KY Confirms GT6 In Development Already

[another_jakhole]

FYI, I'm not a tech person, but I understand what RAM is meant for.

Even so, it's hardly something I'd speak of in a positive light; the recommended VRAM for GTR2 to run it in D3D9 is 256MB, which is the same amount allocated to the RSX. The minimum is 64MB and that's to run it in D3D8.1. The recommended amount of system RAM is 1GB, with the minimal being 512MB.

The problem being is PD stuffed far too much into the game, taxing an already incredibly bottlenecked architecture and what did it in achieve? You have dynamic weather on a handful of tracks, and dynamic weather and a dynamic time cycle on two—what was the point?

Ah okay, that makes sense. Not to sound stubborn and to stick with what I've said, I think it's worth noting that GT5 is on a different level in that department. That's really the ONLY reason why I think it's "groundbreaking".


That's where I think the problem with the non-deadline for GT5 comes in. They couldn't include time change and weather for most tracks. Also, to be fair, the Course Maker tracks have them too.

This doesn't mean I don't understand that they could have included time change and weather for more tracks if there were deadlines set in place. That's more meant for the people that think I do nothing but praise GT/PD/Kaz. It's not the case as I don't feel the need to be boisterous about how bad some things are in GT5.

 

[Griffith500]

Even so, it's hardly something I'd speak of in a positive light; the recommended VRAM for GTR2 to run it in D3D9 is 256MB, which is the same amount allocated to the RSX. The minimum is 64MB and that's to run it in D3D8.1. The recommended amount of system RAM is 1GB, with the minimal being 512MB.

The problem being is PD stuffed far too much into the game, taxing an already incredibly bottlenecked architecture and what did it in achieve? You have dynamic weather on a handful of tracks, and dynamic weather and a dynamic time cycle on two—what was the point?

The systems are very different both in the way they operate and in the way they're used, hence system specs (especially when a single characteristic is relied upon) are almost entirely irrelevant. Besides, the RSX can access the system RAM too, if you schedule it properly. In fact, it absolutely must in some indirect way, since the cell's APUs are involved in graphics work, too. The minimum 64 Mb VRAM on PC will be for the lower resolutions and lowest texture quality settings (for low-end GPUs); you don't get those options on a PS3, you must design for "1080p" always. As for system memory, it's even more irrelevant, given the operating system, etc.; cf. the PS3's 256 Mb of "system" memory, and all it yet achieves. You couldn't even boost Vista on 256 Mb. Even less relevant is the version of the graphics renderer / API you happen to use; that's primarily to prevent older hardware from not working, which is again not an issue with the PS3.

What do you mean regarding the game's "bottlenecked architecture"? Did you mean the console itself? Or do you simply mean they didn't spend enough time to do all tracks to the same standard?


If we're talking about day / night cycles in and of themselves, then of course they're nothing new. It would be ridiculous to state as much.

However, it is correct to say that the way in which GT5 has implemented day / night cycles, from a technical and artistic standpoint, is absolutely ground-breaking for a racing game. It is, however, perplexing and ultimately a shame that it is confined to those few locations.

 

[Terronium-12]

You couldn't even boost Vista on 256 Mb.

With my experience, you'd be lucky to boot into Vista with the recommended specs. It was just a disaster, honestly. But that's neither here nor there. I hate Vista.

Even less relevant is the version of the graphics renderer / API you happen to use; that's primarily to prevent older hardware from not working, which is again not an issue with the PS3.

Naturally, I was only pointing it out as a reference.

What do you mean regarding the game's "bottlenecked architecture"? Did you mean the console itself? Or do you simply mean they didn't spend enough time to do all tracks to the same standard?

The console itself. There isn't enough headroom to expend any worthwhile amount of the available horsepower without running into a cap. Should you exceed the limitation you, well, end up with what GT5 brings to the table.

Compromises galore. You'll have to forgive the short, somewhat uninformative responses as I'm a bit drowsy at the moment.

If we're talking about day / night cycles in and of themselves, then of course they're nothing new. It would be ridiculous to state as much.

Oh, you'd be surprised.

However, it is correct to say that the way in which GT5 has implemented day / night cycles, from a technical and artistic standpoint, is absolutely ground-breaking for a racing game. It is, however, perplexing and ultimately a shame that it is confined to those few locations.

Absolutely, however, from a personal outlook I'm not all that impressed by it. It has nothing to do with the performance impedance, nor the venues in which the features can be utilized to the best of the game's ability. I'm not sure why it doesn't impress me as much as it does most others, yes, it's impressive in spite of everything going against it.

In all honesty, I don't know why that is. I can't put my finger on it.

