GT5 Latest News & Discussion

[LordVonPS3]

It's actually relatively narrow - remember, the track is for karts and karts are tiny. Incidentally, the square bollards form the basis of the concrete barrier in the centre. You can see them more clearly from other GT5 shots.

OK, I see now where the bollards are on the GT5 track but it's clear from looking at the real world photos that the bollards have been moved inwards by PD in GT5. The layout has been adjusted a bit, but that being said, I am more inclined now to agree with your original point which is that the layout on the GT5 PdC won't easily allow for other track variations, meaning PdC is likely just a simple forward + reverse. We'll have to see if there will be more locations suitable for karting in GT Mode (I hope so)...

Again, it's actually simpler for PD to gussy up a GT4 track as GT5 - they have all the parameters they could want on file, since it's their track - than create and test variants.

It's less work, but that work is no more simple. Off the top of my head, here's a few points...

* All textures per location need to be updated for HD. This is a lot of effort.
* More of the "location" geometry needs to be added to any existing "GT4 track" model. The PS2 / PS1 models for tracks only model the track + track-side scenery (trees, buildings, etc) to save on unnecessary geometry. GT5 locations feature sprawling landscapes. This is very much applicable because the mandated HD draw distance & screen width in GT5 is much greater than previous SD GT's. Again, a lot of effort.
* Data to allow for the G25 to provide feedback on curbs & bumps also needs to be added in.

It's certainly less work than building a new track from scratch but it'd still take a considerable amount of time to turn a track into a location and make everything right for GT5. I would still say several months of work, maybe 6 or more depending on the size & complexity of the GT4 track.

You can repeat it often if you wish - that was a (bad) French translation of a page that existed for about an hour a year ago.

A bad French translation, etc, etc? No, sorry but that's simply not true... http://eu.gran-turismo.com/gb/news/d10595.html

There's nothing mystic about the calculations either. We know all the tracks in GT4 - you can do it yourself. I've even been kind and included El Capitan and Cathedral Rocks as one location.

It is mystic & thanks but I must decline the offer. I don't perceive any benefit nor put any faith in performing calculations on the number of alternate configurations / ways to drive GT4 tracks or required location / variation combinations to achieve the same ratios in GT5. It proves nothing about GT5 and isn't based on what we've seen, which is all we have to go on. The only values that count (regarding courses to drive on) is that the number of locations is stated as being over 20 and the number of variations is stated as being over 70.

Presently there are 16 tracks. Each track has 1.69 alternate configurations and 2.06 ways to drive on it. GT4 had 34 tracks. Each track has 1.56 alternate configurations and 2.44 ways to drive on it. Shirakawa's data requires 46 tracks. Each track has 1.5 alternate configurations and 2.37 ways to drive on it. Your data is not consistent with existing data or known trends. Shirakawa's is.

Known trends? How do you figure that PS1 and / or PS2 standard definition tracks should become a "known trend" for a high definition PS3 implementation? Seriously, this is all conjecture - there is no evidence to support that there are any "trends" at all.

GT2 had way more cars than GT. How is that some sort of mathematical "trend"? The jump from SD to HD is far more onerous work, I would expect a decline! Again... There is nothing on record about "tracks" in GT5, it is all about "locations" and "variations". I'm sure you understand the difference in that a location can be a landscape area like this... http://eu.gran-turismo.com/c/binary/images/13427/photo07a.jpg or this... http://eu.gran-turismo.com/c/binary/images/13427/photo03a.jpg

Several "tracks" could be made out of such locations & if you also include reverse then it's not a different "track" but just another "variation". Basically, until I see evidence of "many more GT4 tracks", I'll remain unconvinced about any other suggestions.

Your data requires a maximum of 24 tracks. Each track would have 2.91 alternate configurations and ways to drive on it, requiring them to be added at the rate of 5.5 alternated configurations for each unknown track. It requires a needless multiplication of entities for your data to be correct and as such, at this point, Occam's Razor favours Shirakawa's data (though it may not be accurate with regards to specific tracks, just the numbers of them).

My "data"? How do you figure that a random example of potential variations that I dreamed up in less than a minute qualifies as "data"? If not 5 routes at Toscana, why not have 3, add reverses for 6 variations... Lets just throw in another 3 routes at High Fens and add reverses for 6 more variations... Add another 3 at this other unknown "Course Maker" location & add reverse for another 6... etc... It doesn't matter where I'm making this all up from (and I am just making it up) because the point is that it's easy to come up with more variations based on the locations we've seen and we've not seen all the locations yet.

Throwing out 1.21 GigaWatt type figures and suggesting these are "known trends" should not be taken seriously. Certainly not until we see some direct - official - evidence that there will be "many GT4 tracks" in GT5. When I see official confirmation of that - then I'll listen.

I'm afraid it doesn't make a lot of sense if you then note that Rally Toscana and its variations are your only rally tracks...

