GT6 News Discussion

[con360]

Isnt 175 a bit on the steep side?

Well, the actual car is £97,000 or $155,000 so I guess it's close to the actual figure.

 

[Kurei]

I'll check in to say I can't connect my console to the internets, yet I'm not dirty peasant. Now it's not his point but mine: businessmen make the products they want for themselves but forget that not everyone can afford a fast and stable connection (my parents suscribed to satellite internets, for example, because they live in the countryside; and it's even more hazardous than the wifi I use). DLC and online features aren't great for everyone.

I didn't mean it in the 'dirty-peasant' sense, honestly did not intend it, sorry if it came across that way. But you actually greatly further my point that there are people in other countries who play vanilla-releases, whether by choice or not.

So if I may @oink83...
-French GTP Member.
-Cannot connect online for patches due to circumstances out of his control.
-Furthers my previous point.

We can either keep this argument going or leave it as is.

 

[defoncateur3k]

Sorry I was unclear, I was agreeing and providing an actual instance proving that it doesn't take being a dirty peasant to see your gaming session unhinged by important updates you won't have access to.

 

[Kurei]

@defoncateur3k - Well Thank-you for the support.

 

[Streeto]

 

[SuperShouden]

I did READ your post. You said "I'm not expecting garage's to carry over", I simply confirmed that that was the case, and continued to add my opinion, that due to this being the case, I don't suspect there to be any other sort of carry-over into GT6.

Not only does one have to READ a post, but they should also COMPREHEND a post.

Why is it necessary to restate what I just said? Why not just say "I agree"?

 

[oink83]

Why is it necessary to restate what I just said? Why not just say "I agree"?

Well "I'm expecting" has somewhat a different meaning to "I know", so I was just clarifying the facts.

 

[Wiegert]

You know what would be REALLY awesome? If people would actually READ a post before commenting on it.

Does that go for yourself too? Because I think that might help given your past tendencies to give posts nothing more than a passing glance.

I already said I know the garages aren't going to carry over. I was asking more about money like with GT4. Oh my word! And then people wonder why I get all frustrated with this forum.

Nothing wrong with him "just saying", as it were. And I'm not sure why it's such an issue for you that someone decided to reiterate your post for clarity's sake.

 

[SuperShouden]

Does that go for yourself too? Because I think that might help given your past tendencies to give posts nothing more than a passing glance.



Nothing wrong with him "just saying", as it were. And I'm not sure why it's such an issue for you that someone decided to reiterate your post for clarity's sake.

Yes, because everyone knows exactly what I'm doing. I read his post. It didn't seem like he was simply agreeing with me, though. To be honest, I'm used to Slipz or someone going "SS posted this, so it must be stupid," and skimming and commented to the side of me being an idiot. Which, I can be. Sorry for overreacting though, oink.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

CFD is great as a first-step approximation. F1 teams use it for precisely this reason, although their codes are likely to be highly specialised for the kinds of flow you tend to get around an F1 car. After that, you want to take it to the wind tunnel to make sure that the physical reality matches your nasty hacks in the CFD code (which are necessary if you want the solver to converge this century).

Pretty much the point I'm trying to make with out saying it directly.

After that, you need to go to the track to make sure that other things like oscillations in suspension geometry, pitching, yawing etc. or flow that is inconsistent, blustery and turbulent before it even hits the car etc., don't totally destroy the finely tuned flow you got with the perfectly static car in the perfectly stratified windtunnel flow (you can test angle of attack etc., but you'd need a rig to move the car as it would do in a race, otherwise you only get partially-relevant steady-state data).

yes I'm aware of all that.

The thing is, CFD is able to predict these effects (if you include the relevant calculations), just not their absolute magnitude to any real accuracy (for F1). But what sort of accuracy are we talking, for a validated CFD code? 20%, 10%, 5%, 1%? What's the threshold for a game? Probably nowhere near what it is for an F1 outfit, or any engineering work, in fact.

Well surely they used it in line with the GT3 car so there is your starting point. Perhaps certain manufactures also gave them insight?

The fact is, not only do PD have windtunnel validation for a known car, they also have on-track validation for that same car. Kaz said they took what F1 teams do with aero development to heart, and I expect their hanging around Red Bull Racing and Adrian Newey, or even the Schulze guys, wasn't all colouring books and cross-promotion.

