Should the Veyron have a place in GT6

[Youngun]

The Nike One used fictional technology.

I don't see how you can say the X1 was 100% accurate to real life for reasons already covered.

It's as close as we can get, used real tech and knowledge. So 90% accurate I guess. Tyres and brakes may differ though but handling wouldn't be far off. Even fans for downforce us old school and work extremely well.

 

[gamerdog6482]

The Nike One used fictional tech.

Fictional tech that is under development.

 

[Spagetti69]

Fictional tech that is under development.

Link?

 

[Samus]

Fictional tech that is under development.

Would you please stop making these bold claims without anything to back it up, it's becoming a habit of yours. However even if they were working on tech like that until it does exist it's still fictional.

 

[Exorcet]

I don't see how you can say the X1 was 100% accurate to real life for reasons already covered.

I never said it was, especially not the GT5 version. The point I was making was that looking believable shouldn't be the point. Cars should be realistic.

Modern F1 cars wouldn't look believable in 1950, just as jet planes left many confused in the early days of jet flight. The physics worked the entire time though.

 

[1241Penguin]

I never said it was, especially not the GT5 version. The point I was making was that looking believable shouldn't be the point. Cars should be realistic.

Modern F1 cars wouldn't look believable in 1950, just as jet planes left many confused in the early days of jet flight. The physics worked the entire time though.

Yeah, as I've said before, you may as well add some pretend turbofan-powered go-kart that can go around corners at half the sound of speed. And again, don't worry about it being "unrealistic," because the way they drive are totally true to life.

 

[Exorcet]

Yeah, as I've said before, you may as well add some pretend turbofan-powered go-kart that can go around corners at half the sound of speed. And again, don't worry about it being "unrealistic," because the way they drive are totally true to life.

What you said makes no sense at all.

 

[1241Penguin]

What was that? What I just said is based on what you said.

 

[Exorcet]

If that's what you think, we've come full circle. You don't understand engineering. You said the opposite of what I've said. It could not be more clear.

you may as well add some pretend turbofan-powered go-kart that can go around corners at half the sound of speed

Go ahead and explain how that's anything like the development of the X1.

 

[1241Penguin]

If that's what you think, we've come full circle. You don't understand engineering. You said the opposite of what I've said. It could not be more clear.

Hmm it appears not.

Go ahead and explain how that's anything like the development of the X1.

 

[Exorcet]

That's not a good explanation. But here's a hint:

Red Bull didn't go "let's design make a car that can go 300 mph and is really fast in corners"

In this case, it most likely involved identifying key technologies, their limitations, and their feasibility and then estimating their performance through equations and simulations. The result being the X1.

What's the basis for your jet go kart? How is it going to corner at 500 mph (when will it corner at 500 mph? At all times?)? If you're making up numbers it doesn't sound realistic.

 

[1241Penguin]

The X1 is feasible (according to you), I'll concede that.

How about we go back to my original point of having only cars that exist in real life in the game? And yes, I know the FGT is not a real car, as are many others, but at least it's based on something that actually exists.

 

[Exorcet]

I think your original post was this

Guess not. My point being that if such a thing isn't done in real life, and GT being a simulator, it shouldn't be done in GT either.

Which doesn't mention whether a fictional car is based on something that exists or not. However, the X1 is as based on reality as the FGT, so there is no difference between the two.

Edit
Actually before that post, there was this:

Oh, so "logically," that's how it should behave.

Why don't PD come up with a car that weighs 5kg and has 5000 horsepower. I'm sure some intelligent guy will be able to predict using assumptions logic to determine how the car should drive.

Which goes back to not understand engineering and the difference between realism and reality.

I'm not being mean here, but you're misunderstanding a lot of things.

 

[1241Penguin]

My point being that if it doesn't exist in real life, don't have it in the game (plus what I just said)

Which doesn't mention whether a fictional car is based on something that exists or not. However, the X1 is as based on reality as the FGT, so there is no difference between the two.

The FGT is based on this:

What is the X1 based on?

And no, don't use "In this case, it most likely involved identifying key technologies, their limitations, and their feasibility and then estimating their performance through equations and simulations. The result being the X1.".

Get it? My point being that the X1 is based on no car that exists. Yes, it's possible, but has it been done yet? No.

 

[Downhill Dino]

I thought the FGT was based on a few various Indy and F1 cars from the late 90s and early 2000s?

 

[1241Penguin]

I thought the FGT was based on a few various Indy and F1 cars from the late 90s and early 2000s?

Is that not an F1 car from that era? Shows how much I know about the sport. My point stands, though.

 

[Exorcet]

What is the X1 based on?

Throw in Carbon Fiber, FEA, and CFD to boot.

 

[1241Penguin]

You don't seem to get what I'm trying to say, eh?

 

[Exorcet]

I have a problem with it in that it doesn't make much sense. The FGT is no different from the X1 in this context. Physical understand doesn't end when you go faster than F1. Why is a fictional car that's slower than what currently exists in reality more credible than a fictional car that's faster than what exists in reality? I'd wager that the X1 is more realistic than the FGT, but to know for sure I'd need to know how they were developed.