No, it seems obvious that Toscana is not going to be the only rallying location. The "Course Maker" shows that we'd be able to have multiple variations of High Fens, Toscana, Germany and one other that we don't know. If that really is a "scroll bar" on the right side of the Course Maker, there may be more locations that permit more variations. Again, this all makes it easier still to reach the 70+ variations from the 20+ locations.

Occam's Razor doesn't mean that the simplest solution is the correct one. But since Occam's Razor is nothing to do with simple explanations, it's not relevant for you to quote it.

Occam's razor does not state that the simplest theory is the correct theory (and I never said it was) but that it is a better theory (as in more probable / likely - which is exactly what I did state). i.e. All things being equal, the simplest theory is generally better than the rest.

Thanks!

 

[Famine]

It's less work, but that work is no more simple. Off the top of my head, here's a few points...

* All textures per location need to be updated for HD. This is a lot of effort.
* More of the "location" geometry needs to be added to any existing "GT4 track" model. The PS2 / PS1 models for tracks only model the track + track-side scenery (trees, buildings, etc) to save on unnecessary geometry. GT5 locations feature sprawling landscapes. This is very much applicable because the mandated HD draw distance & screen width in GT5 is much greater than previous SD GT's. Again, a lot of effort.
* Data to allow for the G25 to provide feedback on curbs & bumps also needs to be added in.

It's certainly less work than building a new track from scratch but it'd still take a considerable amount of time to turn a track into a location and make everything right for GT5. I would still say several months of work, maybe 6 or more depending on the size & complexity of the GT4 track.

Nevertheless, it skips out the first step - laser-scan an existing race track, while it's not in use, to a resolution of better than three-quarters of an inch.

A bad French translation, etc, etc? No, sorry but that's simply not true... http://eu.gran-turismo.com/gb/news/d10595.html

The original source was the Japanese site, then translated into French by a French gaming site. "Locations" and "Variations" has since become fact without anyone really understanding what's meant by either term.

The original Japanese was, in fact, much clearer. More than twenty existing tracks. More than sixty (as it was at the time) tracks which have been created (they used the equivalent of the words "laid out").

It is mystic

It's mathematical.

I don't perceive any benefit nor put any faith in performing calculations on the number of alternate configurations / ways to drive GT4 tracks or required location / variation combinations to achieve the same ratios in GT5. It proves nothing about GT5 and isn't based on what we've seen, which is all we have to go on. The only values that count (regarding courses to drive on) is that the number of locations is stated as being over 20 and the number of variations is stated as being over 70.

I'm sure you don't, but that's because the solutions don't agree with what you think will occur.

At present we know of 16 tracks in GT5. At present we know that they support 27 different configurations. At present we know that they support, including reverse tracks, 33 different ways of driving on them.

GT5: 1.69 alternate configurations; 2.06 ways to drive on it

If we look back to the previous game, we know it had 34 tracks in total (including El Capitan and Cathedral Rocks as the same track). We know all the configurations (53) and reverse tracks (83) already.

GT4: 1.56 alternate configurations; 2.44 ways to drive on it.

If we check out Shirakawa's postulation, we see 46 tracks in total, with 69 different configurations and 109 ways of driving including reverse tracks.

GT5 postulated 1: 1.5 alternate configurations; 2.37 ways to drive on it

If we look at yours we see a maximum of 24 tracks and 70 configurations/different ways to drive on them.

GT5 postulated 2: 2.91 alternate configurations; 2.91 ways to drive on it.

Compared to what we have observed already from GT5:

GT4 has 8% fewer alternate configurations and 18% more ways to drive.
Shirakawa's GT5 theory has 13% fewer alternate configurations and 15% more ways to drive.
Your GT5 theory has 72% more alternate configurations and 41% more ways to drive.

Your theory is the one of the two available that least fits known trends - being the numbers of alternate and different tracks currently associated with GT5.

Known trends? How do you figure that PS1 and / or PS2 standard definition tracks should become a "known trend" for a high definition PS3 implementation? Seriously, this is all conjecture - there is no evidence to support that there are any "trends" at all.

GT2 had way more cars than GT. How is that some sort of mathematical "trend"? The jump from SD to HD is far more onerous work, I would expect a decline!

I haven't got a clue what you're talking about. The maths merely says that the numbers of alternates Shirakawa is talking about fit what we already know about GT5 better than the numbers of alternates you are talking about.

Known trends - 1.69 alternate configurations, 2.06 ways to drive them. Shirakawa is 13%/15% different to that, you are 72%/41% different to that.

Several "tracks" could be made out of such locations & if you also include reverse then it's not a different "track" but just another "variation". Basically, until I see evidence of "many more GT4 tracks", I'll remain unconvinced about any other suggestions.

Who's talking about GT4 tracks?

My "data"? How do you figure that a random example of potential variations that I dreamed up in less than a minute qualifies as "data"?

You made up numbers and put them forward. Numbers = data.

Certainly not until we see some direct - official - evidence that there will be "many GT4 tracks" in GT5. When I see official confirmation of that - then I'll listen.

Again, who's talking about GT4 tracks?