Not sure who implied they were, but usually when you want to draw people in with how well aero works even those not privy to it you use key words like wind tunnel. However, the lack of it made me wonder if a Nick Wirth was pulled. Hey but who knows for the scale PD are on, maybe a Nick Wirth move is all that is needed.

The main thing that will come out of this is an aero model that reacts to varying yaw and pitch relative to the air flow (probably via lookup tables for aero forces and where they act, there's no way it's solving air flow in real time!), which is a rarity in itself. The relative sensitivities of different body shapes and aero devices may need careful attention, but even if it's the same for all cars (and parts / modifications added to cars), it'd be an improvement over what we already had.

Well we don't know if it is an improvement yet since we haven't been able to see how it work in any great detail.

 

[oink83]

Yes, because everyone knows exactly what I'm doing. I read his post. It didn't seem like he was simply agreeing with me, though. To be honest, I'm used to Slipz or someone going "SS posted this, so it must be stupid," and skimming and commented to the side of me being an idiot. Which, I can be. Sorry for overreacting though, oink.

No problem, apologies for not being very clear with my point.

 

[SuperShouden]

No problem, apologies for not being very clear with my point.

It's all good. Hope to see you in a little under a month.

 

[JohnBM01]

Let me just make a quick point from a past post. To be honest, I never liked having carry-over material as far as my GT career is concerned. Every GT is a new experience, so rarely do I care or want to have my experience carried over into a newer GT. I prefer to start clean with each new GT. It adds to the challenge and what it takes to go from GT nobody to GT somebody.

 

[sk8er913]

Let me just make a quick point from a past post. To be honest, I never liked having carry-over material as far as my GT career is concerned. Every GT is a new experience, so rarely do I care or want to have my experience carried over into a newer GT. I prefer to start clean with each new GT. It adds to the challenge and what it takes to go from GT nobody to GT somebody.

I want to start out with nothing. 70 hp Japanese car.

 

[another_jakhole]

I want to start out with nothing. 70 hp Japanese car.

Same, but I really want those anniversary cars. I'd like to have them for sentimental reasons.

 

[sk8er913]

Same, but I really want those anniversary cars. I'd like to have them for sentimental reasons.

I got 10$ off from newegg so i am happy

 

[dmcallis]

You've know what you wanted for a while, but that doesn't mean everybody else did as well.
PD still has close to 2 weeks to give us info to stay ahead of T10's releases.

I still say the next big release of info on GT6 will coincide with the release of F5. PD/Sony does love to take some of the wind out of MS's sails with things like that.

 

[Griffith500]

Pretty much the point I'm trying to make with out saying it directly.

yes I'm aware of all that.

Well surely they used it in line with the GT3 car so there is your starting point. Perhaps certain manufactures also gave them insight?

Not sure who implied they were, but usually when you want to draw people in with how well aero works even those not privy to it you use key words like wind tunnel. However, the lack of it made me wonder if a Nick Wirth was pulled. Hey but who knows for the scale PD are on, maybe a Nick Wirth move is all that is needed.

Well we don't know if it is an improvement yet since we haven't been able to see how it work in any great detail.

The Virgin cars were less than 7% slower than the fastest car in qualifying on most occasions. It's unlikely that difference is entirely attributable to the use of CFD, as well. I don't know anything about the politics behind the team, and don't really care, either, because this isn't a political issue - it's a technical one.

Which brings us to windtunnels. They are a practical necessity, allowing probing of airflow over a real (often scaled, which affects the relative turbulence scale) model without having to fly next to an experimental aircraft at speed and altitude. In reality, most engineers would prefer to be able to do the latter - it's just not practical, if even possible.

For cars, windtunnels are less ideal, because cars don't sit still relative to the free stream quite as well as a (well-designed) aircraft, and then there's the ground effect and the spinning wheels. There is no real way to test for oscillating ride-height, pitch, yaw and roll in a windtunnel, at least there aren't many with the required rigs (and it wouldn't be perfect then, but probably close).


What matters more is on-track measurements. You can be sure that they had sensors on the suspension, and accelerometers for general datalogging at the various N24 races they've attended anyway. They could tie that data into the aero model and "replay" a real lap in their physics engine and see what happens, dynamically speaking (lap times are unimportant, because tyre model).

