The Vision GT corner.

[Johnnypenso]

PD developed new physics in GT for the Vision GTs.

All cars are subject to the same physics engine in racing games. The only thing that changes are the parameters of the individual car.

 

[synon]

All cars are subject to the same physics engine in racing games. The only thing that changes are the parameters of the individual car.

True, but I assume they introduced new components to their physics engine, to model cars with pneumatic motors or with non-driven wheels etc.

 

[cutmeamango]

All of the above. At the release of GT6 it was advertised on the GT website that the VGT cars were to be added to the game over a period of approximately 1 year. It's actually still there if you go to http://www.gran-turismo.com/ and look at the GT6 feature list.

That's how Polyphony and the customers expected the VGT program to pan out, and it's probably a safe bet that the manufacturers did too. That's what they would have been told when they signed on.

It didn't happen, and so it's totally safe to say that the VGT program hasn't panned out as expected. We're near two years into it now, and we're halfway-ish through the list. That wasn't the plan.

Hah! That's a fair read. There's no qualification or value judgement on these "expectations" too, so there's no counter-argument.
I stand corrected on the expectations of meeting a soft deadline.

You can't fully simulate technology that doesn't exist yet. You can try, and maybe you get it right to a certain degree, but there will always be unforseen aspects you can't predict, because you can't test it. Simply plugging numbers into a simulator that was only designed to handle internal combustion and hybrid powertrains won't do these cars justice.

Computer simulations and models do have an inevitable margin of error, yes. This is a good video that shows how they use equations that approximate the "real thing" (which is impossible to do).
But when you say "cars" you mean "car" right? Only the Chaparral utilizes a laser ablation propulsion. Which is something that does exist. And they know how it works, physically.

I wonder if Gran Turismo models the mechanisms of engines given that they don't have failure modelling or anything like that, so I just assumed they'd care about traction.
Haven't looked up those car hacks though, they may reveal the parameters used.

 

[Tornado]

So what exactly are you trying to claim the post you quoted of mine divorced from context is proof of?

I hope it's not this:

I had already mentioned in another topic, but a big part of the animosity against VGTs in this forum is because it's attached to a videogame, and not any videogame: Gran Turismo. An incredible absurd.

Because my post and certainly not Slip's post that you also quoted don't say that.

 

[cutmeamango]

So what exactly are you trying to claim the post you quoted of mine divorced from context is proof of?

What's an "actual concept car" and how does it differ from a VGT?

 

[Tornado]

That would be one that existed independently of the GT titles, like the person I was responding to had already brought up as having been in the series since the beginning. Should have been particularly clear since I labeled three cars of varying degrees of conceptual similarity that were in previous GT titles as a point of direct comparison.


So, again, what exactly are you trying to claim the post you quoted of mine divorced from context is proof of?

 

[glassjaw]

The pneumatic motors of a pneumatic propulsion system are established technology, so should be fairly straightforward to model.

Only the Chaparral utilizes a laser ablation propulsion. Which is something that does exist. And they know how it works, physically.

Perhaps "doesn't exist" was a poor choice of words. These technologies do exist. What I meant was that they haven't been implemented in cars yet, or if they have, it hasn't been to any great effect. Or worked out as ideally as these manufacturers would like us to think. People don't have the experience of driving these kinds of vehicles. Polyphony can't test one. Therefore, I think it's reasonable to hold any attempts to replicate them with a grain of salt. But simulations are supposed to deal in things that can be properly replicated, or at least that's what a "simulation" means to me.

 

[Imari]

Only the Chaparral utilizes a laser ablation propulsion. Which is something that does exist. And they know how it works, physically.

The physics are possible. The actual packaging that they've done isn't. I made a post on it once.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...-is-real-new-poll.320019/page-3#post-10247576

Basically, it's possible with current tech to power such a car, if you don't mind the car weighting ~1600kg and it being out of juice after ten minutes. And assuming that you can somehow squeeze 100% efficiency out of the system, which is basically impossible with batteries, and a source of motive power that makes an ungodly racket as it operates.

The laser thing is a nice idea, but their implementation of it is about as realistic as a 15,000hp 1.6 litre straight four that gets 70 mpg. Technically, internal combustion engines exist so there's nothing revolutionary going on there, but you simply can't get that level of performance with anything like current level tech. Energy storage is nothing near good enough, nor is the packaging on a laser than can run consistently at those power levels, nor is all the other ancillary support that's needed for those things.

