Poll on who wants "Gran Turismo Pro"

[tinram]

As the title says ....

Gran Turismo Pro - “I was even thinking about providing something like a ‘Pro’ version of Gran Turismo, like a ‘Gran Turismo Pro’, so that you can really get into detail with the car customization process.” - Kaz

 

[Spagetti69]

Should be part of the Vanilla version TBH. Why can't they just add aids for the beginners? They do now.

 

[Coiler]

What is so "Pro" about custome cars?

 

[Badasp5.0]

As long as its not a huge bump in price.

 

[tezster]

Imagine if you could not only customize existing cars, but make one from scratch, kind of like the course creator, but for cars. If you could model your own Red Bull RB9 F1 car, that would sound pretty 'pro' to me.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Depends on the features...no way to answer without knowing what's in it

 

[Crispy]

NFS:Carbon and friends had a similar feature called "Autosculpt". An easy to use interface like this with active aerodynamics could really add a whole new level of customization. Choose parameters, like Open Wheel, Coupe, LMP, then add different parts, engines, etc. Then you sculpt the parts into the way you want.

 

[tinram]

"get into detail with the car customization process" - I'll pay for this.

Don't get me wrong, i'll love it if it was free and part of the existing game. But if we are not going to get it without an extra fee then i'l save up for it.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Maybe Pro means, comprehensive customization to cars, that would be too technical for casual gamers who are not into automotive, most likely younger demographics.

Imagine if Pro version allows intricate details of tuning.

Example :

Engine : Increase stroke, camshaft selection - duration and lift tuning, ECU programming, ignition timing adjustments, engine block selections, compression adjustments, wet/dry sump, cooling systems radiator and intercooler types and sizes,

Turbo : A/R ratio, low mount/high mount, single/twin/triple, boost controller programming, turbo types.

Suspension :types ( leaf spring, double wishbone, multi link customization ), caster, camber, toe, spring rate, damper ( preload, bound, rebound ), sway bars, strut bars, chassis braces.

Body : roll cages.

To name a few ...

 

[Chippy569]

I know people want to have "engine tuning" as a feature, but IMO it sounds kind of dumb, because there's always going to be one "optimal" setting and everyone would use that one. No one ever looked at their engine and thought "you know i wish this had less power, and dialing back my fuel map sounds like a fun way to achieve that."

Plus, there's no good way for PP to accurately reflect what you set the engine mapping to, so you either have to a) give an inflated PP to account for the fastest possible settings, b) ignore PP and have people who tune the engine right get a performance advantage given the PP, or c) have the PP increase with the tuning (which means having to calculate the PP with each setting, plus people will just tune to the highest number).

IMO the idea of an intake restrictor for class balancing is really as far as it should go, in tandem with the weight ballast. (which even then is a bit wonky in terms of PP.)

 

[Dinofly]

Engine configuration is full of trade offs: power - responsiveness, hgh rpm - high torque, etc.
Not to mention durability, reliability, emissions, consumption because they're not critical in gt.

 

[ShiftingGears]

Maybe, just maybe he should focus on improving the efficiency of the tuning menus and adding a livery editor first before launching into some hare-brained idea.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Well, the Pro GT can have engine + turbo stress and heat simulated as well as engine, suspension, transmission and chassis wear + damage simulated, there's won't be the best tune. There will always be something to lose with extreme limit tuning.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Well, the Pro GT can have engine + turbo stress and heat simulated as well as engine, suspension, transmission and chassis wear + damage simulated, there's won't be the best tune. There will always be something to lose with extreme limit tuning.

That would really kick it over the top...don't think you'll be seeing anything close to that for a while....

 

[ProjectWHaT]

I'm not that good with engines and stuff, but if there's clear instructions and not that complex, I would definitely be interested in it.

 

[Griffith500]

I know people want to have "engine tuning" as a feature, but IMO it sounds kind of dumb, because there's always going to be one "optimal" setting and everyone would use that one. No one ever looked at their engine and thought "you know i wish this had less power, and dialing back my fuel map sounds like a fun way to achieve that."

Plus, there's no good way for PP to accurately reflect what you set the engine mapping to, so you either have to a) give an inflated PP to account for the fastest possible settings, b) ignore PP and have people who tune the engine right get a performance advantage given the PP, or c) have the PP increase with the tuning (which means having to calculate the PP with each setting, plus people will just tune to the highest number).

IMO the idea of an intake restrictor for class balancing is really as far as it should go, in tandem with the weight ballast. (which even then is a bit wonky in terms of PP.)

