Gran Turismo Sport: General Discussion

[Eh Team]

Now I have been one of the biggest critics of PD's physics engines around and quite frankly I don't agree with this at all.

First off PD's physics engine has evolved over the last ten years, to say otherwise is simply not true.

Its hasn't evolved quickly enough and has still had big issues, but it certainly hasn't stood still at all.

Now as far as GTS goes that too has moved forward from GT6, particularly in the three key weak areas (tyre, suspension and aero). Is it up to the level of PCars or AC? No, but its got a damn sight closer with GTS.

But the real question we need answers to is how Jenkins came about, you big tease.

Oh and most importantly we now know the origin of Jenkins the cat!

 

[Tired Tyres]

If I remember rightly, Autopolis was being tested a while back in an unfinished version of an unnamed game, as well as an unfinished version of this very track. My thoughts would be, as Super GT hasn't been mentioned yet, and as Gran Turismo has always featured Super GT (to my knowledge), that this might be a contender for addition.

So my potential list would be;

Autopolis
-Full Circuit
Suzuka (because they remade it for GT6)
-GP Circuit
Motegi (Again, re-done for GT6)
-Full Circuit, Speedway
Nurburgring
-Short, GP, Nordschleife, 24h
Willow Springs
-Full Track
Brands Hatch
-Indy, GP
Northern Isle Speedway
-Oval
Tokyo Esperessway
-Possible 2 layouts
Spa-Francorchamps
-GP Circuit
Silverstone
-GP, National, International
Bathurst
-Full Circuit
Red Bull Ring
-GP Circuit
Random Dirt Track
-Possible 2 layouts
Random Dirt Track 2
-1 layout
Random City Track
-1 layout
Laguna Seca
-Full Circuit
Daytona
-Full Track, Oval
New Location
-1 track
New Location 2 or Circuit De La Sarthe (I really hope)
-1 track


I reckon other Oval tracks will be included other than Northern Isle, suggesting there might be a NASCAR offering of some form. Super GT seems almost impossible to be missed, so I selected three tracks to reflect that, as well as some other tracks aimed at GT3 racing.

I honestly don't think Sarthe or Monza will feature this time around, which is a shame because Sarthe is one of my favourite tracks, and P1's being one of my favourite disciplines. And it seems daft to have P1 race cars and not the main track that they race on.

That equals my 19 Locations and 27 Layouts that I think might feature. But who knows with PD.

You're missing the VLN layout of the Nurburgring. Also wasn't Kaz waxing lyrical about Interlagos back in the day?

 

[Imari]

Do you believe PD couldn't make tire pressure adjustable ?

They probably could, but it's entirely possible that they don't think it's worth it. Maybe they think that advanced suspension modelling or aero is more important. They'd be wrong, but there are plenty of ways that Polyphony can be attempting to make the best simulation that they can and not make tyre pressures adjustable.

Chances are PD/Sony specify design requirement to keep similar level of physics, with only small improvement on each life cycle (games)

I sort of doubt it. Why hamstring a company with a clause like that? Better to just trust that they know what they're doing and allow them to make the best game they can, whatever that ends up being.

PD knows the level of simulation possible to be made, they choose to limit it.

At what point did they start choosing to limit it?

GT1 and GT2 almost certainly weren't intentionally limited, they were pretty competent by the standards of the day, at least for console.

I doubt that GT3 or GT4 were limited by design, again they were considered pretty decent for a console game.

GT5P, GT5 and GT6 are reasonably sensible evolutions of the earlier games. They're not that great, because the reality is that PC sims were ahead to start with and have progressed far faster than Gran Turismo. You can choose to view that as a conspiracy, or you can assume that they've done their best and that's what they put out.

Gareth and Percy may have been similar speeds in a kart when they were 9 and 10. Maybe Percy was a bit faster because he was older, but not much. But it turned out that Percy was just a much, much better driver than Gareth, and so that even though they both put the same amount of work in by the time they were both 25 Percy was racing in GP2 and Gareth was making his way through the local MX5 championship.

