GT producer - Damage still the same.
- Thread starter bigspleen
- 440 comments
- 23,092 views
Horsepower isn't the major problem with doing something like that. It's not the major barricade PD would face anyway. No, the problem is how the vehicles are constructed. To have damage like that the premium cars PD already have would be useless, they could never deform in that way because they weren't modelled with that in mind. The cars in that 'game' and the other 'Rigs Of Rods' deform the way they do because they're modelled in a certain way, with 'rods' in the case of the latter.
It takes a lot, lot longer to model a car in that way and considering PD would as I say have to start every car from scratch don't expect to see anything like that in GT for a while.
It takes a lot, lot longer to model a car in that way and considering PD would as I say have to start every car from scratch don't expect to see anything like that in GT for a while.
TheeFrogmanlego
(Banned)
- 1,546
- Downey
- frogmanlego
UM no XD they can always go back and edit the cars they have made 👍 they modeled all the; bumpers, doors, bonnets, and headlights apart.They have there work cut out for them! PD just needs to model the black voids under the bumper and judging by what Iv seen in most games, it doesn't even have to be accurate 👍
- 13,913
- Adelaide
- Neomone
They can go back and edit to some extent, but they'd have to go over every panel in the car so the amount of work required is basically the same as building from scratch.
Premiums are built of polys. RoR needs everything built of rods. It's not the same, even if it ends up in the same shape. You can't take a clay show model of a car and just tweak it into a real car, it needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.
No, it's not that simple. The whole way the car is modeled needs to be changed for it to be able to deform like in that video. They can certainly go back and make more things fall off but if you want deforming like that video they need to be done from scratch.
- 4,741
- Bogota,Colombia
- GTP_ARP93
I honestly think there are more pressing matters at the moment. The game needs fixes that are far more fundamental and easier to fix, and they should focus on them. It'll be better for GT6 if they just left damage as it is (If it was up to me, I'd remove it altogether...all the damage we have now is melting cars and patches of dark appearing in crashed spots) and try to get it right for GT7 if that's their wish.
- 13,913
- Adelaide
- Neomone
I agree with this. What they have now is (for most cars) worse than nothing. It doesn't even look like damage, it looks like the game has bugged or something.
They would be better off taking it out completely and living with the complaints until they can do a decent job. Or growing some testicles and saying "no, we never wanted damage, we still don't want damage, we never will want damage, screw you guys you're not getting any. Enjoy the shiny."
- 7,830
- U S A
- Tetsumura
- Nigel Fox
I'm torn on this issue. Removing it completely would be like surrender, and that's just not a Japanese thing. Though like many of you I just disable it. Maybe they can improve it slightly, but that's mostly a wish.
Meh, work...
Meh, work...
- 5,766
- USA
- TPC_Raccooon23
- CRaccoon23
- 71
- Maryland
- Sapphire-Wolf
- 5,766
- USA
- TPC_Raccooon23
- CRaccoon23
Yes. If you look closely, you can see a transparent GT logo on the top right. Every photo taken in GT5 has this.
- 15,532
- Cairo, Egypt
- GTP_SEMS
Can I get this demo for free still ,if so from where?
Agreed but that's their problem,hate to sound like a broken record but we've gone through this whole generation with even a semi half decent showing of visual damage.I am not asking for that kind of damage (although with the budget they have it's very much doable)but even something like Grid would be a big change.
- 4,741
- Bogota,Colombia
- GTP_ARP93
Agreed completely, especially the bold part. I wish they'd remove this "damage" model as well. I'm not looking forward to seeing more stuff like this in GT6:
What a depressing waste of resources 👎. I think it's a perfect example of why us, the community, should think our wishes trough. As much criticism I give to PD, criticism I always intend to be constructive because I love the damn game to bits, I have to admit this is a feature they only included to please the "OMG OMG DMG!!! OMG I WNNA CRASH MUH CAR ONLINE N MAKE DIRTY RACING" crowd. They made it in a rush and they made it all wrong, so much that I wish they hadn't gone trough the trouble.
This "If it's in real life, it must be in [Insert sim title here]" thinking is beggining to get out of control: Namely, it's a bloody mess that makes no sense at all. It's software, it's limited by a wide number of variables, it'll never be the real thing, if you want the real thing then go to the real world and do the damned real thing, deal with it.
- 1,130
- Mexico City
- ppmike921
- MikeB0ssMan
I don't think asking for the bare minimum (FM4, SHIFT 2, GRID) level of damage can be classified as a "If it's in real life, it must be in [Insert sim title here]" attitude, especially with PD having almost unlimited time and money. A ''realistic'' damage model in racing games isn't a luxury nowadays, it's a standard feature and more so if the game in question is trying to be realistic.