---

I omitted the beginning of the discussion as I currently don't have the acuity to respond as I'd want to. Keep that in mind though when you respond, hopefully I'll be in better condition.

 

[Griffith500]

It's fine, I guess it's more subjective than I'd previously thought. The actual impact it has on the player, separate from the processes behind actually realising it, I mean. That, or we can blame Crysis for raising the standard so spectacularly; I suppose you can get numb to these things.

 

[Terronium-12]

I was going to mention Crysis but didn't as you were particular in mentioning "...for a racing game". I was also going to cite PGR4, but again, didn't.

In any case, Crysis may very well be the reason I'm not as impressed with GT5 in any graphical capacity, and couple that with pCARS and you can likely understand.

 

[Griffith500]

I was going to mention Crysis but didn't as you were particular in mentioning "...for a racing game". I was also going to cite PGR4, but again, didn't.

In any case, Crysis may very well be the reason I'm not as impressed with GT5 in any graphical capacity, and couple that with pCARS and you can likely understand.

Ah, yes, I've seen your pCARS screenshots, so I do understand.

 

[another_jakhole]

Ah, yes, I've seen your pCARS screenshots, so I do understand.

A few months back I didn't even know about pCARS. I've only heard about it recently and seen pictures, but I don't know of any features it has. It looked to me that it's going to have race cars only so I wasn't interested in learning more. I'd ask if it has Time Change and Weather too, but I'll just go check on my own.

You could add GTA IV to the list (I would). There's nothing else I can add to this, so I'll be on my way.

 

[Foxiol]

A few months back I didn't even know about pCARS. I've only heard about it recently and seen pictures, but I don't know of any features it has. It looked to me that it's going to have race cars only so I wasn't interested in learning more. I'd ask if it has Time Change and Weather too, but I'll just go check on my own.

You could add GTA IV to the list (I would). There's nothing else I can add to this, so I'll be on my way.

Yes i am a full member of pCARS and it has weather and day night cycles and still is in development.
Talking about physics it is still bad and i am not sure if it is going to be a sim.

They are working hard and with user´s feedback the feeling is getting better and better every week but still i am not sure if they are using real data for each car and even the amount of data that GT5 used and it is using for each car for GT6 (as real telemetry and that kind of stuff).

The tracks are extremely bad designed (like Forza style with simplified curves) but of course because of the graphics it looks pretty nice. Not still as much realistic as GT5 lighting that is the main reason why GT5 looks so realistic + the almost photo-realistic and well done tracks. (i am talking about the aspect ratio between car and track is accurate in GT5 but not in pCARS...in the way it looks and also because of the camera angles: Forza fails in that area too -cockpit cameras are horrible)

Still pCARS is in pre-alpha and we are getting weekly builds and things are going to change and some of the placebo physics in some cars are going to change. But the global physics i am not sure. Still is not NFS Shift physics at least but nothing close to simulation.

 

[diegorborges]

Yes i am a full member of pCARS and it has weather and day night cycles and still is in development.
Talking about physics it is still bad and i am not sure if it is going to be a sim.

They are working hard and with user´s feedback the feeling is getting better and better every week but still i am not sure if they are using real data for each car and even the amount of data that GT5 used and it is using for each car for GT6 (as real telemetry and that kind of stuff).

The tracks are extremely bad designed (like Forza style with simplified curves) but of course because of the graphics it looks pretty nice. Not still as much realistic as GT5 lighting that is the main reason why GT5 looks so realistic + the almost photo-realistic and well done tracks. (i am talking about the aspect ratio between car and track is accurate in GT5 but not in pCARS...in the way it looks and also because of the camera angles: Forza fails in that area too -cockpit cameras are horrible)

Still pCARS is in pre-alpha and we are getting weekly builds and things are going to change and some of the placebo physics in some cars are going to change. But the global physics i am not sure. Still is not NFS Shift physics at least but nothing close to simulation.

I never played pCARS, but I thinking on getting into it just because of the 2 new Roads... California Highway & Azure Coast.

They are fantastic. The kind of stuff I would pay as DLC for GT5 without thinking.

In this aspect, looks like they really listen to the audience, they give what people want.

 

[Mulan]

GT5 with DLC is a prolog to GT6. And my guess is that PS4 and GT6 will be released simultaniously sometime Q4 2013.
And i belive that GT6 can be released earlier and after each 2 months getting a DLC to expand the game. All they need is newer cars, better ai and more online functionality. rest is already in place in GT5 with DLC that easily can be moved in GT6, at least the parts that people like. Sounds, physics are already in place just need better sampling and more power which will be available in PS4.