Akihiko Tan got the job doing the physics because he had written some articles about vehicle simulation and he did the vehicle physics in Motor Toon Grand Prix. I'm sure he tries very hard, but those things are not exactly proof of any great skill before he joined Polyphony. He has no great simulation to point to as proof of his capability, Gran Turismo is it. Why then believe that he's capable of any more?

The most important thing is does physics count as prime incentive for more sales ?

I don't think it matters to most players when they're actually playing, but it's an incredible marketing point. If Gran Turismo was legitimately a revolutionary simulation that was by far the best on the market on any consumer grade hardware, that would be a massive deal. It'd get them a :censored:load of free advertising for starters, and a lot of people would probably check it out just for that.

 

[GTPorsche]

I think most gamers that aren't dedicated to racing games are looking for the fun aspect rather than the cars handling more realistically compared to other racing games.

If one or many major reviews came out and stated that GTS was the most fun Gran Turismo in over a decade, that would get a nice sales bump.

I know quite a few posters on IGN's forum that would be interested in playing Gran Turismo if it wasn't "boring".

 

[xanavigtr]

Do not also forget Sebring and COTA circuits

 

[ColouredBadger]

You're missing the VLN layout of the Nurburgring. Also wasn't Kaz waxing lyrical about Interlagos back in the day?

True, but I don't feel like it'll make the cut. It's even a push for the Short track to be in there, but I had to make up the 27 layouts haha. In all honesty I think it'll be just GP, Nordschleife and 24h.

And yes, Interlagos had something to do with Senna, but I don't think they'll be including that any time soon. Sadly.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Do not also forget Sebring and COTA circuits

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/gran-turismo-7-and-gt-sport-user-interface-fan-art.317980/

None of those images are official.

 

[apexpredator100]

I doubt that the physics of Gran Turismo will ever reach the simulation of PCars, Assetto Corsa, iRacing, and rFactor2. These racing sims are targeted towards hardcore sim racers, while GT and Forza seems to target a broader audience that includes casual racers and sim racers.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I think most gamers that aren't dedicated to racing games are looking for the fun aspect rather than the cars handling more realistically compared to other racing games.

If one or many major reviews came out and stated that GTS was the most fun Gran Turismo in over a decade, that would get a nice sales bump.

I know quite a few posters on IGN's forum that would be interested in playing Gran Turismo if it wasn't "boring".

As has been mentioned countless times, these things are not mutually exclusive and, in fact, one can often lead to the other.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

They probably could, but it's entirely possible that they don't think it's worth it. Maybe they think that advanced suspension modelling or aero is more important. They'd be wrong, but there are plenty of ways that Polyphony can be attempting to make the best simulation that they can and not make tyre pressures adjustable.



I sort of doubt it. Why hamstring a company with a clause like that? Better to just trust that they know what they're doing and allow them to make the best game they can, whatever that ends up being.



At what point did they start choosing to limit it?

GT1 and GT2 almost certainly weren't intentionally limited, they were pretty competent by the standards of the day, at least for console.

I doubt that GT3 or GT4 were limited by design, again they were considered pretty decent for a console game.

GT5P, GT5 and GT6 are reasonably sensible evolutions of the earlier games. They're not that great, because the reality is that PC sims were ahead to start with and have progressed far faster than Gran Turismo. You can choose to view that as a conspiracy, or you can assume that they've done their best and that's what they put out.

Gareth and Percy may have been similar speeds in a kart when they were 9 and 10. Maybe Percy was a bit faster because he was older, but not much. But it turned out that Percy was just a much, much better driver than Gareth, and so that even though they both put the same amount of work in by the time they were both 25 Percy was racing in GP2 and Gareth was making his way through the local MX5 championship.

Akihiko Tan got the job doing the physics because he had written some articles about vehicle simulation and he did the vehicle physics in Motor Toon Grand Prix. I'm sure he tries very hard, but those things are not exactly proof of any great skill before he joined Polyphony. He has no great simulation to point to as proof of his capability, Gran Turismo is it. Why then believe that he's capable of any more?



