, point?

Your argument totally makes no sense and just drives home further my conviction you simply don't understand and fathom what happens during game development.

Ok lets look at it different way:

You have a game in point zero with a predefined characteristics(blueprints or whatever you wanna call it),then you have to build(or buy in some cases)the game engine to make it work,then you have to draw the big picture of the game and then start scripting,modelling,and create the network,the UI and some other elements for integration and so on.

in the case of gran turismo they have to build an engine that should give positive feedback from several aspects of the game(like comparing how the experience in the game will be in a car like in a honda fit to a an F1 car)alongside that they have to create the 3D model(or re use it in this case)to match it with the scripting and its integration,the some scripting has to be done on the tracks as well(which will include some characteristics like dirt,snow and now wet)and the whole design of the track in the game(keep in mind that this is only a bit of the development).

Now multiply the scripting for each car in the new engine(there is not program to script elements with such characteristics so it has to be done by a human)and look at the newer stuff(like the dev tool for the track creator for example)and the technical difficulty that this will carry to the whole game(like programming on the PS3 platform for example).

Sure they could model 1000 models but in 5 years with that level of quality but who will take care of the new game engine creation,the dev tools creations and some other stuff like the scripting of the cars and I forgot about the wind(which shows a more accurate game engine and a more evolved one from other games),forza focus mainly on the tire scripting and its behaviour that is why in forza you have to warm up to get the best grip out of the car like in real life,but in GT they have to do scripting over wind resistance,car volume, aerodynamic characteristics(in forza this was a joke because the cars roll over when the game engine found and irregular behaviour like going over a rumble strip)also scripting over terrain surface and as far as I know this has to be done by a human,it cant be automatized because its a system itself with unique characteristics,if its done by a human its potential to have errors and it will take more time than an automatized process.

In conclusion what I want to point out is that the scripting and programming for 1000 cars,in determinate track characteristics its not a quick job and its not easy either,so PD have two choices,create a game with 500 cars and less characteristics or create a huge game with lots of characteristics,they took the second option,its the way that they done it and I think its the rigth one.

That said I'm not asking to anyone to believe that I'm a game designer,but what I want to point out is that some stages on a game development rest more on the technical difficulties(in example GTA IV and the rage engine development) and limitations of the human resources.

Well there will be disagreement after this ,my opinion is based on my experience so that is what I think of this game(reuses assets was also shown on FM3 and no one make a fuss about it,350 models reused with a cockpit view seems more impressive,I doubt that).
 
272
jchevez
People are still crying over the standard cars?

I still think that the cars will be separated into two modes. If we can transfer our cars from GTPSP then there'll be a premium and standard version of the ZR1, GT by Citroën, Ferrari F60 etc. Or would those cars become premium when they're transferred? Only time will tell.

200 plus "premium" cars doesn't bother me. Remember GT3? GT3 only had 181 "premium" cars compared to the 500 plus that GT2 had. Did that stop GT3 from being a great game? No. Did anyone notice a pattern?
 
Last edited:
Ok lets look at it different way:

You have a game in point zero with a predefined characteristics(blueprints or whatever you wanna call it),then you have to build(or buy in some cases)the game engine to make it work,then you have to draw the big picture of the game and then start scripting,modelling,and create the network,the UI and some other elements for integration and so on.

in the case of gran turismo they have to build an engine that should give positive feedback from several aspects of the game(like comparing how the experience in the game will be in a car like in a honda fit to a an F1 car)alongside that they have to create the 3D model(or re use it in this case)to match it with the scripting and its integration,the some scripting has to be done on the tracks as well(which will include some characteristics like dirt,snow and now wet)and the whole design of the track in the game(keep in mind that this is only a bit of the development).

Now multiply the scripting for each car in the new engine(there is not program to script elements with such characteristics so it has to be done by a human)and look at the newer stuff(like the dev tool for the track creator for example)and the technical difficulty that this will carry to the whole game(like programming on the PS3 platform for example).

Sure they could model 1000 models but in 5 years with that level of quality but who will take care of the new game engine creation,the dev tools creations and some other stuff like the scripting of the cars and I forgot about the wind(which shows a more accurate game engine and a more evolved one from other games),forza focus mainly on the tire scripting and its behaviour that is why in forza you have to warm up to get the best grip out of the car like in real life,but in GT they have to do scripting over wind resistance,car volume, aerodynamic characteristics(in forza this was a joke because the cars roll over when the game engine found and irregular behaviour like going over a rumble strip)also scripting over terrain surface and as far as I know this has to be done by a human,it cant be automatized because its a system itself with unique characteristics,if its done by a human its potential to have errors and it will take more time than an automatized process.

