Some hidden/reserved GT5 tickets

  • Thread starter sorg
  • 1,729 comments
  • 407,444 views
Simonk, I'm not questioning you, so don't think that I am.

Is that kind of quoting not a violation of the AUP? I'm just asking because I quoted a lot of posts into one of my post a while back and got told it was. Just asking, I'm not being a douche.
 
I would say that the biggest patch that the game has had in terms of forcing users to adjust to would probably be the latest one, where they gave online physics more or less parity with offline physics. And that is a huge change, yes. Bigger than basically any other change thus far in terms of needing to readjust to. None of the other ones, be it the suspension model changes, the tire wear changes or the aerodynamic changes are quite that major.
But all of that would still pale in comparison to what would happen if they added the braking upgrades and the requisite physics changes to make them actually do something. Since GT5 came out, it wasn't an issue that they weren't there, since GT5 didn't measure brake fade so they wouldn't have done anything. I've even maintained since day one that, despite people claiming that PD "dumbed down" the tuning or whatever, that removing brake upgrades when the effects aren't modeled was the correct decision.

But if PD adds brake fade, it would be a major undertaking. Regardless of what terminology you would like to use, all of the major physics changes thus far have been building off of or modifying the base that was already there. For the brakes, though, they would likely need to come up with a brake fade system from scratch. To do that, if they wanted to do it right, they would need to cross check the brake system on every car in the game (since some brake systems and materials fade less than others). They would need to completely redo how the ABS currently functions. They would need to implement realistic default brake balance settings for every car. They would need to make the game keep track of each variable for each car in the game. Huge amounts of work, for what would be (this far past release) little gain in terms of appreciation (and considering it would change everything about how people drive, certainly no small amount of ire).


Is it possible? I suppose. The online/offline thing was huge and way out of left field. Is it likely? Not in the slightest, I don't think. Unless they have done all the legwork already (which I doubt, because we would have seen something supporting it, if nothing more than more realistic ABS), there is too much in the way of diminishing returns.

The only difficult part about brake fade modeling is the aerodynamic element, that is, predicting the air flow over the discs to determine how well they're cooled at different speeds - even then you could probably use broad strokes based on wheel location and bodywork, brake ducts etc. Everything else is easily discovered and modeled to decent enough accuracy.

What might be difficult is convincing manufacturers to allow realistic representations of their cars' respective performance under repeated, hard braking. It's for that reason, most likely, that brake fade would only be a generic thing based on brake power, rotor size and material vs. car weight and available grip. Much like the tyres are already generic, and probably always will be.

As for the effect on driving, I presume any outrage will be centred on having to re-do car setups? If so, brake fade doesn't really change that beyond tweaks to brake balance (which only has any real effect with ABS off, currently) - it only requires a subtle change to driving style, but if brake upgrades are available, brake fade can probably still be more-or-less eliminated. All that will remain is a brake warm-up phase for the highest performance brakes - that will actually make it easier to drive cars on cold tyres, assuming the brake bias will change dynamically with individual brake temperatures (the front brakes will warm up first, assuming a sensible bias).

However, despite that relative simplicity, because it's such a small (but wonderfully subtle) effect and the fact that most racing cars are engineered to stay well away from "fade" (except the practically unavoidable warm-up phase), it's still not that likely to appear, certainly in GT5's case.
 
Forgive me for snipping your post to death but....

Your entire point about the last patch being the biggest is exactly why I believe the brake patch may be possible.

Unless...



....PDI began the legwork while GT5 was still in development and pulled the brake upgrade options from the retail copy because it wasn't complete.

The sheer amount of work was something I had not considered prior to this post, so as of now, I am leaning towards the brake upgrades being saved for GT6.👍

Or maybe it's the simpler explanation that since we are including cars from much older versions of the game - many of which already included those very same upgrades, that the cars' upgrade files needed to have something to see(even if not actually equipped) to prevent the game from crashing or glitching when attempting to load the upgrade condition of the car. So a [likely non-functional] upgrade component is included for the game to verify the existence of, but never shown nor presented as an option. This would help explain why the brake balance controller is included as an upgrade when all the cars come with it as a default, non-upgraded part.

