Standard cars ARE in GT6. (100% confirmed)

[Cosbuster]

Well standards for whatever reason have worst texture quality than they did in GT3's dealer

The quality is the same. The difference is that you are viewing them in a resolution they were never meant for where the flaws stand out.

 

[wicken]

600 Cars Premium
600 Cars Standrad

I think so!

That wouldn't be so bad at all, considering that they upgrade to premium models the cars with a very important history and recent models.

 

[Brend]

Has there been any standards slipped into the trailers I've missed? Or is it all premium thus far?

I know they wouldn't use them for promotional material but you never know.

 

[Imari]

Has there been any standards slipped into the trailers I've missed? Or is it all premium thus far?

I know they wouldn't use them for promotional material but you never know.

Nothing so far. All cars shown have been premium.

I suspect it won't be until the last minute that we see standards, if at all. And even then it will be the ones that they've said they're touching up, because they'll be the best advertising for the game. We really won't know until release how good or otherwise the majority of them will be, because it's in PD's best interest to keep us uninformed for as long as possible.

 

[JacoJa]

Is there even a need to scan when you have the CAD data directly from the manufacturers?

I don't think they'd be allowed to use CAD design files from manufacturers. That would be brilliant though, I wish they could. 👍

They do laser scanning on cars, It is much more complicated than just getting the laser scan, feeding it into the computer and having your end product since a car is too big to have a machine do (what they use for fossils and clay models for cgi) they have to scan many times from set points. All the scans need to be tied/merged together into components and scaled to be the same, then they need tidied up after, if not before, then cross checked with the real car,

In regards to the scanning with set points, and merging them all together, it's relatively easy. You can do half of the work on the scanning device itself. By placing maybe ten target points around the car, you can take different scans from all different angles of the car, and each scan can be merged using those points (usually two scans share three or more targets for accuracy). The only real tidying up that I can think of is the glass (which can be replaced with 'tinted' glass, as with all Standard cars), and a few other small hidden details. Headlights, tail lights and paint will also need to be done.

then modified into parts that can be used to create the final car which takes a while too. This needs to be done for every part of the model, there is probably about 50 different ones. Some cant be done easily with the laser so have to be done by measuring (mainly the interior). Then the axis of the moving parts need to be applied for physics and animation. Then the textures have to be created. And then modeling and animating the gauges. This is all a LOT of work, even before learning and implementing physics parameters and sound recording & mixing.

It's a lot of work to create a Premium model for the reasons you mentioned. I was talking about just using a laser scanned cars' exterior to replace an existing standard car, so these problems probably won't apply.
The physics model on standards are already completed, and the laser scan will be a single-mesh, just like a normal standard.

It does probably take as long as they say with pd's relatively small workforce. There is a **** tonne of man power involved to do this, and many people here take it for granted, complain and have no apreciation of what happens behind the scenes. PD also take such care modeling the cars, they are very accurate and look incredibly convincing

I've always appreciated the work PD have put into creating premium models, though I've always thought they needed to employ more people to create more cars.

There is evidence of PD using this tech. Here's an excerpt from a Jalopnik article on the scanning of the Art Morrison 'Vette:



We know for a fact that PD uses this technique along with using the CAD data from manufacturers in the modeling process. There are probably other means of obtaining data but they aren't really well documented.

Thanks for that! So they do use it for premiums. 👍

 

[Raggi Boy]

Ah I thought you meant doing a full premium in 2-3 hours haha. I think though if they have a car in they maybe might as well do a premium job. If an employee has one of the cars or they can easily get to one for a short time, then it would be good to do quick exterior scans for standard models.

But with regards to stitching everything together by use of set markers, I thought the algorithms used to do this weren't quite perfect so they would screw up fairly regularly. Perhaps I'm far past the times and this tech has made a big leap.

 

[JacoJa]

Ah I thought you meant doing a full premium in 2-3 hours haha. I think though if they have a car in they maybe might as well do a premium job. If an employee has one of the cars or they can easily get to one for a short time, then it would be good to do quick exterior scans for standard models.