Realistically, the car would be the size of a shed and weigh several tons at the very least. It's not even near future tech, it's total pie-in-the-sky stuff. There are serious physical obstacles to storing and dispensing that much power, especially doing so continuously.

 

[cutmeamango]

That would be one that existed independently of the GT titles, like the person I was responding to had already brought up as having been in the series since the beginning. Should have been particularly clear since I labeled three cars of varying degrees of conceptual similarity that were in previous GT titles as a point of direct comparison.
So, again, what exactly are you trying to claim the post you quoted of mine divorced from context is proof of?

What I'm trying to prove:
Some believe: 1) VGTs are not actual concept cars because they are attached to a videogame.
I asked you: 2) What is an ACTUAL concept car?
Your answer: 3) "That would be one that existed independently of the GT titles"

And divorced of context?
Lets see:
Post you quoted and answered to:

I don't understand some people... EVERY major release of Gran Turismo has had some sort of concept car in it. Including GT1.

Your answer:

And the overwhelming majority of those were actual concept cars that generally happened to be contemporary with whatever game was currently releasing. So other than the outliers like the Nike 2021, the GT by Citroen (sorta) and the X1, it's not really remotely the same thing.

I can make the first order logic equation if it's not clear enough.
Animosity is inferred from hyperbolic context, feel free to sue me for slander.

Perhaps "doesn't exist" was a poor choice of words. These technologies do exist. What I meant was that they haven't been implemented in cars yet, or if they have, it hasn't been to any great effect. Or worked out as ideally as these manufacturers would like us to think. People don't have the experience of driving these kinds of vehicles. Polyphony can't test one. Therefore, I think it's reasonable to hold any attempts to replicate them with a grain of salt. But simulations are supposed to deal in things that can be properly replicated, or at least that's what a "simulation" means to me.

You are correct they are simulating things that have not been built. But you can simulate things like explosions, concrete constructions, plastic wear, metal corrosion with computer models that are pretty accurate to know with a degree of confidence how they will work before you build it.

The physics are possible. The actual packaging that they've done isn't. I made a post on it once.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...-is-real-new-poll.320019/page-3#post-10247576

Basically, it's possible with current tech to power such a car, if you don't mind the car weighting ~1600kg and it being out of juice after ten minutes. And assuming that you can somehow squeeze 100% efficiency out of the system, which is basically impossible with batteries, and a source of motive power that makes an ungodly racket as it operates.

The laser thing is a nice idea, but their implementation of it is about as realistic as a 15,000hp 1.6 litre straight four that gets 70 mpg. Technically, internal combustion engines exist so there's nothing revolutionary going on there, but you simply can't get that level of performance with anything like current level tech. Energy storage is nothing near good enough, nor is the packaging on a laser than can run consistently at those power levels, nor is all the other ancillary support that's needed for those things.

Realistically, the car would be the size of a shed and weigh several tons at the very least. It's not even near future tech, it's total pie-in-the-sky stuff. There are serious physical obstacles to storing and dispensing that much power, especially doing so continuously.

The biggest obstacle for reducing powerful lasers is heat dispensing and material shielding.
You have laser systems two orders of magnitude above that fit in a room, we are not there yet, but 25 years ago we weren't doing petawatt lasers either...
Battery density is again, debatable.

Anyhow, the most fantastical thing to me is that someone 20-25 years from now would invest perhaps tens of billions of dollars to R&D it. But hey, some companies do it for jet fighters so fair game right?

 

[Imari]

The biggest obstacle for reducing powerful lasers is heat dispensing and material shielding.
You have laser systems two orders of magnitude above that fit in a room, we are not there yet, but 25 years ago we weren't doing petawatt lasers either...
Battery density is again, debatable.

The point is that it requires an actual breakthrough (or more likely, multiple breakthroughs) in the appropriate disciplines. It's not merely a refinement of existing techniques.

IMO, there's a difference between a concept that is possible to make using minor evolutions of current tech, like the GT by Citroen, and a concept that requires major technological development to even make a sensible estimate of how feasible it might be.