In conclusion what I want to point out is that the scripting and programming for 1000 cars,in determinate track characteristics its not a quick job and its not easy either,so PD have two choices,create a game with 500 cars and less characteristics or create a huge game with lots of characteristics,they took the second option,its the way that they done it and I think its the rigth one.

That said I'm not asking to anyone to believe that I'm a game designer,but what I want to point out is that some stages on a game development rest more on the technical difficulties(in example GTA IV and the rage engine development) and limitations of the human resources.

Well there will be disagreement after this ,my opinion is based on my experience so that is what I think of this game(reuses assets was also shown on FM3 and no one make a fuss about it,350 models reused with a cockpit view seems more impressive,I doubt that).

All I can say is so many parts of your explanation are so far out there I can't even beging to untangle this ridiculous mess of an idea of how things work you seem to have. Again here you are using words and terms in ways that they don't quite work showing you have basically come across the terms and kind of figured out what they mean on your own but not enough so to actually use them accurately.

For instance you don't seem to understand how procedural processes work and you don't seem to realize they don't program how a car handles step by step into the car... they build a physics engine that gets passed a set of arguments from the data portion of each module like weight, hp, grip etc and the physics engine dose the calculation to figure out what the car is doing. A good physics engine reproduces a likely and realistic approximation to what would happen in real life for any set of data you feed it. You don't go into each car and program "it understeers a little 35-90mphs but under 35 it oversteers".

And what are you talking about scripting? This isn't even a game where scripting is used... the AI handles the only NPC entities in the game and also does so dynamically.

And back to your original argument about adding time frames, even if it was somehow logically sound (which as I showed with the movie analogy, it's completely not) you are saying they took an idea or part from a game and incorporated it in GT5 so at best you could only add a part of the build time for that game.

For instanc each game build their own graphics renderers and lighting algorythms seperately, you don't add those together in the build time of GT5 because it didn't built 6 graphics engines. Same with sound engine, AI etc.

You are litterally doing what I said with the movie analogy: taking pieces of other things, adding toghter the dev time for the whole thing and saying that's the total.

Your argument is so fundamentlaly flawed it hurts the brain to comprehend how flawed it is.

And how do you handle things like the fact that Shift has speed motion blur built in but GT5 doesn't? Do you say "ooh 2 years to make Shift which has speed motion blur, GT5 doesn't so add 2 years onto GT5 dev time to incorporate that aspect"?

No... akira I am seriuos, you keep comming up with these insane ideas and theories based on obvious half baked knowledge of what you are talking about. It literally is like a kid walking into a car garage and trying to talk engine theory.... honestly you do not know what you are talking about and it's leading you to make some embarassingly bad posts.
 
218
United States
Jacksonville, FL
digitalwolf333
someone_is_wrong_on_the_internet1.jpg

arguing-internet-434x500.jpg
 
Last edited:

SlipZtrEm

GTP Admin
Staff Emeritus
27,384
Canada
Toronto
NewAesthetic
SlipZtrEm
This is sort of a compounded problem; Akira's native language definitely isn't English, and that's alright, but mixed with the lack of understanding of the processes involved that's readily apparent in these posts, well, that's a potent combination.

Anybody wanna translate? :lol:
 
For instance you don't seem to understand how procedural processes work and you don't seem to realize they don't program how a car handles step by step into the car... they build a physics engine that gets passed a set of arguments from the data portion of each module like weight, hp, grip etc and the physics engine dose the calculation to figure out what the car is doing. A good physics engine reproduces a likely and realistic approximation to what would happen in real life for any set of data you feed it.