Doing this would mean a lot less work than going into each individual car and removing all reference to those upgrades, and then testing all possible places where the game has to deal with all of those cars to make sure nothing unforseen has gotten messed up and causes problems, then when something does invariably go wrong going back through all of the changes and everything remotely connected to what was happening when the problems occurred and trying to find the exact cause of the issue, and then testing all possible things related to all of those things all over again. Yes I know that was a big run-on sentence, by design.
 
Simonk, I'm not questioning you, so don't think that I am.

Is that kind of quoting not a violation of the AUP? I'm just asking because I quoted a lot of posts into one of my post a while back and got told it was. Just asking, I'm not being a douche.

Don't see anything in the AUP https://www.gtplanet.net/aup/ but I only did it like that instead of like a new post so that no idiot went and quoted it all. You can't quote quotes unless you do it manually.
 
I hope PD will take it into good direction. We all see these secrets are very desirable by many GT5 fans. So, may be PD will open it finally. This will make second life of GT5. It's not a secret that currently GT5 is in stagnation. If you are not addicted to online races, then GT5 become boring... Only rare seasonals and trading (with all current limitations it's not so attractive, actually) keep GT5 alive. So, secrets opened officially could give some boosts to GT5 community without much effort from PD side.

Hope so...

Sorg, thanks for ALL your hard work and what is very apparent that your intentions are meant only for the good of the game and those of us who use and love it. It would be a wonderful upgrade if PD would do as you have mentioned above. The game would have a completely new life. Perhaps Sir Kazunori Yamauchi could have PD inform us that each of these "secrets" would be added on a weekly basis as with current seasonals. That would certainly create a boatload of renewed interest and participation. Though some would be haters, many of us would pay small fee to have some new feature added via DLC on a group by group basis.
Thanks Man :bowdown:
 
Sorg, thanks for ALL your hard work and what is very apparent that your intentions are meant only for the good of the game and those of us who use and love it. It would be a wonderful upgrade if PD would do as you have mentioned above. The game would have a completely new life. Perhaps Sir Kazunori Yamauchi could have PD inform us that each of these "secrets" would be added on a weekly basis as with current seasonals. That would certainly create a boatload of renewed interest and participation. Though some would be haters, many of us would pay small fee to have some new feature added via DLC on a group by group basis.
Thanks Man :bowdown:


Agreed 👍

I would love to see the 5G and JP Flag Color X1s appear and wouldn't mind paying for them. :)
 
SimonK
Why? When you know it has taken them zero money and little effort to create them?

From a business stand point if they can get away with dlc with very little effort then they will.
 
Why? When you know it has taken them zero money and little effort to create them?

JP Flag: No.

5G: Yes, I want an X1 variation without a stupid vacuum thrown underneath, and also a non-ridiculous power output. Its less work for me to pay 99¢ than for me to go about the trouble of getting a Japanese PS3/Account just to earn a car.
 
I would pay for those two cars as DLC. PD give us plenty of other stuff for free and if they swing a good deal with say General Motors in the process then good luck to them. Every dollar/yen in the PD bank account brings GT6 a little closer in my book.

I've had 1000's of hours of fun out of GT5 so a few bucks here and there is well deserved.
 
From a business stand point if they can get away with dlc with very little effort then they will.

I know, I was asking why he was willing to pay for them. That's the problem, people are giving PD the reason to shaft us if they tell them they're willing to pay money for something that cost PD nothing. A bit like the paint packs, PD must have been laughing their heads off that so many people were willing to pay for that and not just once, multiple times. If people stood up and said no maybe they'd get the idea they can't get away with such questionable DLC content.

It's not about the small amount of money, it's the principle. Why give PD money, even a small amount, for something you know they can give for free and it not cost them?

I would pay for those two cars as DLC. PD give us plenty of other stuff for free and if they swing a good deal with say General Motors in the process then good luck to them. Every dollar/yen in the PD bank account brings GT6 a little closer in my book.

I've had 1000's of hours of fun out of GT5 so a few bucks here and there is well deserved.

tumblr_m7j0xwYBPU1rriwxro1_250.gif
 
Last edited:
It's for that reason, most likely, that brake fade would only be a generic thing based on brake power, rotor size and material vs. car weight and available grip.
You're assuming that GT5 already takes into account all of those variables rather than something that would need to be calculated in addition to what is already modeled by the physics engine. Nothing about how GT5 plays tells me that brake material (or even brake type) is differentiated by the engine. Maybe there's something I'm missing (I never drive with ABS off, so perhaps that completely changes how the brakes work), but you're acting as if this is all already there and ready to be implemented and I don't see why.


