Should VGT go die?

[MatskiMonk]

What PD have done is plug in the final numbers that the manufacturers claim are possible with no actual proof they are possible

In all fairness, that's an assumption. Perhaps not an unfair one, but you don't know how much of a feasibility study the various manufacturers put into the design studies... so this would be one of those citation required things.

They said the laser in the Chapparal will give 900hp. Will it? Nobody knows, because the whole idea is hypothetical and hasn't been simulated. That is the performance is has in the game though, because Chevy says so.

The whole idea isn't hypothetical, laser propulsion is a thing, so are Lightcraft, and the principle is proven. It wouldn't be much of a stretch for Chaparral/Chevrolet to ask one of the scientists/institutes involved in developing the technology what it would take to provide that kind of performance, and reverse engineer the numbers from there. It's clearly not possible to manufacture something like the 2X at the moment, but that doesn't mean we don't know how it would work if we could. IMHO the laser propulsion bit itself seems to be one of the most plausible factors of the 2X, and I don't see why that couldn't be simulated (it's not too far removed from Rocket Science afterall!)... its the power source for it that's the work of fiction as far as I can tell.

 

[mister dog]

In all fairness, that's an assumption. Perhaps not an unfair one, but you don't know how much of a feasibility study the various manufacturers put into the design studies... so this would be one of those citation required things.

 

[Imari]

The whole idea isn't hypothetical, laser propulsion is a thing, so are Lightcraft, and the principle is proven. It wouldn't be much of a stretch for Chaparral/Chevrolet to ask one of the scientists/institutes involved in developing the technology what it would take to provide that kind of performance, and reverse engineer the numbers from there. It's clearly not possible to manufacture something like the 2X at the moment, but that doesn't mean we don't know how it would work if we could. IMHO the laser propulsion bit itself seems to be one of the most plausible factors of the 2X, and I don't see why that couldn't be simulated (it's not too far removed from Rocket Science afterall!)... its the power source for it that's the work of fiction as far as I can tell.

No, it needs a lot of things for that car to be even remotely plausible.

The power source of sufficient capacity.
A laser capable of operating at those power levels for a sustained period.
Cooling for the above.
Superconductors or additional cooling for the connective conductors.
Some way of muffling the explosions so that it doesn't sound like WW3, because otherwise no track will ever let it operate.

Realistically, the car would weigh about as much as a train. Realistically, most of those technologies are somewhere between 50 years and the end of the universe away.

And even then it's a somewhat dodgy idea because if you're using open air explosions then by definition you're throwing away half the propulsive power you get. The advantage with a lightcraft is that the propulsion can be separate and ground based, so it can be as large and bulky as you like without negative impact on the aircraft characteristics. If you're lugging around the laser and power with you on the back of the car all that goes away, and it's simply a slightly dubious method of propulsion that is just technical enough not to get a second glance from most of the lay public. And lets the manufacturer write LASER POWERED on it, because apparently lasers are enough to sell people on a BS concept like this.

 

[nocturnalgrey]

I'm struggling to take PD seriously. How are we meant to respect this as a proper FIA sanctioned game when half the cars are either fictional versions or don't exist at all like with the Vision GTs. Why can't they just put their hands in their pockets and get some actual licenses for the cars that are used in real life? Give me some real LMPs, GT3s, GTEs GT500s hell even old GT1s, they must be cheap by now right?

I smell Assetto Corsa being my next sim racer. Is it just me or is PD somehow moving further away from real world stuff even with all these announcements?

I am struggling to take this post seriously. Why? Because VGT isn't some PDI only fantasy, it's a direct collaboration with automobile manufacturers.

If I was a gamer all the while working for let's say Ford Motor Company and was given a chance to help design a new car for a Gran Turismo video game, how excited would I be that a professional company is branching out in this terrority?

Around 1997, a guy from Japan decided to make a video game (please don't lose sight of this) with real cars, real places and with pretty realistic features. Nearly 20 years later look where we are in the genre. I have read somewhere here that we could be in a golden age of racing games.

Fast forward to today, this same guy is pioneering with just about every major car company to produce one of kind automobiles for a video game. What will this mean in 20 years? I don't know, but I am sure excited to find out!