The number of obstacles I can think of to be overcome in building something like the Chapparal is immense. It's less of a concept of a car that could technically be made if the company wanted to, like most of the others, and more of a schoolboy fantasy.

Mercedes could make their VGT if they wanted.
SRT could have a go at theirs, although they might struggle to get the silly numbers that they gave it. Possibly not, depending on how unreliable they're willing to make it.
I think Chapparal would be lucky if they could make a functional prototype that could actually do a lap of a track, at any speed.

That's the difference. Most concept cars are the manufacturer saying "hey look, we could make this if we wanted". The Chapparal is "if someone spent the next ten years and several billion dollars of research, it might be possible to make this". You might as well put an Alcubierre drive in it.

Some people, like yourself, are willing to accept a car that is based on what is currently fantasy. That's fine.
Others see that as different to cars that are actually feasible with current or near-current technology. And rightly so, because it is different.

If Gran Turismo wants to showcase what cars will be like in 50 or 100 years, then so be it. But I think it's reasonable to distinguish between cars that can be made, and cars that are just a gleam in the engineer's eye, so to speak.

 

[cutmeamango]

The point is that it requires an actual breakthrough (or more likely, multiple breakthroughs) in the appropriate disciplines. It's not merely a refinement of existing techniques.

I agree in terms.
You could make with today's tech a 150kg tritium battery that would produce more than enough power and last for a good time that would really surpass Chaparral's needs. Problems: It would cost a lot and you wouldn't be able to build many as it is rare. Radioactivity would probably be at extremely dangerous levels for a pilot. Less of a breakthrough, more of a technical and financial problem.
But again, agreed.

IMO, there's a difference between a concept that is possible to make using minor evolutions of current tech, like the GT by Citroen, and a concept that requires major technological development to even make a sensible estimate of how feasible it might be.

The number of obstacles I can think of to be overcome in building something like the Chapparal is immense. It's less of a concept of a car that could technically be made if the company wanted to, like most of the others, and more of a schoolboy fantasy.

Mercedes could make their VGT if they wanted.
SRT could have a go at theirs, although they might struggle to get the silly numbers that they gave it. Possibly not, depending on how unreliable they're willing to make it.
I think Chapparal would be lucky if they could make a functional prototype that could actually do a lap of a track, at any speed.

That's the difference. Most concept cars are the manufacturer saying "hey look, we could make this if we wanted". The Chapparal is "if someone spent the next ten years and several billion dollars of research, it might be possible to make this". You might as well put an Alcubierre drive in it.

Some people, like yourself, are willing to accept a car that is based on what is currently fantasy. That's fine.
Others see that as different to cars that are actually feasible with current or near-current technology. And rightly so, because it is diferente.

If Gran Turismo wants to showcase what cars will be like in 50 or 100 years, then so be it. But I think it's reasonable to distinguish between cars that can be made, and cars that are just a gleam in the engineer's eye, so to speak.

No debate there, but I think the same when say BMW or Hyundai shows concept cars with efficient (yet non-existent) electric and hydrogen cell cars or with smart holographic projection or autonomous drive systems that "should be possible" in 5-10 years.

It's all subjective thresholds and qualifications to redefine "concept". More of a concept, less of a concept.
I can easily say that the Chaparral is more of a concept because it is further from reality. And so it goes.

In the end, they are all concepts.

 

[gtracedriver1]

Mercedes VGT was my favorite car when I started playing GT6. I like most of them but they need to have cockpit. We have enough of them and would like them to concentrate on real cars instead

 

[Imari]

I agree in terms.
You could make with today's tech a 150kg tritium battery that would produce more than enough power and last for a good time that would really surpass Chaparral's needs. Problems: It would cost a lot and you wouldn't be able to build many as it is rare. Radioactivity would probably be at extremely dangerous levels for a pilot. Less of a breakthrough, more of a technical and financial problem.

Betavoltaics are incredible for things that require low amounts of consistent power for extremely long periods of time. They're completely unsuitable for something that has extremely high and extremely variable power requirements. What do you do with all that power when you're not on the throttle? Radiate it as heat? Store it in supercaps? Fire the laser off in the distance and hope you don't hit anything?

Notwithstanding the difficulty of even getting 150kg of tritium in one place at one time, considering that Wiki says that the US had only made 225kg of tritium since 1955 in 1996, and that the total on hand at any given time was far less than that given that it's got a relatively short half life.