:lol: now I get it, I finally understand where your disappointment feelings toward polyphony and wrong naive bad management idea came from, apparently you have no idea how polyphony digital implement cars and tracks in GT5...I really invite you to read more about this...

why just 200 premium cars ?!! in 6 years ?!! you polyphony bad resource managers...hire more people, model more cars and get the game out already damn it ! :lol:

I understand now that you think modeling cars in GT5 is just about throwing some 500 000 polygons onto a car, so polyphony could just externalize this process or hire more people (same for tracks)...(actually anyone could create a multi million polygon car, thats doesent mean the car is well modeled, polygons could be used efficiently or inefficiently, thats why GT4 cars on PS2 have 5000 polygons per car and they are better modeled than Forza 1 cars on xbox1 which are composed of 20 000 + polygons per car)

so let me elighten you and tell you this :

1- for a lot of cars in GT5, polyphony staff travel to get pictures of those cars and any material that could be useful for the modelling process.

2- they also travel to TRY and DRIVE a lot of the cars they are modeling in the game (thats take a lot of time and money), do you know why ?

because the physics engine could only get you too far, because there is a difference between theoretical numbers and reality (0-60 seconds speed - brake, horse power, RPM, torque, gear transmission ratios, drivetrain type, wheight of the car, suspension type and chracteristics..) etc etc etc.

so after entering the characteristics of the car onto their pohysics engine simulation, they ADJUST the behavior of the car according to their driving experience with it.

You don't go into each car and program "it understeers a little 35-90mphs but under 35 it oversteers"

wrong, thats sometimes more or less what happens for some cars, for example just based on numbers, the physics engine cannot simulate accurately the incredible turning handling capabilities of the mitsubishi EVO (or the nissan GTR), thats why kazunori yamauchi drove those cars and adjusted their behavior in the game, making the car turn better and oversteer or understeer less than what the physics engine simulated based on theoritical numbers. the feeling of the car is also important (the car feels heavy ? light ? stable , unstable ? easy to drive ? difficult ? responsive or not ? how turning the wheel feels ?..etc those kind of parameters are difficult to simulate and set automatically in the physics engine and you need to adjust them manually for a realistic simulated driving experience of each car in the game)

thats actually what sets GT games apart from the majority of other racing games in the market : attention to detail
thats why the experience of driving a car in NFS shft or PGR4 is less realistic than thats of GT5 prologue...

3/ the same thing goes to circuits, (they also try extensively a lot of circuits because the physics engine cant simulate accurately the felling of the circuit), thats why driving nurburgring in forza3 is different than GT4, and now GT5, in GT it is more realistic, more accurate, more authentic,


thats why it takes polyphony digital all those years to release the game (not the naive bad management :lol: but attention to detail)
 
1,002
South Africa
South Africa
People are still crying over the standard cars?

I still think that the cars will be separated into two modes. If we can transfer our cars from GTPSP then there'll be a premium and standard version of the ZR1, GT by Citroën, Ferrari F60 etc. Or would those cars become premium when they're transferred? Only time will tell.

200 plus "premium" cars doesn't bother me. Remember GT3? GT3 only had 181 "premium" cars compared to the 500 plus that GT2 had. Did that stop GT3 from being a great game? No. Did anyone notice a pattern?

I was 13 I think,when they were making GT2000...except,it wasnt in dev time for 5 yrs.We can argue over how much of time it REALLY took Pd to make the game,but at the end of the day,most will benchmark the time between GT4-->GT5.Also,yes GT3 had 150something cars..at times it did feel bare,I played it a few days ago and it feels very limited.In the days of GT3,there were no console benchmarks like Forza etc.Now times are tougher.Frankly,if they kept the same amount of permanent staff when shifting to next gen,wouldve been a very stupid move,besides the fact tha the cell is much harder to work with.All in all,PD has a history of always giving us more than they state.See,in GT2,they originally promised 550cars,I was blown away when they gave us 750 or so.By saying '1000' ...then saying premium and standard,thats where the problem is.Frankly,I think they should have a poll when GT5 launches,take votes to add another 100-200 premiums from the standard car pile,then discard the rest and move foward with new models
 
For instance you don't seem to understand how procedural processes work and you don't seem to realize they don't program how a car handles step by step into the car... they build a physics engine that gets passed a set of arguments from the data portion of each module like weight, hp, grip etc and the physics engine dose the calculation to figure out what the car is doing. A good physics engine reproduces a likely and realistic approximation to what would happen in real life for any set of data you feed it.

