Motorcycles in GT6?
- Thread starter mjm23race
- 1,257 comments
- 91,861 views
- 10,403
- GTP_Spag69
- spagetti69
How about adding cars to GT6.
That might work.
That might work.
- 5,897
- Canada
- 8,723
The physics are the same; physics are physics. If your multibody dynamics simulator is working properly (GT5's is relatively rudimentary, but has shown improvement over GT4), any forces you introduce into it should work as expected. How you derive those forces is the clever part, though, and there are actually few real differences between bikes and cars in that respect - you've just removed the lateral stability on a bike. Gyroscopic effects are important in cars, too (iRacing has them modeled, inherited from GPL) so it would actually benefit the simulation of the cars to develop the physics model to account for such forces (which are even more important on a bike).
Input device is a non-issue. DS3 works fine: you only need steering, throttle and brakes to control a bike. There's a bit of extra time to be found through CoG manipulation with your body weight, but TT accounted for that with the customisable "riding form", which also controlled steering progression and meta-level stuff like cornering stability (you can tell it was made by bikers). There's a final thing about muscling the bike around (either with inertial "impulses" from your body, or actual levering, but you have to be very strong and / or heavy relative to the bike, not to mention exceptionally good for it to matter in real life - riding form covers half of it, body position controls the other half.) So you use one stick to control body position (with option for automatic) and then it's just steering, throttle and brakes (front and rear, as in TT - with an option for auto-modulation F/R for one-button use).
Development time is only an issue in terms of specific control scheme and testing and tuning of physics interaction (how you parse the controls and what you then feed to the physics model via the riding form), modeling of bikes and gear, making events, specific artwork, etc. Ironically, it's probable that the highest efficiency for all of this work would be achieved by doing it as the same time the same work is being done for GT6. So if a bike component is to be made at all, it actually makes sense to make them at the same time you make the car component! They could do it sequentially, but that might delay GT7.
Of course, if a TT sequel isn't coming, there's no issue at all, and nobody need fret.
The collision model comes out of the physics engine: multibody dynamics, again physics are physics. TT even had rider collisions; you could smack your face off on the barriers (or rocks) if you got too close.
- 319
- Subaru
- 5,351
- United States
- kudos00
Good for you and your no reply or any information.
Why would modelling bikes be simpler than cars?
First of all, a lot less polygons are used, because bikes are smaller. MAYBE?
Secondly, not all of the bikes are going to be Teutel quality/detail.
Third (you'll like this), some of the motorcycles might take longer to replicate than it would a "normal" detailed car for they have to get used to the process of modelling the more intricate details which we know that some of the Premium cars have a similar or greater level of detail overall.
Lastly, all the damn points I brought up that you dismissed a few days ago, because you were expecting to catch me off guard. I gave's ya a couple days to reply. The couple of days to reply was for you to say that you're not a "3d modeller" yourself.
This is still all speculation and logic. We're not involved with the modelling at PD. No one can say something is fact about this unless they do work there in that department.
- 727
- WI
- mjm23race
another_jakhole
I know, I know. But I have no issues having a conversation back and forth in a civilized manner over opposing views.
Anything worth doing will always be difficult. And things are probably more difficult than it sounds, but it is still a small percentage of the overall package.
Ghosting would only come into play in online rooms. But it seems most drivers don't care to interact with riders, so it shouldn't be an issue unless you choose to make an issue out of it.
Last edited:
- 5,351
- United States
- kudos00
Bikes in GT6 won't take as much time as making a sequel to TT, and I already showed that Kaz said it was possible to use the same physics as the cars in GT5 which they did for GT4/TT.So, the same engine for both cars and bikes? TT had no cars, did GT-HD have playable cars and bikes, or was that just a promo vid? I don't remember.
Probably both are true, it would be absolutely silly to ride a bike with a wheel though.
How do you know it would be a small fraction? Dev much do you? I think we all know PD pretty well on this site, we know one thing, they are s l o o o o ow. Done already?
The model in gt5 is not so great, how will it be when cars and bikes are on the track at the same time? I wonder if we will be able to run our opponents over when they lay the bike down.
