- 1,928
- San Bernardino, California
- Gerarghini
- Gerarghini
GT6 News Discussion
- Thread starter Matty
- 8,352 comments
- 837,209 views
- Status
- 58
- Rio de Janeiro
- FGBraz87
- fgbraz87
They're quite the same on Motegi, believe me.
Actually they tried to improve the AI since the 1.06 and 1.10 updates, but never reached a challenging level neither corrected the Côte D'Azur stupidity where AI (specially your B-spec driver) will hit the chicane's left wall every time he overtakes someone after the tunnel.
- 3,675
- PNW
- cowabungacorey
I know Jordan is going to get a good interview in with Kaz, and I think it's pretty much standard at this point for Jordan to attend almost all major GT events.. But I think the best part is he is like our representative. Not really whiny or needy but he knows the right questions to ask and how to try and clarify the vague things that they announce. Glad to see GT going as far as it has to become this, but I just wonder how much PD is keeping tabs on us for ideas otherwise
- 409
dr_slump
Premium
- 7,425
- Switzerland
- the_dr_slump / GTP_dr_slump
Could be the C7 Test Prototype.
- 4,552
- Australia
- 409
- 24,462
- United States
- GTP_Jordan
- GTP_Jordan
Thanks, I'm glad you like my interviews.
Unfortunately (or, perhaps, fortunately), Kazunori did not come to the Willow Springs event or SEMA this year (for the first time ever, I believe) in order to stay in Japan and work on finishing GT6. I talked quite a bit with the SCEA folks, but there was no formal interview session this year.
- 333
- New York
- Bandit_Ra_X
It's really hard to say what PD keeps tabs on. There are people who do wish lists based on individual needs, while others conduct polls and feedback sections to see what the community wants, as a whole. Some cars, tracks and ideas that have been included in the series have come from these areas, while some don't. However, there are those instances that cannot be explained, such as the Lunar Roving Vehicle in GT6 and NASCAR in GT5.
NASCAR and the Lunar Roving Vehicle are not "traditional Gran Turismo." In Gran Turismo's past, there have been cars that not been "traditional," such as the Tank Car, the Model T, and the HKS drag cars from GT2. However, since these cars have not been a major focus, these cars have not been at the center of controversy as the inclusion of NASCAR and the Lunar Roving Vehicle have become. There have been many arguments, including some that have started or ended with, "PD could have chosen better cars than those." But, in an essence, this is what Gran Turismo is trying to do. It is not an encyclopedia of cars, because if that were the case, there would not be multiple versions of certain models. But, Gran Turismo is trying to expand upon the idea and the concept of the automobile, and the emotion of driving ("the human drama"). Whether GT has been successful or not in this endeavor, I am not going to judge. But there will always be room for improvement and innovation, whether it comes from us, the fans, or from PD.
Last edited:
- 3,675
- PNW
- cowabungacorey
dr_slump
Premium
- 7,425
- Switzerland
- the_dr_slump / GTP_dr_slump
Even if it isn't, it wouldn't be a big deal for PD. They'd just do their copy and paste with some minor and nearly neglectable changes.
- 13
- VegasHB
Anyone else get to drive the C7 GT6 demo at Sema? Took it for a spin today on silverstone and the tire / suspension modeling seems wonky. The C7 would go up onto 2 wheels to the point of almost "traction rolling" at a couple points especially thru maggots beckets curves. This was without clipping the curbs hard. Granted stock suspension and super soft tires were on but seemed fairly easy to almost traction roll a C7 in the demo.
- 2,993
- Brisbane
- jimipitbull
If the stars really are accurate, PD could easily make photomode a stand alone title.
Especially with Vita or smartglass remote play
Some kids growing up in the city, rarely get a good view of the night sky
Especially with Vita or smartglass remote play
Some kids growing up in the city, rarely get a good view of the night sky
- 7,369
- Houston, TX
- ryandude2448
I live in North Houston and just pretend the airplanes are shooting stars
- 3,385
- Las Vegas
- dawko-san
- 13
- VegasHB
Not sure about that but the demo let you pick super soft. When you exited with the PS3 button it came up as the gamescon demo in the interface. Only car you could play was the C7 on either Grand Valley or Silverstone from what I saw. Felt good for the most part but the feedback in the wheels were really low and it was pretty easy to bicycle the car.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Well as realistic as ever, sounded to me as if not better than Gt5 it's just as good, yes. However, the issue is that Gt5 didn't have realistic damage even when the car was beat to it's worse. Perhaps the argument could be made for the WRC cars. I said what I said due to how great the visuals in general were being applauded and called better than before.
So, just like when they tell us on the box it's the most realistic racing simulator you just take that as the absolute. The problem is that CFD, though a good tool, is that it isn't the only data yielding model that should be relied upon when coming up with even virtual aerodynamic models. Also cars jumping a hill don't mean anything when even with the pre-GT6 engine we could jump the same portion. And cars have been jumping there in real life since all the way back to the 40s maybe even earlier, that really doesn't give insight.
It comes across as such, like when a sports fan calls it "their team", even though they're just a fan.
And we're going on more tangents again to avoid the core of the debate. I actually have read and brought up questions for that that, and proved they've yet to go in depth or answer them like I've been asking from when we first started arguing. I'm clearly not the only one, the info is still vague I mean saying "read this again" doesn't change the perspective since everyone that argues the same stuff I do has read it already and if anything reading it once only pushed them to see it as vague and something that may or may not be better detailed later.