I don't think it matters to most players when they're actually playing, but it's an incredible marketing point. If Gran Turismo was legitimately a revolutionary simulation that was by far the best on the market on any consumer grade hardware, that would be a massive deal. It'd get them a :censored:load of free advertising for starters, and a lot of people would probably check it out just for that.

I said about design specification and requirement, each life cycle both may change for software development. For tire pressure, I see it as sort of limiting the scope of simulation, less details, less issue may arise, less complication, less complexity in programming, less trouble for players ( the target audience for console games ) who may not know how to adjust tire pressure for performance driving.

This is why I said intentional, on each new project/life cycle, a project lead / director sets out the design specification based on requirement laid out by the stake holder ( Sony ), at least this is how I see devs work to build a game according to not just the director/creator vision, but also market and stake holders.
Maybe PD/Kaz sees that tire pressure needed in PS3 era game, but Sony may not agree that it may introduce unnecessary complexity on both dev and players. In the end, tire pressure gets dropped. Kaz then focused on other parts that need fixing or improvement. This is just me imagining the design stage. KW and Yokohama was involved in GT6, I'm still amazed how such cooperation got wasted in potential, tire pressure is one of them. From what I can see, KW seems to give damper, roll bar and spring simulation data, while Yokohama contribution mostly superficial ( tire grip, behavior and heat model maybe, but no tire pressure ? )

So, in essence, I think PD did tried their best given the time and resources, but I still highly suspect that some aspect of the simulation have been limited by the design specification / requirement, while some others may be due to limited time to fix or improve even by updates. I always suspect how PD applied silly toe in on stock setup, are these decided by Kaz or simply the design specify for stable handling stock setup on all cars, and using high toe in value is justifiable for the sake of playability. I remembered GT6 stock 0.60 rear toe in was added in an update.

I do not for certain feel that Akihiko Tan is not good enough for the job, he may well be directed to drop the tire pressure from the engine, use constant value/simple calculation or omitted entirely, who knows ?

Regarding simulation quality for marketing, GT has always used the "real driving simulator" slogan since GT 1 on PSX, people bought the game believing it. It's not really true in a sense of realistic simulator, but it's like saying "hey dude, this is a real driving sim, you get to drive many road cars on a track, real road cars like ordinary hatcback, saloon etc, feel like driving, dude"

Oh, I remembered Saleen S7 in GT6, it's MR car, but has 52/48 stock distribution ( front heavy ), which is not correct to the real car. Not sure how this happened, an error on PD physics/vehicle lead or they ignored it ( they did ignore it even till today ). Now, looking at this and many other similar instances with other cars in GT6, even their Nissan Skylines/GTR, I really doubt there's someone who do proper quality checks on cars ( data accuracy, setup etc ), or is it all within design spec ?

 

[Scaff]

I understand if you disagree I should have wrote more in details, what I see as the same from GT5 to 6 is no tire pressure, broken aero/drag in GT6 which was okay in GT5, camber issue which was working in GT5 ( though not that good ), ride height issue, torque steer, tire heat model ( slight improvement in GT6, but still very basic ) and how MR/RR cars modeled in game, some MR cars are fine, more likely tire stagger grip level issue ( can be solved by fitting lower grip tire at the front ). I say ten years, from GT5P to GT6 life cycle, 2006-2016. I really hope GTS will do good,

What really boggles me is tire pressure and tire temp that can't be used or adjusted, and lots of car inaccuracy as well stock setups that borders silly ( rear toe in, camber and springs ) from GT4-5-6 that seems to be just bad IMO, some cars that were accurate in GT5 ( spring rate of RX7 ) went crazy in GT6 ( lot harder than it should ), this happens on many cars, spring rate becomes harder, like the Ferrari F40 that was close to the real car in GT5, not so in GT6 stock ( much harder rate )

To me, the physics lead seems to be experimenting or playing around with the cars between GT5 and GT6.