 

[another_jakhole]

@Foxiol - Ah thanks. I wouldn't have found out about half of that if I only read up on the features. If I'm not mistaken though, I think pCARS still has many months, closer to a year than 6 months, before it gets released. It's likely they could be improving the physics from now on, since the graphics are amazing as is. The graphics could have been made this good before the physics get better to have attracted the most potential customers. The beta testing is another reason why I'd think that. People will get to feel the evolution of the physics, perhaps.

@diegoborges - about the roads being DLC in GT5, I would love that! I tweeted Kaz some months ago a list of "the best driving roads in the world" and asked him if it would be possible to include one of them in a future GT.

 

[diegorborges]

@Foxiol - Ah thanks. I wouldn't have found out about half of that if I only read up on the features. If I'm not mistaken though, I think pCARS still has many months, closer to a year than 6 months, before it gets released. It's likely they could be improving the physics from now on, since the graphics are amazing as is. The graphics could have been made this good before the physics get better to have attracted the most potential customers. The beta testing is another reason why I'd think that. People will get to feel the evolution of the physics, perhaps.

@diegoborges - about the roads being DLC in GT5, I would love that! I tweeted Kaz some months ago a list of "the best driving roads in the world" and asked him if it would be possible to include one of them in a future GT.

We don't even need exactly an entire modeled road in this case, I think. One of the problems with PD is to release some functions and not using them fully.

If they give us 3 more real world tracks and 5-10 more themes on course generator, with point-to-point option, that would be good enough to keep us satisfied until GT6.

Imagine some road themes "inspired" on what we had on the first Need For Speed plus some others:

- City
- Coastal
- Alpine/Mountains
- Desert
- Touge (kinda like Mt. Aso but bigger)

Then some for tracks:

- Desert
- City
- Airport (basically an open airport with multiple layouts)
- Abandoned base/airfield (yes, the benchmark track on FM makes me jealous)

It's really annoying the fact that Course Generator is not more explored. There's a lot of potential in it.

 

[avens]

Yes i am a full member of pCARS and it has weather and day night cycles and still is in development.
Talking about physics it is still bad and i am not sure if it is going to be a sim.

They are working hard and with user´s feedback the feeling is getting better and better every week but still i am not sure if they are using real data for each car and even the amount of data that GT5 used and it is using for each car for GT6 (as real telemetry and that kind of stuff).

The tracks are extremely bad designed (like Forza style with simplified curves) but of course because of the graphics it looks pretty nice. Not still as much realistic as GT5 lighting that is the main reason why GT5 looks so realistic + the almost photo-realistic and well done tracks. (i am talking about the aspect ratio between car and track is accurate in GT5 but not in pCARS...in the way it looks and also because of the camera angles: Forza fails in that area too -cockpit cameras are horrible)

Still pCARS is in pre-alpha and we are getting weekly builds and things are going to change and some of the placebo physics in some cars are going to change. But the global physics i am not sure. Still is not NFS Shift physics at least but nothing close to simulation.

There are lots of very badly designed tracks in GT5 though, most of them being the ones that were directly ported from GT4 such as laguna seca and suzuka. Just youtube a real race and compare them with GT5, particularly elevation changes.

What makes project cars great is that they are developing the game at an absurdly fast rate. In the current state of the GT series I wouldn't mind PD releasing 10 tracks in a row without proper measuring of the actual track, just like project cars developers do with easily less than 1/10 its employees.

 

[drummermaniac]

There are lots of very badly designed tracks in GT5 though, most of them being the ones that were directly ported from GT4 such as laguna seca and suzuka. Just youtube a real race and compare them with GT5, particularly elevation changes.

What makes project cars great is that they are developing the game at an absurdly fast rate. In the current state of the GT series I wouldn't mind PD releasing 10 tracks in a row without proper measuring of the actual track, just like project cars developers do with easily less than 1/10 its employees.

Project Cars guys are using the same tracks developed for Shift 2 , that´s why they have so many tracks already . Probably some fixes here and there but they are from Shift 2 .

 

[Foxiol]

I never played pCARS, but I thinking on getting into it just because of the 2 new Roads... California Highway & Azure Coast.

They are fantastic. The kind of stuff I would pay as DLC for GT5 without thinking.

In this aspect, looks like they really listen to the audience, they give what people want.

Agreed. Those 2 roads are great. And the advantage of it is that you don´t need the real data of the locations. GT5 needs something like that because you can achieve realism using real locations but with no need of using the same exact place.

I can´t complain in that aspect and those road tracks looks fantastic. I got the 3rd place in the leaderboards in Azure Coast with the Caterham R500 and i have to check it out if i am still there or close.
California Highway looks amazing and i live in Spain and it looks quite similar to a place called "El Garraf" which is a place with cliffs and tunnels...similar to Californa too i believe.

👍