Last edited:
- 3,264
- Salt Lake City,
You exaggerate. Never saw GT claim to be "the most realistic simulator". So you came up with that one on your own. Nowhere on the site does it say the aero model is based solely on cfd either. So you added that as well. Its not just cars "jumping on a hill", it was the same aero setup in game to real life that resulted in the same behavior of the car at the same point on the track.
It doesn't matter. I never said he owned the team, just 'his own team' which goes for anyone involved.
Which I have been saying is your opinion. You think the information is vague, but no game is fully revealed in all its aspects before release. Why you expect such from GT is beyond me.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Then you haven't done your research all that well, just because you don't see something or have never heard it doesn't mean it doesn't exist but since you decided on your own without looking further into I'll show you. Read it.
From the GT website, "CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) is a tool that is fundamental today in vehicle development and motorsports. We have introduced this into the game to greatly increase the precision of aerodynamics characteristics under a variety of conditions." No where does it say that they used any other necessary tools that help further show better results and factors that go into the manipulation of aero. All they did was introduce a simulation of aero into a simulator. Also that car would have jumped like that without GT and vice versa. Before Schulze was being raced we were able to do this in GT so that example is poor and doesn't prove anything. The car took lift.
Never said you did, but from your sentence that is the understanding that was taken away or implicit. Thus you didn't have to directly say it because your syntax structure pointed to it. Also the "team he races for" or "schulze racing" since that is who it really is would have worked.
Once again we've covered this and I gave examples of developer that gave great insight into their games prior to release(which are now released) and have corresponding websites to follow suit, like GTP. If you can't remember this and want to ignore already spoken topics that you just glanced over, it only proves your are arguing around everything.[/quote][/quote]
Last edited:
- 3,264
- Salt Lake City,
Nice try. But that does NOT say simulator. It says realistic and complete racing experience.
As for your "doesn't prove anything" you're wrong. Simply put if the car replicates nearly the exact same thing from real life to video game theres a good correspondance. Adding something doesnt mean it gets to be the sole factor of what its featured for. Thats a big reason PD ran the N24 races was to gather information. Don't deny the facts. And are you really trying to argue over word structure in a sentence? Come on now. Only you need specifics. Its evidenced by your comments on me speaking of "kaz's own team" and believing or not in facts on gran-turismo.com. Your game examples mean nothing. Not every game follows the same line of advertising or content or information. You even said before GT is not the kind to give out such specifics so whats your hang up this time around?
As for your "doesn't prove anything" you're wrong. Simply put if the car replicates nearly the exact same thing from real life to video game theres a good correspondance. Adding something doesnt mean it gets to be the sole factor of what its featured for. Thats a big reason PD ran the N24 races was to gather information. Don't deny the facts. And are you really trying to argue over word structure in a sentence? Come on now. Only you need specifics. Its evidenced by your comments on me speaking of "kaz's own team" and believing or not in facts on gran-turismo.com. Your game examples mean nothing. Not every game follows the same line of advertising or content or information. You even said before GT is not the kind to give out such specifics so whats your hang up this time around?
Last edited:
- 559
- Southampton Hants UK
- magicayrton
- 541
- Santa Catarina
- rafaelfagundes
If I'm not mistaken it was said to be a large patch, so I was wondering if it could be something interesting.
- 559
- Southampton Hants UK
- magicayrton
- 541
- Santa Catarina
- rafaelfagundes
Oh God, That was exactly what I was thinking, it would be great
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
So because it lacks a word you're going to deny it due to having nothing to stand on? That meaning is implicit especially when the front of the cover says Real Driving Simulator. It's like putting 1 and 1 together to get 2, what the hell else would they be talking about, playing ignorant to avoid reality isn't a winning argument but it's all yours.
Once again, the car having lift due to a bump/quick shift in elevation has always been there, it didn't just happen because of data collected, especially when the reality has been there since GT4 which was nearly ten years ago and six years before the GTR data could have started collection. Part in bold doesn't make any sense. PD didn't run races once again, quit making PD synonymous with the Kaz's racing "career", he had been doing it way before he implemented it as much as he claims to do now days. He is a car and racing enthusiast in general and does racing outside of PD's scope, it is now utilizing data as said but this wasn't always the case.
Not trying to argue, just trying to show you where it came from and why it ended with me seeing an implicit meaning even though you didn't think there was. Just because you think you've clarified doesn't mean your writing always conveys it.
They mean nothing to you because they run counter to what you argue (my game examples), but the problem is a majority of games devs actually make an effort to let the masses know, through screen updates, websites, video diaries and so on. PD's direct competition as far as simulation and arcade racers go do the same, using the line "well not everyone is the same" is fine, but we're talking about pushing a product which is different.
I said PD doesn't give out detail thus making them vague which is asinine in today's world of information and how people learn and decide what products to obtain. Seems pretty easy to digest and understand what my issue is compared to others that are caught up with the times.
So, for you to still not understand where I'm coming from even though I explained it once again and again shows you just want to ignore and support GT through and through. Which is fine, it would probably help end this if you'd say "hey I'm a GT fanatic and I'm fine with the way PD does stuff, too bad you don't". At least then it's not an argument of well this or that, but a firm opinion that I can't sway no matter what. However, you keep getting upset when I try and place you as such though at this point anyone reading this would believe you are. You keep going this route as if to say I myself have no idea what I want, which from this thread and the several others I've posted on for the past few years show that I clearly know.
- 8,723
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).
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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
- 4,552
- Australia
That means that PD are probably considering it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