:lol: now I get it, I finally understand where your disappointment feelings toward polyphony and wrong bad management idea came from, apparently you have no idea how polyphony digital implement cars in GT5...I really invite you to read more about this...

why just 200 premium cars ?!! in 6 years ?!! you polyphony bad resource managers...hire more people, model more cars and get the game out already damn it ! :lol:

I understand now that you think modeling cars in GT5 is just about throwing some 500 000 polygons onto a car, so polyphony could just externalize this process or hire more people...(actually anyone could create a multi million polygon car, thats doesent mean the car is well modeled, polygons could be used efficiently or inefficiently, thats why GT4 cars on PS2 has 5000 polygons and they are better modeled than Forza 1 cars on xbox1 which use 20 000 + polygons per car)

so let me elighten you and tell you this :

1- for a lot of cars in GT5, polyphony staff travel to get pictures of those cars and any material that could be useful for the modelling process.

2- they also travel to TRY and DRIVE a lot of the cars they are modeling in the game (thats take a lot of time and money), do you know why ?

because the physics engine could only get you too far, because there is a difference between theoretical numbers and reality (0-60 seconds speed - brake, horse power, RPM, torque, gear transmission ratios, drivetrain type, wheight of the car, suspension type and chracteristics..) etc etc etc.

so after entering the characteristics of the car onto their pohysics engine simulation, they ADJUST the behavior of the car according to their driving experience with it.

You don't go into each car and program "it understeers a little 35-90mphs but under 35 it oversteers"

It is true there is a physics engine, but thats sometimes more or less what polyphony do for some cars, for example just based on numbers, the physics engine cannot simulate accurately the incredible turning handling capabilities of the mitsubishi EVO (or the nissan GTR), thats why kazunori yamauchi drove those cars and adjusted their behavior in the game, making the car turn better and oversteer or understeer less than what the physics engine simulated based on theoritical numbers. the feeling of the car is also important (the car feels heavy ? light ? stable , unstable ? easy to drive ? difficult ? responsive or not ? how turning the wheel feels ?..etc those kind of parameters are difficult to simulate and set automatically in the physics engine and you need to adjust them manually for a realistic simulated driving experience of each car in the game)

thats actually what sets GT games apart from the majority of other racing games in the market : attention to detail
thats why the experience of driving a car in NFS shft or PGR4 is less realistic than thats of GT5 prologue...

3/ the same thing goes to circuits, (they also try extensively a lot of circuits because the physics engine cant simulate accurately the felling of the circuit), thats why driving nurburgring in forza3 is different than GT4, and now GT5, in GT it is more realistic, more accurate, more authentic,


thats why it takes polyphony digital all those years to release the game (not the naive bad management :lol: but attention to detail)
 
39,025
I'm having a hard time believing they put that much attention to detail into GT5 without proof when they didn't do anything of the sort for GT4 (and, if GTPSP is any indication, they haven't fixed any of the problems for the returning Standard cars either).
I'm reminded of the Volvo 240 that weighed about 1000 pounds more than it did in real life, or how only a handful of cars with automatic transmissions (out of probably a hundred or so) actually drove like they had automatic transmissions.
 
Last edited:
731
United Kingdom
Great Britain
You can't really judge the returning standards based on GTPSP. That was a port of GT4, I doubt PD would have bothered to implement any changes in such a minor game. The standards will drive better in GT5 as they're running on GT5's physics engine, not GT4's/GTPSP's.
 
Hey it's Devedander! :lol:

I have actually posted that exact picture and said it was indeed me a few times here... but no one would remember that, they only remember when I say something that rubs them the wrong way ;)

No but seriously... I think whoever made that cartoon knows me in person or something.

:lol: now I get it, I finally understand where your disappointment feelings toward polyphony and wrong bad management idea came from, apparently you have no idea how polyphony digital implement cars in GT5...I really invite you to read more about this...

why just 200 premium cars ?!! in 6 years ?!! you polyphony bad resource managers...hire more people, model more cars and get the game out already damn it ! :lol:

I understand now that you think modeling cars in GT5 is just about throwing some 500 000 polygons onto a car, so polyphony could just externalize this process or hire more people...(actually anyone could create a multi million polygon car, thats doesent mean the car is well modeled, polygons could be used efficiently or inefficiently, thats why GT4 cars on PS2 has 5000 polygons and they are better modeled than Forza 1 cars on xbox1 which use 20 000 + polygons per car)

so let me elighten you and tell you this :

1- for a lot of cars in GT5, polyphony staff travel to get pictures of those cars and any material that could be useful for the modelling process.

