Gran Turismo 6 vs Gran Turismo 5: Visual Damage Comparison

[guywithanAE86]

They're both bad, but at least GT6's looks more believable. GT5's silly damage model coupled with the physics made it much more arcade-y to me. I mean c'mon I've crashed my AE86 before, the frame was bent yes, but the whole damn bumper didn't warp into a V shape. It would just come off in reality if the brackets bent.

 

[ImaRobot]

Trust me, realistic visual damage simulation is very hard to implement for 1000+ cars. I say realistic, not the GT5 plastic car damaging. It would take lots of years for PD to do it given how slow they are. And that would make them have to many resources put on it and it would mean much less of everything else, thats why I'm against it.

Realistic? What does that mean to you because every time someone brings up a certain extent of wanted realism you blow it way out of proportion and bring up very, very extreme cases. They made 1000+ cars, I think it would only be fair that all 1000+ cars get the same treatment all around. If they cant finish the work load, then it kind of just seems like they just shot them selves in the foot.

I'd say about half of F1 drivers arent really the best in the world (bottom half ones) they are lucky guys who had a lot of money backing, pay drivers.

I'm going to assume you have no kind of source for that. I'm sure these reputable businesses would watch out for potential hazards, and would only pay the people they deemed worthy. Still, these drivers are better then the majority of the world, there are just some in the class that are better, which would make them seem worse in comparison.

In the end, games will always be games, would never compare to the real thing.

I got a really good chuckle out of this, considering you were just saying how one game is so realistic, and the other you can tell is a game. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

To add to the topic, I would prefer a system with detachable bumpers, crumpled hoods, cracked windscreens, dented doors, and damaged trunks. I'd prefer if they where individual peices though, so it doesnt look like the damage just smeared over multiple parts of a car (GT5). It doesn't need to be as extensive, but a base system would be just fine.

 

[Eager Snake]

Trust me, realistic visual damage simulation is very hard to implement for 1000+ cars. I say realistic, not the GT5 plastic car damaging. It would take lots of years for PD to do it given how slow they are. And that would make them have to many resources put on it and it would mean much less of everything else, thats why I'm against it.

That's completely reasonable, you might have started your points with that phrase and maybe everything would be different. That being said, I trust you, I said what I said because I know programming, that's the main reason why I said that maybe, just maybe, we can have something scripted like in the Burnout series. You can have something similar to that and I would risk to say that most of the people wouldn't note the difference.
Yes, it's not entirely realistic, but it's at least more believable than the damage in GT5 or in GT6. And again, we can state our opinions here, but a simulation involves plenty of things, including damage.
We, fans of GT, have the "curse" that they've become slower in comparison with some developers. That's bad? In some cases, yes, but we still have a great bunch of things to do. In my case, I'm missing tremendously the lack of mechanical damage in offline mode, because I used to run races of 8 laps or more in the Ring with damage, no hud and with the cockpit view.
Now, I do the same in the Ring and in Bathurst mainly, but in 3D, but without the damage. That added a lot of factors to the race itself, and it was amazing.
The 3D, for me, its spectacular, and I'd have loved having the "complete" package.

Having that kind of damage only in the online mode is almost ridiculous.
I couldn't find more than 5 online rooms since the release of the game with real clean drivers, and if you set the damage on, NOBODY enters. I know we have leagues and all here, but I don't have the time to be involved sometimes so....

 

[NixxxoN]

Realistic? What does that mean to you because every time someone brings up a certain extent of wanted realism you blow it way out of proportion and bring up very, very extreme cases. They made 1000+ cars, I think it would only be fair that all 1000+ cars get the same treatment all around. If they cant finish the work load, then it kind of just seems like they just shot them selves in the foot.

I'm going to assume you have no kind of source for that. I'm sure these reputable businesses would watch out for potential hazards, and would only pay the people they deemed worthy. Still, these drivers are better then the majority of the world, there are just some in the class that are better, which would make them seem worse in comparison.

I got a really good chuckle out of this, considering you were just saying how one game is so realistic, and the other you can tell is a game. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

To add to the topic, I would prefer a system with detachable bumpers, crumpled hoods, cracked windscreens, dented doors, and damaged trunks. I'd prefer if they where individual peices though, so it doesnt look like the damage just smeared over multiple parts of a car (GT5). It doesn't need to be as extensive, but a base system would be just fine.

With realistic I mean bits and pieces falling off, and the car deforming accordingly depending on the impact force. That means old cars without safety designing will turn into an "accordion of metal" when crashing at 100km/h and modern cars not getting so much destroyed. Cars with rollcages having far more resistance, and so on.
But I guess the best realism is each one's version of realism, am I wrong?

If you do some research you'll find many cases of failed racing careers not due to lack of talent but lack of sponsorship.
It's a sport reserved for the rich and for the fortunate.

