GT5 Latest News & Discussion

[C_Raccoon23]

GT games aren't even solely about racing in the first place.

Then why on the back of the GT5 case, it says in big, white letters: "A REVOLUTION IN RACING"?

Also:

- Customize, race, and upgrade over 1,000 detailed cars, inculding NASCAR, rally, kart, and drift.

- Race on 20+ tracks with 70+ laysouts, or create your own with Course Maker.

- Race online or socialize with friends in the new custom race lounge for the ultimate track day.

Gran Turismo returns with the most realistic and complete racing experience. An unprecedented collection of cars, just about every racing style imaginable, plus robust online and community features via PlayStation Network, all in GT's signature cutting-edge graphics.

All this found on the back of the game's case. Sounds like it's supposed to be a racing game to me.

 

[Griffith500]

Then why on the back of the GT5 case it says in big, white letters: "A REVOLUTION IN RACING"

Also:



All this found on the back of the game's case. Sounds like it's supposed to be a racing game to me.

Then why does it have free run? I said it's not solely about racing. I even said it allows the possibility of racing in the post you (selectively) quoted.

So much bigotry and elitism!

 

[mcfizzle]

With the jumps PD obviously isn't going with total realism but instead adding a little fun to the track. It's just like the X1, you don't have to like it, but just because you don't doesn't mean other can't and that they should remove it from the game. When it comes to serious racing I prefer real courses, but I also love hot lapping on the arcade tracks were you feel like you are on the edge of insanity with some of the corners.

I happen to enjoy Cape Ring, Periphery more specifically, and find to have great flow to the track. Sjaak made one of the best WRS combos to date there, with the 458 Italia on Cape Ring Periphery.

It would never be sanctioned as a real layout, that's the whole point.

I think you are right, that is the point. They wanted to build a track that doesn't have to fit sanctions and regulations. A track that is fun. The full version isn't really that great, but I feel like each individual part is done nicely.

 

[Samus]

GT5 features races though, does it not? Cape Ring is meant to be a race track, correct? Yes you can do what you please on the game but racing is a primary componenet and for the most part GT tried to do it realistically. They don't have loop the loop sections, they don't have speed humps, they are supposed to conform to real world physics. So why they then went and included a large jump in a race track which does nothing but show up the terrible suspension and airborne physics I don't know.

As for your examples neither are as severe as Cape Ring and I think you know how silly it is to bring rallying into the equation.

 

[avens]

have you ever watched prototype racing?

 

[Griffith500]

GT5 features races though, does it not? Cape Ring is meant to be a race track, correct? Yes you can do what you please on the game but racing is a primary componenet and for the most part GT tried to do it realistically. They don't have loop the loop sections, they don't have speed humps, they are supposed to conform to real world physics. So why they then went and included a large jump in a race track which does nothing but show up the terrible suspension and airborne physics I don't know.

As for your examples neither are as severe as Cape Ring and I think you know how silly it is to bring rallying into the equation.

Yeah, because real life is subject to boring stuff like making sure people aren't stupid / unfortunate enough to kill themselves. I didn't realise speed-bumps violated the laws of physics! Or is it that, somehow inexplicably, a partial simulator in a computer game doesn't fully follow the "laws of physics"? You're surprised by that? The laws of physics aren't even fully described, let alone fully understood! I think it's good that this flaw in GT's physics has been self-exposed, and hopefully there will be consequences that mean the game can continue to expand and improve, rather than have the elitists clip its wings for the sake of aping the dullness of certain sub-sections of the modern sport.

Interestingly, Cadwell Park's "mountain" would be devastating in reverse, assuming you weren't trying to negotiate the corner at the bottom. The landing point, when driven in the normal direction, is much higher up the hill than the take-off. So it's pretty damned severe a jump, just the consequences are alleviated by a preceding tight corner and the height difference of the landing area (which means cars rarely if ever jump there) - plus most drivers / riders lift off considerably anyway from fear and conservatism.

And how is rallying "silly"? Because it doesn't support your argument? GT includes rallying, so clearly it is relevant as a form of "racing".

 

[PAPPACLART]

The GT Franchise has always been a game where you make your own fun, this is the case now with both single player and online.

Single player is lackluster so many simply hot lap and compare cars etc. As for online, it is mostly disappointing due to no real way to filter the good and serious racers from the bad, so on most occasions a public lounge is a no no unless it is full of your friends. Private Lounges and organizing your own racing/competitions among your friends is the way to go IMO.

There is a allot of fun to be had with GT but you have to improvise and work at it to achieve something remotely resembling real racing/motorsport .

I hope GT6 addresses these problems and allow a more robust set of tools to organize single player and 1 player in a way that suits you the player and not generally and for all like it tries and fails to do now.