I'm quite sure they were playing around with both the physics engine and the default set-up values between GT5 and GT6, however what certainly didn't happen is that not attempt to move the physics engine forward was made.

Take just one of your points from above, that of torque steer. From a standing start it was absent in GT5, just as it was in GT6 at launch, however over the course of GT6 an attempt at it was patched in (reasonably well done for MR cars only - FR and FF were both still lacking). Now with GTS this is a totally different case, with launch torque steer being well modelled on both FR and MR cars (the one FF car I was able to try is not known for torque steer so it not possible to judge that yet).

In all honesty you also have to separate poor default set-up values from the physics engine, they are different things, and its the physics engine specifically I am referring to.

Did you see any hint of tire pressure being adjustable in GTS ? That will be a sign PD improved the tire model, even better with I,M,O temp reading

No set-up adjustment was accessible with the Copper Box builds, and while I would agree that it is needed and would be a good sign its not the only indicator of an improved tyre model.

After all you can't even change tyre compounds, let alone tyre pressure in Dirt Rally and that has a solid enough tyre model.

But the real question we need answers to is how Jenkins came about, you big tease.

Here you go:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/jenkins-the-gran-turismo-cat.240737/page-21#post-11382024

 

[syntex123]

Do not also forget Sebring and COTA circuits

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/gran-turismo-7-and-gt-sport-user-interface-fan-art.317980/

None of those images are official.

Yeah I think I see some work by @Nico_Ble99 in there.

 

[Imari]

Oh, I remembered Saleen S7 in GT6, it's MR car, but has 52/48 stock distribution ( front heavy ), which is not correct to the real car. Not sure how this happened, an error on PD physics/vehicle lead or they ignored it ( they did ignore it even till today ). Now, looking at this and many other similar instances with other cars in GT6, even their Nissan Skylines/GTR, I really doubt there's someone who do proper quality checks on cars ( data accuracy, setup etc ), or is it all within design spec ?

The quality problems with the car specs are another kettle of fish, imo. They come with generic setups instead of whatever they might have realistically left the factory with. And even then, as you point out, there are cars that are just flat out wrong in terms of weight, power, or even existing at all. I tend to see people excuse this on the basis of there being 1000+ cars, but if you're going to make a game with that many cars then get them right.

Even if Gran Turismo had the best physics simulation in the world the problems with setup would be huge. It'll be interesting to see if GTS has realistic setups as base on their cars, both road and race.

 

[Nielsen]

I'm saddened by Gran Turismo's evolution. The last game I really enjoyed was GT5 and back then I thought everything was on the right track. All they had to do from there was to add more content and features. GT6 did get more content, albeit many strange additions considering what was missing, but it initially lacked features compared to GT5. This fact combined with the whole Vision GT focus marked the point at which my interest started to fade.

Now they have presented a narrower game with far less content. All the hopes I had for Gran Turismo around 2010 have dwindled to almost nothing. I won't write off whatever the next proper entry will be (GT7), but it won't stand a chance with me unless they bring back 90% of the future-proof "premium" content in GT6 plus a handful of new additions.

I think GT Sport promises to be a weird first-party priority right now, especially after Evolution Studios was cut loose. I'm not denying the appeal of the FIA sanctioned competitive element, but I think it's poor timing when taking everything into consideration. The PS4 has matured without a really good racing game, the competition has been ahead for too long to be considered competition anymore, Driveclub is history, etc. The Sony higher-ups are overdue for a grip on reality.

 

[Scaff]

I'm saddened by Gran Turismo's evolution. The last game I really enjoyed was GT5 and back then I thought everything was on the right track. All they had to do from there was to add more content and features. GT6 did get more content, albeit many strange additions considering what was missing, but it initially lacked features compared to GT5. This fact combined with the whole Vision GT focus marked the point at which my interest started to fade.