Availability of a car is one thing I didn't think about. A bit of a flaw in my, frankly, brilliant plan. But you're right... If they're going to scan a car, they may as well keep it, and spend a bit of extra time scanning the entire thing so they can make a Premium.

But with regards to stitching everything together by use of set markers, I thought the algorithms used to do this weren't quite perfect so they would screw up fairly regularly. Perhaps I'm far past the times and this tech has made a big leap.

I mainly brought this up because the company I work for use scanning equipment, and we use the target method I mentioned in my previous post. I'm not sure how old the method is, but the scanner is nearly two years old. I wonder how PD does it exactly?

 

[05XR8]

The thing that gets me, is the Corvette GS has been in the game since day UNO. But, PD dropped the Civic 4-door. Surely there are plenty Civic 4-doors in Japan. We also had a decent number of mustang's and after GT2 we only got one version. So, sometimes I think it's not about the car being available and the amount of time. Because I'm sure they have money to buy a used car and do what they need to do.

 

[Teflonicus]

I'm seriously disappointed that "standards" or any notion or iteration of that hideous aspect of GT5 is going to be in any way associated with GT6. I'd honestly just prefer significantly less, premium cars, or that the release date be pushed back ... and back. Failing that, I'd also like an option to switch off the availability of standards in the game.

Ugh! It was THE most criticised aspect of GT5. One that many people assumed to be a one-off bandaid. And it lingers ... like a drunken best man on the wedding night, the next day, and through the honeymoon too.

I really really hope the non "Premiumized" cars are significantly better than the standards of GT5. The "no" to all cars having interior views is a bad sign though.

 

[NOSWaster]

I'm seriously disappointed that "standards" or any notion or iteration of that hideous aspect of GT5 is going to be in any way associated with GT6. I'd honestly just prefer significantly less, premium cars, or that the release date be pushed back ... and back. Failing that, I'd also like an option to switch off the availability of standards in the game.

Ugh! It was THE most criticised aspect of GT5. One that many people assumed to be a one-off bandaid. And it lingers ... like a drunken best man on the wedding night, the next day, and through the honeymoon too.

I really really hope the non "Premiumized" cars are significantly better than the standards of GT5. The "no" to all cars having interior views is a bad sign though.

1: Hideous is a matter of opinion.
2: That's your preference. I'm willing to wager that the majority of people would prefer more cars to drive, regardless of looks.
3: You want the release date to be pushed back. I'm willing to wager the majority of people are tired of delays because of the advent of the internet, patches, and DLC.
4: Standard cars aren't the only bad thing that will be lingering into GT6 anyway. You may as well complain about the standard tracks, which are the ones without weather and/or time change.

If they just improved the textures on the standards to make them look better at shorter distances, then that's good.

I'm pretty sure Kaz meant that standards will still have the black cockpits. Not properly modeled ones.

 

[Imari]

I'm willing to wager that the majority of people would prefer more cars to drive, regardless of looks.

Unproveable. Also, by that logic we should be including the non-trivial number of cars that haven't appeared in the series since GT2.

Everyone has a limit where the graphical awfulness (for lack of a better term) outweighs the utility. It's simply that the standards seem to fall within the range of "tolerable" for enough people that it's not entirely a game breaker.

Although we shall see with GT6. Even at the release of GT5 a lot of people didn't believe that the standards would be simple copy/paste jobs from GT4. They were, and although there have been noises that this isn't the case this time we're yet to see anything proving otherwise.

I doubt people who gave PD the benefit of the doubt last time will be so accommodating this time.

You may as well complain about the standard tracks, which are the ones without weather and/or time change.

Generally, standard tracks refers to those that are again copy/pasted from GT4. Trial Mountain and Deep Forest being the prime offenders. People really did and still do complain about the quality on those, for much the same reasons as standard cars. Yes, it's great to have more tracks. No, it's not that great when they look like they're straight from 2001.