 

[glassjaw]

Around 1997, a guy from Japan decided to make a video game (please don't lose sight of this) with real cars, real places and with pretty realistic features. Nearly 20 years later look where we are in the genre. I have read somewhere here that we could be in a golden age of racing games.

Fast forward to today, this same guy is pioneering with just about every major car company to produce one of kind automobiles for a video game. What will this mean in 20 years? I don't know, but I am sure excited to find out!

As am I. I'd like the VGT cars to be a bit more grounded in reality; that said, it's still a pivotal moment in the auto and games industries when a developer can go to a manufacturer and ask them to develop a concept specifically for their product. Though, the old man in me says the golden age of racing games ended somewhere around 10 years ago, when every publisher pretty much gave up on big-budget arcade racers. Right now, we're in the golden age of simulators, and everything else has kind of disappeared.

 

[Samus]

I am struggling to take this post seriously. Why? Because VGT isn't some PDI only fantasy, it's a direct collaboration with automobile manufacturers.

If I was a gamer all the while working for let's say Ford Motor Company and was given a chance to help design a new car for a Gran Turismo video game, how excited would I be that a professional company is branching out in this terrority?

Around 1997, a guy from Japan decided to make a video game (please don't lose sight of this) with real cars, real places and with pretty realistic features. Nearly 20 years later look where we are in the genre. I have read somewhere here that we could be in a golden age of racing games.

Fast forward to today, this same guy is pioneering with just about every major car company to produce one of kind automobiles for a video game. What will this mean in 20 years? I don't know, but I am sure excited to find out!

It's not like these companies haven't always been designing wacky concept cars. Just now someone is modelling them in a video game.

 

[Manasseh257NSX]

I say nay. At least for the realistic ones. Mazda, Subaru, Toyota, Bugatti, VW, Lexus, Alpine, and definitely BMW. They aren't too over the top to me and give a uniqueness to the game. Now cars like the Tomahawk, Chaparral and all that, yeah, do away with those. I'm not with the whole over the top fantasy racing anymore really. Especially in a game who aspires to be labeled "The Real Driving Simulator"

To me, the first time driving the tomahawk was a challenge and fun. But after a few days, there's no joy in driving a 2000+ HP car that can unrealistically hit 350+ mph in less than 25 seconds..

I for one am in the minority in this, but I like made up/fictional race cars. It makes me feel like I'm making history with it when I'm racing Now mind you, I am in favor of more authentic race cars. Believe me, but I don't necessarily condemn fictional but close to realistic racecars either.

Just my take on it.

 

[trustjab]

Not to take this off-topic even more, but laser propulsion has been a thing of discussion in the UFO community for decades. Even back in the late 80's there was talk of of laser propulsion being used for some of the "black triangles" seen in Europe (like Belgium). What these big corporations have in secret is at least 10 years ahead of what we see on the streets!

 

[MatskiMonk]

No

Odd that you chose to disagree with me and not Samus.

 

[Scuderia Paul]

No, I do not think VGT should cease to exist. In my opinion it is a great initiative which has brought us some fabulous machines and will no doubt to continue to do so. They don't all interest me - SRT Tomahawk series and Chevrolet Chaparral did nothing for me.

My worry over VGT is that PD will continue to focus on them instead of releasing more real cars for GTS DLC. It is more important than ever to have a decent DLC programme since the car roster, even at 140 cars, will lack a huge number of important cars past and present.

 

[Samus]

So I just counted, currently we know of 24 cars in GTS that are either a VGT, fictional race car or both.

Of the 137 cars that is a 17.5% fictional rate and it's only going to increase since most VGT are not absolutely confirmed, but as good as.

So again, I think it is a very valid point.

An update on this, now more VGTs are confirmed the number is up to 36, although the total number is also now supposedly 140. We're up to 25.7% fictional and there is still scope for more VGTs and fictional racers.

 

[JohnBM01]

No, it shouldn't die. For one thing, the Vision Gran Turismo gives GT a little identity and exclusivity. It isn't to say GT has an identity problem. Even if the cars are incredibly unrealistic, they offer an experience you could only get with Gran Turismo and in the best possible way. The mark of great games and game franchises is to offer something exclusively in one game and executed well. Take away the Vision Granv Turismo concept from GT, and while GT won't become extinct, a bit of GT's appeal will go away.