Maybe for the street, but there are plenty of occasions where race teams would put on the less torquey exhaust if it was wet, say. The car would be slower had it all the traction it needed, but in the traction limited situation, it helps to have less peak torque in the corners (which is exactly how traction control works anyway, although selectively.)

The PP is already using an integral measure of the torque the engine produces throughout the power band, not just the peak values, although it's not perfect. Maybe it should integrate the power instead.

The new online / lobby stuff looks like it'll be easier for players to segregate themselves, so I don't see an issue with adding another facet to that.


Automation does a lot of this stuff, but it's obviously not in the same league of production quality and polish (also: work in progress) - you won't be able to drive the cars, either.
I myself have been contemplating the viability of a proper drivable car / engine design sim, although I would personally tackle it as a sort-of "head-fake" educational tool (learn by doing, but not explicitly).

 

[NOSWaster]

I'd pay extra. It's an intriguing idea to me so long as they can model engine, transmission, drivetrain, and suspension heat/wear/damage.

Basically have GTPro be a hardcore sim while the standard GT series stays as it is.

 

[tpark103]

Let's do a GT PRO for hardcore car fans that get into the serious tuning.

 

[ildd]

Sorry If this isn't allowed, but if you guys are looking to create and learn more about engines/refining them, check out Automation. There's a thread on it in the "other console/pc gaming" section.
It is an upcoming game, but it's without a doubt worth trying.

Edit-omg I'm stupid. Someone already posted about it. :derp:

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Should be part of the Vanilla version TBH. Why can't they just add aids for the beginners? They do now.

This. The idea of making two games instead of one not only doesn't seem necessary - because you'd then be limiting those who wanted to try the "Pro" options after playing the version designed for the normies - but for a team with such long gestation times between titles, it'd likely mean even longer waits.

A well-designed game can cater to both the casuals and the hardcore 👍

 

[IceMan PJN]

Should be part of the Vanilla version TBH. Why can't they just add aids for the beginners? They do now.

This. All versions of the game should have all features. If we did have two, it should be $60 for Pro as the proper game and a discounted version that lacks full features.

 

[Dan]

I refuse to pay extra money for a proper game. Either implement it into the game FOR FREE, make it a separate game entirely from what GT6 will be (I don't have high hopes for GT6 anymore. I lowered my expectations, like everyone else should) (I would much rather get a game that has better tuning and simulation than just GT6 which seems like it will lack stuff we've been wanting), or don't do it at all.

 

[Dmarc_Atl]

I'm all for it.I don't know much about cars and i might be going to wikipedia every 10 minutes but it would be fun.I also think it should be a part of the main game.

 

[Jedi2016]

It's Gran Turismo.. this sort of thing should be there already. Even if it's only an option.. leave it simple for the people that like it simple, but have the ability to go deeper for the folks that want to.

 

[Imari]

It should be an entirely separate game if it's to be charged separately, not GT-with-an-extra-bit-added.

 

[BoneSawTX]

what i get from his idea of a pro edition is a game that goes into the minute details of building suspensions, aerodynamics, engine building/tuning and so on. Not the simple move the slider left and right for more down force and stupid simple stage 1, 2 and 3 engine upgrades GT has.

stuff kids and lets be honest, most people here aren't going to understand. i could see this frustrating the hell out of some people that think they understand suspension building because they know how to "tune" a car in gt.

 

[TheeFrogmanlego]

Hell make it a PSN downloadable title that lets you export everything to GT6 that includes every car and two tracks . Basically a game that lets you tune like crazy within reasonable limits .

 

[SuperShouden]

Maybe it'll be part of GT6000/GT7. But from what it sounds like, it wouldn't be a "you have to do this" thing. Just something there for people who WANT to get into that level of customization. This also isn't the first time Kaz has mentioned something like this. He's said he wants to make a GT MMO where you drive around real cities. Having the ability to create a car from scratch or build custom machines fits into that mindset. If there ever is a GT MMO, that would most likely be included.

 

[I'm Motarded]

Automation does a lot of this stuff, but it's obviously not in the same league of production quality and polish (also: work in progress) - you won't be able to drive the cars, either.
I myself have been contemplating the viability of a proper drivable car / engine design sim, although I would personally tackle it as a sort-of "head-fake" educational tool (learn by doing, but not explicitly).

Ask and thee shall get.

Here you go, your first steps. http://automationgame.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1059

Putting the engine data in rFactor is pretty simple, everything else outside of this will have a steep learning curve though.

 

[Falango]

This would just lead it towards sucking more money out of people to get an advantage over others. No thanks. Kill it before it starts.