For those that object to GTS or GT7 having Std Cars, what is your reason?

[ImaRobot]

@Johnnypenso In a different post than my first one containing just the pictures. And saying what I did about pCars was also my opinion. pCars look like "brick" up close, and the good looking semi premiums are the same. It's just like the saying. Pretty from a far, far from pretty. If you don't like my opinion, so be it. And I'm here and defending my case, discussing it, aren't I? I'm not in the wrong place, as if I wasn't prepared, I wouldn't reply, would I?

The only one not liking opinions seems to be you. You're getting mad at opinions of people disagreeing with you. Being an opinion doesn't exclude it from any kind of discussion, it's the opposite, especially if you're going to post it publicly. You keep going on about opinions, but disregarding others in the process.

Either way, the discussion is about standards as a whole, you introduced yourself to it but wanted to exclude part of the discussion. That's no problem, but expect for it to be brought up.

 

[Johnnypenso]

@Johnnypenso In a different post than my first one containing just the pictures. And saying what I did about pCars was also my opinion. pCars look like "brick" up close, and the good looking semi premiums are the same. It's just like the saying. Pretty from a far, far from pretty. If you don't like my opinion, so be it. And I'm here and defending my case, discussing it, aren't I? I'm not in the wrong place, as if I wasn't prepared, I wouldn't reply, would I?

Then stop pulling the martyr card when the discussion opens up and people want further discussion on the broader issues beyond focusing on a headlight. If all that matter when it came to standards was headlights we wouldn't need a discussion.

This is the martyr card in case I need to point it out:

I think this is getting personal now, stop biting my head off just because I'm saying the pics I took looked decent. You all can have different opinions, but don't attack me.

 

[syntex123]

@ImaRobot I'm not being mad, I'm just starting to become frustrated, you guys don't seem to understand my point by bringing up something else I didn't say into your replies. Just like what @Johnnypenso does now. Bringing up headlights. I wasn't even talking about headlights in his reply to my post. I just said they look good from a far and bad when you go closer. Hahaha yeah keep on discussing things that doesn't have to do with the posts you start the discussing from.

^ Hey, you know what, the wheels look jagged too, noticed that? On most premiums and standards? 💡 Wow!

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Nobody is biting your head off. Nobody is making this personal.

Again, yes, it's your opinion that a handful of Standards, photographed by you, up close, at certain angles, in certain aspects, avoiding interiors, are acceptable. For others, they just don't cut it on a current-gen system in 2016.

It's all about framing the argument. I remember when GT didn't need a bunch of asterisks for a comparison. GT4 simply looked great compared to its competition. GT3, even more so.

Personally, I'd much rather see a new game from PD like that, instead of the video game equivalent of leftovers for dinner.

 

[ImaRobot]

@ImaRobot I'm not being mad, I'm just starting to become frustrated, you guys don't seem to understand my point by bringing up something else I didn't say into your replies. Just like what @Johnnypenso does now. Bringing up headlights. I wasn't even talking about headlights in his reply to my post. I just said they look good from a far and bad when you go closer. Hahaha yeah keep on discussing things that doesn't have to do with the posts you start the discussing from.

^ Hey, you know what, the wheels look jagged too, noticed that? On most premiums and standards? 💡 Wow!

You're excluding them on purpose, so everyone is just bring them back into the discussion, because they are very much part of it. That you don't want to talk about them, in a thread that is specifically talking about them, has no bearing on the discussion. Interiors, just as much as exteriors, is what's the problem with standards. Some may look comparable to Pcars, but the fact that Pcars has so much more consistency inside and out goes completely against your point.

 

[CAMAROBOY69]

I myself use cockpit, religiously. It's to the point that any other view is a bit odd to me and I can't get into the groove if it's anything but. It was one of the reason I always avoided the standards in the past, and I was far from pleased with the the black cardboard cutout's they introduced.

I also use cockpit view so my top complaint about standards has always been the interior. Many might not remember but GT5 standard cars did not even launch with an interior view AT ALL. Much later they kinda added a black silhouette outline and called that an interior view. It was insulting and embarrassing for a simulation racing game. Standards also could not be taken to photo travel in GT5.