 

[ImaRobot]

With realistic I mean bits and pieces falling off, and the car deforming accordingly depending on the impact force.
But I guess the best realism is each one's version of realism, am I wrong?

I agree with that amount of realism, thats why I wrote that, in part.

If you do some research you'll find many cases of failed racing careers not due to lack of talent but lack of sponsorship.
It's a sport reserved for the rich and for the fortunate.

So no, you don't have a source. Wouldn't it be easier just to say that? How do sponsorships work, I could have sworn that they support you, not the other wa

 

[NixxxoN]

So no, you don't have a source. Wouldn't it be easier just to say that? How do sponsorships work, I could have sworn that they support you, not the other wa

Yes I do
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-teams-favour-money-over-talent-bird
http://formulaspy.com/formula-1/for...sainz-junior-attacks-spaniards-promotion-8663

 

[ImaRobot]

Yes I do
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-teams-favour-money-over-talent-bird
http://formulaspy.com/formula-1/for...sainz-junior-attacks-spaniards-promotion-8663

Thank you, and thats how that works.

 

[NixxxoN]

@Eager Snake I know programming aswell, this is a VW Bus MK3 I believe, crashing at 100km/h. A similar thing would happen in the old VW samba bus.
I suppose you'd agree that this kind of damage would be freaking hard to code and implement.



And this is a Ford Focus crash test at roughly 200 km/h which is fast, but its not really fast for gran turismo.

 

[ImaRobot]

@Eager Snake I know programming aswell, this is a VW Bus MK3 I believe, crashing at 100km/h. A similar thing would happen in the old VW samba bus.
I suppose you'd agree that this kind of damage would be freaking hard to code and implement.



And this is a Ford Focus crash test at roughly 200 km/h which is fast, but its not really fast for gran turismo.

Like I said, you seem to go to extreme measure's to fight someones opinion, when no one is even saying to implement a damage system that extensive.

 

[NixxxoN]

Like I said, you seem to go to extreme measure's to fight someones opinion, when no one is even saying to implement a damage system that extensive.

Oh really? All I see here is people screaming "Realism! Graphic detail! Immersion!"

 

[ImaRobot]

Oh really? All I see here is people screaming "Realism! Graphic detail! Immersion!"

Yeah, there is a difference between wanting more realistic damage implemented, and real life. No one is asking for a game true to real life, you're the only one bringing these extreme instance's here.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Like I said, you seem to go to extreme measure's to fight someones opinion, when no one is even saying to implement a damage system that extensive.

How is that extreme, it is realistic visual damage. I think the problem with the genre is most games have very unrealistic visual damage. I like the way PD want to go about the visual damage, based on where the impact is. Hopefully they go to the extent that it is in reality and cars start crumpling. Will be quite refreshing to see impacts of crashes with licensed cars in a world where there is a lot of talk about safety.

 

[Eager Snake]

@Eager Snake
I suppose you'd agree that this kind of damage would be freaking hard to code and implement.

Exactly, that's why I said I'd go, at least for the time being, with something scripted. Another critical point in Kaz vision is that he's obsessed with photorealism. And he's team is getting there. They have some of the best models in any game available. Even the poly count is higher than most of the actual games on PS4 and XO, which is insane if you ask me.
They already have the graphics side of the equation, considering the premium models of course. They need to maintain the quality in the scenarios, the lighting and the VFX, the rest, always graphically speaking, should be ok.
Ps: what has always intrigued me is why putting so much detail into the cars if you don't have the chance to explore and appreciate them. Something like in Forza. That's something I'd add to GT. That with the jazz selection they have... WOW.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Edit: Johnnypenso, I have you on my ignore list, so dont bother quoting me

Sorry buddy, I'll continue to quote whom I please. Makes the thread go smoother that way. You aren't required to respond.

Realistic? What does that mean to you because every time someone brings up a certain extent of wanted realism you blow it way out of proportion and bring up very, very extreme cases. They made 1000+ cars, I think it would only be fair that all 1000+ cars get the same treatment all around. If they cant finish the work load, then it kind of just seems like they just shot them selves in the foot.

Bringing up stuff way out of proportion is the strawman argument. If you can't make it exactly the way it happens in the real world then it's not realistic so don't bother, as if to say that every level of damage in between perfect realism and what we have is somehow equal. Same argument people make for immersion, as if all games feel exactly the same because you are always sitting in front of a tv and not in a real car, and of course, that's not true either.

 

[Lewis_Hamilton_]

If we really shouldn't have any damage in the game until it is "realistic" and because it's "too hard", then none of the cars in Gran Turismo should have wheels on them and be incapable of going anywhere because GT's tyre model isn't even close to being realistic.