No, it seems obvious that Toscana is not going to be the only rallying location. The "Course Maker" shows that we'd be able to have multiple variations of High Fens, Toscana, Germany and one other that we don't know. If that really is a "scroll bar" on the right side of the Course Maker, there may be more locations that permit more variations. Again, this all makes it easier still to reach the 70+ variations from the 20+ locations.

The Course Maker allows for the generation of a near infinite number of tracks - what does this have to do with anything?

Kazunori, in his press conference, stated that the Course Maker has "four themes". That's the number he said. I'd be going with that as "direct - official - evidence".

Occam's Razor doesn't mean that the simplest solution is the correct one. But since Occam's Razor is nothing to do with simple explanations, it's not relevant for you to quote it.

Occam's razor does not state that the simplest theory is the correct theory (and I never said it was) but that it is a better theory (as in more probable / likely - which is exactly what I did state). i.e. All things being equal, the simplest theory is generally better than the rest.

That's what Occam's Razor is generally quoted as, but it isn't the case. Occam's Razor states that one should not needlessly multiply entities (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem).

In this instance for your 24 track/70 variation example to be right, we must assume that tracks have alternate configurations and reverse options that no-one has yet seen, that alternate configurations and reverse options must be added at three times the existing rate, that alternate configurations and reverse options will exist at twice the existing rate, that we've been shown 66% of all the tracks but only 33% of all the cars and that there's only one rally track shipped with a game with a WRC licence - and that's a fake one.

For Shirakawa's 46 track/69 variation (16 of them real) example to be right, we must only assume that there are more tracks to be added and that they have alternate configurations and reverse options at a frequency consistent with existing known frequency.

Your example requires more assumption and more needless multiplication of entities than Shirakawa's does. Although his specific inclusion of GT4 and GTPSP tracks requires that assumption to be drawn (that too is favourably looked on by the Razor, by the way - fewer entities are involved in updated old tracks than creating wholly new ones) and I don't necessarily agree with that (I know we're due one wholly new fantasy track, never before seen in Gran Turismo), his data is more consistent with existing data about GT5 specifically.


Potted summary
I'm happy for you to believe whatever you've decided to believe the final number of tracks, locations, layouts, configurations, variations, circuits and themes to be. I'm similarly happy for anyone else to believe whatever they've decided on similar fronts. With no evidence to support anything at this point, it's somewhat foolhardy to nail your colours to the mast (especially as the city of Siena may well sue you if you do) at present, but I'm not going to stop you.

However, of the currently presented theories, the one that is most apt for what we already know of GT5 is the one presented by Shirakawa Akira. It adds up mathematically and satisfies more principles of logic than any other. With that said, that doesn't mean it's the right one or will reflect any content of the final game - just that the numbers he presents are less unlikely than other alternates.

 

[magburner]

Is the TGS demonstration going to be the actual release version of GT5? I would think that it would have to be, if they plan on releasing the game at the start of November.

TGS starts on the 16th -19th September, so it doesn't leave them much time to make any final modifications, and print the discs, ship them worldwide, etc...

 

[LordVonPS3]

Nevertheless, it skips out the first step - laser-scan an existing race track, while it's not in use, to a resolution of better than three-quarters of an inch.

"Laser scanning an existing race track" can be done in a matter of days but is only useful for the road. It takes much longer to process through all the photos & reference information to create the environment around the road. In order for PD to ensure GT5 can run at 60fps on a fairly consistent basis, the graphics artists need to ensure that geometry / textures are kept within a certain budget. It's actually a tremendous amount of artwork to work through and replace. Starting over & using real life photos to create nice textures, etc, is probably a more enjoyable and preferable process yielding better overall results.

The original source was the Japanese site, then translated into French by a French gaming site. "Locations" and "Variations" has since become fact without anyone really understanding what's meant by either term. The original Japanese was, in fact, much clearer. More than twenty existing tracks. More than sixty (as it was at the time) tracks which have been created (they used the equivalent of the words "laid out").

Well for me this matter is clear. You are basing your use of the words "tracks" and "layouts" on an English translation of a French translation of the Japanese site. The thing about accepting information made available from the official English speaking site is that the correct terms and information should have been corroborated and used appropriately in the first instance.

It seems to me that the ambiguity of the language used (location / variation) should be viewed as intentional not to keep people guessing but to ensure that one way or another the minimum quotas stated may be met.

It's mathematical. You made up numbers and put them forward. Numbers = data.

Made up numbers are not "data" and mathematics based on conjecture is still conjecture. What is offered here is the worst kind of mathematics and no-one should trust to this without more evidence (i.e. confirmation of those "tracks"). I wouldn't want to offer anyone (false) hope. Just as many people "hoped" there would be interiors for all cars & PD was later forced to admit there wouldn't be and many were left disappointed (not me - I never got my hopes up & I use bumper cam anyway). No admissions will ever be required for "locations" as they'll have already made the 20+, nor are any admissions required for "variations" as they're easier to produce than "unique tracks" which would be more difficult to commit to, ergo PD did not.

I haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

What I was talking about was the fact that you're taking a PS2 game (GT4), which uses standard definition textures, standard definition models (geometry), a standard definition aspect ratio (4:3) & resolution... Everything has to be up-converted for HD. Textures & geometry have to be improved all round. The aspect ratio & resolution means you're drawing more pixels on screen - which impacts fill rate and rendering more geometry on screen again has an impact.

Who's talking about GT4 tracks? Again, who's talking about GT4 tracks? GT4 has 8% fewer alternate configurations and 18% more ways to drive.
Shirakawa's GT5 theory has 13% fewer alternate configurations and 15% more ways to drive. Your GT5 theory has 72% more alternate configurations and 41% more ways to drive.

You're the one who suggested PD would improve GT4 tracks and put them in GT5. You're the one promoting Shirakawa's list (including GT4 tracks)... I am merely going on the official news because that's all I trust and trying to see how they're going to get 70 variations from 20 odd locations. I have only stated that it's not actually 'simple' to improve GT4 tracks and get them ready for GT5.

If you're suggesting we'll see lots more GT5-quality locations (not track up-converts from GT4) then again we're back to the 2 years to make a full scale GT5 location, so again I'm doubtful.

The Course Maker allows for the generation of a near infinite number of tracks - what does this have to do with anything? Kazunori, in his press conference, stated that the Course Maker has "four themes". That's the number he said. I'd be going with that as "direct - official - evidence".

You misunderstood, but it doesn't really matter to further debate around this.

At present we know of 16 tracks in GT5. At present we know that they support 27 different configurations. At present we know that they support, including reverse tracks, 33 different ways of driving on them... Your theory is the one of the two available that least fits known trends - being the numbers of alternate and different tracks currently associated with GT5.

Again, you keep trying to rationalize some random numbers I've typed out into a theory and configuration ratio for comparison with a game released last generation! Sorry but...

Please understand I am not religiously attached to these configuration ratios the same way you are. I don't see that they should be significant when you are constantly referring back to the number of GT4 configurations to try and justify why the ratio should be the same for GT5. I don't see us driving on GT4 moderately-improved-quality tracks (akin to premium / standard cars). All we know is we're due at least another couple of locations - with multiple variations and in addition to more variations for other locations - this is what I can expect.

Seriously, let me suggest that you might like to try seeing if you could leverage on your meeting with KY a bit to see if you can nab a comment from him along the lines of whether we'll see many more GT4 tracks / locations in GT5? If you are so confident in your figures about unique tracks (not variations - and reverses on top) then you could just try asking?

For me this is not a you said, he said thing... We can all believe what we will, I prefer to go on official information or words spoken from KY. I'm not inclined to trust interpretations - of which there may be many & there have been many. Until the day we get some confirmation that there'll be many more locations / tracks that aren't just variations of Rome / Madrid / London / Tokyo / Toscana, etc, then there's really nothing much more to get excited about... Thanks.

That's what Occam's Razor is generally quoted as, but it isn't the case. Occam's Razor states that one should not needlessly multiply entities (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem).

Thanks...

Potted summary
I'm happy for you to believe whatever you've decided to believe the final number of tracks, locations, layouts, configurations, variations, circuits and themes to be. I'm similarly happy for anyone else to believe whatever they've decided on similar fronts. With no evidence to support anything at this point, it's somewhat foolhardy to nail your colours to the mast (especially as the city of Siena may well sue you if you do) at present, but I'm not going to stop you.

However, of the currently presented theories, the one that is most apt for what we already know of GT5 is the one presented by Shirakawa Akira. It adds up mathematically and satisfies more principles of logic than any other. With that said, that doesn't mean it's the right one or will reflect any content of the final game - just that the numbers he presents are less unlikely than other alternates.

I don't think there's any case for being happy or unhappy or anything about someone else's view on this? It's a simple debate really.

I don't think there's any "however" in it... More than 20 locations means that if we're around 19 or so, there won't be much more scope for more thus indicating - to me - that we'll need to have many more layouts and reverses to make 70 variations.

I'd be interested to know what your view is on the term "location" and how you ratify that. By country + region at a guess?

it is good that we don't have too much longer to wait and the information we do have at least offers a better idea over what to expect - tracks aside. The one thing I will say about my viewpoint is that I'm only at worst going to have my expectations met. Anything more will be a nice surprise. Better that than disappointment after false hope. Again - thanks. 👍

 

[Famine]

"Laser scanning an existing race track" can be done in a matter of days but is only useful for the road.

And yet it's still an extra step missing from the "gussy up existing track" method.

Well for me this matter is clear. You are basing your use of the words "tracks" and "layouts" on an English translation of a French translation of the Japanese site.

Nope. I'm basing PD's use of the words "circuits" and "lay outs" on my own translation of their original press release.

The thing about accepting information made available from the official English speaking site is that the correct terms and information should have been corroborated and used appropriately in the first instance.