Between GT5 and GT6 the standards have improved for some of the cars. But there are still a lot out there that need a massive upgrade. That black silhouette outline is just terrible. Even some of the premiums do not even have proper interior views.

So to answer the op, that is my major complaint with standards.

 

[syntex123]

@ImaRobot I'm not even saying that it isn't a problem that the standards doesn't have interiors. I totally agree.
I just wonder why people asked me to show the interior of the pics I took when everyone knows they don't have any interior.
Yes, pCars has more consistency. Not arguing against that either.

 

[Imari]

Of course of course, but I only said that some standards / semi-premiums do look good, and why does everyone bite my head off for me having an opinion?

Nobody's biting your head off, but the opinion you expressed was:

Based on this, I'd say pCars is the same as the good looking semi-premiums.

That's just not true. You're not entitled to your opinion, because it's wrong. Even though the semi-premiums and the pCARS models may look similar from that particular angle, they are not equivalent. For reasons that have been explained to you several times.

http://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

You've managed to move the goalposts to say that you meant only exteriors, and I don't see anyone disagreeing with that. The exteriors are mostly fine, in their way, although there are still potential issues regarding damage. I'm sure we all remember the sad Range Rover:

Whatever their looks, those cars that you posted are not equivalent to pCARS models except in the most limited and trivial sense.

 

[syntex123]

@Imari What? That Range Rover isn't even semi premium. I said the good looking semi premiums look on par with pCars from a far, and I did not say anything about the ugly standards. Why would you think I mean an ugly standard looks as good as pCars? ...

 

[ImaRobot]

@Imari What? That Range Rover isn't even semi premium. I said the good looking semi premiums look on par with pCars from a far, and I did not say anything about the ugly standards. Why would you think I mean an ugly standard looks as good as pCars? ...

The problem here is that you were(at first) saying they are comparable, but really, outside of the exterior, they are not. If I remember correctly, the standards are all one single modeled piece, so that alone is going to affect the damage model which is separating the two farther and farther. Pcars, while it may not have the best LOD with the models, has individually modeled parts that works well for visual/physical damage. It's not just the interiors that Pcars has over standards.

 

[syntex123]

I think the RUFs are a good example that some of the semi premiums are on par with Project Cars.

Sadly they don't have interior, I know, but I'm just referring to the exterior in this photo.

Credits to @iFuriousRacer for the GT6 photomode image.

 

[Imari]

@Imari What? That Range Rover isn't even semi premium. I said the good looking semi premiums look on par with pCars from a far, and I did not say anything about the ugly standards. Why would you think I mean an ugly standard looks as good as pCars? ...

The semi-premiums still have the same issues with damage as standards. They're not multipart models as you can see in your screenshots, the modellers have just put modelled creases to represent the panel gaps where previously there was just a texture.

There's nothing modelled underneath that external skin, so you can't pop a bonnet, lose a bumper, rip a door off, or any other reasonable form of damage. All you can do is deform, and we saw in GT5 that while it was an interesting idea, it simply doesn't work. It looks crappy, and generally looks worse than the far more basic "damage" system in GT6 where the cars just scuff up.

...I said the good looking semi premiums look on par with pCars from a far...

Every post you make those goalposts move further and further. We can all read what you wrote, I just quoted it a few posts ago.

What you said was wrong. If what you're saying is that semi-premiums look on par with pCARS models from afar, then I doubt anybody disagrees. But as I said, it's a trivial statement because the problem is not looking at them from a distance.

I don't think you quite understand why everyone is saying "yes, they look fine but they're still a problem". As evidenced by the fact that you're posting more external shots to somehow try and prove your point.

They look lovely. They're still not good enough. We are long past the days when all a model needed was to look pretty on the outside.

That Yellowbird cannot do this without basically a ground up rebuild.

That is what the pCARS models are, whatever they may look like to you on the outside. That is why they're not equivalent, even without comparing interiors. That is the standard to which modern simulators build their cars, and that's why they take six months apiece.

And that's why even a relatively pretty looking semi-premium still isn't good enough. It cannot function in the way it will need to function in a PS4 simulation game without another major rebuild.