This is why F1 teams have been confident with windtunnel testing, brought aero packages to races and ... it's delivered nothing. The fine-tuning possible in a windtunnel doesn't exist in the real world, since the car and airflow are not idealised on the circuit like they are in the windtunnel. But that's usually just for those last few percent of raw performance; however, traditional windtunnels can sometimes fail to predict entire phenomena that are catastrophic for aircraft, so...

Ironically, this non-ideality is often easier to predict (to a given accuracy, following validation) using CFD. The numbers that come from manufacturers are likely to be for steady-state, smooth, straight-line driving, and that's not what the game needs. For the numbers that PD needs, it's likely the manufacturers would resort to CFD themselves. When every manufacturer is likely to use their own code with their own focus ( / massaging...), then it's better that PD use the same testing method for all cars, i.e. they make their own.


No, we don't know how good it is yet, but there's no reason to think it'll be rubbish just because they haven't put every car in a windtunnel, when that's not even the best way to test them anyway. My fear is how it'll tie in with PD's weird breakdancing free-body physics (the interplay of suspension and aero forces and the centres of gravity and pressure is important; but the CoG looks strange in GT5), unless they've fixed that.

 

[eSZee]

I still say the next big release of info on GT6 will coincide with the release of F5. PD/Sony does love to take some of the wind out of MS's sails with things like that.

How would a last gen driving game on a different console steal ANY thunder from FM5?
Not a single thing PD has done or announced or promised about GT6 had any impact on my FM5 buying decision.
Having said that, I agree. PD will probably try to do that and when they do, I'll be asking myself, WHY?

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

Let me just make a quick point from a past post. To be honest, I never liked having carry-over material as far as my GT career is concerned. Every GT is a new experience, so rarely do I care or want to have my experience carried over into a newer GT. I prefer to start clean with each new GT. It adds to the challenge and what it takes to go from GT nobody to GT somebody.

I feel sort of the same way about carrying over data. When I tried tranfering CR over to GT4 for the first time, it was fun, but for only a little bit. It took away the challenging bit that I liked about each GT's career mode in the first place; working my way up starting with a slow car and winning a few races before I could buy the power houses.

 

[JohnScoonsBeard]

How would a last gen driving game on a different console steal ANY thunder from FM5?
Not a single thing PD has done or announced or promised about GT6 had any impact on my FM5 buying decision.
Having said that, I agree. PD will probably try to do that and when they do, I'll be asking myself, WHY?

It's not as simple as that.

Some people might be considering getting a xbone with Forza 5 or buying GT6. They are rival releases to some people even if not to yourself. Therefore thunder can be stolen.

 

[Magic Ayrton]

How would a last gen driving game on a different console steal ANY thunder from FM5?
Not a single thing PD has done or announced or promised about GT6 had any impact on my FM5 buying decision.
Having said that, I agree. PD will probably try to do that and when they do, I'll be asking myself, WHY?

Easy.. a second hand PS3 with GT6 is a damn site cheaper than an Xbone with FM5..

 

[Tenacious D]

I feel sort of the same way about carrying over data. When I tried tranfering CR over to GT4 for the first time, it was fun, but for only a little bit. It took away the challenging bit that I liked about each GT's career mode in the first place; working my way up starting with a slow car and winning a few races before I could buy the power houses.

I did the money boost in GT4 too, but I didn't take advantage of it, at least in the sense of using it to make my first car a racing monster of doom. Rather, I knew that there would be used cars that I'd love to have, and I could only afford a handful of those rides I really wanted. Fortunately, the car list recycled them soon enough, and I ended up with several hundred.

People have an information addiction. The internet is partially to blame. These days there is no such thing as surprises in a game. Its all "need to know" now a days.

I hear ya. I must be one of those rare weirdos who loves surprises. I mentioned previously that I read just enough of a book overview to know whether or not I'll like the premise, watch only so much of movie trailers and all that. I don't WANT to know most of what I'm getting. I like playing a game like it's a new world to explore and experience. I have avoided anything here at GT Planet that smells spoilerific, such as the car and track blowout news. I'm really baffled by those people who liked how we knew almost everything about GT5, and want the same thing for GT6. Unfortunately, the family kind of disintegrated and I'm getting my own Christmas presents for the most part, and I'm not thrilled knowing what I'm buying myself. GT6 is going to be an early Christmas present, kind of like a present from The Man himself, that I'm looking forward to simply because so much of it, I won't have a clue about.