I look at Vision Gran Turismo more as identity rather than "useless tat" (as a term someone used in the development of GT4). And to be honest, I become intrigued at each of the VGT concepts various designers come up with. Most people still probably only know Vision Gran Turismo as the tech demo in the development between GT4 and GT5. So my call- keep Vision Gran Turismo. I also voted "narp."


[UPDATE] misspelled "identity." Accidentally voted "yarp" instead of "narp." Both changes made.

 

[AKps3]

@JohnBM01
"No, it shouldn't die" but you still voted with yarp?

 

[Imari]

Odd that you chose to disagree with me and not Samus.

I clicked on the last page of the thread and your post was at the top. Must I read back through the thread and find the first person to talk about a topic and reply to them, or may I simply add my two cents onto the latest post?

I don't recall Samus claiming that the Chaparral was plausible in any of his other posts, but if he did then I address my previous post to him as well.

 

[JohnBM01]

Damn it to Hell... well, I changed up my vote to "Narp." Serious monkeyshine on my behalf. Thankfully, I could change my vote to the poll. Pencils have erasers for a reason.

 

[Imari]

Pencils have erasers for a reason.

Emergency rations when you're stuck in a snowstorm?

Nomnomnom.

 

[MisterWaffles]

I think at this point the VGT project should just get it's own PS Store game for like, 10 dollars or something. That would sell like hotcakes.

 

[Jahgee]

Am I the only one amused at how childish the title and poll of this thread is?

 

[Leadfoot530]

I don't understand all the hate for the VGT program. Believe me, I absolutly hate, HATE, concept cars. I just don't find them practical. They look over the top, and they just don't appeal to me. However, these are only for a video game, they're ment to have fun with, not be practical; push the limits of one's imagination. They're there to inspire and get people thinking. "If we did this, what could that open up for possiblilities?" Truat me, I'd love to have a 2017 Ford GT, or a McLaren P1, or [ENTER REAL LIFE CAR HERE]. If we don't get them, yeah, I'll be a bit dissapointed, but I'm not going to cry a river over it. It's free DLC for goodness sakes! It may not be exactly what I want, but I don't gotta pay for it, so yeah, I'll get it. Brodens the experience, right?

No game is going to be exactly what everybody wants. GT has a handling model that I enjoy, since it's easy to pick up, but the cars are a bit dated. PCARS has a lot of the cars I like, but we all know what happened with that one. It's all about compromise. You don't like it, don't drive the VGT's, but doj't shoot the people in the foot that do enjoying having them.

What's even the issue with this? It's free content! What's the big problem?!?!?

 

[Jahgee]

Also, I don't see the issue with suggesting other games to someone requesting a feature that GTSport doesn't currently have. If you go to a McDonald's and demand a Spaghetti dinner, is it not a good idea to suggest to that person to try the Olive Garden down the road.

 

[1241Penguin]

Also, I don't see the issue with suggesting other games to someone requesting a feature that GTSport doesn't currently have.

Because it's a non-argument. It doesn't contribute anything other than the fact that it's a cheap way for someone to pretend that they have something worthwhile to say.


Put another way, if someone said, "I want more realistic racing in GT!" and the immediate response was "go play iRacing then!" What exactly does that accomplish? Does that mean that GT is stuck in a pit and cannot improve? That those who want to see something in GT cannot because it's already in another game?

 

[Jahgee]

Because it's a non-argument. It doesn't contribute anything other than the fact that it's a cheap way for someone to pretend that they have something worthwhile to say.


Put another way, if someone said, "I want more realistic racing in GT!" and the immediate response was "go play iRacing then!" What exactly does that accomplish? Does that mean that GT is stuck in a pit and cannot improve? That those who want to see something in GT cannot because it's already in another game?

All it does is give the individual requesting that feature a suggestion for a game that already has that feature, allowing them to seek out and enjoy the feature they would like to see in GT. I feel that you're searching for hidden meanings in posts that they simply don't have

 

[1241Penguin]

All it does is give the individual requesting that feature a suggestion for a game that already has that feature, allowing them to seek out and enjoy the feature they would like to see in GT.