Now they have presented a narrower game with far less content. All the hopes I had for Gran Turismo around 2010 have dwindled to almost nothing. I won't write off whatever the next proper entry will be (GT7), but it won't stand a chance with me unless they bring back 90% of the future-proof "premium" content in GT6 plus a handful of new additions.

I think GT Sport promises to be a weird first-party priority right now, especially after Evolution Studios was cut loose. I'm not denying the appeal of the FIA sanctioned competitive element, but I think it's poor timing when taking everything into consideration. The PS4 has matured without a really good racing game, the competition has been ahead for too long to be considered competition anymore, Driveclub is history, etc. The Sony higher-ups are overdue for a grip on reality.

For me a shift back to a more narrow focus may be exactly what is needed, but then again my pick of the GT series is still GT3, which did exactly the same thing.

However a claim that the PS4 has matured without a really good racing game is simply not true in my opinion. Its not had a title from PD, that much is true, but that doesn’t mean it hasn't had good racing titles.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

I'm quite sure they were playing around with both the physics engine and the default set-up values between GT5 and GT6, however what certainly didn't happen is that not attempt to move the physics engine forward was made.

Take just one of your points from above, that of torque steer. From a standing start it was absent in GT5, just as it was in GT6 at launch, however over the course of GT6 an attempt at it was patched in (reasonably well done for MR cars only - FR and FF were both still lacking). Now with GTS this is a totally different case, with launch torque steer being well modelled on both FR and MR cars (the one FF car I was able to try is not known for torque steer so it not possible to judge that yet).

In all honesty you also have to separate poor default set-up values from the physics engine, they are different things, and its the physics engine specifically I am referring to.



No set-up adjustment was accessible with the Copper Box builds, and while I would agree that it is needed and would be a good sign its not the only indicator of an improved tyre model.

After all you can't even change tyre compounds, let alone tyre pressure in Dirt Rally and that has a solid enough tyre model.




Here you go:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/jenkins-the-gran-turismo-cat.240737/page-21#post-11382024

Hearing about torque steer on GTS, gives me little bit of more positive outlook

For the default setup, the rear toe in GT6 has massive influence on car stability ( I think a bit exaggerated by physics, made the car like on rails ), seems like a cheap one size fits all quick fix for all cars toe me The toes have been used to stabilize the cars, while the rear camber, I'm not sure if PD is aware of the camber issue, but they did still use high camber at the rear wheels ( mostly on race cars ) and patch it with 1.00 rear toe in. PD seems to patch physics issue with default setup toe values.

By the way, can you feel the bounce/springy feeling from the tires as well ( not just suspension ) on GTS ?

The quality problems with the car specs are another kettle of fish, imo. They come with generic setups instead of whatever they might have realistically left the factory with. And even then, as you point out, there are cars that are just flat out wrong in terms of weight, power, or even existing at all. I tend to see people excuse this on the basis of there being 1000+ cars, but if you're going to make a game with that many cars then get them right.

Even if Gran Turismo had the best physics simulation in the world the problems with setup would be huge. It'll be interesting to see if GTS has realistic setups as base on their cars, both road and race.

The weird part is cars like RX7 and Ferrari F40 which had much closer to real car spring rate, now are much stiffer on stock setup, PD increases them and unfortunately the old GT5 stock rate is not possible anymore with custom suspension in GT6 This also happens to R32 GTR premium if I remembered correctly The Lister Storm race car, with road car weight

 

[CodeRedR51]

This size of the car in this photo is a bit off. Though that would make one hell of a go-kart.

 

[jpbonadio]

A little bit of GTS car porn:

 

[Nielsen]

For me a shift back to a more narrow focus may be exactly what is needed, but then again my pick of the GT series is still GT3, which did exactly the same thing.

Time will tell. I also liked GT3 despite being a narrower game than GT2. Still, GT3 was mostly true to the formula making Gran Turismo so popular and the graphics were amazing for its time. I think it might be too early to judge GT Sport graphics, but I'm not quite impressed by what I've seen.