 

[syntex123]

No cars in GT6 have damage like pCars, it's impossible to rip a bonnet off / a bumper off on any car (except the rally cars from GT5, those cars may be the best cars when it comes to damage.

I do understand why they are a problem, but in terms of damage all cars are a problem. Even the best looking premiums needs to be better if we are to get better damage. They need to model under the bumpers, engine compartments +++.

So what you say about the Yellow Bird pretty much applies to all cars in GT6 that carry over to GTS/7. They need more work and more modeling to have better damage and parts flying off. They can start by ditching damage until they have damage that rips parts off / breaks bits of parts off. I never cared for damage in Gran Turismo as crashing isn't what my main priority is. I try to race as clean as possible, so I'd rather have better mechanical damage than visual damage.

 

[Imari]

I never cared for damage in Gran Turismo as crashing isn't what my main priority is. I try to race as clean as possible, so I'd rather have better mechanical damage than visual damage.

Go to some real life motorsport sometime. You'll notice that even though all the drivers are trying not to crash, inevitably almost always at least one of them does. It's a part of motorsport.

A rather important one, as it turns out, because it defines the risk:reward ratio for driving fast and aggressively.

Mechanical damage and visual damage go hand in hand, one needs visual damage to assess the threat that other damaged cars might pose.

 

[Tornado]

Are the Rufs single piece models? It's seems for those and a handful of others that PD did do them from scratch rather than just lazily model shutlines over the Standards (like on the Alpine), and it seems odd (though as GT5 showed us, not unprecedented) that they would scratch build even more outdated assets.

 

[tankuroded]

Are the Rufs single piece models? It's seems for those and a handful of others that PD did do them from scratch rather than just lazily model shutlines over the Standards (like on the Alpine), and it seems odd (though as GT5 showed us, not unprecedented) that they would scratch build even more outdated assets.

Such as the R390 GT1? (RE: PD did do them from scratch)

 

[TheAnimeDude]

@syntex123 Dude look at a comparision pictures between these Jaguar XJR-9 LM.

Anyone would obviously choose the bottom one that is fully detailed,right?

People have the issue of having segregation on the car selection. Everyone wants the cars to be treated equally and to do that either standards or the premiums got to go and the community says the standards should go to please everyone.

 

[syntex123]

Mechanical damage and visual damage go hand in hand, one needs visual damage to assess the threat that other damaged cars might pose.

Yes they do, but when not even premium cars have detailed visual damage, what's the point?

@syntex123 Dude look at a comparision pictures between these Jaguar XJR-9 LM. View attachment 501421 View attachment 501423


Anyone would obviously choose the bottom one that is fully detailed,right?

People have the issue of having segregation on the car selection. Everyone wants the cars to be treated equally and to do that either standards or the premiums got to go and the community says the standards should go to please everyone.

Of course. I didn't say anything less. I said bring standards to a semi-premium state with the RUFs detail, add interior, and then voila. Problem solved.

 

[badAZbuddha]

Yes they do, but when not even premium cars have detailed visual damage, what's the point?


Of course. I didn't say anything less. I said bring standards to a semi-premium state with the RUFs detail, add interior, and then voila. Problem solved.

Yeah I'd rather have a fully detailed PS4 quality line up of cars than having half-ass cars taking up valuable space. Quality over quantity.

 

[FS7]

For the people posting pics of standards and doing comparisons with other games: could you please post pics of the cockpits in GT6's standard cars?

Seriously, if it doesn't have a detailed cockpit view it isn't premium (that includes most of the VGTs) and it doesn't belong in a PS4 game, period. This whole talk about "semi-premiums" and how they're comparable to detailed car models in PCars & FM6 is just silly.

 

[Samus]

No cars in GT6 have damage like pCars, it's impossible to rip a bonnet off / a bumper off on any car (except the rally cars from GT5, those cars may be the best cars when it comes to damage.

Right, but with the premiums and the way they are modeled it is possible in the future. They're future proof for proper damage like pCARS. The standards are not, they will never be possible to damage in great detail.

Also it isn't just about damage, the other huge issue with single piece models is the lack of customisation. You can't replace a bumper/skirt/wing etc on a one piece model.

