Remove all Invisible Walls, including Rally and Course Creator Tracks

[eran0004]

There is a third option.

Remove the invisible barriers to a distance at which the player is highly unlikely to actually encounter them in normal gameplay.

There needs to be something to stop the player simply driving off into the sunset, but the player absolutely shouldn't be hitting an invisible wall when they've got two wheels still on the track. And they probably shouldn't be hitting an invisible wall even if they have a decent spin off. It should really take a concerted effort to hit the arbitrary track limits.

Invisible walls are what was done a long time ago because it was easy. Nowadays there are better ways, like making sure that there's twenty plus metres of drivable terrain on each side of the road to accommodate racing incidents. Being stopped by a plastic tape, or worse, absolutely nothing at all, is just unprofessional and somewhat spoils the "realism" aspect of the game. Gran Turismo can do better.

Not if we're talking about moving barriers in tracks that have already been made. It would require a lot of work and wouldn't really add any new content to the game, so faced with a demand of removing invisible walls they would probably just add visible walls instead.

But for new tracks, absolutely. But as I said, it's a change that has already started.

 

[Imari]

Not if we're talking about moving barriers in tracks that have already been made. It would require a lot of work and wouldn't really add any new content to the game, so faced with a demand of removing invisible walls they would probably just add visible walls instead.

You don't really know how much work it would take. It could be as simple as moving the wall back, we've already seen that a lot of tracks are drivable behind visible walls. Maybe the same is true behind the invisible ones.

It could be anywhere between a couple of days work for one guy, and a serious rebuild of most of the track.

But for new tracks, absolutely. But as I said, it's a change that has already started.

Debatable.

Andalusia isn't too bad, but Death Valley is shocking for how close the invisible walls are to the track. Eifel is somewhere in between.

Willow Springs was a great step in the right direction, but they haven't been at all consistent with that style of track design. I'm not sold that they'll necessarily continue that going forward.

 

[eran0004]

You don't really know how much work it would take. It could be as simple as moving the wall back, we've already seen that a lot of tracks are drivable behind visible walls. Maybe the same is true behind the invisible ones.

It could be anywhere between a couple of days work for one guy, and a serious rebuild of most of the track.

Generally the mesh and texture resolution drops quite a lot outside of the track boundaries, but there are some locations, like Toscana, that would probably require less time.

Andalusia isn't too bad, but Death Valley is shocking for how close the invisible walls are to the track. Eifel is somewhere in between.

Willow Springs was a great step in the right direction, but they haven't been at all consistent with that style of track design. I'm not sold that they'll necessarily continue that going forward.

I think it's been pretty consistent. Suzuka 2014, Ascari, Brands Hatch, Bathurst, Silverstone all have rather generous areas outside of the actual track. I'm not counting the course maker as new tracks though, since it's so different from other tracks that its limitations doesn't mean a lot when it comes to tracks made by PD.

 

[Tornado]

Wow that's quite ironic.

http://pickletheory.com/32/difference-ironic-vs-coincidental/

I didn't fabricate anything to argue against.

Well, first of all, you did it in this very post:

model colision for everything outside of the track boundaries for miles in each direction

No one in this thread said anything approaching this. Period. In fact, one person went so far as to say exactly the opposite:

I wouldn't ask for miles of open, unused area; few meters from driving section is more than enough to cause illusion of freedom.

The largest point of of comparison for what was said was something like what Willow Springs has, which is a fairly small track so the driving area isn't that large but is something that PD have already shown to be possible. So how exactly do you benefit from pretending people are talking about limitless exploration of track surroundings of all tracks? When someone talks about how they would like the tracks in game similar to Willow Springs to also behave like Willow Springs, and when someone else says that course creator tracks should also benefit from the same type of design, and when multiple people talk about how an acceptable distance of runoff space could be measured in meters (as opposed to the inches in place now), what exactly do you think something this dumb contributes to the discussion:

Should PD fully render the town of Bathurst outside of the Mt. Panorama circuit so we can go for a drive down to the shops?