However a claim that the PS4 has matured without a really good racing game is simply not true in my opinion. Its not had a title from PD, that much is true, but that doesn’t mean it hasn't had good racing titles.

I said really good to make a distiction from good, but I'll admit I forgot DIRT Rally when writing that. I guess I intended to say that the PS4 has reached a point where it could benefit from a real system seller in the racing genre. GT Sport may not aim to fill that space in the same way GT5 Prologue didn't, but the latter was set to achieve a very transparent goal - to preview GT5. GT Sport probably isn't much different from Prologue titles beyond the eSports element, but it feels like a late distraction while the future of the franchise remains quite unknown. I don't think that's what Sony needs when Forza Motorsport on Xbox One repeatedly offers what PS4 players are longing for.

 

[05XR8]

A little bit of GTS car porn:

I'm going to like driving the MX-5. Even though I wish it wouldn't have the rear wing.

 

[Samus]

I'm going to like driving the MX-5. Even though I wish it wouldn't have the rear wing.

There is a version without the wing. There are three in total.

 

[torque99]

^^Some of the real photo backgrounds and the cars look out of proportion on the pics and not right to the eye with the graphics of the car larger and not as sharp as the background. From what I have seen on the video clips you can move the car back in to the picture 3D and use the camera to blur/focus the car and the back ground or reduce the EV of the background along with the shutter speed x30/60-8000 this would make them more realistic. I know not everyone likes the photomode but I am really looking forward to all these wonderful scapes and real world opportunities to take your virtual car to..I am also hoping the usual replays and photo mode is there too..

Did anyone try any of the replays to see if there was a camera/photomode or was it not available on the day?👍

Edit: Yes it does have the recommended gear to be in I saw it in the VVV video.

 

[dimassa19]

^^Some of the real photo backgrounds and the cars look out of proportion on the pics and not right to the eye with the graphics of the car larger and not as sharp as the background. From what I have seen on the video clips you can move the car back in to the picture 3D and use the camera to blur/focus the car and the back ground or reduce the EV of the background along with the shutter speed x30/60-8000 this would make them more realistic. I know not everyone likes the photomode but I am really looking forward to all these wonderful scapes and real world opportunities to take your virtual car to..I am also hoping the usual replays and photo mode is there too..

Did anyone try any of the replays to see if there was a camera/photomode or was it not available on the day?👍

Also for anyone who played the game was there the option for the recommended gear to be in coming up to the corners in (red) as I am finding this on GT6 (late to the game) to be very handy feature especially learning the tracks (talking about Ascari) I find this hard to learn and always too fast in to the chicanes and on the grass!! I don't like the racing line on as the braking points are normally far off what I like and I end up worse off

I am still speechless about the new photomode...I will need more than one life to explore it.

 

[Noz]

Is there anyone of you who keeps the music playing in the background while racing?

 

[zzz_pt]

@torque99 Yes, the photomode option was blocked on the 19th/20th.

 

[glassjaw]

Is there anyone of you who keeps the music playing in the background while racing?

Absolutely, unless I really need to hear game audio to play (i.e., the pace notes in Dirt Rally).

I grew up playing racing games with kickass music, and that's always been my preferred way to drive. It's probably why sound never bothered me in this series, and I never really appreciate it when it's done well in other games.

 

[Scaff]

Is there anyone of you who keeps the music playing in the background while racing?

Never.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Is there anyone of you who keeps the music playing in the background while racing?

Never, menus only. Can't remember when it was but it was recently, someone mentioned that Assetto Corsa didn't have any music and, although I've been playing for 18 months, I never even thought about it until that post

 

[FT-1]

Is there anyone of you who keeps the music playing in the background while racing?

In GT games, I leave racing music on for about a year then turn it off when I am absolutely fed up with the in-game soundtrack. Menu music is always left on though.

For arcade racing games, I always leave the music on in every situation.

 

[JR98]

Is there anyone of you who keeps the music playing in the background while racing?

Always. I find I race better with music so if possible I always have it on.