It's not that you wouldn't be able to build many. You wouldn't be able to build one. Even half of one would be pushing it, and the government would probably suspect you of secretly wanting to build a thermonuclear bomb.

Again, it's one of those things that's technically possible on paper, but you couldn't even consider attempting to make something based on it. It's another schoolboy fantasy, it's not an avenue to a legitimate production technique. You might as well just say you're gonna power it with cold fusion.

It's all subjective thresholds and qualifications to redefine "concept". More of a concept, less of a concept.
I can easily say that the Chaparral is more of a concept because it is further from reality. And so it goes.

In the end, they are all concepts.

It's not so much that the Chaparral is further from reality. It's that as it's stands, there's no way for anything remotely like it to be made. It's not that it's close and needs some more work to bring the systems up to the required efficiency and power. It's that it simply cannot be done with anything like the technology that we'll have in the near future.

I'm starting to think that you don't understand the difference between these things.

Put it this way. If you're an average driver, going a couple of seconds faster around Spa is going to be a big ask, but it's possible. You've seen other people do similar things, you know that you can learn how to do this. It's just going to require you putting in the time to really nail those skills down.

On the other hand, going a couple of seconds faster than the fastest driver in the world around Spa may not actually be possible. Technically, you could always go faster, but in reality it's going to take some massive revolution in the way that you drive to find that much time. Maybe there's a way to do it, maybe not. You just don't know.

This is the difference between a legitimate concept car, and Wipeout. Maybe you can build antigravity "cars" that go 700+ kmph. It's technically possible on paper, we have superconductors, high thrust drives and advanced aero. That doesn't make Wipeout a realistic simulator, because there's nothing to realistically simulate until you actually have a decent idea how the vehicle is actually going to be made. You're just pulling numbers out of your bottom.

That's what the Chaparral is. It's numbers from someone's bottom. The rest of the VGTs are not, they're varying degrees of reasonably educated engineering extrapolations. Like I said before, I'm pretty sure a prototype could be built of everything except the Chaparral. That makes it a fantasy, which is in a whole different league.

Hell, even the Red Bull X is more plausible than the Chaparral, and the Red Bull would probably kill anyone who drove it.

 

[SVPSkins]

They should stay, love the design side and imagination of the project.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

How many concepts in the past that didn't make it to actual production or not even drivable ( don't have powerplant ) ? Concepts is just that, conceptual design, it can be a mock up static display to running car, there's no rule that govern them to be at least running to be deemed worthy as concept. I don't see why we are limiting concept to certain degree of fantasy or has to be feasible for production in near future ( 5 - 10 years time ). Virtual concept cars gives designer more freedom and it's a good thing to have, as in the past, designers were limited to physical models.

 

[SVPSkins]

How many concepts in the past that didn't make it to actual production or not even drivable ( don't have powerplant ) ? Concepts is just that, conceptual design, it can be a mock up static display to running car, there's no rule that govern them to be at least running to be deemed worthy as concept. I don't see why we are limiting concept to certain degree of fantasy or has to be feasible for production in near future ( 5 - 10 years time ). Virtual concept cars gives designer more freedom and it's a good thing to have, as in the past, designers were limited to physical models.

It's a way of manufacters to let there air down, forget the rules they obey with production cars and abit of fun.

 

[Imari]

I don't see why we are limiting concept to certain degree of fantasy or has to be feasible for production in near future ( 5 - 10 years time ). Virtual concept cars gives designer more freedom and it's a good thing to have, as in the past, designers were limited to physical models.

And this is fine, if that's what you want.

Me, I don't want to see Wipeout ships in my racing simulation. I want cars that could actually exist. To me, that's the point of a simulation.

I figure if you simply want vehicles to drive and you're not fussed about whether they're actually realistic, then there are other styles of game for that. Maybe Gran Turismo wants to be that style of game too, I don't know. Rollcage cars were pretty cool. The pod racers from Star Wars would be fun. Some of the cars from Burnout were pretty awesome, especially the ones with the self-charging nitrous systems. Let's get some of those in there, they're at least as technically viable as the Chaparral and they're a lot of fun.