It seems to me that the ambiguity of the language used (location / variation) should be viewed as intentional not to keep people guessing but to ensure that one way or another the minimum quotas stated may be met.

To an extent I agree - they have seized upon the mistranslation and deliberately run with it to preserve the mystery.

Made up numbers are not "data" and mathematics based on conjecture is still conjecture.

You presented those numbers to support your supposition of how many tracks we could expect to yet see. They are, thus, data.

If you no longer stand by those numbers, please present some new ones to support your supposition.

What is offered here is the worst kind of mathematics

There is nothing wrong with the maths. I've even offered all the supporting data. For your numbers to be wholly right requires an unprecedented level of alternate layouts based on each track. For Shirakawa's to does not.

What I was talking about was the fact that you're taking a PS2 game (GT4), which uses standard definition textures, standard definition models (geometry), a standard definition aspect ratio (4:3) & resolution... Everything has to be up-converted for HD. Textures & geometry have to be improved all round. The aspect ratio & resolution means you're drawing more pixels on screen - which impacts fill rate and rendering more geometry on screen again has an impact.

None of which is particularly relevant. They have the models on file already. This is a step ahead of having to go out and collect the models.

You're the one who suggested PD would improve GT4 tracks and put them in GT5. You're the one promoting Shirakawa's list (including GT4 tracks)... I am merely going on the official news because that's all I trust and trying to see how they're going to get 70 variations from 20 odd locations. I have only stated that it's not actually 'simple' to improve GT4 tracks and get them ready for GT5.

I'm supporting Shirakawa's numbers because they make sense mathematically and logically and have precedent. I have said nothing about his accuracy with regards to the exact tracks - except to say that I doubt we'll see all of GT4 and GTPSP's tracks in GT5.

If you're suggesting we'll see lots more GT5-quality locations (not track up-converts from GT4) then again we're back to the 2 years to make a full scale GT5 location, so again I'm doubtful.

We know we're due at least one of those.

Again, you keep trying to rationalize some random numbers I've typed out into a theory and configuration ratio for comparison with a game released last generation! Sorry but...

Not at all. I'm including GT4's numbers as an example of precedent. Ignore them if you wish - your numbers are still three times higher than what we have observed in GT5 so far.

GT5: 1.69 alternate configurations; 2.06 ways to drive on it
GT5 postulated 1: 1.5 alternate configurations; 2.37 ways to drive on it
GT5 postulated 2: 2.91 alternate configurations; 2.91 ways to drive on it.

Your numbers require an addition of configurations at three times the rate observed in GT5 so far. If you dislike those numbers, please come up with some new ones.

Please understand I am not religiously attached to these configuration ratios the same way you are.

Religion doesn't come into it - one glance at the Opinions forum should fill you in on that one. Maths and logic does though. Your numbers require an addition of configurations at three times the rate observed in GT5 so far. If you dislike those numbers, please come up with some new ones.

I don't see that they should be significant when you are constantly referring back to the number of GT4 configurations to try and justify why the ratio should be the same for GT5. I don't see us driving on GT4 moderately-improved-quality tracks (akin to premium / standard cars). All we know is we're due at least another couple of locations - with multiple variations and in addition to more variations for other locations - this is what I can expect.

For the "couple of locations" to represent the entirety of the finished game requires an addition of configurations at three times the rate observed in GT5 so far. This is not consistent with the existing data.

Seriously, let me suggest that you might like to try seeing if you could leverage on your meeting with KY a bit to see if you can nab a comment from him along the lines of whether we'll see many more GT4 tracks / locations in GT5? If you are so confident in your figures about unique tracks (not variations - and reverses on top) then you could just try asking?

Kazunori's answer to "How many unique tracks are there in GT5?" was "If you count them individually, more than seventy.". These, thus, are not my figures about unique tracks.

I don't know how many tracks remaining to be added are real, updated GT4 tracks or wholly new GT5 tracks except that Kazunori didn't want to reveal his favourite fake track because he might give away a new track before he'd intended to. I'd speculate also that if Deep Forest is his favourite, we'll probably see that too.

For me this is not a you said, he said thing... We can all believe what we will

I'm not offering belief. I'm offering an impartial, mathematical, logical judgement on figures presented.

I don't think there's any case for being happy or unhappy or anything about someone else's view on this? It's a simple debate really.

I don't think there's any "however" in it... More than 20 locations means that if we're around 19 or so, there won't be much more scope for more thus indicating - to me - that we'll need to have many more layouts and reverses to make 70 variations.

Yes - at an unprecedented rate. Even GT1 - 8 locations, 11 forward tracks, 10 reverse tracks, 21 in total - didn't have the rate of variations-per-track you propose.

I'd be interested to know what your view is on the term "location" and how you ratify that. By country + region at a guess?

I disregard it - the original Japanese said "more than 20 circuits" and "more than 60 layouts", circuit being an existing course and layout being one created by them.

That's 20 tracks which exist in reality and 60 which don't (including fake tracks on real roads).