 

[1241Penguin]

I have a problem with it in that it doesn't make much sense. The FGT is no different from the X1 in this context. Physical understand doesn't end when you go faster than F1. Why is a fictional car that's slower than what currently exists in reality more credible than a fictional car that's faster than what exists in reality? I'd wager that the X1 is more realistic than the FGT, but to know for sure I'd need to know how they were developed.

There is no car remotely similar to an X1 in real life. There is for an FGT.

How's that?

 

[Downhill Dino]

Caparo T1?

 

[1241Penguin]

I mean the way it can take corners at such immense speeds in game, for example.

 

[Exorcet]

There is no car remotely similar to an X1 in real life. There is for an FGT.

How's that?

What car is remotely similar to the FGT? Is the FGT even defined enough mechanically to be similar to something? Or is it a shell with a bunch of generic numbers behind it?

The X1 uses nothing that hasn't been seen in reality. Ground effect, fan technology, closed wheels, turbocharging, light weight materials. It has all of that in common with those vehicles I posted before. It's more than remotely similar to them, at least if you want to consider the FGT similar to anything.

I mean the way it can take corners at such immense speeds in game, for example.

But what are you basing the X1's performance on? GT5's X1? That's not a great source since GT models all cars incorrectly. I would actually put more stock on the car's in game description than how it drives in game (though even considering GT5's physics, the X1 doesn't seem radical). Sadly the description only gives us a top speed and cornering g. Curiously, I think the top speed given in the description is much less than the car actually reaches in game even with max drag. It would make sense given how off GT's aero model is.

 

[Downhill Dino]

I mean the way it can take corners at such immense speeds in game, for example.

Oh it simply lacks the power and the tires for such activities.

 

[1241Penguin]

The X1 uses nothing that hasn't been seen in reality. Ground effect, fan technology, closed wheels, turbocharging, light weight materials. It has all of that in common with those vehicles I posted before. It's more than remotely similar to them, at least if you want to consider the FGT similar to anything.

But has something that can corner like in that Nurburgring video been done before in real life? No.

But what are you basing the X1's performance on? GT5's X1? That's not a great source since GT models all cars incorrectly. I would actually put more stock on the car's in game description than how it drives in game (though even considering GT5's physics, the X1 doesn't seem radical). Sadly the description only gives us a top speed and cornering g. Curiously, I think the top speed given in the description is much less than the car actually reaches in game even with max drag. It would make sense given how off GT's aero model is.

You may as well go on and call GT an arcade game on this basis. That way, there will be an excuse for any seemingly ridiculous car to be in the game.

 

[Downhill Dino]

But has something that can corner like in that Nurburgring video been done before in real life? No.

You are well aware that's not even remotely possible, right? I thought it was already clarified.

 

[Exorcet]

But has something that can corner like in that Nurburgring video been done before in real life? No.

That's GT5, so it's not a good source on how fast the X1 would actually take Nurburgring.

There's no doubt that the whole thing with Red Bull could be empty marketing, but it doesn't seem like it has to be. I've already shown that much of the car is based on technology that is real, and the stats, the actual stats which you won't find in GT5 while driving fall very much in line with numbers seen in real life.

You may as well go on and call GT an arcade game on this basis. That way, there will be an excuse for any seemingly ridiculous car to be in the game.

How does that relate to what I said?

 

[1241Penguin]

How does that relate to what I said?

Right here:

But what are you basing the X1's performance on? GT5's X1? That's not a great source since GT models all cars incorrectly. I would actually put more stock on the car's in game description than how it drives in game (though even considering GT5's physics, the X1 doesn't seem radical). Sadly the description only gives us a top speed and cornering g. Curiously, I think the top speed given in the description is much less than the car actually reaches in game even with max drag. It would make sense given how off GT's aero model is.

...and here...:

That's GT5, so it's not a good source on how fast the X1 would actually take Nurburgring.

Perhaps my comment about GT being an "arcade" game is a bit of exaggeration.

 

[Exorcet]

It doesn't match. The point isn't to make GT5 less accurate. I think most of us want to be more accurate, but as of game 5, there are major problems.

Fixing the issues with GT5 will change how the X1 (and other cars) drives. The X1 was not designed in GT5, it's subject to the same inaccuracies as real cars. The Suzuki Escudo is a good example. In GT2 it was simply ridiculous despite being a real car. It was basically made up. GT3 severely limited its cornering by better modeling tire grip. In GT5, more accurate drag coefficient definitions lowered its top speed to realistic levels.

Obviously, the Escudo was not fake just because the GT2 version was ridiculous (and the GT5 version keeping up with LMP cars is still ridiculous). Likewise, the X1 is not unrealistic just because GT5 doesn't realistically model it.

 

[1241Penguin]

Obviously, the Escudo was not fake just because the GT2 version was ridiculous (and the GT5 version keeping up with LMP cars is still ridiculous). Likewise, the X1 is not unrealistic just because GT5 doesn't realistically model it.

All I'm saying is that the X1 doesn't exist in real life, therefore, it has no place in GT5.