Anyone Expecting a "City Circuit" pack to be released ?

[Streeto]

They have the blinding opportunity to introduce some great new tracks in GT7. I just dislike the fact a voice inside my head is telling me to not get my hopes up for anything "great"... I guess I've trained my mind too well in the past years in regards to PD's claims and promises.

 

[Magog]

I think it's fair to say the widest part of Tokyo is notably wider than the widest part of Amalfi and the narrowest part of Amalfi is notable narrower than the narrowest part of Tokyo. Neither track is great for racing on, though time trialing on Amalfi was a delight I can't say the same for Tokyo.

The old Tokyo R246 track however was delightful.

No. I wouldn't say that at all.

You can't get three cars through cleanly at most of Tokyo. Most of it is a two lane highway. The argument against bringing back Amalfi is that it is too narrow but that's a ridiculous statement. Sport and 7 also feature Mt Panorama. The downhill section is practically single file when you take the racing line into account. PD isn't afraid of narrow tracks like people keep repeating.

 

[Cosbuster]

I don't think any city circuits will be released at all, let alone a pack of them. Maybe a few new layouts for Tokyo if we're lucky.

 

[Famine]

If you need me to post a picture of the narrow sections of Tokyo I will.

Why wait? Here's the narrowest part of the narrowest Tokyo track, shot from a similar angle to your YT thumbnail:

OMG totally narrower than such-wide Amalfi.

Some of it barely fits two cars.

You can't get three cars through cleanly at most of Tokyo. Most of it is a two lane highway.

Tokyo East is (and so is Costa di Amalfi, except it's not two-lane highway but two-lane corniche/esplanade). Tokyo Central and Tokyo South are mostly three- and four-lane highway, with some narrower stuff around the sliproads.

The argument against bringing back Amalfi is that it is too narrow but that's a ridiculous statement.

And also not only not the statement made but also not the point made either...

The point made was that you were bringing up Amalfi, Cote d'Azur, and Citta di Aria as "the good" city tracks when all three are **** for racing because of how narrow they are, not that it shouldn't be brought back because it's too narrow.

 

[Samus]

No. I wouldn't say that at all.
View attachment 1139271


You can't get three cars through cleanly at most of Tokyo. Most of it is a two lane highway. The argument against bringing back Amalfi is that it is too narrow but that's a ridiculous statement. Sport and 7 also feature Mt Panorama. The downhill section is practically single file when you take the racing line into account. PD isn't afraid of narrow tracks like people keep repeating.

Except two very wide race cars are barely over one lane in that picture...

 

[Magog]

Why wait? Here's the narrowest part of the narrowest Tokyo track, shot from a similar angle to your YT thumbnail:

View attachment 1139275

OMG totally narrower than such-wide Amalfi.

Tokyo East is (and so is Costa di Amalfi, except it's not two-lane highway but two-lane corniche/esplanade). Tokyo Central and Tokyo South are mostly three- and four-lane highway, with some narrower stuff around the sliproads.

And also not only not the statement made but also not the point made either...

The point made was that you were bringing up Amalfi, Cote d'Azur, and Citta di Aria as "the good" city tracks when all three are **** for racing because of how narrow they are, not that it shouldn't be brought back because it's too narrow.

Which is wider?

This?

Or this?

 

[Famine]

Which is wider?

This?

Or this?

Neither. They're about the same:

You can't get three cars through cleanly at most of Tokyo. Most of it is a two lane highway.

Tokyo East is (and so is Costa di Amalfi, except it's not two-lane highway but two-lane corniche/esplanade). Tokyo Central and Tokyo South are mostly three- and four-lane highway, with some narrower stuff around the sliproads.

Weird that you're doubling down on this so hard, so much - especially when you've already wildly missed the point.

 

[Samus]

Mitsubishi Evo V width: 1770mm.
Dodge SRT Tomahawk Width: 2244mm.

Take a photo of a lone Evo V on the Tokyo track for a fair comparison.

Still not sure what point you're even trying to make anyway. A lot of people say Toko is poor for racing. People have said Costa di Amalfi would be poor for racing. What exactly do you disagree with?

 

[Michael88]

Old Siverstone (we need Silverstone first)

Who is ''we''? I certainly don't need Silverstone.

 

[RedRockValley]

I think it's fair to say the widest part of Tokyo is notably wider than the widest part of Amalfi and the narrowest part of Amalfi is notable narrower than the narrowest part of Tokyo. Neither track is great for racing on, though time trialing on Amalfi was a delight I can't say the same for Tokyo.

The old Tokyo R246 track however was delightful.

Have to respectfully disagree, I find the Tokyo Expressway tracks are a delight to time trial if you really push your cars to the limit.

Ultimately I'd prefer something like Amalfi though, yeah...

 

[Uday9479]

Really miss Costa di Amalfi....

 

[mwoodski]

Bring back Seoul.

 

[Famine]

Bring back Seoul.

That track was a monster. We've had some fantastic LAN races there.

 

[ploopsy]

Huh? The track list in GT7 is the best in the series by far.

dunno man... lot of awesome content got axed after GT4.

