Marbles and dirty lines

[Jonstone]

Should they remove grass from the game too? "Don't go onto the grass - that's racing", somebody said on here, or at least said similar. So, "Don't go onto the marbles" either. It's part of racing, and down to the skill of the driver to negotiate overtaking opportunities. If you are not skilled enough, not our problem.

My point is that you have to draw the line somewhere between realism and fun.

If you take GT5 down the 'as realistic to true life' as possible route then yes you would have marbles off the racing line, but would it be as much fun?

Do you make online racing more enjoyable by making it far harder to overtake?

Where do you stop with the realism? For the cars with wings and that rely on downforce effects do you model the effect that has in corners on a car trying to closely follow the one in front?

Do you think that 99.999% of the people who play GT could even remotely drive some of these cars round a real track at these kinds of speeds withouty losing control?

PD are making a game that they hope to sell to millions of people and as such there will always be a compromise between realism and fun.

Personally I would much rather have a game where I could try to drive around the outside of someone on a corner but with a driving model that makes that difficult than have a model where its impossible because the grip on that part of the track is virtually none existent.

I can understand the other point of view, and if it can be implemented for the small percentage who want it without taking up too many resources that would impact on the development of the rest of the game then as a switchable option I see no harm in incorporating it, but I feel that the vast majority of PD's potential customer base would not use such an option.

 

[SETWAVE]

My point is that you have to draw the line somewhere between realism and fun.

If you take GT5 down the 'as realistic to true life' as possible route then yes you would have marbles off the racing line, but would it be as much fun?

Do you make online racing more enjoyable by making it far harder to overtake?

Where do you stop with the realism? For the cars with wings and that rely on downforce effects do you model the effect that has in corners on a car trying to closely follow the one in front?

Do you think that 99.999% of the people who play GT could even remotely drive some of these cars round a real track at these kinds of speeds withouty losing control?

PD are making a game that they hope to sell to millions of people and as such there will always be a compromise between realism and fun.

Personally I would much rather have a game where I could try to drive around the outside of someone on a corner but with a driving model that makes that difficult than have a model where its impossible because the grip on that part of the track is virtually none existent.

I can understand the other point of view, and if it can be implemented for the small percentage who want it without taking up too many resources that would impact on the development of the rest of the game then as a switchable option I see no harm in incorporating it, but I feel that the vast majority of PD's potential customer base would not use such an option.

It doesn't have to be forced on anyone, it could be for expert level races.
And it wouldn't make racing less fun, racing may be harder, but more fun and more rewarding, and the manoeuvres would be more realistic. Remember the lead car will have a difficult time following the correct clean line when on the limit being chased, it's just as likely the lead car will make a mistake and go wide allowing the chase car to take the clean line and overtake. It may even make overtaking more frequent depending on ability of player.

Do you think that 99.999% of the people who play GT could even remotely drive some of these cars round a real track at these kinds of speeds withouty losing control?"

Perhaps you are forgetting that professional racing drivers are human, they are not different to 99.9999% of humans, they just have acquired skill, the same skill can be learned on a simulator to become very good on a simulator that has very hard cars to drive with dirty air from high downforce racing cars.
The ultimate simulator/game would be equivalent to the ones the formula 1 drivers use at their headquarters to practice all the racing circuits.
Millions of people in fact every normal person has the 'ability' to be a formula 1 driver, it only takes physical training and practice, in the same way everyone can play a super realistic simulator, if they want to...
The option should be there, for the challenge, for the realism.

 

[serversurfer]

Millions of people in fact every normal person has the 'ability' to be a formula 1 driver, it only takes physical training and practice, in the same way everyone can play a super realistic simulator, if they want to...

I don't know if I would go that far. There only 20 F1 drivers at any given time—you've got a better chance of going in to space—and most of them really aren't all that good at it.

I think it takes a certain amount of natural talent to truly excel at something, whether it's driving, baseball, or astrophysics. Don't think for a minute that Schumacher, Pujols, and Hawking are only better than you because they've had more practice.