You're mocking an exaggeration of what people have been saying that is so extreme that it bears no resemblance to anything actually said.


This entire thread has been about how tracks that have blatant invisible walls should not have invisible walls. The OP showed several points of comparison between GT6 and other games, and talked about a point of comparison actually in the game that does what he was looking for and how the other tracks should do the same. Other people including myself have talked specifically how course creator tracks should also do so, since they are the most obvious application.

And yet you insist repeatedly people in this thread are saying even tracks with clearly cordoned off racing areas should have fully explorable surroundings with increasing amounts of exaggeration on your part; and that they should explain where some sort of "line" is for when too much is too much. So either your transparent attempt to shutter discussion about something you don't care about is as I've called it multiple times to be, or you legitimately don't understand the logical issues with your argument because you refuse to actually read how people are responding to you or even what they were saying to begin with.

Here you stated the collision was extensively modeled,

And it is. Ground surfaces have different makeup independent of what is on the adjacent racing surface instead of just being all one surface like in GT2/GT3/GT4/GT5 outer track areas. Surfaces with different elevation changes (in one notable example, a large jump on a dirt access road) independent of the adjacent racing surface. All for the most part mapped to the actual textures in the immediate 20+ meters away of the racing surface, all on a track that is fully enclosed to boot. It's a hell of a lot more extensively modeled than any other game I've ever seen where you can drive where you're not supposed to, including tracks from previous games in the series. The only games I've seen that do more with the areas outside of the racing surface are the ones where all of the tracks are just plopped in a fully rendered area with either clear boundaries (Motocross Madness, Viper Racing, Test Drive Off Road 4, etc) or a fully rendered area that loops back on itself (Monster Truck Madness, 4x4 Evolution, 1nsane, etc); which were essentially the precursor to the wide open sandbox racers that are more common today.




You can pretend the video doesn't show the modeling I talked about above or in the previous post, and you can pretend that it isn't very extensive compared to what is typically done in racing games when going outside of the racing area; but since I only posted the video because of your earlier assertion that drifting24/7 latched onto about "system memory", and since you originally insisted that they hadn't done any outer collision detection at all:

\as they haven't modeled any collision detection outside of those walls, you'd just fall through the level.\

The semantics argument doesn't mean anything.

As far as Bathurst not being a fully enclosed track, I said it wouldn't be if the access roads weren't blocked by tyres that PD put there.

The difference being, of course, that in real life access roads are sometimes closed off to prevent cars from flying out of the racing area during an accident; possibly because invisible walls haven't been invented in real life yet.

I was asking where you draw the line when it comes to being able to explore outside the track limits? The Mt. Panorama circuit is mostly public roads, so it's a legitimate example.

It's still not, but I'll play. Something definitely more than this:

And more than this:

But nothing at all like this pretend argument you threw together:

Should PD fully render the town of Bathurst outside of the Mt. Panorama circuit so we can go for a drive down to the shops?

Maybe they should shoot for the amount of freedom provided by the track that they hyped up as having freedom to screw around in when it comes to other tracks that are similarly designed.

My point was that it would be a waste of time and resources

Would that be the same misuse of the concept of development resources that drifting24/7 already showed above?

Seems that way:

Again, I'd prefer they put that effort into parts of the game that are actually within the game's focus as a racing sim.

So I ask the same question to you:

What exactly does a track modeler spending some time modeling surrounding areas on a track that has visibly open runoff areas do to detract from "the game's focus as a racing sim"? Does it detract less than driving 4 inches off of the track on a Death Valley course and immediately hitting a wall? I hope you have something that is a bit more substantial of an answer than drifting24/7's examples of things people that have nothing to do with the people who would implement track runoff areas would work on.

Obviously you're just looking for something to argue against.