 

[Dave A]

Which is wider?

This?

View attachment 1139281


Or this?

View attachment 1139282

Let's compare apples to apples. You're comparing what you deem to be the narrowest part of Tokyo with part of Amalfi which is most certainly not it's narrowest part.

You're also comparing very wide GT1 cars with a narrower Lancer, to put that into persepctive, the GT1 Tomahawk is roughtly 1/2 meter wider than the Lancer as @Samus has already pointed out.

So here's a BMW V12 LMP on Amalfi:

And here is just around the corner, same width road, but only pavement on one side:

You could almost fit 4 GT1 Tomahawks abreast on that section of Tokyo, but you couldn't fit 3 BMW V12 LMP's abreast here without going off the road.

Bear in mind the pavement is not the road, how much wider is this section of road to those two lanes of Tokyo that can almost fit 2 GR1 cars abreast in each lane?

I'd say that section of Tokyo is roughly 1 whole car width wider than this section of Amalfi, that's 33% wider, that's significant.

Also, just to bear in mind, the BMW V12 LMP is also not as wide a car as the Tomahawk, it's over 10% narrower coming in at 2000mm, so almost 1/4 meter narrower.

Even if you for reasons decide the pavement counts as part of the road with, you're still nowhere near as wide as that section of Tokyo in the second pic where you'd still only get 3 V12 LMP's side by side, which as stated are already narrower cars than the Tomahawk is.

Have to respectfully disagree, I find the Tokyo Expressway tracks are a delight to time trial if you really push your cars to the limit.

Ultimately I'd prefer something like Amalfi though, yeah...

Each to thier own, I'm just not a big fan of the new Tokyo circuits.

 

[SSQES]

I miss El Capitan so much... Would trade any fictional track for it
And to answer the first post, I'm not expecting more than one track per big update

 

[Magog]

Let's compare apples to apples. You're comparing what you deem to be the narrowest part of Tokyo with part of Amalfi which is most certainly not it's narrowest part.

You're also comparing very wide GT1 cars with a narrower Lancer, to put that into persepctive, the GT1 Tomahawk is roughtly 1/2 meter wider than the Lancer as @Samus has already pointed out.

So here's a BMW V12 LMP on Amalfi:

View attachment 1139401

You could almost fit 4 GT1 Tomahawks abreast on that section of Tokyo, but you couldn't fit 3 BMW V12 LMP's abreast here without going off the road.

Bear in mind the pavement is not the road, how much wider is this section of road to those two lanes of Tokyo that can almost fit 2 GR1 cars abreast in each lane?

I'd say that section of Tokyo is roughly 1 whole car width wider than this section of Amalfi, that's 33% wider, that's significant.

Also, just to bear in mind, the BMW V12 LMP is also not as wide a car as the Tomahawk, it's over 10% narrower coming in at 2000mm, so almost 1/4 meter narrower.


Each to thier own, I'm just not a big fan of the new Tokyo circuits.

You can ride the curbs at Amalfi. You can't in Tokyo as there aren't any. In the screenshot I posted you are absolutely not fitting 3 tomahawks next to each other without making serious contact.

 

[Dave A]

You can ride the curbs at Amalfi. You can't in Tokyo as there aren't any. In the screenshot I posted you are absolutely not fitting 3 tomahawks next to each other without making serious contact.

Of course you are, look at your screenshot again, you can see two Tomahawks side by side and the middle one is only marginally over the lane divide marking. It would take a serious lack of spatial awareness to make serious contact having a gap almsot twice the width of your car to pass through.

That still doesn't make the pavements part of the track, unless you mean to say this track here is extremely wide beucase the barriers are far away:

Look at all that space you can pass on off the track to the left. You could try passing on the grass if yu wanted to too.

 

[Magog]

Of course you are, look at your screenshot again, you can see two Tomahawks side by side and the middle one is only marginally over the lane divide marking. It would take a serious lack of spatial awareness to make serious contact having a gap almsot twice the width of your car to pass through.

It's quite a bit over the lane marker and on the other side is a wall.

 

[Dave A]

It's quite a bit over the lane marker and on the other side is a wall.

It really isn't:

It's on the far side of the lane marker, it isn't even fully past it. Given there's a whole other Tomahak to the left of this car, you could easilly fit another to the right and have plenty of room to spare.

Not only that, but the Tomahawk to the left is also about as far away from the barrier as this one is over the centre of the track:

You aren't seeing the obvious here.

You could, easilly fit three Tomahawks here, which are wider than the V12 LMP, without hitting the barrier, whereas you couldn't fit 3 V12 LMP's in the Amalfi spot above without going off the track. You might fit 3, just, using the pavement, but not only would that be using space off the track, there would also likely be less space free that there would be on Tokyo.

And that's without taking into consideration three Tomahawks would be 732mm wider than three V12 LMP's.

You're arguing for the sake of arguing here.

 

[Magog]

It really isn't:

View attachment 1139404

It's on the far side of the lane marker, it isn't even fully past it. Given there's a whole other Tomahak to the left of this car, you could easilly fit another to the right and have plenty of room to spare.