The non-premium cars are inferior in many more ways than simply how they look on the outside.

 

[CSLACR]

Reading this thread brought me an interesting thought...
Does anyone know for sure that PS3 GT cars (yes premiums, not standards) can have a proper damage model? I know Kaz has expressed distaste for damage, he doesn't want it in GT. (supposedly, but that could, of course, be a cop-out for the lack of it)
I've never seen evidence that PD modeled trunks and inside panels, fenders, etc.

Just something I'm curious of, as I have a lingering thought that "premiums" will be the new "standards" on PS4, and subsequently may not offer as much, or as detailed damage. If any at all?
Of course this is assuming PD models damage at all.

Is it really? I did less than what PD would do. I can post the original pics. Not a whole lot different than the ones you commented.


Does this help?

View attachment 501405 View attachment 501406

Based on this, I'd say pCars is the same as the good looking semi-premiums.

You're still comparing a picture from Pcars that's 3-5x closer than your pictures of GT6 "semi-premiums".

You'll need to zoom out on Pcars

I think the RUFs are a good example that some of the semi premiums are on par with Project Cars.

Sadly they don't have interior, I know, but I'm just referring to the exterior in this photo.

Credits to @iFuriousRacer for the GT6 photomode image.

Nope. Not nearly as good as an identical Pcars picture.(meaning not zoomed in extra to try to exploit visuals)
(I do mean exterior only)
Not even close.

I think this poll is relevant to this thread and current discussion also.
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...-a-guaranteed-purchase-for-you.335142/page-13
Take note that, more people have voted to remove standards, than have voted for more cars!
That's right, more people voting would like to erase all those cars than add new ones. There goes the cake.

 

[ImaRobot]

Reading this thread brought me an interesting thought...
Does anyone know for sure that PS3 GT cars (yes premiums, not standards) can have a proper damage model? I know Kaz has expressed distaste for damage, he doesn't want it in GT. (supposedly, but that could, of course, be a cop-out for the lack of it)
I've never seen evidence that PD modeled trunks and inside panels, fenders, etc.

I remember the Blitz ER34 trunk flying open when damaged to a certain extent. Could have sworn the hood popped a little, but that was back on GT5 so it's a bit fuzzy for me. So it seem's that it may have been started with some vehicles, but some, not at all.

 

[Tornado]

The WRC cars definitely had stuff modeled underneath, but those were the only ones I remember.

 

[CSLACR]

I guess it's mostly because you can't pop hoods, look in trunks or doors or anything in GT5 or 6 that makes me suspicious. I recall damage in GT5, but I don't recall ever seeing a part of a car that isn't visible when it isn't damaged.

It's been a while, I don't know.

 

[Samus]

It seems to vary depending on the car. For example pretty much all premium cars in GT5 and GT6 have solid block tyres from the back/inside but cars like the KTM with exposed inside wheels have them fully modelled.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

The WRC cars did, but I don't think extensive under-body modelling needs to be done for an improved damage simulation. From what I remember of it, Forza 3 didn't have much modelled under-body (nor did 4), and both had better (generalized) damage than GT's 5 or 6. FM6 has a strange evolution of the damage, as it doesn't look as severe as what you could manage in the 360 games, but most of the cars have some level of modelling done under the skin.

That said, the Standards are just hopeless in this regard. All we can get is deformation, and as the Sad Land Rover proves, that's hardly convincing.

 

[TheAnimeDude]

That said, the Standards are just hopeless in this regard. All we can get is deformation, and as the Sad Land Rover proves, that's hardly convincing.

And let's not forget none of the competition like Forza Motorsport,PCars,etc don't use..the concept of porting old generation cars from previous titles to there latest installments.

 

[Castrol96]

That's quite a concern as they can simply apply a sub-division modifier on the model. Next-Gen consoles must be capable of higher poly counts.

 

[CSLACR]

And let's not forget none of the competition like Forza Motorsport,PCars,etc don't use..the concept of porting old generation cars from previous titles to there latest installments.

Forza has, and Pcars hasn't made a second game to port from yet, let alone on a different console.
But Forza's weren't as outdated, (as GT standards) from what I was told.