How true this is - bearing in mind the page was pulled almost instantly, leaving only a twice-translated mush behind - cannot be said. Maybe it was pulled because it was inadvertant, maybe because it was untrue.

The one thing I will say about my viewpoint is that I'm only at worst going to have my expectations met. Anything more will be a nice surprise. Better that than disappointment after false hope. Again - thanks. 👍

I prefer reality to either.

 

[opelgt1969]

I love Math but sometimes they are too many letters involved
3x(4y +3x)-[5(12x-33y)]=I'm getting too old to care.

 

[Famine]

Well, in other news, I think I may have uncovered the identity of Translator-san.

Don't know what to do with it though - I'm not sure people can take having both The Stig and Translator-san unmasked in one day.

 

[FishforRent]

I love Math but sometimes they are too many letters involved
3x(4y +3x)-[5(12x-33y)]=I'm getting too old to care.

Well, in other news, I think I may have uncovered the identity of Translator-san.

Don't know what to do with it though - I'm not sure people can take having both The Stig and Translator-san unmasked in one day.

You got his identity out of that equation!!! Damn, maths are good.

 

[analog]

Well, in other news, I think I may have uncovered the identity of Translator-san.

Don't know what to do with it though - I'm not sure people can take having both The Stig and Translator-san unmasked in one day.

I'll say leave it as a myth, although not quite in the same league of myth I already have a hard time coming to grips with a certain person's true identity simply being a bloke called Andrew something wearing shorts.
Please respect the dignity of Translator-san.

 

[grog]

I'll say leave it as a myth, although not quite in the same league of myth I already have a hard time coming to grips with a certain person's true identity simply being a bloke called Andrew something wearing shorts.
Please respect the dignity of Translator-san.

I agree, leave it be.

Here's a couple links to un-edited version of the gamescon coverage (ISR GTplanet collaboration):
Post Kazunori Yamauchi Interview - Gamescom 2010 un-edited http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkLoOM4cHHw

GT5 - Post Breakout Session un-edited http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWt-iPxCW9g

 

[TouringDevotee]

Well, in other news, I think I may have uncovered the identity of Translator-san.

Don't know what to do with it though - I'm not sure people can take having both The Stig and Translator-san unmasked in one day.

This feels very Scooby-Doo. "Zoinks!"

 

[CodeRedR51]

Anyone know if a best buy store might let you transfer the demo to a usb thumb drive?

 

[patriotzero]

Anyone know if a best buy store might let you transfer the demo to a usb thumb drive?

You cant transfer the demo..You need to back up. What!! I will try to back up to USB. Thanks for the help.

 

[rofajole]

Anyone know if a best buy store might let you transfer the demo to a usb thumb drive?

I would guess the console would be locked in a plastic case or something like that so that people don't touch the console itself. And even if the console is open, I would guess the file would be impossible to copy, sort of like some saved games that can't be copied to USB's either...

But you can always try 👍

 

[Piotrov]

yea i remember seeing a vid were someone exited the demo into the playstation menu and the file in there was marked as corrupt. Im sure they have safety features to prevent anyone messing with it... Probably not the first one to think of that

 

[FoolKiller]

It seems to me that the ambiguity of the language used (location / variation) should be viewed as intentional not to keep people guessing but to ensure that one way or another the minimum quotas stated may be met.

How is this for being less ambiguous?

On the Official US PlayStation Blog they posted an interview with Kazunori Yamauchi shortly after E3.
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2010/06/18/a-chat-with-kazunori-yamauchi-creator-of-gran-turismo/

In the comments someone asked the question:

Blkant | June 18th, 2010 at 9:38 am

How many maps will there actually be? I mean if they have spent all their time on 1000 cars, it doesn’t’ amount to anything if you only have a handful of tracks to use them on…

And then Jeff Rubenstein, SCEA's Social Media Manager responded with:

Jeff Rubenstein | June 18th, 2010 at 9:56 am

More than 40 tracks with over 100 layouts (including all versions of Nurburgring – which nobody’s ever done before). That enough for you?

I may be in for disappointment, but I have been thinking this might be closer to the correct numbers ever since.

 

[opelgt1969]

I would guess the console would be locked in a plastic case or something like that so that people don't touch the console itself. And even if the console is open, I would guess the file would be impossible to copy, sort of like some saved games that can't be copied to USB's either...

But you can always try 👍

Step 1: Big Big Coat (don't worry no one will think anything)
Step 2: Saw
Step 3: See what PS3 they have in case
Step 4: Remove a PS3 from store box
Step 5: Cut hole in display case swap PS3"s
Step 6: Run real fast
Step 7: Call friend to come get you out of JAIL!

 

[alucard0712]

Step 1: Big Big Coat (don't worry no one will think anything)
Step 2: Saw
Step 3: See what PS3 they have in case
Step 4: Remove a PS3 from store box
Step 5: Cut hole in display case swap PS3"s
Step 6: Run real fast
Step 7: Call friend to come get you out of JAIL!