It seems to me that Polyphony put a lot of emphasis on the authenticity of the experience and the physics, so I'd have thought not. But if it's anything goes, then so be it. It's a pretty big change in the genre that Gran Turismo is targeting itself at, but maybe that's for the best.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

And this is fine, if that's what you want.

Me, I don't want to see Wipeout ships in my racing simulation. I want cars that could actually exist. To me, that's the point of a simulation.

I figure if you simply want vehicles to drive and you're not fussed about whether they're actually realistic, then there are other styles of game for that. Maybe Gran Turismo wants to be that style of game too, I don't know. Rollcage cars were pretty cool. The pod racers from Star Wars would be fun. Some of the cars from Burnout were pretty awesome, especially the ones with the self-charging nitrous systems. Let's get some of those in there, they're at least as technically viable as the Chaparral and they're a lot of fun.

It seems to me that Polyphony put a lot of emphasis on the authenticity of the experience and the physics, so I'd have thought not. But if it's anything goes, then so be it. It's a pretty big change in the genre that Gran Turismo is targeting itself at, but maybe that's for the best.

It's not just what I want, it's what manufacturers want to do when they were working together with PD in VGT project. Obviously, these car companies have different vision that what you wanted in a game. I just consider VGT as a bonus, of what big companies designers would design in virtual world, given the freedom they have.

I don't particularly a fan of VGT, but I don't condemn these cars either. I only have Merc VGT in the past, and only recently after I racked up credits to buy a Miura, then I decided to rack some more for these VGT ( this week ). I only have driven the BMW, Nissan and Infiniti so far. They are unique, but I don't expect them to be realistic since beginning, as they are virtual concepts.

 

[05XR8]

Well, by the response to the Mazda RX Vision by fans around the world, that would be a welcome addition.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Well, by the response to the Mazda RX Vision by fans around the world, that would be a welcome addition.

Is the Mazda RX Vision a VGT car ?

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Awesome to have the Vision GT cars. Keeps up my interest in playing GT getting to drive these unique cars. Amazing that these big car manufacturers are putting in so much effort into making cars for the GT franchise. PDI seem to be making full use of their position in the industry which is good to see rather than sticking to only modelling cars that are already out. Also creating a FIA recognised sport is great than just a generic E-sport.

Must help a lot for word-of-mouth marketing too, maybe one of the reasons why GT does so well in sales. It seems a win-win scenario for all involved.

 

[Imari]

It's not just what I want, it's what manufacturers want to do when they were working together with PD in VGT project.

And I think one of the big failures of the VGT project was Polyphony setting fairly vague guidelines as to what the manufacturers were to design, and then not even sticking to those. The initial brief was to design what the manufacturers saw as their rendition of a GT car, a grand tourer. Which was a pretty good idea, especially given the name of the game.

While many of the cars certainly fall within that general category, a several of the later ones are clearly hypercars designed purely as attempts to one up the other manufacturers with big numbers. A GT car does not need or want 2500hp or active aero. It isn't an LMP car. It's not a laser powered rocketship that only fits one person lying down. It definitely needs a roof, and somewhere to put luggage and other people.

Honestly, I think Polyphony needed to talk with the manufacturers and say "that's very nice, but I'm sorry that's not what we're after. It would be unfair to the other manufacturers for us to include this thing that is way outside the brief for the project".

But then I don't believe that it's in Polyphony's interest to simply bend over and do whatever the manufacturers ask them to. I think that ultimately they gain more respect for having a high quality product, and negotiating terms that are mutually agreeable with the manufacturers. And pushing back when the manufacturers try to pull a sly one.

Polyphony have a fantastic marketing platform for car manufacturers. They appear to be starting to realise it. They need to stay on top of it and keep it relevant to real car purchases, and not let it turn into a free-for-all of overpowered penis extensions.

That was what originally separated Gran Turismo from the pack, the fact that it's focus was not on overpowered penis extensions. It would be somewhat ironic if they were to come full circle to become the modern day NFS equivalent.

 

[05XR8]

Is the Mazda RX Vision a VGT car ?

No. Though, makes me think it may have been in the running or influenced by the VGT project. Of course, I don't know for sure.

The LM55 was already created. Then, part of Goodwood. Could have been in the grand scheme of celebrating Mazda. Just all seemed to work out.

