"Standard Car" does not correspond to the interior view.Update read 1st page

[Dravonic]

Actually I am going to point out that the first and last claim are not that absurd considering it's PD we are dealing with here...

That said, it is pretty obvious that the diagram is correct - the statement does say internal views are not supported. Cockpit view is an internal view.

Fair enough

Anyway, since we are pulling numbers out of our asses, I say 90/10 in favor of not having cockpits makes far more sense.

 

[tsuchiya]

Back to our diagram, what this means is:

As you can see they include every single interior view in their statement. There is no way to spin this to mean anything else.

If you argue that's not what they meant, I'm sorry but that's what they said.

This message isn´t aimed at Dravonic but to the people who, unlike him, don´t use logical thinking:
It´s been obvious for quite some time now that standard cars don´t have no interior, cockpit and/or dashboard view. Why don´t you people let it go already?

 

[Scaff]

Since it is so hard for some people to grasp, I decided to draw.

Here is an easy to understand view diagram:

Now this is from the official website:



Back to our diagram, what this means is:

As you can see they include every single interior view in their statement. There is no way to spin this to mean anything else.

If you argue that's not what they meant, I'm sorry but that's what they said.

Actually if I wanted to play devils advocate and spin this I could quite easily.


Note the follow is not what I believe simply showing that this can still be 'spun'

The official site says (and I quote) "Standard cars do not support vehicle interior camera views."

Now that's views, as in a plural, as in they don't support multiple views. That does not preclude an interior camera view, as in a singular, as in a single view.

So it is possible to spin it and grasp at that last straw.

Note - Once again I repeat this is not what I believe, simply showing it can still be spun if you want. I fully reserve the right to mercilessly mock anyone who claims this is what I believe.


Scaff

 

[Dravonic]

Actually if I wanted to play devils advocate and spin this I could quite easily.


Note the follow is not what I believe simply showing that this can still be 'spun'

The official site says (and I quote) "Standard cars do not support vehicle interior camera views."

Now that's views, as in a plural, as in they don't support multiple views. That does not preclude an interior camera view, as in a singular, as in a single view.

So it is possible to spin it and grasp at that last straw.

Note - Once again I repeat this is not what I believe, simply showing it can still be spun if you want. I fully reserve the right to mercilessly mock anyone who claims this is what I believe.


Scaff

Touché.

 

[analog]

Note - Once again I repeat this is not what I believe, simply showing it can still be spun if you want. I fully reserve the right to mercilessly mock anyone who claims this is what I believe.

So you're saying.......no just kidding, not even Alastair Campbell ( in his heyday ) could spin this in a believable or convincing way anymore .

Unfortunately Game Over ( unless new info at GamesCom proves otherwise ).

 

[Zenith]

denial is a hilarious thing

 

[SuperCobraJet]

This message isn´t aimed at Dravonic but to the people who, unlike him, don´t use logical thinking:
It´s been obvious for quite some time now that standard cars don´t have no interior, cockpit and/or dashboard view. Why don´t you people let it go already?

While I have let it go, contrary to your comment, it has not been obvious until recently.

Prior to that it was indicative only, with some sources declaring there would be standard car cockpits.

BTW using "don´t have no", is saying we do have it.

 

[eSZee]

Except I'm right, aren't I?

No you're not. I thought we went over this.

My post above.

The only way to refute it is to claim the official website is not a reliable source; or the cockpit view is not an interior view; or they said one thing but meant another one.

All absurd claims.

As someone said in a recent video. Since the entire interiors of standard cars aren't modeled, the windows can easily be blacked out for the purpose of hiding the empty cockpit. It can still have a dash view.
Speculation of course.

I believe that as long the official site doesn't specifically say "STANDARD CARS CAN'T BE DRIVEN USING COCKPIT VIEW" people have the right to think it might be included.

 

[Dravonic]

As someone said in a recent video. Since the entire interiors of standard cars aren't modeled, the windows can easily be blacked out for the purpose of hiding the empty cockpit. It can still have a dash view.
Speculation of course.

I believe that as long the official site doesn't specifically say "STANDARD CARS CAN'T BE DRIVEN USING COCKPIT VIEW" people have the right to think it might be included.