Oh. So if I wanted realistic racing I shouldn't look at GT; I should look at iRacing instead. Thanks for the insightful response. 👍

Now I don't know about you, but realistic racing isn't something so out of line from what you would see from the racing sim genre that you feel that it's illogical to wish to see it in a game from that genre.


To make an analogy, cars were created for the sole purpose of moving people and things about, so technically, anything that doesn't contribute to this would be superfluous. Does that mean that if a car manufacture were to create a car with nothing but an engine, some seats, and a steering wheel, that it should stop people from asking the manufacture from also putting air bags in their cars? Or a radio? Or anything else that is considered the "standard"?

I feel that you're searching for hidden meanings in posts that they simply don't have

Such as?

 

[7HO]

Nothing stopping you from playing Assetto Corsa.

Honestly... why must people have the mindset of "I must only play this one title, and nothing else"?

Assetto Corsa is nothing like this title and has more in common with a normal release of GT. There really is only one other game like this and that might not be an option for some people.

I think the question over the validity of fictional cars for the reason given is a fair one.

 

[Jahgee]

Oh. So if I wanted realistic racing I shouldn't look at GT; I should look at iRacing instead. Thanks for the insightful response. 👍

Now I don't know about you, but realistic racing isn't something so out of line from what you would see from the racing sim genre that you feel that it's illogical to wish to see it in a game from that genre.

No, if you want realistic racing (which is really too broad of a term to be used in this analogy effectively), there already exists a game with the features you're looking for. This thread https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...theft-auto-online-the-ultimate-update.343980/ exemplifies this argument perfectly

To make an analogy, cars were created for the sole purpose of moving people and things about, so technically, anything that doesn't contribute to this would be superfluous. Does that mean that if a car manufacture were to create a car with nothing but an engine, some seats, and a steering wheel, that it should stop people from asking the manufacture from also putting air bags in their cars? Or a radio? Or anything else that is considered the "standard"?

Again, much too broad an example. A better example to what occurred in this thread would be if a car manufacturer makes cars with a specific feature not featured in other cars, and instead of getting a car without this feature you request a car made by this manufacturer that does not have this feature

Such as?

Does that mean that GT is stuck in a pit and cannot improve? That those who want to see something in GT cannot because it's already in another game?

 

[1241Penguin]

No, if you want realistic racing (which is really too broad of a term to be used in this analogy effectively), there already exists a game with the features you're looking for. This thread https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...theft-auto-online-the-ultimate-update.343980/ exemplifies this argument perfectly

I don't suppose you mind summing that thread up for me since I have zero intention of going through an entire thread just to search for the argument you're trying to make?

Again, much too broad an example. A better example to what occurred in this thread would be if a car manufacturer makes cars with a specific feature not featured in other cars, and instead of getting a car without this feature you request a car made by this manufacturer that does not have this feature

So what features have been asked for that you think are so "specific" that you must play a specific game just for it? Asking for race cars to be in a racing game? Asking for realistic racing in a racing sim? I'm genuinely at a loss here.


As for:

I feel that you're searching for hidden meanings in posts that they simply don't have

Nope. Not seeing it. But I suppose I'll find out depending on what your answer to the above is.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Also, I don't see the issue with suggesting other games to someone requesting a feature that GTSport doesn't currently have. If you go to a McDonald's and demand a Spaghetti dinner, is it not a good idea to suggest to that person to try the Olive Garden down the road.

You've been buying Coke for 20 years then one day you discover they've changed the formula. You aren't a big fan and you just want your old Coke back. Enough people complain and maybe you get the old formula back. Hence, Classic Coke. "Go play iRacing" contributes nothing to the discussion about GT Sport and the VGT project. Having fictional cars racing against real life cars in an FIA sanctioned sim is a valid concern for some people. Having fictional cars replace real car DLC is a valid concern for some people. A response of, "go play this other game", is internet speak for, "I don't have an answer so I'm just going to tell you to go away and stop whinging", instead.

 

[Jahgee]

I don't suppose you mind summing that thread up for me since I have zero intention of going through an entire thread just to search for the argument you're trying to make?

It's only a 1 page thread so it's not that much work, but if you really can't spare the time: Man wants features in Saints Row games to be put in Grand Theft Auto as well as some unique features. Reactions to his thread are that his ideas are too complex and that Saints Row already exists, no need to make Grand Theft Auto into Saints Row

Honestly there's no point in this discussion, you're going to have your opinion and I'm going to have mine, neither is objectively right. All we are accomplishing is padding our post counts really.