Not only that, but the Tomahawk to the left is also about as far away from the barrier as this one is over the centre of the track:

View attachment 1139405

You aren't seeing the obvious here.

I literally just did the race and three cars is absolutely pushing it. The road is constantly curving as well and at any race track there is only one fast way through a corner.

 

[Dave A]

I literally just did the race and three cars is absolutely pushing it. The road is constantly curving as well and at any race track there is only one fast way through a corner.

So is Amalfi, there's a tight 180 degree corner each end of the straight I've pictured above. But keep trying to move the goalposts. We're takling track width. Every track has one ideal racing line for the cars driven.

 

[mwoodski]

Can't believe this dude hasn't been given the boot just for being extremely annoying yet.

That track was a monster. We've had some fantastic LAN races there.

It was bananas good. Really telling that a simple looking circuit doesn't mean it's a crap track.

 

[Magog]

So is Amalfi, there's a tight 180 degree corner each end of the straight I've pictured above. But keep trying to move the goalposts. We're takling track width. Every track has one ideal racing line for the cars driven.

Which is my point. It doesn't really matter how wide the track is as long as there is room enough for one car to pass another. It's not like you are going to be driving three wide through corners. Amalfi would be a great addition to GT7.

 

[Samus]

Which is my point. It doesn't really matter how wide the track is as long as there is room enough for one car to pass another. It's not like you are going to be driving three wide through corners. Amalfi would be a great addition to GT7.

...and it still wouldn't be great for racing. Just like Tokyo. Which part of "They're both pretty bad for racing" are you not picking up on?

Oh and no, as @Dave A demonstrates above, there are large sections of the Amalfi track that cannot physically fit two cars alongside. The raised path is NOT the track. You could very easily keep anyone behind you on Amalfi by placing your car in the middle of the road, no way past.

 

[Dave A]

Which is my point. It doesn't really matter how wide the track is as long as there is room enough for one car to pass another. It's not like you are going to be driving three wide through corners. Amalfi would be a great addition to GT7.

And races regularly see 3 or more cars abreast going around corners.

The point you made was that Tokyo was just as narrow as Amalfi (rather, Amalfi was just as wide as Tokyo), if you compare apples to apples, Amalfi is narrower. If you compare 3 Tomahawks abreast on Tokyo to to 3 Lancer Evo VI's, abreast on Amalfi it isn't.

There are sections of both tracks comparably wide, but that's comparing a narrow part of Tokyo, to a wide part of Amalfi. The fact still remains, the widest part of Tokyo is notably wider than the widest part of Amalfi, and the narrowest part of Tokyo is still notable wider than that narrowest part of Amalfi.

Racing lines were not part of the discussion, till you tried to change the goalposts, and they shouldn't be part of the discussion because you can apply ideal racing lines to High Speed Ring. Not many cars can occupy the ideal racing line there at the same point in the track either.

 

[Magog]

And races regularly see 3 or more cars abreast going around corners.

The point you made was that Tokyo was just as narrow as Amalfi (rather, Amalfi was just as wide as Tokyo), if you compare apples to apples, Amalfi is narrower. If you compare 3 Tomahawks abreast on Tokyto to 3 Lancer Evo VI's, abreast on Amalfi it isn't.

There are sections of both tracks comparably wide, but that's comparing a narrow part of Tokyo, to a wide part of Amalfi. The fact still remains, the widest part of Tokyo is notably wider than the widest part ofAmalfi and the narrowest part of Tokyo is still notable wider than that narrowest part of Amalfi.

Racing lines were not part of the discussion, till you tried to change the goalposts, and they shouldn't be part of the discussion because you can apply ideal racing lines to High Speed Ring. Not many cars can occupy the ideal racing line there at the same point in the track either.

The discussion I was having with Famine was that he thinks narrow tracks are bad for racing. I disagree for the reasons I stated.

 

[Samus]

The discussion I was having with Famine was that he thinks narrow tracks are bad for racing. I disagree for the reasons I stated.

So you regularly enjoy the Monaco Grand Prix F1 race each year do you? Because you can get two cars wide at most points there so the racing is therefore excellent, right? No. Being physically wide enough for two cars does not automatically mean a track is great for racing.

A narrow track means defending is far easier and attacking is far harder. Just because you can get alongside doesn't mean you're going to be able to easily pass.

 

[Famine]

The discussion I was having with Famine was that he thinks narrow tracks are bad for racing.

Again, making **** up. Why do you lie so easily and so readily?

This is what I said:

Ah yes, the famously great for racing Cote d'Azur, the wide open and flowing Costa di Amalfi, and of course the three-wide phenomenon of Citta di Aria. Wonderful tracks, one and all...

You then lied about how wide Costa di Amalfi is (ridiculously), and despite being shown just how much of a lie this was you kept doubling down on it like you were playing 2048. And now you're lying about me and what I said.

Time's up, I think.

 

[Dave A]

The discussion I was having with Famine was that he thinks narrow tracks are bad for racing. I disagree for the reasons I stated.

Let me quote yourself:

Which is wider?

This?

View attachment 1139281


Or this?

View attachment 1139282