 

[ch3ng]

Then why does it have free run? I said it's not solely about racing. I even said it allows the possibility of racing in the post you (selectively) quoted.

So much bigotry and elitism!

GT5 is about racing.

 

[Tornado]

And how is rallying "silly"? Because it doesn't support your argument? GT includes rallying, so clearly it is relevant as a form of "racing".

He didn't say rallying was silly. He said using rallying as an example comparable to the Cape Ring jump is silly.

 

[avens]

GT5 is about racing.

not really

He didn't say rallying was silly. He said using rallying as an example comparable to the Cape Ring jump is silly.

and it is because in rallying they don't use circuits. Just adding this so there aren't more useless replies afterwards.

 

[another_jakhole]

Yeah, because real life is subject to boring stuff like making sure people aren't stupid / unfortunate enough to kill themselves. I didn't realise speed-bumps violated the laws of physics! Or is it that, somehow inexplicably, a partial simulator in a computer game doesn't fully follow the "laws of physics"? You're surprised by that? The laws of physics aren't even fully described, let alone fully understood! I think it's good that this flaw in GT's physics has been self-exposed, and hopefully there will be consequences that mean the game can continue to expand and improve, rather than have the elitists clip its wings for the sake of aping the dullness of certain sub-sections of the modern sport.

Interestingly, Cadwell Park's "mountain" would be devastating in reverse, assuming you weren't trying to negotiate the corner at the bottom. The landing point, when driven in the normal direction, is much higher up the hill than the take-off. So it's pretty damned severe a jump, just the consequences are alleviated by a preceding tight corner and the height difference of the landing area (which means cars rarely if ever jump there) - plus most drivers / riders lift off considerably anyway from fear and conservatism.

And how is rallying "silly"? Because it doesn't support your argument? GT includes rallying, so clearly it is relevant as a form of "racing".

Yes. YES! I mean, rolling over cars is nearly impossible to do. These guys keep using things to fit their arguments.

Top of page - He brought up the "Revolution in Racing" thing, though most people bring up "The Real Driving Simulator", even though it's obvious that GT5's can't possibly have the best physics out of all the other sims. I see examples of this everyday, but it'd be more of a waste of space to point them out.

which is why I've stopped posting as much or at all

 

[shirakawaa]

not really



and it is because in rallying they don't use circuits.

They do sometimes!
See this for example:

 

[Griffith500]

He didn't say rallying was silly. He said using rallying as an example comparable to the Cape Ring jump is silly.

No, the argument was that jumps in general have no place in motor racing. Obviously Cape Ring's jump is quite enormous and "deliberate", but it's only the lack of consequences from launching off it like a madman that mean it's "unrealistic". It's very presence in itself is not unrealistic, it's just that "fear" and health and safety requirements mean that no-one would ever deliberately put such a jump in a racing track (circuit or point to point, it's irrelevant) in real life. However, if you or I decided to make a daft-as-a-brush track, we might consider such a thing on the proviso that the drivers aren't stupid enough to spear off and kill a few hundred spectators... (probably a bad assumption to make in the real world.)

Also, "Mineshaft".

...
and it is because in rallying they don't use circuits. Just adding this so there aren't more useless replies afterwards.

Rallying does make use of circuits, often. But that's not the point, either.

 

[Gejabo]

Ignoring the circus event that is Global Rallycross, very few circuits have "jumps" that drivers must be careful to not go too quickly over. The Nordschleife is as bad as it gets.

It just doesn't make sense in the real world for drivers to need to slow down in order to survive the course, and if it becomes a case of "he who abuses the car most goes fastest", it becomes dangerous.

GT5 replays at Eiger and Cape Ring are cringe worthy, when the cars take the jumps and land on invisible pillows with suspension that a CORR truck would kill for. Any pretending it's realistic is well and truly over. Get rid of them, I say. They add nothing.

I know these are not cars but still

 

[avens]

that's rallycross, which is different and it isn't properly featured in gt5 (well not a single thing is)

 

[PAPPACLART]

I know these are not cars but still

That is awesome, always wanted to do a track day with my bike at Cadwell. Many cars do race at cadwell, not sure how many get air though.

Civic vs blade at cadwell http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Evp9YiVgimE

 

[Tornado]

No, the argument was that jumps in general have no place in motor racing.

No. The argument was that outright jumps have no place in motor racing venues clearly not designed for rally cars. Not fast rises that level off like at the Nurburgring or Lime Rock Park. Not quick dips like what used to be at Laguna Seca. Not things that could technically be jumps if the driver drove into them with no intent of keeping on the course (like the Corkscrew at Laguna) or drove on the track backwards. Outright deliberate jumps, where the track clearly rises up into the air several dozen feet and then drops just the same with no justification whatsoever. You get several yards of distance and height with even the most pedestrian of cars in this game, and that is simply ridiculous from a track design perspective.