2- they also travel to TRY and DRIVE a lot of the cars they are modeling in the game (thats take a lot of time and money), do you know why ?

because the physics engine could only get you too far, because there is a difference between theoretical numbers and reality (0-60 seconds speed - brake, horse power, RPM, torque, gear transmission ratios, drivetrain type, wheight of the car, suspension type and chracteristics..) etc etc etc.

so after entering the characteristics of the car onto their pohysics engine simulation, they ADJUST the behavior of the car according to their driving experience with it.



It is true there is a physics engine, but thats sometimes more or less what polyphony do for some cars, for example just based on numbers, the physics engine cannot simulate accurately the incredible turning handling capabilities of the mitsubishi EVO (or the nissan GTR), thats why kazunori yamauchi drove those cars and adjusted their behavior in the game, making the car turn better and oversteer or understeer less than what the physics engine simulated based on theoritical numbers. the feeling of the car is also important (the car feels heavy ? light ? stable , unstable ? easy to drive ? difficult ? responsive or not ? how turning the wheel feels ?..etc those kind of parameters are difficult to simulate and set automatically in the physics engine and you need to adjust them manually for a realistic simulated driving experience of each car in the game)

thats actually what sets GT games apart from the majority of other racing games in the market : attention to detail
thats why the experience of driving a car in NFS shft or PGR4 is less realistic than thats of GT5 prologue...

3/ the same thing goes to circuits, (they also try extensively a lot of circuits because the physics engine cant simulate accurately the felling of the circuit), thats why driving nurburgring in forza3 is different than GT4, and now GT5, in GT it is more realistic, more accurate, more authentic,


thats why it takes polyphony digital all those years to release the game (not the naive bad management :lol: but attention to detail)

First off, you know all this how?

Second off, is this you?

http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/cpg/1911439158.html

:lol:

BTW for those who aren't familiar: http://www.reddit.com/r/morrowindmmo

Basically it's some kid who is talking all big about ideas but doesn't know how much he doesn't know Nerd humor :D

EDIT BTW I asked before but I dont think you ever cleared it up, how do you know all this you know? Because to me it looks a lot like someone who reverse engineers a process in their head and when they arrive at a solution that they themselves can't find fault with, they assume they must be right.

Oh and just for the record, I am self taught from back in the BASIC days on ATARI ST through Apple Basic and QBASIC, VB, took a course in the history of COBAL, passed classes for PERL, JAVA, C, C++ and TURBO C, finished half a PASCAL course (dropped it because it was just for fun and I took too many courses that semester) wrote a few minor programs, work(ed) with some people on some fairly hefty projects and have read quite a few books on programming fundamentals and ideals. Went though advanced Photoshop (although I still suck at GIMP) and have worked with 3D modeling apps (mostly quite a while ago in the form of different forms of CAD) and played around with Maya a bit (not proficient at all, but basicaly know how to work it).

Basically I went to college with dreams of becomming a programmer. Then real life set in and I took other jobs in IT that were less stressful and paid better.

Full disclosure I have NOT ever coded a big game or worked with a big game house, so I am certainly no insider expert. But I DO understand (and it's from learning from the people who know, not guessing from a finished product) the fundamentals of programming and have some hands on experience. Basically I am the equivalent of a guy who studied construction broadly and worked a few summers building houses. I wouldn't hire me to build your house, but I sure understand how the process works pretty well.

Oh and that's an analogy... I am horrible at actual construction :)

So akiraa... how about you?
 
Last edited:
I know all this how ? are you kidding me ?

1/ for the mitsubishi EVO and nissan GTR, I just watched like a lot of people, the videos provided in GT5 prologue, so I saw, again like a lot of people, kazunori yamauchi driving them and adjusting the feeling of the cars in his game.

2/ for the nurburgring, I just saw, like a lot of people did, the videos of the last race kazunori yamauchi reced on this track with the lexus LFA car, and I just heard, like a lot of people too, kazunori yamauchi explaining how those kind of real experiences are used as a useful feedback to improve the experience of driving in GT games.