No it can't. I thought we went over this.

Dash view is included in the interior view category. And therefore not on standard cars.

Anyway, people have the right to believe whatever they want to. I'm not trying to deny such right. However, their beliefs don't change what PD said.

 

[Devedander]

Actually if I wanted to play devils advocate and spin this I could quite easily.


Note the follow is not what I believe simply showing that this can still be 'spun'

The official site says (and I quote) "Standard cars do not support multple vehicle interior camera views."

Now that's views, as in a plural, as in they don't support multiple views. That does not preclude an interior camera view, as in a singular, as in a single view.

So it is possible to spin it and grasp at that last straw.

Note - Once again I repeat this is not what I believe, simply showing it can still be spun if you want. I fully reserve the right to mercilessly mock anyone who claims this is what I believe.


Scaff

As I have said before, I don't put it past this situation to be a poor English/translation issue, but to be proper an express what you have put forth it woudl have to say

"Standard cars do not support multiple internal camera views."

To say the plural infinitive is to imply all.

I do not have STDs. - I do not have any STDs at all.

vs

I do not have multiple STDs. - I do not have more than one STD. I may have either one or none.

 

[eSZee]

No it can't. I thought we went over this.

Dash view is included in the interior view category. And therefore not on standard cars.

Anyway, people have the right to believe whatever they want to. I'm not trying to deny such right. However, their beliefs don't change what PD said.

LOL
You jumping at everyone's throat every time someone says anything that doesn't fly with you is not denying them the right to say how they see things? Open your mind to the fact that people process things differently. I said they have the right to believe what they want, and you jump in saying they don't.

 

[JDMKING13]

LOL
You jumping at everyone's throat every time someone says anything that doesn't fly with you is not denying them the right to say how they see things? Open your mind to the fact that people process things differently. I said they have the right to believe what they want, and you jump in saying they don't.

👍

 

[Dravonic]

LOL
You jumping at everyone's throat every time someone says anything that doesn't fly with you is not denying them the right to say how they see things? Open your mind to the fact that people process things differently. I said they have the right to believe what they want, and you jump in saying they don't.

I believe you're misunderstanding me. "No it can't" refers to "It can still have a dash view". Specially because of the "it". If I were referring to people I would use "they". I'm not a native speaker but I know that much.

And jumping at people's throats? I get my point across without attacking anyone as far as I know. But sure, I may be blind to my own rudeness.

 

[eSZee]

I believe you're misunderstanding me. "No it can't" refers to "It can still have a dash view". Specially because of the "it". If I were referring to people it would be "they". I'm not a native speaker but I know that much.

And jumping at people's throats? I get my point across without attacking anyone as far as I know. But sure, I may be blind to my own rudeness.

What I quoted in pink is what I was referring to, not the dash view.
At least you're one of the few who accept the possibility of being a bit aggressive.

 

[JDMKING13]

Got this from another thread the guy says a lot of things that many of the people who think we are going to have cockpit. The one thing i have to agree with this guy is why not just say Cockpit/Interior dash

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fh4rIQRNgg8

My biggest thing when reading the information on the web page if you read the whole premium section it never says we are going to have cockpit view for the premium cars. It just talks about how detail the interior/exterior is for the premium cars. We know we have cockpit view for the premium cars because we played with them in GT5P and seen footage of them with all the demos. The standard section clearly let one know the interior will not be viewable from outside through the windshield thats why the windows are blacked out.

 

[Dravonic]

I think you're misunderstanding me. What I quoted in pink is what I was referring to, not the dash view.
At least you're one of the few who accept the possibility of being a bit aggressive.

Editing out your apology? Dirty move. Well, this is not what the thread is about but ok, since you're the one jumping at throats I think I'm allowed to defend myself. Go ahead and find me a post where I, like you're doing here, openly attack someone instead of what they're saying.

Anyway, about denying people the right to believe what they want, do you really think that's what I'm doing here? I'll resort to Devedander's preferred argument method and go with a metaphor: Tell me the Earth is flat and I will prove you it's round. Is that denying your right to believe it's flat? I don't think so. If you still want to believe it's flat that's up to you.