And the only reason Simon said rallying comparisons are silly is because they're irrelevant to this discussion about a circuit track that isn't on public backroads.

Obviously Cape Ring's jump is quite enormous and "deliberate", but it's only the lack of consequences from launching off it like a madman that mean it's "unrealistic". It's very presence in itself is not unrealistic

Yes it is. The course design itself is inconsistent from section to section. No one would ever take the time and effort to build that massive 540 degree onramp but then not smooth out the thing right at the end of it that leads to cars launching like in the Gone in 60 Seconds remake.


Say what you will about Grand Valley, Trial Mountain or Deep Forest all essentially being carved into a mountain with superfluous bridges and tunnels that really only are done for scenery purposes, but if those track designs themselves were transplanted somewhere else they would at least be logical. A massive banked turn whose only purpose is to build up speed for the jump at the end of it is not.

 

[Griffith500]

that's rallycross, which is different and it isn't properly featured in gt5 (well not a single thing is)

Not just that, WRC has "Special Stages" which are often held on small "circuits" (i.e the start- and end-points are the same).

But I'd love to have Rallycross in GT, or at least have the same sorts of circuits, we can make the cars ourselves (hell, expand the course generator to allow for mixed surfaces, that'll do it!).

EDIT: I'm sorry that a fantasy circuit in a videogame would somehow defy "logic" - it's clearly just a bit of fun, and that 540° corner, whilst hell on tyres, is actually pretty nuanced. You know that the Nürburgring itself used to have deliberate rises and falls? They were "outright jumps" until they flattened them all in the '70s because of incompatibilities of the rapid changes in gradient (i.e. the peaks) with the nascent, temperamental ground-effect of the time. Didn't stop them from racing on it for the almost 50 years prior, of course, and the cars were fast enough to "jump" them for most of that time, except the drivers you know, slowed down a bit, like you would for a corner.

Again, this is all just veiled elitism. "A jump, you say? How infantile."
The mode of navigation of a course is irrelevant to its suitability for racing on. If it has a start and end point, you can time cars between them. Hence rallying not being on circuits (although it often is) is irrelevant.

 

[avens]

Not just that, WRC has "Special Stages" which are often held on small "circuits" (i.e the start- and end-points are the same).

but not proper circuits. Something like cape ring instead of bumping sideways in a tunnel at 70kmh like almost all did in mexico this year.

 

[C_Raccoon23]

Then why does it have free run? I said it's not solely about racing. I even said it allows the possibility of racing in the post you (selectively) quoted.

So much bigotry and elitism!

I'm sorry if you want to take it that way, because it wasn't my intent to come across as such. But be my guest.

If they put "A REVOLUTION IN RACING" in big, white letters, to emphasize it, what else do they want us to think the game is going to be about? I was pointing out what is legitamely said on the box to support the argument that GT5 is about racing. It's all that is mentioned on the back. Nothing about photomode or other features. If someone who's never owned or played GT5 before read the back, it's pretty obvious on what they'll think the focus of the game is.

Also, reading the back of GT1's cover, it states "racing" in the main description. Nothing about "driving" the cars or whatever else. Again, sounds like even from the beginning racing was supposed to be the main focus.

 

[avens]

But I'd love to have Rallycross in GT, or at least have the same sorts of circuits, we can make the cars ourselves (hell, expand the course generator to allow for mixed surfaces, that'll do it!).

EDIT: I'm sorry that a fantasy circuit in a videogame would somehow defy "logic" - it's clearly just a bit of fun, and that 540° corner, whilst hell on tyres, is actually pretty nuanced. You know that the Nürburgring itself used to have deliberate rises and falls? They were "outright jumps" until they flattened them all in the '70s because of incompatibilities of the rapid changes in gradient (i.e. the peaks) with the nascent, temperamental ground-effect of the time. Didn't stop them from racing on it for the almost 50 years prior, of course, and the cars were fast enough to "jump" them for most of that time, except the drivers you know, slowed down a bit, like you would for a corner.

Again, this is all just veiled elitism. "A jump, you say? How infantile."
The mode of navigation of a course is irrelevant to its suitability for racing on. If it has a start and end point, you can time cars between them. Hence rallying not being on circuits (although it often is) is irrelevant.

I'd love more real-life content no matter what it is, but that's different than what PD should do, which is differentiating itself and for that they should re-release their classic GT circuits that aren't in GT5, among others.

I know some would say those are "silly" and "unrealistic", but I'd say "refreshing" and "spectacular". That's the whole point of videogames whatever route they take: it's not like anyone wants to proper "simulate" Tail of the dragon, with 30mph speed limits, lanes and driving behind trucks.