And always remember - it's not a crime...You helping people!

 

[hardvibes]

If Jeff Rubenstein is wrong he should be fired. He multiplied the number of tracks by 2 and the number of layouts by 1,4. Come on...he is THE Social Media Manager of SCEA

 

[Tapey]

Didn't some of the GTP guys ask Kazunori himself at Gamescom, and he said that there are over 70 unique tracks, not including variations/reverse versions? I'm curious as to why people are still debating the track issue when I thought it had been cleared up once and for all? I mean it seems he made it a point to stress that the number was for unique tracks, and even went to state that his number didn't include variations either so what's the deal?

 

[whatbrown]

Step 1: Big Big Coat (don't worry no one will think anything)
Step 2: Saw
Step 3: See what PS3 they have in case
Step 4: Remove a PS3 from store box
Step 5: Cut hole in display case swap PS3"s
Step 6: Run real fast
Step 7: Call friend to come get you out of JAIL!

Sounds easy enough. Seriously though, I will be going to the Clackamas, OR store in about an hour to get the scoop. I will have the trusty iPhone 4 for some decent photos and HD video hopefully.

 

[opelgt1969]

Sounds easy enough. Seriously though, I will be going to the Clackamas, OR store in about an hour to get the scoop. I will have the trusty iPhone 4 for some decent photos and HD video hopefully.

Here's your list
1: Copy of your local newspaper so date can be seen
2: Some one to take your picture in front of the PS3 display
3: Big smile on your face to put in here:https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13344

 

[whatbrown]

Here's your list
1: Copy of your local newspaper so date can be seen
2: Some one to take your picture in front of the PS3 display
3: Big smile on your face to put in here:https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13344

I will do my best. I have no reason to lie to anyone and I am actually a little skeptical myself. It is only about a 15 minute drive though, so what the heck?

 

[Famine]

Didn't some of the GTP guys ask Kazunori himself at Gamescom

Yes, that was me.

and he said that there are over 70 unique tracks, not including variations/reverse versions? I'm curious as to why people are still debating the track issue when I thought it had been cleared up once and for all? I mean it seems he made it a point to stress that the number was for unique tracks, and even went to state that his number didn't include variations either so what's the deal?

Yes he did.

 

[happycorey]

I was talking miata-wise meets . Small ones where only us gather

Hahaha, I should've known, you guys are a little different

 

[mr_VOLCANO]

Didn't some of the GTP guys ask Kazunori himself at Gamescom, and he said that there are over 70 unique tracks, not including variations/reverse versions? I'm curious as to why people are still debating the track issue when I thought it had been cleared up once and for all? I mean it seems he made it a point to stress that the number was for unique tracks, and even went to state that his number didn't include variations either so what's the deal?

Im not suprised...thats how it has bin on GTP as long as I have bin member. Even when a thing is confirmed the debate goes on at GTP...
In danger of insulting someone I will say that someone who think gt5 will have only 20 uniqe tracks dont know the history of GT or KAZ.

And BTW, great job at gamescom Famine! You got to meet the man himself, so envious!

 

[opelgt1969]

Copy /pasted this from other site I wasn't the one to confirm this when I copy/pasted I didn't notice that I didn't get the users name in it was from Vermonster from this page:

http://boardsus.playstation.com/t5/...-Cars-5-Tracks-24-Nascar/m-p/46133374#M469439



Pixelated


Posts: 371
Registered: 11-24-2008

Report Inappropriate Content



Re: GT5 New Demo at BestBuy. 15 Cars, 5 Tracks, #24 Nascar

[ New ]



Options

• <LI sizcache="92" sizset="203">Mark as New <LI sizcache="92" sizset="204">Bookmark <LI sizcache="92" sizset="205">Subscribe
• <LI sizcache="92" sizset="206">Subscribe to RSS Feed
• <LI sizcache="92" sizset="207">Highlight <LI sizcache="92" sizset="208">Print <LI sizcache="92" sizset="209">Email to a Friend
• Report Inappropriate Content

09-02-2010 02:12 PM
Message 88 of 88 (11 Views)

2




We all owe a big THANK YOU to Oldschool27 for this find.

He was in fact correct. The Best Buy in Clackamas, OR has a working, PLAYABLE demo.

It has 2 modes. Time trial or Arcade mode
arcade mode has 3 levels of difficulty- A ,B, C

5 tracks are available
1. Rome
2. Toscano
3. Indy Super Speedway
4. The RING Nordscheif (sp)
5. Tokoyo R 246

11 cars are available.
1. Merceds Benz SLS AMG
2. Corvette Stingray '69
3. Enzo Ferrari
4. GT Citroen
5. Ferrari 458 Italia
6. Lambo Gallardo
7. Audi R8
8. #24 Jeff Gordon Dupont Chevy
9. Nissan Motul Autech GTR (super GT)
The last 2 cars are available to use in rally
10. Nissan GTR V Spec
11. Citroen C4 WRC

I had a lengthy conversation with the stores manager. He said Sony sent it to them and they just set it up. I think I may have really scared the guy. He left me to go search to see if he was under any gag order. He was not fond of the idea of hundreds of people comming in just to play a demo. I told him to stock up on steering wheels and enjoy the next 2 months.