ALL THAT and the fact that he said that the AI in GT5 is dumb in another thread was the reason why I said that to you. Non-competitive and boring is fully understandable for someone to think.
"I have a feeling" he's only talking. At least I had something to support what I had to say when I replied to avens some days ago.
- 5,351
- United States
- kudos00
- 5,897
- Canada
- 8,723
Everything will end up half-arsed? Just because of adding more of the same stuff? So, assuming there's a finite amount of effort available before GT6 arrives, spending some of that making slightly different shape models and pictures with different colours in them will ruin everything? Would that not be true regardless of the shapes and colours etc.?
- 5,897
- Canada
Same?
I'd say PD is taking advantage of the "we have 1000 cars" malarky. If they had only 100 cars in the game, PD needs to come up with extremely good gameplay.
- 8,723
Yeah, they're just objects whose visual representations need to be recorded for reproduction. It's the exact same process in either case.
Why not both?
Last edited:
- 5,897
- Canada
Ah, okay. 👍
For the reasons listed in the earlier parts of this thread, and the other motorcycle thread in the GT5 forum.
- 5,351
- United States
- kudos00
- 8,723
By which you mean you disagree? Please elaborate on how there is an actual difference.
You have a very lazy style of discussion. It's your argument, you find the points to substantiate it.
- 5,897
- Canada
No, I don't disagree. Initially I thought you were referring to the actual car and motorcycle, and not how they were modelled.
No. I have repeated my points to OP before, but he chose to continually ignore them. In which case, forget it.
- 727
- WI
- mjm23race
1241Penguin
^^ I asked what points you wanted to discuss. I think everything has been covered at some point or another in this thread.
This thread wasn't meant for me to be a sole representative and to have a political debate over every technical aspect the naysayers bring up. This was meant to attract others that were interested in the prospect of motorcycles in gt6. I would like thank my brethren for helping to play point / counterpoint with those that don't understand how this whole thing can work. Griffith500 and anotherjackhole have been able to back up their statements quite well, and have been able to articulate their thoughts better than i can at times, so thank you very much.
To those worried about everything being "half arsed" by PD, it might be better to just make the switch to Forza now. Otherwise you might just be setting yourself up for disappointment. Reading a lot of the threads on these forums it sounds like there will be a lot of disappointed people if pd doesn't deliver the perfect driving experience they are expecting with all the cars and features they are expecting on the system they want and so on. Blah blah blah
- 1,335
- WA
- TEAM-SWD-daus26
I'm sorry, but to those who are against bikes, your arguments are still not very convincing.
I come back to this thread about once a day, and I see the same thing every time; excuses on major development delay.
The only thing that we can take from Kaz is that PD can include bikes whenever there is a big demand on it. If so, then why not? He never said anything about how including bikes will be a major obstacle or that it will take a HUGE amount of development time, which a lot of you like to keep bringing it up out of pure speculation.
At some point, they will eventually do all they can do with engine sounds, premium cars, leaderboards etc. After that, why not get some bikes in if they COULD. Do you really think the exclusion of bikes will drastically improve engine sounds, physics, and much more premium cars than if bikes were included?
I come back to this thread about once a day, and I see the same thing every time; excuses on major development delay.
The only thing that we can take from Kaz is that PD can include bikes whenever there is a big demand on it. If so, then why not? He never said anything about how including bikes will be a major obstacle or that it will take a HUGE amount of development time, which a lot of you like to keep bringing it up out of pure speculation.
At some point, they will eventually do all they can do with engine sounds, premium cars, leaderboards etc. After that, why not get some bikes in if they COULD. Do you really think the exclusion of bikes will drastically improve engine sounds, physics, and much more premium cars than if bikes were included?
- 5,897
- Canada
Interesting. Are you conceding that PD can't do two things at once?
Sure, if a large amount of players want it, I can see the reasons for adding bikes.
...But that's not to say that bikes are a high demand. I find it surprising that you're suggesting that it takes no time at all to add bikes into the game.