3/ I also saw, like a lot of people, a lot of making of videos of GT games, that you could watch for free on youtube (you can do a quick search in google, like a lot of people do too lol)

4/ I also read a lot of interviews with kazunori yamauchi where he explains how polyphony create cars and tracks and implement them into the game, I also read a lot of articles where they explain this process (for example in the EDGE magazine) also like a lot of people do.
 
1,002
South Africa
South Africa
I know all this how ? are you kidding me ?

1/ for the mitsubishi EVO and nissan GTR, I just watched like a lot of people, the videos provided in GT5 prologue, so I saw, again like a lot of people, kazunori yamauchi driving them and adjusting the feeling of the cars in his game.

2/ for the nurburgring, I just saw, like a lot of people did, the videos of the last race kazunori yamauchi reced on this track with the lexus LFA car, and I just heard, like a lot of people too, kazunori yamauchi explaining how those kind of real experiences are used as a useful feedback to improve the experience of driving in GT games.

3/ I also saw, like a lot of people, a lot of making of videos of GT games, that you could watch for free on youtube (you can do a quick search in google, like a lot of people do too lol)

4/ I also read a lot of interviews with kazunori yamauchi where he explains how polyphony create cars and tracks and implement them into the game, I also read a lot of articles where they explain this process (for example in the EDGE magazine) also like a lot of people do.

Ok, cool.Now we all know,how you know,what you know :)
 
4,366
Antarctica
Antarctica
/text/

So akiraa... how about you?

I'm currently at college studing systems enginering,actually we have several degree thesis and groupal investigation,and one of them is the build of a game engine which I'm involved,sure I'm currently on 6 semester but still havent cover all basis,I know how to code in C++,visual,java and currently studing on the process of cad,its hard job sometimes but I do have an idea of hw a 3D engine works since I have to made a basic game 3D game on torque I know how the scripted elements has to be done to work in an eviroment,but sure if you know how 3d game engine works(with physics values and so on)you should know that each element has to be scripted to follow a certain number of characteristics,its not an automatized process you should know that if you have work in torque(the most basic program on 3D programming).
 

SlipZtrEm

GTP Admin
Staff Emeritus
27,384
Canada
Toronto
NewAesthetic
SlipZtrEm
It is true there is a physics engine, but thats sometimes more or less what polyphony do for some cars, for example just based on numbers, the physics engine cannot simulate accurately the incredible turning handling capabilities of the mitsubishi EVO (or the nissan GTR), thats why kazunori yamauchi drove those cars and adjusted their behavior in the game, making the car turn better and oversteer or understeer less than what the physics engine simulated based on theoritical numbers. the feeling of the car is also important (the car feels heavy ? light ? stable , unstable ? easy to drive ? difficult ? responsive or not ? how turning the wheel feels ?..etc those kind of parameters are difficult to simulate and set automatically in the physics engine and you need to adjust them manually for a realistic simulated driving experience of each car in the game)

If you read that again, you're actually basically admitting GT doesn't have a sound physics engine. If it were, it wouldn't need tweaking for specific cars. I really wish I could find the article where Kaz talks about the physics engine, and specifically, that they don't need to drive every single car they add into the game, that they consider the physics engine good enough to accurately represent them just by covering the basic numbers. Anybody wanna help there, I've tried numerous wordings in Google and can't find it?

Going back to GT3, they did have one voodoo-y black-magic value for every car, not visible in-game but plainly on display in MK's GT3Edit program, called "grip". It was tied to the chassis of the car and basically would improve a car's traction even if no other values were changed, not even the tires. Sure enough, certain cars had a higher value than others for no discernible reason, and GT4, with the lack of a similar program, isn't easy to call one way or the other. But look at the Ford GT; Kaz owns one, and sure enough, in game that car is far, far faster than anything else with similar stats. Same with the SLR. Those cars can't hit 'Ring times in real life even remotely close to what people manage in the game, but certain other cars are far closer to their real life times. PD plays favourites just like any other company does, but you can't actually think they drive every single one of their 1000+ cars and then tweak them individually do you? That spits on the idea of having a solid physics engine.

I'm having a hard time believing they put that much attention to detail into GT5 without proof when they didn't do anything of the sort for GT4 (and, if GTPSP is any indication, they haven't fixed any of the problems for the returning Standard cars either).
I'm reminded of the Volvo 240 that weighed about 1000 pounds more than it did in real life, or how only a handful of cars with automatic transmissions (out of probably a hundred or so) actually drove like they had automatic transmissions.