I am down loading the 3 pictures I was able to take. The manager was very addament about not filming in his store. They are of the TT screen, the arcade screen and home screen.

The physics are going to be familiar to those who did the Indy time trials. They are a step up in difficulty for sure. The graphics are nothing short of spectacular. The demo was set up for controller use and the left stick didn't work so I was forced into using the D-pad.

I'm not sure if my photo's will be any better than Oldschool were. All I have are those 3 photo's and a half an hour playing the demo as proof of its existance. I also met Oldschool at Bst Buy. He walked me through the demo then let me at it.

Thank you Oldschool. This was a great find.

 

[alucard0712]

Big thanks man!Did you notice how recent this build is? (skidmarks,new smoke)

 

[opelgt1969]

Big thanks man!Did you notice how recent this build is? (skidmarks,new smoke)

Reread post I made I edited it to give credit.

 

[LordVonPS3]

And yet it's still an extra step missing from the "gussy up existing track" method..... None of which is particularly relevant. They have the models on file already. This is a step ahead of having to go out and collect the models.

I have to assume you're talking about fantasy tracks here, because obviously we do have some GT4 tracks in GT5 already (Suzuka, Nurburgring, Tokyo R246, etc). Gussying up a real location (which was also in GT4) is a bit pointless because PD could just as easily go back out there, re-scan, take new photos and get more data (gussy it up properly!). Okay, so IF there's no real road to scan then it does mean to "gussy up" a fantasy GT4 track you'd need to spend time *creating* the bump / curb feedback data for a force feedback wheel. I highly doubt that as likely for GT5 except for maybe 1 or 2 special cases.

It seems to me that the ambiguity of the language used (location / variation) should be viewed as intentional not to keep people guessing but to ensure that one way or another the minimum quotas stated may be met.

To an extent I agree - they have seized upon the mistranslation and deliberately run with it to preserve the mystery.

Quoting Jeff Rubenstein: &#8220;More than 40 tracks with over 100 layouts (including all versions of Nurburgring &#8211; which nobody&#8217;s ever done before). That enough for you?&#8221;

Jeff's is the first semi-official (Sony - but not PD) news I've seen on this. It's a pity there's nothing written in the actual interview with KY to confirm and so again I'm curious to know where JR got those figures. What's more of interest, is what KY does state in the interview: &#8220;I have to be moved by something in one of my games so I have visited every location used in the game, either personally or for work&#8221;. Again, I'd say that limits the probability of many more fantasy tracks which again throws into doubt the track list provided by Shirakawa.

You presented those numbers to support your supposition of how many tracks we could expect to yet see. They are, thus, data. If you no longer stand by those numbers, please present some new ones to support your supposition. Your numbers require an addition of configurations at three times the rate observed in GT5 so far. If you dislike those numbers, please come up with some new ones. Religion doesn't come into it - one glance at the Opinions forum should fill you in on that one. Maths and logic does though. Your numbers require an addition of configurations at three times the rate observed in GT5 so far. If you dislike those numbers, please come up with some new ones.

No, it's not data. Anyone could come up with lots of different possibilities to come to 70 variations from 20 locations - so for me to offer real data would be to offer numbers for every possibility. I am not going to waste anyone's time offering more random numbers, because clearly you're simply not willing to accept that there may be more variations than in previous GT's and that's that... GT-PSP offers 32 locations (maybe... Depends on if I classified these in the same way PD would - maybe it's actually less), 45 "tracks" (i.e. forward variations of the same location) yielding 72 total variations (including reverse). Feel free to work out the ratio there and compare it against your other postulates if you like... The only other numbers I'm particularly interested in now is the date for TGS, where maybe we'll get some new info?

There is nothing wrong with the maths. I've even offered all the supporting data. For your numbers to be wholly right requires an unprecedented level of alternate layouts based on each track. For Shirakawa's to does not. I'm supporting Shirakawa's numbers because they make sense mathematically and logically and have precedent. I have said nothing about his accuracy with regards to the exact tracks - except to say that I doubt we'll see all of GT4 and GTPSP's tracks in GT5.

Your last sentence makes sense to me but we don't know - so it may well be an "unprecedented level". I don't support Shirokawa's track list and can't very well support his numbers. Oh well!

We know we're due at least one of those (new GT5 locations).

Yes, definitely.

Kazunori's answer to "How many unique tracks are there in GT5?" was "If you count them individually, more than seventy.". These, thus, are not my figures about unique tracks.

Meaning 70 forward variations from the 20 locations or 70 forward + reverse locations? Interesting how that's a completely different statistic to what JR stated - several paragraphs above. Hopefully now you at least understand my position is to sit back, wait and just let GT5 happen.

I prefer reality to either.

Most definitely agreed.