You've been buying Coke for 20 years then one day you discover they've changed the formula. You aren't a big fan and you just want your old Coke back. Enough people complain and maybe you get the old formula back. Hence, Classic Coke.

Gran Turismo has always had fictional race cars and concept cars, this isn't a case of something being changed completely as in the case of the Coke formula, instead a feature that someone doesn't like is being more pronounced.

"Go play iRacing" contributes nothing to the discussion about GT Sport and the VGT project. Having fictional cars racing against real life cars in an FIA sanctioned sim is a valid concern for some people. Having fictional cars replace real car DLC is a valid concern for some people.

And if the direction that a game developer takes their game is a valid concern, then the game may not be for you, and a suitable replacement may need to be found.

A response of, "go play this other game", is internet speak for, "I don't have an answer so I'm just going to tell you to go away and stop whinging", instead.

Again, not every post has a hidden agenda. Sometimes, the curtain is just blue.

 

[1241Penguin]

It's only a 1 page thread so it's not that much work, but if you really can't spare the time: Man wants features in Saints Row games to be put in Grand Theft Auto as well as some unique features. Reactions to his thread are that his ideas are too complex and that Saints Row already exists, no need to make Grand Theft Auto into Saints Row

Since I have next to no knowledge of either game, I won't really understand the context of the thread, but thanks for the sum up.

In any case, I'd like to ask you again:

So what features have been asked for that you think are so "specific" that you must play a specific game just for it? Asking for race cars to be in a racing game? Asking for realistic racing in a racing sim? I'm genuinely at a loss here.

And if the direction that a game developer takes their game is a valid concern, then the game may not be for you, and a suitable replacement may need to be found.

Right? If GTS continues the trend since GT1 of things like mediocre engine sounds or chase the rabbit style racing, then it's absolutely in my best interest to move on, isn't it? Don't blame PD for their lackluster games and inability to innovate or improve, blame myself for not playing the right game. Classic.

The reason some of us want PD to improve is because we genuinely love the Gran Turismo series, like myself ever since I got my hands on my copy of GT3. We don't want PD to continue making dumb decisions as they have done in GT5 and GT6, we want the next GT game to be an AAA title as its predecessors were. Honestly, if my introduction to the series was from GT5, or, god forbid, GT6, then yes, I probably won't care about GT and PD and wouldn't care less if the series were to burn to the ground. Indeed, I'd just move on to better games.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I clicked on the last page of the thread and your post was at the top. Must I read back through the thread and find the first person to talk about a topic and reply to them, or may I simply add my two cents onto the latest post?

Huh? You didn't need to read the whole thread, the points I was responding to were there quoted in my post which you quoted!

I don't recall Samus claiming that the Chaparral was plausible in any of his other posts, but if he did then I address my previous post to him as well.

I don't recall me claiming the Chaparral was plausible either. I did say that IMHO the laser part of it seems the most plausible part of the 2X... most being a relative statement.

Just to be clear, this is pretty much my position on the 2X all along...

I still don't like the fact the 2X relies too much on make-believe... but it's an interesting proposition.

I'd class the 2X as fantasy though, not futurism. I'm well aware the principle is sound, but the practical application is both not possible and highly impractical.

Thanks, but I said I'm aware the principle is sound.. just not feasible in this application, even if there was a power source small enough and light enough for the application, it could probably be applied in a more appropriate manner than using a laser to propel the driver into the armco at 250mph, hands and face first. Even if you could build a laser propulsion system into a race car, I doubt they'd do it as is portrayed with the 2X.

Even the 2X, which is pushing it in my opinion, has a basis for reality, it's not the laser propulsion itself that is implausible, because that's been done (to a degree), it's being able to sustain the kind of energy required to power it from something like an on-board engine or small battery that pushes it beyond current boundaries - that and the fact no car would ever be allowed to race that can achieve those speeds and uses the drivers arms and face as a crumple zone.

.. the point I was making, was that I think it is possible to simulate the results of something, without having built it, if we know the physics behind it, which I believe we do in the case of Laser propulsion.