- 4,878
- CoolColJ, GTP_CoolColJ
on their site under tech demo
http://www.gamershell.com/download_102365.shtml
Why not? It's running here in real time on the Crysis Engine, but using their own physics extensions that use Lua scripting
I can already see a nice rally game
http://www.beamng.com/entries/40-A-look-at-vehicle-workflow-Part-1
Last edited:
- 350
- Holbrooklyn
- bigblockprius666
The best visual damage ever in a racing game has to be Flatout 2. The game was way ahead of it's time. You could see every scratch, crack, dent and loose body panel on the car. But there's one thing to remember about that game; It was all fake! It had fake cars, fake locations, and arcade physics. Sure, the cars did a bang up job portraying their real life counterparts visually, but the mechanics were all wrong! The car that looked exactly like a Delorean (even had the engine in the rear) was listed as FWD! Tell me how that makes sense! Gran Turismo is used to portay the beauty of real life vehicles & locations. Not for you to smash up priceless pieces of art.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
- 13,913
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Asking for damage in GT5 was a completely reasonable request. It's a common feature in other racing games (how many modern racing games can you think of that don't have at least some implementation of damage?).
It's not the people's fault that PD did a crap job.
Damage is a big part of punishing the mistakes of real racing. You know how most modern race tracks have paved run-off areas instead of grass/gravel, and you hear race drivers and commentators talking about how it's good for safety but the consequences for an error are so much smaller than they used to be.
No damage is kind of the same. With no damage, you can drive at 100% pretty much all the time. If you crash, you bounce off the wall and keep going, maybe losing a few seconds. On enclosed courses, you can sometimes go faster by wall riding. With damage, there's a consequence to stuffing up. It makes people either slow down to a speed they're capable of driving consistently, or takes them out of the race completely if they don't. It gives strong feedback for how you're driving.
If GT is to be a racing game, it needs damage. It's a necessary part of racing. If GT is just a pretty game where cars go around tracks, then maybe it doesn't need it. But then it probably doesn't need the fancy physics or any of the other stuff that contributes to racing realism either.
- 4,741
- Bogota,Colombia
- GTP_ARP93
You're right, though I should make it clear now that I was referring to cosmetic damage.
Mechanical damage is something we were even able to get in GT2. But what I meant with not needing some things is that we have to stop being overly ambitious and admit that racing games have to compromise in some aspect or others. I personally don't find cosmetic damage important at all because all you do after crashing is...hitting the reset or exit button. Simple as that. Maybe that could be enforced with mechanical damage a la GT2, ride a wall or smash into your opponent, there, you have no steering. Easy to implement and doesn't eat up resources or makes PD re-think all their modelling methods. That'll give us the consequences we all want, I include myself.
Sure, to be an experience that's somewhat convincing in simulating a racing car, games need X and need Y. But my point is that you could go on and on and on asking for things that racing games need because real racing has it...but what to do when you consider real racing involves risks, bad luck, death, an unbelievable amount of noise, the G-forces throwing you around like their puppet? If GT is going to be a racing game it needs...where to draw the line of what it needs and what it can get? The fact of the matter is there's still a big line dividing our commercially available sims from an absolutely real experience, we cannot get everything. Let's be realistic with our expectations and with what game developers can achieve. And, also, keep in mind this is a game that every broski and casual gamer in the world will buy...will GT sell if it becomes an unbearable experience to the casuals that are used to the consequences of NFS?
That said, some fairly basic cosmetic damage and some proper mechanical damage shouldn't be too much to ask from PD. But so would you think of a garage list that remembers your preferences and look where we are...
- 11,660
- GTP_Orido
The heavy damage ( mechanical ) in GT5 is enough to punish mistakes as it's a permanent one, all that PD needs to do is add more damage type and failure, maybe tire blowout, engine overheating/damage ( blown engine ), gearbox damage, suspension damage from improper setup or rough road condition/off road driving. After all these are better implemented and realistic, then PD can continue to get the visual aspect better
I would prefer realistic mechanical damage and failure over realistic visual damage if I have to choose either one.
I would prefer realistic mechanical damage and failure over realistic visual damage if I have to choose either one.
- 349
- Midwest
- McLOVIN5489
Ridox2JZGTEThe heavy damage ( mechanical ) in GT5 is enough to punish mistakes as it's a permanent one, all that PD needs to do is add more damage type and failure, maybe tire blowout, engine overheating/damage ( blown engine ), gearbox damage, suspension damage from improper setup or rough road condition/off road driving. After all these are better implemented and realistic, then PD can continue to get the visual aspect better
I would prefer realistic mechanical damage and failure over realistic visual damage if I have to choose either one.
That's a fair assessment 👍 IMO, you're not supposed to be hitting anything anyway *shrugs*
Mechanical damage would get my vote.
- 13,913
- Adelaide
- Neomone
I'd agree with this. All the cosmetic side really needs to do is indicate that damage has occurred in some way that doesn't look like ass. It can be extremely simplistic, if that's all that can be managed. Just something so that other players online can see that your car is damaged and drive appropriately.
As you say, proper mechanical damage is where it's at. GT5s current system isn't exactly blowing minds in this department either, but at least it's a start. I don't think it should be too difficult for them to add a few more levels of sensitivity to the damage and a few more outcomes other than "my wheel wobbles".
- 3,385
- Las Vegas
- dawko-san
When I drive online, I always turn the damage off anyway so I couldn't care less if damage was removed completely.