The tracks without weather and time change are a different thing, but considering that there's only 8 tracks with weather and 3 with time (not counting DLC), complaining about those things would be to complain about pretty much every track in GT5.

The point has been raised before that it's a bit ingenuous to claim to include day/night as a "feature" when it's only on 3 tracks out of 27, but that's a different story.

 

[NOSWaster]

Unproveable. Also, by that logic we should be including the non-trivial number of cars that haven't appeared in the series since GT2.

Everyone has a limit where the graphical awfulness (for lack of a better term) outweighs the utility. It's simply that the standards seem to fall within the range of "tolerable" for enough people that it's not entirely a game breaker.

Although we shall see with GT6. Even at the release of GT5 a lot of people didn't believe that the standards would be simple copy/paste jobs from GT4. They were, and although there have been noises that this isn't the case this time we're yet to see anything proving otherwise.

I doubt people who gave PD the benefit of the doubt last time will be so accommodating this time.



Generally, standard tracks refers to those that are again copy/pasted from GT4. Trial Mountain and Deep Forest being the prime offenders. People really did and still do complain about the quality on those, for much the same reasons as standard cars. Yes, it's great to have more tracks. No, it's not that great when they look like they're straight from 2001.

The tracks without weather and time change are a different thing, but considering that there's only 8 tracks with weather and 3 with time (not counting DLC), complaining about those things would be to complain about pretty much every track in GT5.

The point has been raised before that it's a bit ingenuous to claim to include day/night as a "feature" when it's only on 3 tracks out of 27, but that's a different story.

Where did I say I was trying to pass off my wager as fact? If there was theoretically able to be a mass poll to reach out to a much larger portion of the GT fan base than GTPlanet, then the results of the poll may speak. That's in an ideal world. Unfortunately, this is the real world and it's hard to reach out to all of the GT fans, even through the official GT site. I know I rarely go there.

Yes, I do have a limit for the lack of quality but the standard cars (while sub-standard by today's benchmark) do not look massively terrible and still drive just as well as the premiums. Most of the reason they look horrible is because they have low-res textures on a high-res game. In my opinion, all that would need to be done is a texture touch-up to bring them to high-res. The actual models themselves aren't very bad.

Now I don't know if they will be true to their word this time around, since I was led to believe that a touch up was to be the case in GT5.

As for tracks, the day/night and weather features seem a little strange when they're on a select few tracks. Then I can go to the PC on Race07, and any track I add will have weather. The weather might not be as sophisticated as GT5, but hey. It's there. It's also a similar story on rFactor, where every single track can have a day/night cycle, though there are performance issues with that. Understandable for a 6-7 (I think) year old sim.

I don't really find a problem with the scenery of Trial Mountain because I'm mainly focused at how darn fun those roads are.

But to each their own. I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of quality to have those 1,000+ cars... for now. When the premium count hits 600, I want the standards gone. I also want a remake of Trial Mountain and Deep Forest, just as they've done (I think) with Apricot Hill. I'm also not sure if Grand Valley was touched up or not.

But, do you agree with me that a large amount of people want the game released on December 6 with patches to follow? I want it to release because getting GT on a 2-3 year dev cycle with 1 year of updates would be a great change of pace from the "wait 2.5(?) years for GT4, then 6 years for GT5" cycle.

Now then. I'm off to force Bob to break in all my 550PP cars on the GVS 300K. Woo.

 

[Cosbuster]

1: Hideous is a matter of opinion.

Well, is it? Whether you can live with them or not is certainly a matter of opinion but objectively, the cars are just horrible for 2013. I can't imagine anyone telling me they look acceptable with a straight face.

 

[NOSWaster]

Well, is it? Whether you can live with them or not is certainly a matter of opinion but objectively, the cars are just horrible for 2013. I can't imagine anyone telling me they look acceptable with a straight face.

Example 1: Textures. The model itself is not fantastically horrible. Maybe could use some touchups to make the curves rounder.
Example 2: Textures and the model. If it wasn't for how good that car is in shuffle race, I would never drive it. Also, the brake lights on that car were hilariously lazily done from what I observed while driving from 3rd person camera.

