In some years "Autovista"/DriveClub and related features (drivers using the actual buttons and whatnot) will be the standard, therefore GT5/GT6's premium cars will be ... "standard" (very old) once again. Still, that shouldn't mean re-making cars from scratch so it isn't that bad.
Now, the problem on this is the damage model, an aspect in which PD lags behind several years. That requires a ton of effort for each car, which is what Turn10 is going and what PD isn't. If they don't we'll still see how awful it is even in 10 years (shockingly enough it's been 10 already), when the damage model of other games will be way more advanced.
About tracks, have you tried iRacing? There's absolutely nothing like it track-wise, not even close. Now compare GT5's (and Silverstone) to them and you'll see that once the industry standard is set to be laser scanning then PD's GT5/GT6's premium tracks will be ... you guessed it, and that requires re-making all those tracks from scratch, including going to the location.
All that means a good portion of the 10 years old job from PD is not future proof.
We are talking about two generations from now. That is what "future proof" means.
While I agree in some points, including what I wrote before on this post, it has to be said PD isn't really ahead the rest in any aspect. Again, it's a matter of trying out other games and sims instead of sticking to what PD can deliver (once every 10 years). The only aspect in which it competes with the rest are premium cars, but doesn't mean it is ahead nor that they look better in-game than others.
No. No, everything, no.
Two generations (I assume 'gaming generations') is about 15+years from now, assuming this and the next one last 7-8 years.
Mark my words, absolutely no in-game
asset from today is going to be deemed as Good for the 10th generation of consoles / that year's PC's. However, certain methods, practices, workflows and current leads will DEFINITELY be a massive help.
Current damage models are the worst example of stop-gap tech. Often they're pre-computed (canned damage models), obviously at odds with the dynamic expectations of the future. The goal there will be procedurally-handled simulation - mesh will tessellate where needed, deform based on physics input and (ideally) accurately composed structure of the vehicle.
BeamNG is technically the most in-depth/futuristic 'consumer' game with damage, because it has that sort of damage. GTA 4 as well, (shame they toned it down in 5). GT5 has a very (very) primitive (in the future we'll say it's almost barbaric) type of that damage as well. It's not the greatest by any stretch of the word, but that IS the way damage will be handled in the future.
Think of it like this, whereas others have developed some decent canned solutions, that method is a dead end, sooner or later. And before anybody starts anything about material-based physics, look at the recent hoo-ha about physically accurate material rendering that'll (hopefully) become mainstream these next 5 years. It's really getting that serious, and that's a very good thing.
Again, with the laser-scanning. Re-read please - there's bottlenecks, and to some degree there always will be, and they're almost all AFTER you have the point cloud ready.
DarthMosco, the 250k v 500k thing, don't think about it like it's black and white too much. The PS3's main strength, in the right hands, was absurd poly counts in the right situations.
More to the point, the cars themselves have a bigger difference on poly count. A Volvo wagon from the 1970's would only cost about 20% of the polygons as a Ferrari FXX or 458 or something.
For Every curve, every change in radius, every bevel or fillet or panel or seam, that burns polygons, and it compounds on itself, too. Veyrons and Koenigseggs are generally pretty easy on polygons, because they're a (RELATIVELY) simple, smooth shape/shapes. Compared to a Lotus Elise (the 2nd gen) or something else both complex and curvy, there's a massive difference.
If PD keep to their historical model of doing everything in house with a smaller staff than their competitors, then a resource trade off is a necessity. In which case, I'd say no to modeling engine bays on most cars. Do it on a few iconic cars, new and classic and call it a day. That way they can advertise it, it'll look cool, but it won't be a massive diversion of modeling resources away from car creation.
. Once again you jumped to the conclusion that I wanted a complete comparable autovista feature by PD, even though my comments say other wise. Please read through, also even if I wanted it I don't have that in real life, unless I'm the Crown Prince of the UAE, I don't see how I'd ever be able to have an interactive level with a FXX or Hyaura. In other words it isn't like real life. However, I can at least get close to a rover thanks to the field I'm in and actually have been up close to mars rover prototypes. I can get you some pictures in a couple weeks when I go back if you'd like!!!
But I guess after reading your post, I come to believe that both features we want are in the category of waste of resourses? lol. Not being biased either, just wanted to share my thoughts out.