That's alright. You're throwing around words without knowing what they mean, possibly to look more clever than you actually are when people actually call you on it, so we both have to work around something.

 

[Mike_grpA]

http://pickletheory.com/32/difference-ironic-vs-coincidental/


Well, first of all, you did it in this very post:

No one in this thread said anything approaching this. Period. In fact, one person went so far as to say exactly the opposite:

Thanks cobber but I know what irony is. When I spoke about "miles" of open space, and asking where do you draw the line when it comes to freedom out of track, I would have thought it obvious that was in response to VBR saying he wouldn't want invisible walls or a reset to track. Although the clear objective of your posts is to try to appear clever, not to try to understand what people are actually saying, so thanks again, but you claiming that sentence of mine was fabricating something to argue against, and contradicted anything said in this thread, was in fact you taking that sentence out of context, and fabricating your own to argue against. So irony covers it nicely.

Obviously I wasn't talking about people who are asking for a couple of metres of trackside space, as I stated numerous times I was against PD spending too much time making a lot of open space around the tracks. That's also why I asked where the line would be if they didn't use force reset or invisible walls. The Bathurst example being the most extreme.

And yet you insist repeatedly people in this thread are saying even tracks with clearly cordoned off racing areas should have fully explorable surroundings with increasing amounts of exaggeration on your part; and that they should explain where some sort of "line" is for when too much is too much. So either your transparent attempt to shutter discussion about something you don't care about is as I've called it multiple times to be, or you legitimately don't understand the logical issues with your argument because you refuse to actually read how people are responding to you or even what they were saying to begin with.

I didn't once insist that anyone in this thread said tracks with clearly cordoned off areas should have fully explorable surroundings. Again, I used Bathurst as an extreme example to ask how much freedom do we want. As I said, it was a response to VBR asking for total freedom with no invisible walls and no forced reset. Without those limits, some tracks would need something else to contain them, which would have the same function as those invisible walls anyway, otherwise what would the limit be on the tracks? Something would eventually have to stop the player from driving away from the track.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used Bathurst as an example, but I figured people would have taken it for the light hearted joke about not having a track limit that it was, instead of getting all butthurt and carrying on about it. You claiming I insisted people here were actually saying bathurst should have a fully explorable exterior is doing exactly what you claimed I did, fabricating something to argue against, so another dose of irony in your post.

You can pretend the video doesn't show the modeling I talked about above or in the previous post, and you can pretend that it isn't very extensive compared to what is typically done in racing games when going outside of the racing area; but since I only posted the video because of your earlier assertion that drifting24/7 latched onto about "system memory", and since you originally insisted that they hadn't done any outer collision detection at all:

Again, you claimed it was extensively modeled, and I said the collision isn't extensively modeled, because the player in that video drives right through trees, people, a building, and the ground itself a couple of times. The player also stayed very close to the track limits at all times, apart from when he strayed away a bit and drove right through the ground. There was also another car that is clearly seen driving through the ground only a few metres away from the edge of the level. I agree the ground bumps are there for a couple of metres, but I wouldn't call that extensively modeled collision, as it doesn't extend far.

I also concede that when I said "they haven't modeled anything" I should have said the collision isn't modeled fully or far instead.

The difference being, of course, that in real life access roads are sometimes closed off to prevent cars from flying out of the racing area during an accident; possibly because invisible walls haven't been invented in real life yet.



....possibly to look more clever than you actually are

More irony. That comment served no purpose other than to try make yourself look clever. Unfortunately, Bathurst actually has a number of open access roads to the circuit irl, which are closed off in game with barriers, as I said.

Anyway, this has gone far enough. If you want to keep arguing pointlessly, and taking things I said out of context, or making things up I didn't even say, feel free to pm me.

 

[Aero2000]

Dirt Rally

I do prefer if GT7 has something like this instead of the invisible walls! It's makes the game feel more real

 

[ZedNinetySix]

9 years later and they still have an obsession with invisible walls