Edit: But hey, at least the wheels are premium.

Like I said above, I have my limit, but a majority of the standard cars are above this limit.

 

[sems4arsenal]

Thing is the Standard cars have outdated data that is probably not enough for a new physics engine so that PD could portray them with a greater accuracy, add to that the fact the lack of a cockpit view, how they look when photographing them and the fact that using a past gen asset is unacceptable you can see the issue.

 

[Imari]

But, do you agree with me that a large amount of people want the game released on December 6 with patches to follow? I want it to release because getting GT on a 2-3 year dev cycle with 1 year of updates would be a great change of pace from the "wait 2.5(?) years for GT4, then 6 years for GT5" cycle.

Everyone wants it to come out on Dec 6.

Everyone also has different opinions on how many features they will sacrifice at release to potentially come later as patches. Some people don't think advertised features should come with the proviso of "may be included at a later date".

Personally, I think the game should have enough features at release to be worth buying regardless of whether patches come to it or not.

If the game isn't worth buying as is, and they're relying on features that will be patched in later to sell it, then yes it needs to be delayed. And I say this as someone who thought that the GT5 "delays" were mismanagement of information and resources of the highest order, and should not be repeated without serious cause.

GT6, on the information that is available now, is looking annoyingly like GT5 with improved physics and a few (not a lot) more tracks and cars. The one major feature we've seen, the course creator, may or may not come at release. Some people are completely happy with that, but compared to the jumps between GT1/2 and GT3/4 I can see why others are disappointed.

Where did I say I was trying to pass off my wager as fact?

You didn't. But you can't wager on something if you can't determine a result. You might as well have said "I'll wager that there are 14 invisible, intangible teapots orbiting Venus on December 6th". Pointless.


Anyway, back to standard cars: they do not all drive the same as premium cars. There are several examples of the same car in both premium and standard. Some of them drive in a similar manner, some are obviously different. It's been a long time since I played, but I seem to remember the GT40 being one of these.

Given that they didn't touch the standard cars graphically (as of GT5 1.01, some were fiddled with later on), I'd be surprised if they went through and updated all 800 sets of physics for GT5. I imagine there was a semi-automated porting process, and the numbers from GT4 were more or less dropped straight into GT5's engine with fudging for whatever parameters didn't exist in GT4. Presumably the premium cars were reworked from scratch, even if a standard model already existed.

And so you end up with some cars where the GT4 version ended up similar to the GT5 version, and some that didn't.

 

[wowbaggerBR]

Standards are hideous and the idea of having them on a next gen GT is a utter joke.

 

[glassjaw]

But, do you agree with me that a large amount of people want the game released on December 6 with patches to follow? I want it to release because getting GT on a 2-3 year dev cycle with 1 year of updates would be a great change of pace from the "wait 2.5(?) years for GT4, then 6 years for GT5" cycle.

The point is, we shouldn't have to wait extra time to get a game that is up to the graphical standards of 2013 rather than 2004. The fact that these compromises have to be made in the first place, and that people are willing to accept them, is ludicrous. Most racing game devs don't have this problem, and if they do, they do a significantly better job of covering it up (i.e., Turn 10 reusing old assets). There's no reason it has to be this way.

 

[Nissan Cima]

I'm seriously disappointed that "standards" or any notion or iteration of that hideous aspect of GT5 is going to be in any way associated with GT6. I'd honestly just prefer significantly less, premium cars, or that the release date be pushed back ... and back. Failing that, I'd also like an option to switch off the availability of standards in the game.

Ugh! It was THE most criticised aspect of GT5. One that many people assumed to be a one-off bandaid. And it lingers ... like a drunken best man on the wedding night, the next day, and through the honeymoon too.

I really really hope the non "Premiumized" cars are significantly better than the standards of GT5. The "no" to all cars having interior views is a bad sign though.

The standard cars are abominations that don't belong anywhere but the PS2/PSP. Any other developer would be destroyed by their fanbase for this kind of practice.