 

[Griffith500]

I'm sorry if you want to take it that way, because it wasn't my intent to come across as such. But be my guest.

If they put "A REVOLUTION IN RACING" in big, white letters, to emphasize it, what do they want us to think the game is going to be about? I was pointing out what is legitamely said on the box to support the argument that GT5 is about racing. It's all that is mentioned on the back. Nothing about photomode or other features. If someone who's never owned or played GT5 before read the back, it's pretty obvious on what they'll think the focus of the game is.

Also, reading the back of GT1's cover, it states "racing" in the main description. Nothing about "driving" the cars or whatever else. Again, sounds like even from the beginning racing was supposed to be the main focus.

But I never said it wasn't about racing.
Spouting the marketing gumph at me doesn't change what I've seen and done in the game.

 

[Samus]

The reason I said it was silly to bring up rally is because those cars are specifically designed and built to take rough, uneven terrain and that's what rally special stages are about. Cape Ring is not supposed to be a rally special stage, it's clearly meant to be a closed race track for cars of all kind to use. It is therefore very silly to design part of the track with a huge jump in it, killing all feeling of realistic driving in an instant as the suspension isn't destroyed upon landing.

 

[gamerdog6482]

The reason I said it was silly to bring up rally is because those cars are specifically designed and built to take rough, uneven terrain and that's what rally special stages are about. Cape Ring is not supposed to be a rally special stage, it's clearly meant to be a closed race track for cars of all kind to use. It is therefore very silly to design part of the track with a huge jump in it, killing all feeling of realistic driving in an instant as the suspension isn't destroyed upon landing.

Than brake.

 

[Griffith500]

The reason I said it was silly to bring up rally is because those cars are specifically designed and built to take rough, uneven terrain and that's what rally special stages are about. Cape Ring is not supposed to be a rally special stage, it's clearly meant to be a closed race track for cars of all kind to use. It is therefore very silly to design part of the track with a huge jump in it, killing all feeling of realistic driving in an instant as the suspension isn't destroyed upon landing.

The problem with that statement is that the only reason the cars are built to take that punishment is because it's already there in the courses. If Rallying took place on FIA-sanctioned courses intended for F1 use, they wouldn't be built the way they are.
The opposite happens in F1, the cars evolve to the point that they cannot take the punishment dealt by the track, or they have vicious instabilities that mean certain features of the track have to be removed for "safety" (because racing drivers don't know how to slow down! )

The fix, then, is to make the suspension be destroyed by the landing. Then the cars need to be built to take that kind of punishment.
EDIT: or the driving style adjusted to suit, i.e. slow down.
EDIT: I read something about a driver who crashed on that last sweeping bend before the chicane at Suzuka, as a result of which they changed the layout of it so that once you were in, you were out, removing most of its challenge. Most drivers, including the one who crashed, thought they should have left the corner as it was (and maybe improved the run-off and catch-fencing only)

 

[avens]

so, news?

 

[gamerdog6482]

Yep, news.

 

[avens]

this game needs official (PD) worldwide online racing leagues, in order to keep it fresh and have news.

Probably not in gt5 with the current netcode and all that, but could be possible in GT6 if Japan has a separate one.

 

[avens]

since there's no news, lets keep discussing with simonk

The reason I said it was silly to bring up rally is because those cars are specifically designed and built to take rough, uneven terrain and that's what rally special stages are about. Cape Ring is not supposed to be a rally special stage, it's clearly meant to be a closed race track for cars of all kind to use. It is therefore very silly to design part of the track with a huge jump in it, killing all feeling of realistic driving in an instant as the suspension isn't destroyed upon landing.

more than track layout the thing is simulating the suspension getting destroyed, because jumps and other "silly" behaviors do exist in circuit racing (again prototypes, but 4 wheels off the ground happens in every single racing category) and others (rallying). Classic layouts are a prime example of that.

But it shares the same problem with removing the jump and adding speed limts: it's anti-fun.

Have to remember the GT series will always be in consoles so they target a broader audience than "sim racers". Thing is not even "sims" simulate everything because some aspects are truly a burden.

 

[Tornado]

You know that the Nürburgring itself used to have deliberate rises and falls?

I've certainly seen 60's era F1 pictures taken at the Flugplatz and Brünnchen (albeit not that many of the latter). And yet I don't recall any of them looking like this:

And that's not even the direction that causes the most "air." In fact, considering how light and powerful F1 cars were even then, I imagine they would have to have been going quite slow indeed if the Flugplatz or Brünnchen, in their prime, was laid out in a similar way topographically to Cape Ring without causing that.