Neither are the brakes, they don't overheat or suffer from brake fade. There's no mechanical damage due to over stressing component parts/over revving/bad gear changes/making huge jumps etc, there's only slight, scripted damage effects when you make a huge impact. Guess PD should not bother implementing any mechanical damage at all or just strip away the engines, suspension, brakes and gearboxes until they can get them all to work realistically.

Heck why bother making the game at all? I guess you're also a rubbish driver if your engine/gearbox/tyre blows out at any random time, because clearly that's tied to the driver's lack of skill right?

I'm not sure why we are back to damage being impossible and too hard when it has already been proven earlier in the thread that it has already been done. Either it's to argue for the sake or arguing or reaching for anything to defend the game and company.

 

[FoRiZon]

You want realistic damage?

Ask the car manufacturers.

Also, this sums up the thread:

 

[Johnnypenso]

You want realistic damage?

Ask the car manufacturers.

I did ask. Here is there answer:


Wouldn't it be fair to say that this is a few steps in the right direction as far as a better simulated damage model is concerned?

 

[MrYasser]

I think something like Forza damage would be cool and possible to make by PD
But Grid or Pcars damage never going to happen

 

[ron86]

I think something like Forza damage would be cool and possible to make by PD
But Grid or Pcars damage never going to happen
View attachment 312288

I just watched some Youtube videos of PCars damage.... whats so great about it? That parts can fall off?
Thats not realistic, i mean when another car hits you with 120 km/h in the side your car shouldnt just loose the hood, one wheel and have some dents and scratches - it should be completely wrecked!
Rigs of Rods does this very good, everything else like damage models where just parts fall of is crap and dont realistic at all! I rather have no damage model than such a fake one.

I think PD tried with GT5 to make a physic based damage model where the car deformes based on the impact but the car models itself just didnt allow it to a realistic degree.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I just watched some Youtube videos of PCars damage.... whats so great about it? That parts can fall off?
Thats not realistic, i mean when another car hits you with 120 km/h in the side your car shouldnt just loose the hood, one wheel and have some dents and scratches - it should be completely wrecked!
Rigs of Rods does this very good, everything else like damage models where just parts fall of is crap and dont realistic at all! I rather have no damage model than such a fake one.

I think PD tried with GT5 to make a physic based damage model where the car deformes based on the impact but the car models itself just didnt allow it to a realistic degree.

What's so great about it is that it looks more realistic and more lifelike than a car that hits a wall and bounces off with some melted bodywork and some scratches. And you can have a no damage model if you like, just turn the option off. Problem solved.

 

[ron86]

What's
so great about it is that it looks more realistic and more lifelike than a car that hits a wall and bounces off with some melted bodywork and some scratches. And you can have a no damage model if you like, just turn the option off. Problem solved.

Look, this car is hitting a wall straight with 160 mph...


... i dont think thats very realistic

Edit: i consider this a damage model -->

 

[Johnnypenso]

Look, this car is hitting a wall straight with 160 mph...


... i dont think thats very realistic

A. That's build 783 which is quite a while ago.
B. Do you even read anything I write or just look for opportunities to show that something isn't completely realistic and mock it?

As I said, realism in any aspect of any game isn't an on/off switch. As @Imari pointed out earlier, some car manufacturers may have limits on the damage they will allow in games. Stefano Casillo said that there aren't any limits in the contracts with Assetto Corsa so it's likely limited to just a few manufacturers. The point is you do the best you can with what your contractually allowed to do. GT has had cars showing extensive body deformation in earlier versions of the game so we know for sure they aren't contractually obligated to not show damage. PCars shows that it's legal for them to show suspension parts flyng off, wheels coming off, punctures, extensive body damage etc. If that doesn't appeal to you, then you can turn the damage off. It does appeal to a lot of other people and they will turn it on. Continually throwing up the strawman argument of "it's not 100% realistic so I'm going to mock it", only makes you look silly.

There is room for improvement no? GT's engine sounds don't have to be perfect next time around do they? The physics need a lot of work to be close to simulation but you don't expect it to be perfect next time do you? Why is damage any different?

 

[Zelalem]

I really hope PD goes back to the GT5 approach and utilises the power of the playstation 4 to deliver an much better damage model in GT7. This, AI and sounds are a joke at this point.

And you can have a no damage model if you like, just turn the option off. Problem solved.

Indeed.

 

[ron86]

A. That's build 783 which is quite a while ago.
B. Do you even read anything I write or just look for opportunities to show that something isn't completely realistic and mock it?