I would pay for those two cars as DLC. PD give us plenty of other stuff for free and if they swing a good deal with say General Motors in the process then good luck to them. Every dollar/yen in the PD bank account brings GT6 a little closer in my book.

I've had 1000's of hours of fun out of GT5 so a few bucks here and there is well deserved.
Not even gonna touch this.
 
Last edited:
Why? When you know it has taken them zero money and little effort to create them?
Ah you have a point there.

Perhaps I thought that since these cars have (I assume) little priority to be added, I wouldn't mind paying for them if they were added. :/
 
I for one would not pay for two more cars that I already have 3 of and that I never use anyways - 1 of which I paid for as part of a DLC already, one of which I was given anyway in game for reaching Level 35 B-Spec and one which I bought for reaching Level 40 A-Spec.

I don't need the 3 I've already got, why would I pay for 2 more that have different paint jobs?
 
@Sorg,

I don't really understand any of this that's going on but I do have a question to see if you could look into. Probably a stupid thing to ask though. Since some cars are ported directly from GT4 and GTPSP, are there possibly cars hidden in GT5 files that we lost, like the Audi Auto Union thing, and even the Nike 2022 Concept? I know there's more but I can't think of them. Again I don't understand all this stuff, but is it possible you could find these if they are on there? Maybe they were locked by PD not to be used, but were still ported to the files of GT5.
 
I just don't get why people think PD are paupers and that we should be giving them every penny we can. We've already bought 9 million copies of GT5, now whilst it's impossible to determine which of those were full price $60 and which were the cut price $20 versions but if we average it at say $40 per copy that is still a $367,600,000 revenue/turnover. Then you have 5,350,000 million copies of Prologue which I believe originally sold for $40. Later copies were cheaper so let's average that at $25. That's another $133,750,000 for an rough estimated total of $500 million of revenue from the two games sales.

Now again we have no idea what cut PD get, obviously it's not even close to being the full amount as some goes to cost of goods, some to the retailers, some to tax etc but I've read figures of around 30% going to the developer/publisher if it's first party. So that's approx $150 million to PD. We've been told the game cost $60 million to develop so that makes them $90 million up.

Again this numbers are all VERY rough so please don't pick them apart, they're not meant to be terribly accurate because of course none of us could possibly know the true figures. I'm just illustrating that it's pretty clear PD have plenty of funds just from sales of the GT5 game and don't need to rip us off with DLC content that cost them nothing.
 
^^True and that doesn't include the totals for DLC so the numbers are a bit higher.

Still, these weren't likely to be implemented to begin with, but if they were I am sure they would be free anyway.
 
PD don't need to rip us off with DLC content that cost them nothing.

I know they don't, but people see DLC as extra content, things that they are willing to pay for because they're add-ons to the game. I don't see that being the case so much with the 3 Skyline TC's that were in the Race Car Pack, to be honest, but I bought that pack for the other cars and because they were add-ons. Same with tracks - I would buy them because I don't have them and I might drive on them at some point.

But the paints - I have enough already, I don't think paying for more is really going to make much of a difference as I don't paint my cars very much. And more cars that are already in the game? Don't think so (the premium Jaguar LMP is somewhat of an exception, but I would never use it anyway), so really these are not so much add-ons, more money-spinners for the people that are concerned about extra paints/gear or whatever.

The other stuff could be considered extra content that PD put an effort into producing (Cars that weren't already in the game in the car packs/tracks etc.).

But, by your reckoning, there really should be more DLC's, as if this was the case - making money for nothing - there could be lots of extra stuff (already in the game as sorg has found) and they could have just sold it to us as DLC, (Not now though, because we found it) but they haven't.
 
Well the 'race car pack' was a shady move as well because they were all clearly just RM cars masquerading as touring cars. Sorg even said in this thread they're labelled as RMs internally.

I will buy DLC if I think it's worth it, to date that means I've bought the first track pack for Spa and that's it.

There really isn't anything Sorg has uncovered in this thread that PD could sell as DLC. None of it is worth paying for.
 
There really isn't anything Sorg has uncovered in this thread that PD could sell as DLC. None of it is worth paying for.

I love how you say that, but this thread has had more than 1000 posts. Since this thread people have been drooling over the possibilities of these bits and bobs being implemented now that we've found them.

So even if you don't think they're worth paying for others certainly do (RSS and SSS tyres come to mind). And fair play to them, but I don't think PD have any intention of implementing this stuff now just because we found out about it.
 
I don't recall many people saying they would pay for this stuff, rather a free update like the previous however many they've released. Why would you pay for Super Soft tyres as DLC?
 
I don't recall many people saying they would pay for this stuff, rather a free update like the previous however many they've released. Why would you pay for Super Soft tyres as DLC?

I just got the impression that so many people were drooling over this stuff that it made sense if someone was willing to pay for it - publicly posted or not.
 
You're assuming that GT5 already takes into account all of those variables rather than something that would need to be calculated in addition to what is already modeled by the physics engine. Nothing about how GT5 plays tells me that brake material (or even brake type) is differentiated by the engine. Maybe there's something I'm missing (I never drive with ABS off, so perhaps that completely changes how the brakes work), but you're acting as if this is all already there and ready to be implemented and I don't see why.
...

I'm not assuming any such thing, and your lack of ability to determine whether material plays a role in braking in GT5 is immaterial.

What you do is set up a heat transfer model, with capacitance according to rotor mass (approximated from dimensions, or known), put heat in relative to instantaneous braking duty (mostly dependant on the tyre model) and remove it according to the available cooling duty from the surrounding air. That latter part is the tricky bit (but easily faked, like GT's ABS), the rest is pretty solidly described by theory, taking a few reasonable assumptions.
Brake dimensions and materials are probably more-or-less public knowledge, material properties are easily discovered and everything else is already there in the game.

Then, for the (possible, not confirmed actual) reasons I've already explained, you construct generic brake pad compounds that mimic the sorts of things you get in real life, and have specific temperature operating ranges and associated friction profiles that return stopping force vs. applied force (pedal position, brake bias, ABS etc.) and temperature (from the heat transfer model). In that sense, they'd work much like the tyres do, and so I bet a functional brake fade model could be copied from parts of the existing tyre model. It'd maybe plug in to the physics engine as a modifier to the braking force numbers coming out of the ABS.

The model, whilst crude as I've described it, would also implicitly enable varying disc sizes, materials, cooling etc. and is agnostic to any kind of brake control systems (like ABS) that might feed it with different brake power numbers. Once the model is working, it's just a case of data entry, like the rest of the physics - tuning of the systems can be ongoing without upsetting that process at all.

Anyway, I hope you didn't miss the part where I said I doubt it'll appear in a GT game. ;)
 
And you must have missed the part where I said that adding all of those variables would be one the problems unless they've already done all the work to get the information that they would need to have to do it. This is the same game that has trouble getting simple things like gear ratios and rev limits and curb weights and even horsepower right despite all of that being "more-or-less public knowledge," so forgive me if I don't think it would be as simple as you are presenting it to add things like brake dimensions and strength and pad material behind the scenes.



And thanks for, you know, answering my query about whether the game already takes material into account.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
@Sorg,

I don't really understand any of this that's going on but I do have a question to see if you could look into. Probably a stupid thing to ask though. Since some cars are ported directly from GT4 and GTPSP, are there possibly cars hidden in GT5 files that we lost, like the Audi Auto Union thing, and even the Nike 2022 Concept? I know there's more but I can't think of them. Again I don't understand all this stuff, but is it possible you could find these if they are on there? Maybe they were locked by PD not to be used, but were still ported to the files of GT5.

I think i've already discovered all hidden cars in current GT5 version 2.09.
It's possible that some cars may be inside some non-linked files as a garbage, but i doubt.
The same for tracks.

I believe in PD labs GT5 can have size let's say 10 times bigger than we have. I think there are many unfinished, abandoned micro projects of cars, and tracks. But there is no reason to push it as update without willing to use.
 
@sorg and dylpro
I think that those cars were removed because they couldn't update the physics. As sorg also said it could be in PDs files for GT5 (not on game disc) and are just scrapped experiments. :/
 
Back