That's exactly what I'm doing here. Showing how, if PD can be believed, there's no way (aside from Scaff's so incredibly weak hole in the logic he doesn't believe it himself) standard cars will have interiors. If anyone here still wishes to believe they will have interiors, please go ahead.

 

[eSZee]

I apologized cause I misread your post. Deleted after I reread it.
Moving on.

To give those who still believe in cockpit view even more (false?) hope.
Just looking at the page http://us.gran-turismo.com/us/news/d5247.html I find the placement of *Standard cars do not support vehicle interior camera views. rather strange. It doesn't come after the picture of the beautiful interior view below, it comes after the over head 3/4 views of both he premium and standard cars. The only difference from those small pictures and that view, is that you can see the interior of the premium cars but not the standard cars.I think that if they wanted to say no dash/cockpit view, they could've easily done so by posting something right under the interior picture of the Z, instead they astersiked a sentence with the asterisk not corresponding with anything specific on the page before the sentence, unless I'm missing it.
I'm no even sure if anyone has said this or not but here's more fuel for both sides.

 

[mykem]

I apologized cause I misread your post. Deleted after I reread it.
Moving on.

To give those who still believe in cockpit view even more (false?) hope.
Just looking at the page http://us.gran-turismo.com/us/news/d5247.html I find the placement of *Standard cars do not support vehicle interior camera views. rather strange. It doesn't come after the picture of the beautiful interior view below, it comes after the over head 3/4 views of both he premium and standard cars. The only difference from those small pictures and that view, is that you can see the interior of the premium cars but not the standard cars.I think that if they wanted to say no dash/cockpit view, they could've easily done so by posting something right under the interior picture of the Z, instead they astersiked a sentence with the asterisk not corresponding with anything specific on the page before the sentence, unless I'm missing it.
I'm no even sure if anyone has said this or not but here's more fuel for both sides.

I noted the same strangeness to the placement and the asterisk which appears to me quite arbitrary.

 

[SuperShouden]

Didn't that Chris guy mention that we'd be able to take pictures from the interior of "select cars." I think this could be a hint as to what the "Standard cars do not support interior camera views"

 

[Scaff]

As I have said before, I don't put it past this situation to be a poor English/translation issue, but to be proper an express what you have put forth it woudl have to say

"Standard cars do not support multiple internal camera views."

To say the plural infinitive is to imply all.

I do not have STDs. - I do not have any STDs at all.

vs

I do not have multiple STDs. - I do not have more than one STD. I may have either one or none.

I'm more than aware of that, however I am quite seriously amazed that you seem to have missed the rather obvious bold text that sat at the head and foot of my post!!!!!

This bit in particular.....

Note - Once again I repeat this is not what I believe, simply showing it can still be spun if you want. I fully reserve the right to mercilessly mock anyone who claims this is what I believe.

...makes it rather obvious that I don't need you to explain the flaws in the point I made. That was the point.


Scaff

 

[daan]

Except I'm right, aren't I? Don't throw a hissy fit.

Yes, of course, you're right and dictionaries everywhere are wrong.

Entry printed from Oxford English Dictionary Online

Copyright © Oxford University Press 2010
cockpit
SECOND EDITION 1989

({sm}k{rfa}kp{shti}t)

1. a. A pit or enclosed area in which game-cocks are set to fight for sport; a place constructed for cock-fighting.
1587 CHURCHYARD Worth. Wales (1876) 106 The Mountaynes stand..In roundnesse such as it a Cock pit were. 1644 QUARLES Barnabas & B. 27 At a cockpit [to] leave our doubtful fortunes to the mercy of unmerciful contention. 1719 DE FOE Crusoe I. 195 A Circle dug in the Earth, like a Cockpit. 1814 W. SKETCHLEY (title), The Cocker, containing..a variety of other useful information for the instruction of those who are attendants at the Cock Pit. 1856 EMERSON Eng. Traits, Race Wks. (Bohn) II. 30 The animal ferocity of the quays and cockpits.
attrib. 1647 G. HUGHES Serm. St. Margaret's, Westm. 26 May, Impious, childish, cockpit counsellors. 1884 Pall Mall G. 3 Sept. 2/1 The cock-pit animus, apt to spring up between equal bodies in different camps.

{dag}b. Applied to a theatre; and to the PIT of a theatre. Obs.
1599 SHAKES. Hen. V, I. Prol. 11 Can this Cock-Pit hold The vastie fields of France? Or may we cramme Within this Woodden O, the very Caskes That did affright the Ayre at Agincourt? a1635 L. DIGGES in Shaks. Suppl. I. 71 (N.) Let but Beatrice And Benedict be seen; lo! in a trice, The cockpit, galleries, boxes, all are full.

{dag}c. spec. the Cockpit: (a) name of a theatre in London, in 17th c., on the site of a cock-pit. Obs.
a1635 L. DIGGES in Shaks. Suppl. I. 71 (N.) On Gods name, may the Bull, or Cockpit have Your lame blank verse to keep you from the grave. 1660 PEPYS Diary 11 Oct., Mr. Salisbury..took Mr. Creed and me to the Cockpitt to see ‘The Moore of Venice’, which was well done. 1662-3 Ibid. 5 Jan., To the Cockpitt, where we saw ‘Claracilla’, a poor play, done by the King's house.

{dag}(b) The name of the block of buildings on or near the site of the Cockpit erected by Henry VIII opposite Whitehall, London, used from the seventeenth century as government offices; hence put familiarly for ‘the Treasury’, and ‘the Privy Council chambers’. Obs.
[1598 STOW Surv. Lond. 374 (in J. Marshall Ann. Tennis 65) The saide White hall. On the right hand bee diuers fayre Tennis courtes, bowling Allies, and a Cockepit, all built by King Henry the eight.] 1649-50 Commons' Jrnl. 25 Feb. in Carlyle Cromwell II. 124 Resolved that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland have the use of the Lodgings called the Cockpit. 1659-60 PEPYS Diary 20 Feb., My Lord of Dorset and another Lord, talking of getting another place at the Cockpit. 1698 LUTTRELL Brief Rel. IV. 329 The council chamber, treasury, and duke Shrewsbury's offices, are to be at the Cockpitt, till Whitehal be rebuilt. 1711 R. ORLEBAR Let. in 3rd Rep. Hist. MSS. Comm. App. 276a, Mar. 8..Just now I am told of an odd passage happened in Councill at the cockpitt to-night. 1773 BURKE Let. Sir C. Bingham Wks. IX. 140 For the sake of gratifying the schemes of a transitory Administration of the Cock~pit or the Castle. 1830 GREVILLE Mem. 22 Nov. (1874) II. xii. 70 He [Brougham] threatened to sit often at the Cockpit, in order to check Leach, who, though a good judge in his own Court, was good for nothing in a Court of Appeal. 1843 KNIGHT London V. 291 But to return to the Cock-pit..This is the part of the Treasury buildings which fronts Whitehall.

2. fig. A place where a contest is fought out.
1612 T. ADAMS Serm., Gallants Burden (1616) 19 Behold France made a Cocke-pitte for Massacres by the vnciuill ciuill Warres hereof. 1676 MARVELL Gen. Councils Wks. 1875 IV. 117 It seemed like an ecclesiastical cock-pit, and a man might have laid wagers either way. 1858 Murray's Hand-Bk. N. Germany 158/1 The part of Belgium through which our route lies, has been called the ‘Cock-pit’ of Europe.

3. a. Naut. The after part of the orlop deck of a man-of-war; forming ordinarily the quarters for the junior officers, and in action devoted to the reception and care of the wounded.
1706 PHILLIPS, Cockpit, in a man of war, is a Place on the lower Floor, or Deck. 1769 FALCONER Dict. Marine (1789), Cock-pit of a ship of war, the apartments of the surgeon and his mates, being the place where the wounded men are dressed. 1813 SOUTHEY Nelson II. 258 The cockpit was crowded with wounded and dying men; over whose bodies he was with some difficulty conveyed. 1833 MARRYAT P. Simple x, Send him down to the surgeon in the cock-pit.

b. transf.
1883 Harper's Mag. Aug. 375/1 Sitting in the cockpit of my canoe.

c. Aeronaut. In the fuselage of any kind of aircraft, or in the capsule of a space vehicle: the space occupied by a pilot, observer, astronaut, or (formerly) a passenger. Also attrib.
1914 Rep. & Mem. (Advis. Comm. Aeronaut.) No. 112 There are several speed indicators..in which the pressure of the air in the cockpit is allowed to act on one side of the recording diagram. 1915 Chambers's Jrnl. 1 July (Advt.), Pilot and passenger in separate cockpits arranged tandem fashion. 1917 Blackw. Mag. Mar. 383/1 Several bullets ventilated the fuselage quite close to my cockpit. a1918 MCCUDDEN Five Years R.F.C. (1919) 227 The observer disappeared into the cockpit apparently disabled. 1930 Discovery Sept. 304/1 Wireless signals from directional beams are heard in the pilot's cockpit. 1945 Aeronautics 54/2 Cockpit drill, which became an absolute necessity when the number of controls and instruments rose to double that of those incorporated in aircraft of a decade ago. 1962 J. GLENN in Into Orbit 40 This is the cockpit, the real ‘opinion area’ of the capsule.

d. Motor Racing. The space in a racing car occupied by the driver.
1935 EYSTON & LYNDON Motor Racing iv. 40 Smoke poured from Nuvolari's cockpit, and he climbed from his seat. 1957 S. MOSS In Track of Speed ii. 20 He sat well back in the cockpit with his arms almost outstretched as they held the wheel. 1968 Autocar 14 Mar. 41/2 We did a quick cockpit check, lights, horns, entered up the log book and pulled out of the station yard.

4. In the West Indies: see quot. 1803.
1803 DALLAS Hist. Maroons I. ii. 39 The grand object of a Maroon chief in war was to take a station in some glen, or, as it is called in the West Indies, Cockpit, enclosed by rocks and mountains nearly perpendicular, and to which the only practicable entrance is by a very narrow defile. Ibid. I. vi. 198 The practicability of advancing upon an enemy in these cockpits is not to be judged of by other feats of war.

You have to go all the way down to 3C to find the aeroplane reference, and 3D is the car.

I'm just off to email the OED to tell them you say they're wrong.

 

[Devedander]

I'm more than aware of that, however I am quite seriously amazed that you seem to have missed the rather obvious bold text that sat at the head and foot of my post!!!!!

This bit in particular.....



...makes it rather obvious that I don't need you to explain the flaws in the point I made. That was the point.


Scaff

I didn't miss that at all. I am actually amazed you would mistake my response as missing that part at all.

The whole point of the debate at hand was "Can it legitimately be read to mean this thing or does it only mean that thing". You respond with (paraphrase) "Note this is not necessarily what I feel, but it can actually be read to mean this thing and not only that other thing".

I respond by pointing out, no, it really can't. It can if you are willing to ignore the need to actually pay attention to correct literary and gramatical rules, but then that's not saying anything at all because you can make anything say anything if you are ok with violating those rules. I chose not to believe that you would make a post with so little value, if that was a poor choice, then my mistake.

So since it makes no sense to post that it can be taken to mean something if you don't pay attention to rules of the language in the middle of a debate about what something means by the rules of the language, the assumption that you are saying "by the rules of the language it actually CAN be spun to mean this" is all that is left.

Thus the response warranted and accurate and in no way in violation of your footnote.

You could spin "I like apples" to mean "I like oranges" if you are willing to ignore that apples does not mean oranges, however I can't believe you would be so daft as to make that argument. So the response was, your claim that it can be legitimately spun (ie without having to do something like ignore that apples does not mean organges) is incorrect. It is in no regards to what you believe or not, the argument is simply flawed. Is it possible to spin it that way? Not within the rules of the language. Want to go outside the rules of the language? Then anything is possible, it's not what the debate is about and there is no value in making that point.

tl;dr The whole debate is about what it can and can't mean while adhearing to legitimate linguistic rules and symantec accuracy. No it can't be spun that way and maintain even a plausible adherance to literary rules.

Nothin personal, just sayin...

 

[McLaren]

Yes, of course, you're right and dictionaries everywhere are wrong.

Yep, that's why cockpit brings up multiple results for a car on Google & everywhere else, right? Or that multiple other dictionaries do not list that as a definition.
Funny how cockpit also only refers as the position where a racecar driver sits, but not that a car has one.

I'll let you get back to that call to OED now. G'day.

 

[eSZee]

Yep, that's why cockpit brings up multiple results for a car on Google & everywhere else, right?
Funny how cockpit also only refers as the position where a racecar driver sits, but not that a car has one.

I'll let you get back to that call to OED now. G'day.

Let's drop this peeps.

 

[GasolineJunkie]

daan is the man!

 

[McLaren]

Let's drop this peeps.

Fair enough.

 

[Dravonic]

I apologized cause I misread your post. Deleted after I reread it.
Moving on.

To give those who still believe in cockpit view even more (false?) hope.
Just looking at the page http://us.gran-turismo.com/us/news/d5247.html I find the placement of *Standard cars do not support vehicle interior camera views. rather strange. It doesn't come after the picture of the beautiful interior view below, it comes after the over head 3/4 views of both he premium and standard cars. The only difference from those small pictures and that view, is that you can see the interior of the premium cars but not the standard cars.I think that if they wanted to say no dash/cockpit view, they could've easily done so by posting something right under the interior picture of the Z, instead they astersiked a sentence with the asterisk not corresponding with anything specific on the page before the sentence, unless I'm missing it.
I'm no even sure if anyone has said this or not but here's more fuel for both sides.

I can clearly see how something like this:

All new cockpit view!*

*Standard cars do not support vehicle interior camera views.

Would pretty much put this thread to rest in an instant, but I don't see how it being oddly placed changes my argument in any way. As you can see, I quoted only the statement by itself, not it's surrounding environment.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Isn't all this discussion of standard definitions for "cockpit" irrelevant, since we're talking "racing game speak" terms?

 

[Akira AC]

Well a lot of heat up discussion regarding now,the plural means something so:

1. It seems that we got ourselves a perfect English dictionary(McLaren)

2. Also seems that there is some people desperate to take this theory down, instead of discuss it or give more reasonable arguments.

3. It also seems that some people don't have some basic spacial concepts
(to be clear spacial as a space,no outer space,before you people start to make comparisons of galaxies and cars)

4. Some people seems to be reasonable and denial, I am not denying the fact that there could be no cockpit for standard,but it seems that some people is denial to have cockpits(excuse me but those seems Forza fans to be honest,some of them not all)

And we will keep up the mathematical debate of plural and groups while the sentences could not get more clear that:

-"Standard cars do not support vehicle interior camera views"

Trust me in Japanese is exactly the same thing,plural and interiors.

so two view points:

1. The spacial point of view which stablish that because its says "interior camera views"it means that any interior viewpoint is not supportable and that theory is valid but there is a fault in this theory:

-"interior camera views" means plural not a single point of view,doesn't say "any point of view is not supported"or "non interior view are supported they say camera views

2. The plural point of view theory suggest that since they mean there are more points of view inside the cars(like in premiums,the interior design is complete including back seats,driver interior decoration(leather and stitches))
the meaning of this is a single interior view but this is in contradiction of the
"Standard cars do not support vehicle interior camera"which is the main thesis of the the first theory and goes in contradiction of the first theory.

But to be honest the lack of cockpit view is unknown,claim that there is no cockpit view go against of what we have seen so far,and the claims of being a cockpit view for standard cars goes also against of what we have see,until know it cannot be said which theory is wrong of right because there is not valid basis to claim it.

Having a reasonable base to argue is valid as long it makes sense like dravonic for example,but having rants and claims of being the ultimate English dictionary like McLaren doesn't make sense,both theory should be in the table,I got the first theory but I also have logical basis to keep my own theory.

 

[ralph89]

I wonder who's gonna get proven wrong when GC and TGS comes, and Kaz cleared everything up?

Since some people are having strong argument on this issue let's mess with who ever got it wrong and ask the mods for permission to bully them. 💡:

Am kidding about the messing and bully part.