Your guys' curiosity may vary.

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

I kinda wished I knew more about the career mode event system. The novice league or whatever it was called seemed very low on events. Although, there were a lot of time trial events for the goodwood hillclimb part of the special events alone. Maybe there will be a pyramid style of the difficulty events or something.

Another small detail I don't get is how PD managed to screw up the Dodge manufacture. Ram is a manufacture now, but the Ram in the game was made when Ram was part of dodge, the same with the GT5 cars under SRT. The 2011 Charger should also be a dodge still.

 

[Lawndart]

Now, I've noticed that Gran Turismo 6's and Forza Motorsport 5's graphics look stagering. I mean, when at their best; they're spectacular. It just feels like yesterday when I was 4 years old and playing GT1 and I thought it was the best thing ever and now look how far racing games have come. Anyway, the question I have based on this is that is it possible for the realism at least graphical wise to finally peak this generation?

Gt6 has a far superior graphics engine to Forza 5. The real time lighting and absence of static shadows on cars to compensate for a dated lighting model is impressive.

Mind you, I'm a fan of forza 4, but their lighting is way off and aesthetics are mostly about lighting these days as that's what pulls forward the detail when things are in motion.

Forza is simply adding on top of their current renderer and higher res textures, but until they fix the lighting it will always look off... And yet gt6 is claiming 50% more dynamic contrast (nice!).

 

[RandomCarGuy17]

Gt6 has a far superior graphics engine to Forza 5. The real time lighting and absence of static shadows on cars to compensate for a dated lighting model is impressive.

Mind you, I'm a fan of forza 4, but their lighting is way off and aesthetics are mostly about lighting these days as that's what pulls forward the detail when things are in motion.

Forza is simply adding on top of their current renderer and higher res textures, but until they fix the lighting it will always look off... And yet gt6 is claiming 50% more dynamic contrast (nice!).

Um, alright; that's awesome and all, but that doesn't answer the question I was asking. Which was "is it possible for realism at least graphical wise to finally peak this generation (PS4/xbox one)?"

 

[Lawndart]

Um, alright; that's awesome and all, but that doesn't answer the question I was asking. Which was "is it possible for realism at least graphical wise to finally peak this generation (PS4/xbox one)?"

No, not yet. It will peak out on current (software) tech, then 1.5-2 years of newer tech being developed... There really is no end to optimization as GT 6 is somewhat demonstrating. They said the same thing about GT 5 tapping the ps3 fully... And it likely did at the time.

GTA IV couldn't have been done in the first year of last gen.

PC is a whole different deal so I'm referring to proprietary hardware only, ie consoles.

 

[wowbaggerBR]

Gt6 has a far superior graphics engine to Forza 5. The real time lighting and absence of static shadows on cars to compensate for a dated lighting model is impressive.

Mind you, I'm a fan of forza 4, but their lighting is way off and aesthetics are mostly about lighting these days as that's what pulls forward the detail when things are in motion.

Forza is simply adding on top of their current renderer and higher res textures, but until they fix the lighting it will always look off... And yet gt6 is claiming 50% more dynamic contrast (nice!).

Hum... have you seen this video? Look at the details. GT6 will get very close to this, but better?

Anyway, what PD have done is staggering: such achivement in a ancient piece of hardware.

(Strangely, the car sounds nowhere near to the real car, but graphically amazing).

 

[Griffith500]

I'm guessing the sound is work in progress.

 

[Lawndart]

Hum... have you seen this video? Look at the details. GT6 will get very close to this, but better?

Anyway, what PD have done is staggering: such achivement in a ancient piece of hardware.

(Strangely, the car sounds nowhere near to the real car, but graphically amazing).

Great vid, and likely the best one I've seen for forza. Forza has the memory for higher res textures and more static shadows (compensating)...

Great point about the age of the ps3... It's nearly 8 years old... For context, we all had top of the line flip phones back then...