As I said, realism in any aspect of any game isn't an on/off switch. As @Imari pointed out earlier, some car manufacturers may have limits on the damage they will allow in games. Stefano Casillo said that there aren't any limits in the contracts with Assetto Corsa so it's likely limited to just a few manufacturers. The point is you do the best you can with what your contractually allowed to do. GT has had cars showing extensive body deformation in earlier versions of the game so we know for sure they aren't contractually obligated to not show damage. PCars shows that it's legal for them to show suspension parts flyng off, wheels coming off, punctures, extensive body damage etc. If that doesn't appeal to you, then you can turn the damage off. It does appeal to a lot of other people and they will turn it on. Continually throwing up the strawman argument of "it's not 100% realistic so I'm going to mock it", only makes you look silly.

There is room for improvement no? GT's engine sounds don't have to be perfect next time around do they? The physics need a lot of work to be close to simulation but you don't expect it to be perfect next time do you? Why is damage any different?

A: I havent seen any newer damage videos of pcars which show better/more realistic damage
B: Not completely realistic? GT6s damage is about 2 % realistic and PCars damage is about 5 % realistic - i just dont see the point comparing the damage physics of games when they arent realistic/good at all.

Its like comparing test results of possible 100 points:

Guy 1: Hey, i've reached 2 Points
Guy 2: Hahaha, i am so much better, i've reached 5 points (<-- out...of...100...)

You know what i mean?

In term of phyiscs, graphics or sound the percentage to reach the term "realistic" is much higher, here you can really argue which ones the more realistic one.

 

[Imari]

A: I havent seen any newer damage videos of pcars which show better/more realistic damage

Apart from the one four posts above yours from build 817, obviously?

For reference, the current build is 936. That's today's build.

817 was about September last year.
783 was about a month before that.

You're referencing material that is at least four months old on a game that has seen massive changes to all systems over that period. A game that has had 150 revisions from the version that you're using as an example.

The damage is never going to be as realistic as RoR or BNG simply because certain parts of the car are not allowed to be damaged by license. RoR and BNG are impressive, but they also do things that a licensed game cannot allow. A car that goes into a wall at 160mph will be a crushed pancake, and the manufacturers will not allow that level of damage to be displayed.

So you can accept that some games do better than others within the limitations of what they're allowed to do, or you can keep whining that anything that's not perfect is unacceptable. If 5/100 is the best that developers can do within the confines of their license then that's a shame, but it's still better than 2/100.

 

[ron86]

Apart from the one four posts above yours from build 817, obviously?

For reference, the current build is 936. That's today's build.

817 was about September last year.
783 was about a month before that.

You're referencing material that is at least four months old on a game that has seen massive changes to all systems over that period. A game that has had 150 revisions from the version that you're using as an example.

The damage is never going to be as realistic as RoR or BNG simply because certain parts of the car are not allowed to be damaged by license. RoR and BNG are impressive, but they also do things that a licensed game cannot allow. A car that goes into a wall at 160mph will be a crushed pancake, and the manufacturers will not allow that level of damage to be displayed.

So you can accept that some games do better than others within the limitations of what they're allowed to do, or you can keep whining that anything that's not perfect is unacceptable. If 5/100 is the best that developers can do within the confines of their license then that's a shame, but it's still better than 2/100.

That video from the newer build isnt showing much more than falling of wheels. That doesnt make the poor damage system look much better.

Yes, 5 out of 100 is better than 2 out of 100 - but its still pathetic and no one should be proud of it being less bad than the other!
I just think a damage model isnt anything to argue about as long as its as poor as it is in current (inclusive PCars) racing games.

 

[NixxxoN]

Yep, but some people here love to diss GT in its own forum, they seem to think its a cool thing to do.
PCars damage is just a bit better than GT, but nowhere near realistic.

 

[Imari]

Yes, 5 out of 100 is better than 2 out of 100 - but its still pathetic and no one should be proud of it being less bad than the other!

Who is proud? You seem to be assigning a lot of personal emotion to this discussion.

Simply saying that the pCARS system seems to be better than either the GT5 or GT6 systems isn't proud. It's an observation. It still has problems, and it will still have problems on release. It won't be a perfect system, for many reasons, most of which have been outlined in the last couple of pages.

You seem intent on building strawmen to attack.

 

[Nexus]

PCars damage is just a bit better than GT, but nowhere near realistic.

Did you seriously just say that GT has more realistic damage than PCARS? Or did I just misread that?

 

[ron86]

Who is proud? You seem to be assigning a lot of personal emotion to this discussion.

Simply saying that the pCARS system seems to be better than either the GT5 or GT6 systems isn't proud. It's an observation. It still has problems, and it will still have problems on release. It won't be a perfect system, for many reasons, most of which have been outlined in the last couple of pages.

You seem intent on building strawmen to attack.

At least to me it seems people are praising PCars fantasticly great damage system.

But let us end the discussion about that here, there wouldnt be a winner. In the end its just about two video games.