 

[SETWAVE]

I don't know if I would go that far. There only 20 F1 drivers at any given time—you've got a better chance of going in to space—and most of them really aren't all that good at it.

I think it takes a certain amount of natural talent to truly excel at something, whether it's driving, baseball, or astrophysics. Don't think for a minute that Schumacher, Pujols, and Hawking are only better than you because they've had more practice.

I should include applied effort in the training and concentration and focus. None of it is natural, all healthy babies born have an equal ability to be capable of formula 1 standard with the right training. Schumacher just worked very very hard, always.
The actual chance of being an F1 driver is very different to having potential ability.
Anyway i guess i have made my point.

 

[Seismica]

Millions of people in fact every normal person has the 'ability' to be a formula 1 driver, it only takes physical training and practice, in the same way everyone can play a super realistic simulator, if they want to...
The option should be there, for the challenge, for the realism.

I actually agree with you there. Some people catch on quicker than others though. Learning a track and perfecting your lap times can take only a few days for some, but others it can take weeks, months even years.

If we had all the time in the world... lol

If PD implements this feature, i won't be fussed. But i hope they don't. 9 laps out of 10 i stay on the racing line, its very consistent but not consistent enough. With the slower cars, like you see in BTCC, i'm sure its not actually that much of a problem. But with Le mans racers and F1 cars etc. i find it hard to believe that all gamers could adjust.

And turning the feature off, i don't like that, the tracks should be the same on any difficulty, it should only be the AI and such that get harder. (Also physics)

I should include applied effort in the training and concentration and focus. None of it is natural, all healthy babies born have an equal ability to be capable of formula 1 standard with the right training. Schumacher just worked very very hard, always.
The actual chance of being an F1 driver is very different to having potential ability.
Anyway i guess i have made my point.

Michael and Ralf Schumacher both became F1 drivers.

Damon Hill and his Dad (forgot his name :/ i think its Graham) both became F1 drivers.

Kind of reinforces your point

I find it extremely hard to believe that this natural skill is hereditary. They had the right upbringing and they applied themselves.

 

[vaioleto]

The amount of BS spewed in this thread is astounding. Don't people read? This feature is already in GT. If you aren't a race car driver, then please don't give me your uninformed garbage about whether you think the effect is/isn't there.

 

[Earth]

Millions of people in fact every normal person has the 'ability' to be a formula 1 driver, it only takes physical training and practice, in the same way everyone can play a super realistic simulator, if they want to...

Millions could be a Formula 1 driver in the sense that with enough practice they could drive the cars around a course without crashing, but would they be any good? I think most people, if they go through the amateur ranks, training etc etc could get within 5-10 seconds of any lap of a Formula 1 driver, but again, they could do it but wouldn't be very good.

Alot of the general public can race cars at speed, given enough practice and training. Look at the ALMS. There is alot of 'family' drivers in that series. The Robertsons who drive the Ford GT in the ALMS. Martin Short was an owner/driver at Lemans recently. Patrick Dempsey in the Rolex Sports car series. Hermann Tilke shared the Nurburgring 24hr pole winning Ford GT, but was 30 seconds off pace per lap. Lots of 'amateurs' compete at high levels, but they usually are not very fast.

Saying it's impossible for 99.99% of the general public to race cars at speed in real life like they do in Gran Turismo is inaccurate in may ways.

First off not every Gran Turismo driver is very good. Alot of them, including myself, crash frequently in GT or make mistakes that would be very costly in real life. The idea that you can run a few blistering fast laps in a row followed by a large accident or a large off says that the simulation is not easy in anyway.

However this does not mean you will be as good as the professionals.

For example anybody can catch a football. Anybody can throw a football. But what makes NFL teams pay certain athletes millions of dollars to do things that anybody else can do?

The difference between them and the majority of the public are heightened reflexes, superior speed, strength, hand-eye coordination and agility.

Pete Rose is the MLB's all time hit king because his vision was so good he could tell the type of pitch as he could see the threads on the ball as it headed toward him spinning at 100mph. Then he had the extraordinary reflexes and timing you need to make contact with such a small ball.

So because you can drive a racecar in Gran Turismo at a decent pace does not mean you can't do it in real life. One of the many questions that would arise though is would you dare push as hard in real life if you knew that this time that crash will be costly?

The odds are you just won't be anywhere near as good as the naturals/professionals.

What do I mean by 'natural'? I think being a natural means that whatever you choose to do fits you like a glove. If you have the vision to see the apex of a corner, the reflexes and timing to hit your marks perfectly every corner, then you'd make a pretty good racecar driver. Being a natural means you already have all the tools needed to do what you want to do and you know how to implement them in your art correctly.

Racecar driving, compared to alot of sports, is simple. Brake, turn, accelerate. If you look at the qualifying order of a F1 grid you will usually see it is the cars that make the difference and not the driver. When you get to such a high level talent is pretty much equal therefore the car usually becomes more important to speed then the driver.

It still bothers me that there is so many 'families' in sports, even car racing. You have the Busch brothers in NASCAR, the Schumacer brothers in Formula 1, the Mannings in the NFL.

Yes, these things can be learned and perfected through practice to a point, but if you can't make that 20 yard out throw or struggle to handle a racecar on a slick track you won't go far. For example was Ralf Schumacher given more breaks then he deserved because of who his brother was despite mediocre performances? Probably.

So being given a chance and having someone show you the proper way is part of the journey toward being a professional, but you still need the tools

Look at Lewis Hamilton in Mclaren. Did ron dennis know he was a phenom at age 8?

 

[Seismica]

Millions could be a Formula 1 driver in the sense that with enough practice they could drive the cars around a course without crashing, but would they be any good? I think most people, if they go through the amateur ranks, training etc etc could get within 5-10 seconds of any lap of a Formula 1 driver, but again, they could do it but wouldn't be very good.

Alot of the general public can race cars at speed, given enough practice and training. Look at the ALMS. There is alot of 'family' drivers in that series. The Robertsons who drive the Ford GT in the ALMS. Martin Short was an owner/driver at Lemans recently. Patrick Dempsey in the Rolex Sports car series. Hermann Tilke shared the Nurburgring 24hr pole winning Ford GT, but was 30 seconds off pace per lap. Lots of 'amateurs' compete at high levels, but they usually are not very fast.

Saying it's impossible for 99.99% of the general public to race cars at speed in real life like they do in Gran Turismo is inaccurate in may ways.

First off not every Gran Turismo driver is very good. Alot of them, including myself, crash frequently in GT or make mistakes that would be very costly in real life. The idea that you can run a few blistering fast laps in a row followed by a large accident or a large off says that the simulation is not easy in anyway.

However this does not mean you will be as good as the professionals.

For example anybody can catch a football. Anybody can throw a football. But what makes NFL teams pay certain athletes millions of dollars to do things that anybody else can do?

The difference between them and the majority of the public are heightened reflexes, superior speed, strength, hand-eye coordination and agility.

Pete Rose is the MLB's all time hit king because his vision was so good he could tell the type of pitch as he could see the threads on the ball as it headed toward him spinning at 100mph. Then he had the extraordinary reflexes and timing you need to make contact with such a small ball.

So because you can drive a racecar in Gran Turismo at a decent pace does not mean you can't do it in real life. One of the many questions that would arise though is would you dare push as hard in real life if you knew that this time that crash will be costly?

The odds are you just won't be anywhere near as good as the naturals/professionals.

What do I mean by 'natural'? I think being a natural means that whatever you choose to do fits you like a glove. If you have the vision to see the apex of a corner, the reflexes and timing to hit your marks perfectly every corner, then you'd make a pretty good racecar driver. Being a natural means you already have all the tools needed to do what you want to do and you know how to implement them in your art correctly.

Racecar driving, compared to alot of sports, is simple. Brake, turn, accelerate. If you look at the qualifying order of a F1 grid you will usually see it is the cars that make the difference and not the driver. When you get to such a high level talent is pretty much equal therefore the car usually becomes more important to speed then the driver.

It still bothers me that there is so many 'families' in sports, even car racing. You have the Busch brothers in NASCAR, the Schumacer brothers in Formula 1, the Mannings in the NFL.

Yes, these things can be learned and perfected through practice to a point, but if you can't make that 20 yard out throw or struggle to handle a racecar on a slick track you won't go far. For example was Ralf Schumacher given more breaks then he deserved because of who his brother was despite mediocre performances? Probably.

So being given a chance and having someone show you the proper way is part of the journey toward being a professional, but you still need the tools

Look at Lewis Hamilton in Mclaren. Did ron dennis know he was a phenom at age 8?

If everybody was given the same opportunites from an early age as Michael and Ralf Schumacher did, i believe anyone could become an F1 driver. But the opportunity given is only a small part of it, the effort, the perservering needs to be there.

And at the highest level, the car makes all the difference. Look how poor Mclaren and ferrari have been this season compared to last, and look how Brawn came out from nowhere (i know they didn't come from nowhere, but look at Honda the season before, they sucked.) and built such an amazing car and they have pretty much won the constructor's championship.

 

[SETWAVE]

Michael Schumacher's reflexes are no quicker than anyone else's at certain tasks. He will read and respond to actions involved in racing quicker than others who have not had thousands of hours at learning it.
I will concede that the majority of people wont have the will of application in order to become so good. Its obvious just from looking and listening to Schumacher and Hamilton how committed and focused they are. This is an environmental factor not a natural ability, its something they will have developed since babies, this is why Ralf Schumacher is not as good, at some stage in development his environmental influences effected his internal struggle to be the best he possibly could, even though he might think he is trying as hard as he can.
Having said all that it's considerably easier to practice a bit as a player on a computer game which has tricky driving lines and possible aero effects, which is what this discussion changed to, i think 99% of games players could do it without too much problem.
The winner will always be the one who applied themselves the most, no one with natural ability ever achieved anything in life. It doesn't exist.
These "miracle" pianists with mental disorders and blindness etc. dont have some magical natural talent they are born with while sacrificing other abilities. They have merely learned/trained/focused very specifically on playing the piano and listening to sounds. Because they had little else to concentrate on.
If anyone is still reading this far, then there is one other thing concerning real racing and that's fear of harm, which doesn't apply to simulators. Fear is just another thing which can be controlled and locked away and overruled by the dedication and passion for racing which would have been dealt with while still in childhood where these things can be sorted out.
Anyway it's gone a bit over the top now...
And i do admit not all adults will be able to have potential F1 abilities, but all babies will, given the right nurture, and environmental luck.

 

[Seismica]

Michael Schumacher's reflexes are no quicker than anyone else's at certain tasks. He will read and respond to actions involved in racing quicker than others who have not had thousands of hours at learning it.
I will concede that the majority of people wont have the will of application in order to become so good. Its obvious just from looking and listening to Schumacher and Hamilton how committed and focused they are. This is an environmental factor not a natural ability, its something they will have developed since babies, this is why Ralf Schumacher is not as good, at some stage in development his environmental influences effected his internal struggle to be the best he possibly could, even though he might think he is trying as hard as he can.
Having said all that it's considerably easier to practice a bit as a player on a computer game which has tricky driving lines and possible aero effects, which is what this discussion changed to, i think 99% of games players could do it without too much problem.
The winner will always be the one who applied themselves the most, no one with natural ability ever achieved anything in life. It doesn't exist.
These "miracle" pianists with mental disorders and blindness etc. dont have some magical natural talent they are born with while sacrificing other abilities. They have merely learned/trained/focused very specifically on playing the piano and listening to sounds. Because they had little else to concentrate on.
If anyone is still reading this far, then there is one other thing concerning real racing and that's fear of harm, which doesn't apply to simulators. Fear is just another thing which can be controlled and locked away and overruled by the dedication and passion for racing which would have been dealt with while still in childhood where these things can be sorted out.
Anyway it's gone a bit over the top now...
And i do admit not all adults will be able to have potential F1 abilities, but all babies will, given the right nurture, and environmental luck.

So true 👍

We have went a little off topic here though

If this feature is already in the game, i havn't noticed it. If it is introduced, it won't affect me that much. But online races will be a lot more challenging, and the gap between first and last will get wider still, because those in front who can keep to their driving line and force overtakers onto slippy areas of the tarmac will always win.

But with damage maybe people will learn to be more careful and more considerate whilst racing online.

I still feel it wouldn't be right in a game though.

 

[SETWAVE]

There will be many people of the same ability, so although there will be some experts, thousands of other people will also be online struggling on the dirty parts of the track, and the battle continues. A least its not like FPS where learners get killed dozens of times within seconds. Beginners can actually finish a race and not have to re-spawn after the first 10 meters.

 

[serversurfer]

Michael and Ralf Schumacher both became F1 drivers.

Damon Hill and his Dad (forgot his name :/ i think its Graham) both became F1 drivers.

Kind of reinforces your point

I think it reinforces my point; some people are born drivers.

Sure, I'll grant that anyone can work hard enough to become a journeyman in the NFL, but not just anyone can become Jerry Rice or Marshal Faulk.

If you look at the qualifying order of a F1 grid you will usually see it is the cars that make the difference and not the driver. When you get to such a high level talent is pretty much equal therefore the car usually becomes more important to speed then the driver.

Actually, some drivers consistently out-qualify their teammates, and it's not always the older/more-experienced driver that does so.

Look at Lewis Hamilton in Mclaren. Did ron dennis know he was a phenom at age 8?

That's how the story goes, yes, and how can that be, if it was just a matter of training and focus? If that's really all it is, why can't Ron just find a few mistress and sire himself an army of championship drivers?

This is an environmental factor not a natural ability, its something they will have developed since babies, this is why Ralf Schumacher is not as good, at some stage in development his environmental influences effected his internal struggle to be the best he possibly could, even though he might think he is trying as hard as he can.

Maybe Ralfie's a poorer driver for the same reason Michael's shorter; genetics just wasn't as kind to him in that regard.

 

[Earth]

Actually, some drivers consistently out-qualify their teammates, and it's not always the older/more-experienced driver that does so.

I think it comes down to skill sets. The skills and strong points of certain drivers may match what is needed to drive a Formula 1 car better then someone else.

For example Robert Doornbos does very well in A1GP's light cars but struggles when racing the IRL's heavier cars.

Juan Montoya won the CART championship in his rookie year. He had 3 wins and 11 poles in his first three Formula 1 seasons, compared to 1 win and 2 poles in his first three NASCAR seasons.

Sebastian Bourdais dominated Champ Car. He has proven to be one of the better prototype drivers, if not the best Peugeot has. He showed flashes of talent in IROC. Yet he is outpaced by a 20 year old rookie teammate in F1? While F1 fans may say this is the case because F1 drivers are so great and outclass everyone, I say it's a case that a lightweight F1 car does not match Bourdais' skill sets as well as other cars.

That's how the story goes, yes, and how can that be, if it was just a matter of training and focus? If that's really all it is, why can't Ron just find a few mistress and sire himself an army of championship drivers?

It's part training/focus part natural ability in my opinion. For example no matter how hard I train I will never be able to catch a Brett Favre bullet pass fully extended in the back of the end zone tip toeing inbounds. I have a hard time just catching balls thrown straight at me with heat. Some people have the natural ability to do that. They have 'soft' hands. Some have the natural ability, some don't.

Same can be said in the area of art. While if you train every day and focus will you be able to paint masterpieces? Probably not. You still have to have an artist's eye. That's something that training and focus can improve but not everyone is equal when it comes to having an artist's eye. If you can't tell whats wrong with a picture, if you can't find that small problem, or can't tell that this shade does not belong here or there then your stuck, you've hit your personal ceiling.

I'd say it's equal parts training/focus/knowing the right people/natural talent (reflexes, vision) when trying to break into big time auto racing.

The Nelson Piquet Jrs, Kyle Busches, Graham Rahals, Marco Andrettis, and Bruno Sennas of the world prove, at least to me, it's not all about natural talent.

 

[serversurfer]

I think it comes down to skill sets. The skills and strong points of certain drivers may match what is needed to drive a Formula 1 car better then someone else.

I'll agree with that. Having a natural talent for piloting one type of vehicle doesn't necessarily translate in to a natural talent for piloting a vehicle of another type. Juan Pablo didn't do poorly at NASCAR because he wasn't a good driver, or because he wasn't trying. He simply didn't have the natural talent for that type of driving that other drivers at that level of competition have. Similarly, Michael Jordan was a natural basketball player, but only so-so when it came to playing baseball. Conversely, you have people like Mario Andretti who excelled at driving several types of cars.

It's part training/focus part natural ability in my opinion.

Oh, without a doubt. Talent isn't much use without training, and while training alone can certainly get you far, you need a lot of both if you're going to become a Schumacher, Andretti, Jordan, Pujols, Faulk, etc.

 

[moxtau]

I agree with SETWAVE.

Racing is an expensive sport and very few people is given the chance. Just look at the amount of father and son racers you get in F1 or racing in general... Rosberg, Piquet, Villenueve, Hill, Earnhardt, Andretti, Fittipaldi, Nakajima... to name a few. Now compare this to football, one of the most 'democratic' sports.

Talent is just passed from father to son for driving cars and not for kicking a ball? I doubt it.

 

[serversurfer]

Racing is an expensive sport and very few people is given the chance. … Now compare this to football, one of the most 'democratic' sports.

Hmm. You have a good point there.

Still, I think natural talent still plays a big part in determining the cream of the crop. Not everyone with the opportunity to become a Schumacher has done so. In fact, none of them have. But I agree, it doesn't matter how much talent you have if you're given no opportunity (or training).

So I'll agree that it takes all three to make a champion, but you gotta be born with the talent, while "just anyone" can get an opportunity and training.

 

[SETWAVE]

Its not possible to be born with a talent, only genetic mutations, which dont play a part in when you look at racing drivers, or Art for that matter. Master painters and craftsmen have just had the time early in their years to get to grips with their imagination and in some cases good schooling. Mozart learnt what he knew from endless hours on the piano, he didn't play because he was already good, and i think his father likely made him do it.
Everybody is different in various ways, but few differences separate us in life success because of genetics (which is the word to be used instead of "natural". The main separation between us genetically is between whole races and in physical/athletic terms rather than skills.
Someone needs to tell me what they think "natural talent" actually means before i can argue against it further. I certainly don't believe in mysterious powers that exist within us.
We are all born with bodies that have reactions capped at the speed it takes electrical signals to travel from the retina to the brain and from the brain to the muscles that need to be moved. The thinking time in between is down to experience but in the right conditions and frame of mind for as much time as possible (skill).

It wont be long at all before an F1 car can be made without a human driver, controlled only by an on-board computer. There are already cars that exist (VW i think) that can be programmed to race around a marked out track, the track isn't even in the computers memory to start with, it learns it then goes faster and faster. But when one is made for F1 we will really see where human skill fails and high machine technology can improve upon us. I wonder how that will make to top racing drivers feel, i seem to remember it depressed Kasparov when he got beaten at chess by a computer. In the career of Hamilton there will be a car that can beat him around any circuit, and in the wet..
I have kind of digressed but i got excited by robots.