 

[Kitten]

Quality wise... Some are so pretty







I mean some Standards in GT5 have very Pix Textures. "Cough GTS-R Viper"
However some are not bad..

 

[Samus]

When taken from the right angle and distance. Ie far away and any angle which hides the worst bits.

 

[Kitten]

When taken from the right angle and distance. Ie far away and any angle which hides the worst bits.

That aswell.

 

[nickg07]

Standards are hideous and the idea of having them on a next gen GT is a utter joke.

It depends what it means for those cars though doesn't it?

I still want my mr2 turbo or 200sx or pulsar gtir in the game. If the only option is standard or drop from the game well I'd take a hideous standard every time.

 

[Johnnypenso]

GT6 is in the bag and there's nothing we can do about the standards in the game at this point. With GT7 they'll be facing a real dilemma. I'm pretty sure at that point even PD will not have the gall to use GT6's upgraded standards with no interiors so they'll have to decide if they are going to redo some cars premium or drop all the standards from the game and start fresh. I do hope they pick at least 100 conic cars that are now standard and bring them up to full premium status. Not everyone will be happy and some cars will be left out that surely deserve premium status. Tough choice but I'm guessing they'll be looking forward and not back. The biggest bang for the buck has got to be in modelling newer cars.

 

[Tornado]

When taken from the right angle and distance. Ie far away and any angle which hides the worst bits.

inb4 photo of Nomad Diablo

 

[TheeFrogmanlego]

standards are a mixed bag .. Some look fine such as the casonic r 33 while others look like poop!

 

[MeanElf]

...If there was theoretically able to be a mass poll to reach out to a much larger portion of the GT fan base than GTPlanet, then the results of the poll may speak. That's in an ideal world. Unfortunately, this is the real world and it's hard to reach out to all of the GT fans, even through the official GT site. I know I rarely go there...

I'm certain PD use a tracking facility to collate data that allows them to see which cars get used, by how many people and also how frequently.

Well, is it? Whether you can live with them or not is certainly a matter of opinion but objectively, the cars are just horrible for 2013. I can't imagine anyone telling me they look acceptable with a straight face...

Except those cars are from 2010 when GT5 came out. Until we see how the non-premiums have been handled in GT6 you can't in all fairness use an almost three year old example and call it current.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Except those cars are from 2010 when GT5 came out. Until we see how the non-premiums have been handled in GT6 you can't in all fairness use an almost three year old example and call it current.

Why not? GT5 used car models from at least five years before it's release and called them current - some were created nearly 10 years before GT5!

Considering both how GT5's Standards were dealt with pre-release, and how mysterious the info surrounding their inclusion in GT6 is ("some" potentially seeing upgrades, though to what extent is unknown), I don't expect to hear anything about them - or see them - until the game is out. Blame GT5 for setting the precedent here.

 

[Imari]

Except those cars are from 2010 when GT5 came out. Until we see how the non-premiums have been handled in GT6 you can't in all fairness use an almost three year old example and call it current.

Well, the standards are unlikely to be worse than in GT5. So that's the minimum quality. If PD wants people to believe that they're further improved over and above that, it might be good for them to actually show us some GT6-spec standards instead of blowing smoke up our fannies.

But I agree with Slip, I think the chances of us actually seeing a GT6-spec standard before release are slim. I think they'll take the approach that day 1 GT6 buyers are those who will hope for the best, and that any solid information on standards would probably be worse than their expectations.

It will be interesting to see how the stand on the issue post-release, because I fully expect the media to be highly critical of a very well funded triple-A first party title reusing assets from as far back as 2001.

 

[[empty space]]

Cynical prediction:

GT7 starts off with all of GT6 assets, including the standards, and then add more to that so we end off a bunch of beautiful assets and out of date assets.

Why not, 2 games of substandard mixed with wonderfull, why should we expect anything else? I dont believe its a new platform is a good reason and itll let them spend more time making the new stuff even better and say they don't have the time to improve the old stuff?