- 727
- WI
- mjm23race
I am not conceding anything about PD's capabilities (i didnt think i said anything about their multi-tasking capabilities?). I am conceding that no matter what PD does the naysayers will still nitpick. It might just be best for those people to check out the grass on the other side.
- 5,897
- Canada
I understand, but truthfully, a lot of the players of GT could've made a much better game then PD themselves. Just look at the "make your own GT menu screens" (title isn't exactly that, but I can't remember it's exact title either). A lot of the screens there are much better IMO than what PD came up with.
My point being that it's natural to make bad decisions, but only to an extent. IMO, anything naysayers might have to say about a theoretical "perfect" game is so insignificant you'd just walk past them any go, "You serious? Complaining about something so small like that? *insert Yao Ming face here*".
*Meme may or may not have been used correctly in this situation. I just liked his face.
My point being that it's natural to make bad decisions, but only to an extent. IMO, anything naysayers might have to say about a theoretical "perfect" game is so insignificant you'd just walk past them any go, "You serious? Complaining about something so small like that? *insert Yao Ming face here*".
*Meme may or may not have been used correctly in this situation. I just liked his face.
- 1,335
- WA
- TEAM-SWD-daus26
I'm not saying that it'll take no time at all, but I am saying the inclusion of bikes is nothing comparable to that of cars. If we simply go with the fact that it is POSSIBLE (said from Kaz himself), then why not?
By being possible, I'm pretty sure Kaz is keeping in mind that it wouldn't take away anything MAJOR from his treasured franchise, meaning sacrificing physics, premium content, sound, and whatnot. If it is a high risk as some of you say, I doubt he would say that it's possible to put it in one game, rather than separate.
I think votes that are against the inclusion of bikes are people that think on the fact that it will be a huge hindrance to the franchise. Then again, I admit that in itself is only speculation. I'm only basing my thoughts from what Kaz said.
- 5,897
- Canada
That's the thing, given PD's poor use of development time. But again, if they were to add them to the game (say, let's just pretend they've all a sudden completed modelling the bikes and whatnot), then I'm all for it. As far as the game itself, I can't see any actual problems, or immediate conflicts with them.
- 1,335
- WA
- TEAM-SWD-daus26
I think PD's poor use of development time are just a thing of mistake in which they've learned from. The whole planning of GTHD and then to take that down after deciding to do GT5 from scratch really took a toll on them. So, I believe it is rather poor management rather than their development problems. Basically, Kaz's fault since he is responsible for the game's direction. If Kaz can be very CLEAR on what he wants done, I believe the team at PD can do things more efficiently.
We will see how true this is once GT6 is out. They have no excuses on interruptions and what not, if they have really focused on GT6 immediately since the inclusion of GT5.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that it's a bit unfair to judge their development skills based on GT5 only. It's my opinion I guess that they can pull it off with the bikes without any noticeable conflict. I hope GT5 is just an exception to how well they can develop the game.
Last edited:
It would be hard to make motorcycles in the game because motorcycles and cars behave differently. And if they want to make it realistic, they would have to make the steering and the leaning of he bike on the two analog sticks and that would very time consuming. Remember how long it took to release GT5? They're perfectionists. (kinda) But I would like it.
- 7,621
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
There are two roads here. Use simple physics, as in GT5 where the physics for car and bike are different or use complex physics where the physics are the same for cars, bikes, boats, planes, space shuttles, etc.
The first option is something that I think is unsatisfactory because it will leave the game less realistic than it could be, however it would probably take less time and effort to develop. One advanced physics engine would be more time consuming, but it will make both cars and bikes more realistic and would basically allow GT to handle any kind of vehicle. Basically, bikes shouldn't cost any time unless PD are considering a simple physics engine based on cars alone, which basically leaves us with GT5.
Wasn't the bike control issue solved with TT?
Also, the whole perfectionist thing is just an excuse. PD botched up GT5. They should try not to botch up GT6, which would mean using their time and resources more wisely. They should easily be able to turn out a much better game in the same amount of time it took them to make GT5.