The transmission issue really needs to be sorted; so does the very obvious handicap any FF car suffers in straight-line grip and way too much understeer in turns. Prologue was a bit better, as I could actually force cars like the Integra to have a hint of tail wag, but it's 0-60 time is still laughably slow. And do we bring up your favourite bit: the turbo Lexus GS300? :D

It's odd that Kaz has some obsessive attention to detail in some aspects of the game, and then in others, an almost negative view of the game's fans, for thinking we don't pick up on these other parts.

Slightly off-topic, but interesting nonetheless for the people who like to claim GT1 was started in '92: "After creating Motor Toon Grand Prix, he created over 100 different concepts for games before finally settling on the first Gran Turismo." From GTPlanet's own news section.
 
133
tifosi1991
Alright I have a question which has probably been answered before but I couldn't find anything.

Since the cars in GT5P have interiors, are they counted as part of the 200 premium cars and thus only 130ish new premium cars? According to the GT5 site none of the standard cars will have interiors. Or am I completely mistaken and not all the cars in GT5P will be in GT5?
 
11,219
United States
Chicago, iLL
GTP_Nismo
It is true there is a physics engine, but thats sometimes more or less what polyphony do for some cars, for example just based on numbers, the physics engine cannot simulate accurately the incredible turning handling capabilities of the mitsubishi EVO (or the nissan GTR), thats why kazunori yamauchi drove those cars and adjusted their behavior in the game, making the car turn better and oversteer or understeer less than what the physics engine simulated based on theoritical numbers. the feeling of the car is also important (the car feels heavy ? light ? stable , unstable ? easy to drive ? difficult ? responsive or not ? how turning the wheel feels ?..etc those kind of parameters are difficult to simulate and set automatically in the physics engine and you need to adjust them manually for a realistic simulated driving experience of each car in the game)

Do you have proof of this or did you make it up to back up your point? Kazunori DOES NOT consider himself to be a great driver therefore it would be pretty stupid for him to tweak the physics engine for certain cars based on his feelings about it.
 
I'm currently at college studing systems enginering,actually we have several degree thesis and groupal investigation,and one of them is the build of a game engine which I'm involved,sure I'm currently on 6 semester but still havent cover all basis,I know how to code in C++,visual,java and currently studing on the process of cad,its hard job sometimes but I do have an idea of hw a 3D engine works since I have to made a basic game 3D game on torque I know how the scripted elements has to be done to work in an eviroment,but sure if you know how 3d game engine works(with physics values and so on)you should know that each element has to be scripted to follow a certain number of characteristics,its not an automatized process you should know that if you have work in torque(the most basic program on 3D programming).

Sorry akiraa, I thought that last post was by you (tired as it responded to my response to you) either way, I honestly have no idea how you come up with the ideas you do if all that is true that you say there...I mean I could think maybe terminology is different or something but your logic even beyond that confounds me. Just the basic logic that you would add all dev times of multiple games that share facets with GT5 together as wholes when, by your experience list, you should know that makes no sense at all... you have me uterrly baffled.

I know all this how ? are you kidding me ?

1/ for the mitsubishi EVO and nissan GTR, I just watched like a lot of people, the videos provided in GT5 prologue, so I saw, again like a lot of people, kazunori yamauchi driving them and adjusting the feeling of the cars in his game.

2/ for the nurburgring, I just saw, like a lot of people did, the videos of the last race kazunori yamauchi reced on this track with the lexus LFA car, and I just heard, like a lot of people too, kazunori yamauchi explaining how those kind of real experiences are used as a useful feedback to improve the experience of driving in GT games.

3/ I also saw, like a lot of people, a lot of making of videos of GT games, that you could watch for free on youtube (you can do a quick search in google, like a lot of people do too lol)

4/ I also read a lot of interviews with kazunori yamauchi where he explains how polyphony create cars and tracks and implement them into the game, I also read a lot of articles where they explain this process (for example in the EDGE magazine) also like a lot of people do.

1 I will have to look again but I don't recall that. Which video in particular?

2 Yes he gets a feeling of how cars drive on race tracks so he can tell if his game feels generally right. That doesn't support most of what you said before though, it's just tangential.

3 I have seen some, can't say I have seen all obviously, anything ones in particularl you are referring to?

4 Link?
 
Last edited: