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

[Dravonic]

That's completely false. Gran Turismo 5 uses exactly the same car models during gameplay, with fully visible interiors when viewed from the outside.

 

[tyl0r_r]

How exactly does the lighting in GT4 look better than FM3 and shift?

Personally the shadow of the car in GT4 looks much more convincing. The other two just seem to have a uniform black bit around the car almost like a drop shadow in a word processor. GT4's extends more realistically and seems to fade a bit too.

I think the environment looks best in the Shift picture though, and they all look fine. Actually racing around the track I doubt I'd care whether the graphics were from A, B, or C. I guess that's just me.

 

[danielwhite74]

Personally the shadow of the car in GT4 looks much more convincing. The other two just seem to have a uniform black bit around the car almost like a drop shadow in a word processor. GT4's extends more realistically and seems to fade a bit too.

I think the environment looks best in the Shift picture though, and they all look fine. Actually racing around the track I doubt I'd care whether the graphics were from A, B, or C. I guess that's just me.

For six year old game to compare to titles in this HD generation like that is simply astonishing. What's more, I don't doubt we'll also be saying the same things about Gran Turismo 5 in six years' time.

 

[analog]

There are 2 threads about Standard and Premium, this one mainly concentrates on interior/cockpit/dashboard view being available or not on Standard cars ( hence the title of this thread ).
Ofcourse certain elements will overlap each other but to have the same sort of discussions on both threads is just pointless.
Please use this thread for the topic it was intended to discuss and continue to argue the graphical and other differences on the other thread.

As for the proper topic to discuss here ( although granted there isn't much to discuss perhaps ) I will try to steer it back on topic with this.

"Standard cars do not support interior camera views" ( GT5 site ).

"Headtracking via Eye-Toy is only possible on the 200 cars which have cockpit view" ( or something phrased a little different by the unofficial "Official Playstation Magazine" ).

Does this mean only 200 cars ( Premium ) will have cockpit view according to another ( possibly inaccurate ) magazine article, or that headtracking is only available on Premium cars which could explain the official "interior camera views" message?
If headtracking is only available for use in cockpit view it would mean the Standard cars don't have cockpits I guess, or does headtracking need more interior space modelled to function properly ( as you may have the option to look around the interior as well using Eye-Toy )?
Which could theoretically still mean Standard cars have ( limited compared to the Premium fully modelled ones ) interiors ( which honestly I doubt very much myself ).
Another pointless debate? Probably but at least it's on-topic.

 

[fade]

I guess with headtracking you can theoretically look around the interior, so only the 200+ premium cars will have this feature.

I don't mind at all, as long as

a) there is a black silhouette interior for the stand cars.

b) there are plenty of exterior camera views - loose chase cam/ bonnect cam / car-roof-cam.

I *think* all of those views were available in one gran turismo or another. Would be nice to finally have them all in GT5.

We are making too much of a deal of all these things tho. Anyone else more excited about the online modes than anything?

 

[analog]

We are making too much of a deal of all these things tho. Anyone else more excited about the online modes than anything?

There are plenty of threads covering the online aspects, this one isn't about discussing that..........

 

[Nero9]

This thread is pretty much useless...what should be discussed here is in the other S/P topic, what should'nt be discussed here either is in the other S/P topic.
I highly suggest this thread locked...or morphed with the other S/P topic.

 

[trk29]

Thank you, we do our best.

May I use this for my sig?

 

[analog]

May I use this for my sig?

Feel free to use it, haven't yet got around getting copyright for it.

 

[sher_da_putt]

EGGGRRRR look theres going to be 1000 cars in GT5. Your'e all so annoying. It doesn't matter if 800 of them are not up to par, they will still be 1000 different cars, it wouldn't matter if they ported cars from super mario cart!! It would be bad yes, but seriously, standard cars look fine. 'BOO HOO no shutlines, low poly count' WHO CARES? As long as the cars look good?? Does that not make sense?

 

[toontoonizer]

How exactly does the lighting in GT4 look better than FM3 and shift?

The GT4 model, quite astonishingly, has self shadowing. whereas the cars in the other two seem to be self-illuminating objects.

Obviously alot depends on the pitch and azimuth of the sun, but we don't know that. Given that, GT4 holds up very well to the other two.

 

[analog]

EGGGRRRR look theres going to be 1000 cars in GT5. Your'e all so annoying. It doesn't matter if 800 of them are not up to par, they will still be 1000 different cars, it wouldn't matter if they ported cars from super mario cart!! It would be bad yes, but seriously, standard cars look fine. 'BOO HOO no shutlines, low poly count' WHO CARES? As long as the cars look good?? Does that not make sense?

No that doesn't make sense at all, especially mentioning ( humorously I presume ) that you would be satisfied with Mario Karts as long as the number is near the 1000 mark...........Boohoo indeed.

 

[Dravonic]

WHO CARES?

I do.

As long as the cars look good??

They don't. I call them passable at the most. But this is subjective so it doesn't change anything really.

Does that not make sense?

It does if you don't care. It doesn't if you do care.

All you're saying is you don't care they look worse so it doesn't matter, much like a lot of people in this thread are saying they don't care about cockpit view so the lack of it doesn't matter. Good for you, but what happens if someone do care? Then it matters.

As you can see your argument changes nothing.

 

[analog]

All you're saying is you don't care they look worse so it doesn't matter, much like a lot of people in this thread are saying they don't care about cockpit view so the lack of it doesn't matter. Good for you, but what happens if someone do care? Then it matters.

This happens all the time with most subjects like for example;

"Damage unrealistic? I don't care because I'll turn it off".
"Graphics sub par? Who cares about graphics, GT is all about physics".
"Online options? So what, I will mostly play offline like I did before".
"Porsche doesn't make the cut? I didn't like Porsche anyway".
"Cockpit view? I don't use it so it doesn't bother me, bumper cam ftw".

Polite consideration for those who possibly lack certain features they don't use themselves isn't appearing on their radar.
If it only were a choice made by personal preference this whole debate would be non-existent.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

This happens all the time with most subjects like for example;

"Damage unrealistic? I don't care because I'll turn it off".
"Graphics sub par? Who cares about graphics, GT is all about physics".
"Online options? So what, I will mostly play offline like I did before".
"Porsche doesn't make the cut? I didn't like Porsche anyway".
"Cockpit view? I don't use it so it doesn't bother me, bumper cam ftw".

Polite consideration for those who possibly lack certain features they don't use themselves isn't appearing on their radar.
If it only were a choice made by personal preference this whole debate would be non-existent.

The important thing to note is that all of those can be used interchangably for people to defend it too.

"GT is all about the physics!"
*insert list of better physics engines in PC games*
"pfft, that doesn't matter... GT has better graphics!"
*insert comment on Standards and/or lack of cockpits*
"pfft, that doesn't matter... GT is all about the car count!"



On-topic: GamesCom is less than a month away, despite the message on the website, the mention of head-tracking only working with the 200 cars with interiors... we still have people thinking we're getting cockpit view for all cars. Any predictions on what we'll get as more proof at GamesCom? Perhaps even more entertaining... any predictions on how it will be explained away by the ever-hopeful as still not solid proof?

 

[analog]

On-topic: GamesCom is less than a month away, despite the message on the website, the mention of head-tracking only working with the 200 cars with interiors... we still have people thinking we're getting cockpit view for all cars. Any predictions on what we'll get as more proof at GamesCom? Perhaps even more entertaining... any predictions on how it will be explained away by the ever-hopeful as still not solid proof?

Theoretically it still is possible ofcourse we do get cockpit view on all cars.
I don't however consider it likely but I would love to be completely wrong on this one.
I'll happily chew away humble pie for the next few years and send self-made Christmas cards to Tokyo declaring my unconditional faith and loyalty and saying I'm not even worthy to play the darn game anymore.
As to how it will be explained, you'd be hard pressed to come up with something better than it being a bonus or that GT4 being playable again as an addition is the single best idea since sliced bread.

 

[TokyoDrift]

For six year old game to compare to titles in this HD generation like that is simply astonishing.

Not really. Think about it - the PS2 was hardly a slouch, and GT4 being the second GT game on that console really benefited from that fact. Really, what has moved on this generation games-wise? Hardly anything. So we get higher resolutions and in some cases more scope and content offered by the larger storage medium. For the most part, innovation has been slowing down, due to lack of ideas and hardware that is more powerful but largely the same in concept and execution relative to its predecessors.

Yes, in relation, GT4 was an impressive feat. Was it ahead of its time, or have PD pretty much run out of steam like most other developers? Personally, I think it's more to do with the latter. Sure we have night/day now, a "beautiful" crash model on 20% of the cars, a beefed up physics engine and some "undisclosed killer feature", but at what expense? Fundamentally, beyond that, the game is just a hi-res GT4, but one that suffers due to the high resolution, crazy poly counts, and high car counts on track at once.

The end result is "Gran Turismo 5 - Jekyll & Hyde Edition", and worse, we had to wait over 6 years for it. More an embarrassment than an achievement, and yes, I am still very much looking forward to playing it. Believe it or not, it is possible to enjoy something while being critical of certain aspects.

 

[II IVORBIGUN II]

Not really. Think about it - the PS2 was hardly a slouch, and GT4 being the second GT game on that console really benefited from that fact. Really, what has moved on this generation games-wise? Hardly anything. So we get higher resolutions and in some cases more scope and content offered by the larger storage medium. For the most part, innovation has been slowing down, due to lack of ideas and hardware that is more powerful but largely the same in concept and execution relative to its predecessors.

Yes, in relation, GT4 was an impressive feat. Was it ahead of its time, or have PD pretty much run out of steam like most other developers? Personally, I think it's more to do with the latter. Sure we have night/day now, a "beautiful" crash model on 20% of the cars, a beefed up physics engine and some "undisclosed killer feature", but at what expense? Fundamentally, beyond that, the game is just a hi-res GT4, but one that suffers due to the high resolution, crazy poly counts, and high car counts on track at once.

Thanks TD because your post finally confirms what i've been saying for a while. Unfortunately some on here remain in a timewarp and haven't caught up with modern times in the gaming world.

Let me explain how I used to play racing games 10 yrs ago.

Very simple really. Playing single player (offline!) mean't completing events which gave you credits to purchase and upgrade cars. I would also hotlap and make a note of my laptimes on a piece of paper and sometimes I would enter magazine competitions by posting a video of my laptime.

How I play racing games now.

Same as above but with a difference. I don't have to write my laptimes on a piece of paper because I can compete against the world. I also race against my friends online and often enter competitions alongside other TRC members. Now Clan racing teams have been very popular on the Xbox 360 and im sure this will become popular in GT5.

So basically what you say TD is utter crap. Now GT5 will differ to previous GT games because thankfully PD have moved with the times. Unfortunately you haven't!

I will add that if you disagree you obviously missed the screenshot of GT5 online!

 

[JDMKING13]

Not really. Think about it - the PS2 was hardly a slouch, and GT4 being the second GT game on that console really benefited from that fact. Really, what has moved on this generation games-wise? Hardly anything. So we get higher resolutions and in some cases more scope and content offered by the larger storage medium. For the most part, innovation has been slowing down, due to lack of ideas and hardware that is more powerful but largely the same in concept and execution relative to its predecessors.

Yes, in relation, GT4 was an impressive feat. Was it ahead of its time, or have PD pretty much run out of steam like most other developers? Personally, I think it's more to do with the latter. Sure we have night/day now, a "beautiful" crash model on 20% of the cars, a beefed up physics engine and some "undisclosed killer feature", but at what expense? Fundamentally, beyond that, the game is just a hi-res GT4, but one that suffers due to the high resolution, crazy poly counts, and high car counts on track at once.

The end result is "Gran Turismo 5 - Jekyll & Hyde Edition", and worse, we had to wait over 6 years for it. More an embarrassment than an achievement, and yes, I am still very much looking forward to playing it. Believe it or not, it is possible to enjoy something while being critical of certain aspects.

Hmm... Well IMO this is going to be a whole new game not just a Hi-res GT4 i don't understand how you can come to a conclusion like that Most important the game has a completely new physics system compared to GT4. Even GT5P felt like a whole different game driving wise compared to GT4. GT5 will be even better, so all those laps you did a on your favorite track and car in gt4 can be thrown in the trash. The cars are going to drive completely different. Thats going to give all of us a completely new experience right there. Then you knock of day and night damage on all car (mechanical the most important IMO) like it means nothing, But what makes me laugh most is you knock off the new killer features like it means nothing These undisclosed new features can make GT5 even better. GT4 never had online, GT5 has an online system so far that looks very promising, with the chance to have more features introduced at GC. You can hate the standard cars all you want man you are 100% entitled to your opinion, but it is a fact the standard cars will give us a better experience than GT4 did. I respect your opnion TD but when you say GT5 is a GT4 HI RES 👎

 

[Spagetti69]

Well if driving an e-type jag in GT4 is totally different to driving it in GT5.
One of them is totally wrong isn't it.

Wouldn't that be fare to say?

 

[JDMKING13]

Well if driving an e-type jag in GT4 is totally different to driving it in GT5.
One of them is totally wrong isn't it.

Wouldn't that be fare to say?

Let me explain, Its not about being wrong it about getting a whole new experience(evolving) driving that E-type In GT5. Example you meet up with your buddy on the ring around sunset your in your E Type Jag and you and your buddies are hitting the Nurb hard. Everything is fun until it get dark, so while communicating you guys decide to continue doing more laps in the dark. Because its so dark and visibility is low you over shoot a turn and damage your jag and all your buddies laugh at you over the mics. That is a driving/playing experience that GT4 could never produce. That is what i'm looking for man. 👍

 

[maxpontiac]

Let me explain, Its not about being wrong it about getting a whole new experience(evolving) driving that E-type In GT5. Example you meet up with your buddy on the ring around sunset your in your E Type Jag and you and your buddies are hitting the Nurb hard. Everything is fun until it get dark, so while communicating you guys decide to continue doing more laps in the dark. Because its so dark and visibility is low you over shoot a turn and damage your jag and all your buddies laugh at you over the mics. That is a driving/playing experience that GT4 could never produce. That is what i'm looking for man. 👍

I have come to realize that it all depends on if you are a glass half empty or glass half full kind of person.

Either that, or your on a serious fanboy rant or just arguing for arguments sake.

 

[danielwhite74]

I want to point out that this was proven in prologue and it's 200k polygon cars. It's still to be determined if true in GT5 and it's 500k polygon premium cars.

And I'm not convinced by that GT5 demo video alone since it doesn't show any close ups and to notice a 500k to 200k polygon model swap is not that easy.

Even in the unlikely event that the models were swapped with those from Prologue, there would be no visible differences whatsoever.

That's the closest you can possibly go during gameplay, yet there's still no visible lack of polygons whatsoever.

 

[Spagetti69]

If there are no visable differences, why bother.
I'm not trolling but really why?

 

[seanchump]

If there are no visable differences, why bother.
I'm not trolling but really why?

They are future proofing the series. PD even said that the amount of (track) detail is probably too much for the current generation. I'd assume the same goes for polygon count in premium cars

 

[Spagetti69]

^^^ I understand.
PD looking to the future, using assets from the past.

Please get with the present PD.

 

[Luminis]

They are future proofing the series. PD even said that the amount of (track) detail is probably too much for the current generation. I'd assume the same goes for polygon count in premium cars

Well, didn't they claim that the cars in GT4 were too much for the PS2 and that they created them the way they did to 'future proof' them? And, well, if the PS3 can run the tracks and cars, it's not too much for the generation, just for the development cycle.

Dunno, I'm not sold on all of this 'future proofing'.

Give it six or seven more years, and stuff that we wouldn't even dare to imagine in a game now could very well be the standard for the next generation of consoles. Both in terms of graphics and features.

 

[Tornado]

Future proofing only works occasionally. As we've seen with GT4, the industry can move far faster than you will be able to anticipate.

Furthermore, in regards to GT4 specifically, even if the future proofed models that PD created has just as many polys as the GT5 models do (and I'm guessing that they are probably far closer the GTHD in quality than GT5), they would still be inferior because of the way modeling is done is actually different than it was when GT4 was made.

 

[Rash-182]

^^^ I understand.
PD looking to the future, using assets from the past.

Please get with the present PD.

Post of the day!

 

[FerrariMarv]

I believe we will have the cockpit view

my rig is counting on it