I doubt if it was part of Mazdas proposed VGT concepts. But, I don't know that either.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

And I think one of the big failures of the VGT project was Polyphony setting fairly vague guidelines as to what the manufacturers were to design, and then not even sticking to those. The initial brief was to design what the manufacturers saw as their rendition of a GT car, a grand tourer. Which was a pretty good idea, especially given the name of the game.

While many of the cars certainly fall within that general category, a several of the later ones are clearly hypercars designed purely as attempts to one up the other manufacturers with big numbers. A GT car does not need or want 2500hp or active aero. It isn't an LMP car. It's not a laser powered rocketship that only fits one person lying down. It definitely needs a roof, and somewhere to put luggage and other people.

Honestly, I think Polyphony needed to talk with the manufacturers and say "that's very nice, but I'm sorry that's not what we're after. It would be unfair to the other manufacturers for us to include this thing that is way outside the brief for the project".

But then I don't believe that it's in Polyphony's interest to simply bend over and do whatever the manufacturers ask them to. I think that ultimately they gain more respect for having a high quality product, and negotiating terms that are mutually agreeable with the manufacturers. And pushing back when the manufacturers try to pull a sly one.

Polyphony have a fantastic marketing platform for car manufacturers. They appear to be starting to realise it. They need to stay on top of it and keep it relevant to real car purchases, and not let it turn into a free-for-all of overpowered penis extensions.

That was what originally separated Gran Turismo from the pack, the fact that it's focus was not on overpowered penis extensions. It would be somewhat ironic if they were to come full circle to become the modern day NFS equivalent.

Where did you read about the design brief of VGT being a GT car ( gran tourer ) ? I think Kaz and his staff would have been in meetings with each manufacturer representative, discussing the design, the vision and goals of the cars. Kaz may have been too broad in giving design guidelines, or simply the manufacturer themselves insisted on such design to be featured in the VGT as they see it as marketing tool for their brand image or perhaps to give their designer some free reign to build a virtual car. Sort of experimentation of how gamers response would be with certain car design

I only hope in the future more cars will be made and as you wanted, more realistic cars preferably and for me, a car that would almost certain will be in production would be great, like the FT86 concept in the past.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

And I think one of the big failures of the VGT project was Polyphony setting fairly vague guidelines as to what the manufacturers were to design, and then not even sticking to those. The initial brief was to design what the manufacturers saw as their rendition of a GT car, a grand tourer. Which was a pretty good idea, especially given the name of the game.

While many of the cars certainly fall within that general category, a several of the later ones are clearly hypercars designed purely as attempts to one up the other manufacturers with big numbers. A GT car does not need or want 2500hp or active aero. It isn't an LMP car. It's not a laser powered rocketship that only fits one person lying down. It definitely needs a roof, and somewhere to put luggage and other people.

Honestly, I think Polyphony needed to talk with the manufacturers and say "that's very nice, but I'm sorry that's not what we're after. It would be unfair to the other manufacturers for us to include this thing that is way outside the brief for the project".

But then I don't believe that it's in Polyphony's interest to simply bend over and do whatever the manufacturers ask them to. I think that ultimately they gain more respect for having a high quality product, and negotiating terms that are mutually agreeable with the manufacturers. And pushing back when the manufacturers try to pull a sly one.

Polyphony have a fantastic marketing platform for car manufacturers. They appear to be starting to realise it. They need to stay on top of it and keep it relevant to real car purchases, and not let it turn into a free-for-all of overpowered penis extensions.

That was what originally separated Gran Turismo from the pack, the fact that it's focus was not on overpowered penis extensions. It would be somewhat ironic if they were to come full circle to become the modern day NFS equivalent.

Where did you read about the design brief of VGT being a GT car ( gran tourer ) ? I think Kaz and his staff would have been in meetings with each manufacturer representative, discussing the design, the vision and goals of the cars. Kaz may have been too broad in giving design guidelines, or simply the manufacturer themselves insisted on such design to be featured in the VGT as they see it as marketing tool for their brand image or perhaps to give their designer some free reign to build a virtual car. Sort of experimentation of how gamers response would be with certain car design

I only hope in the future more cars will be made and as you wanted, more realistic cars preferably and for me, a car that would almost certain will be in production would be great, like the FT86 concept in the past.

 

[SVPSkins]

Mercedes have used the "Vision" name on there latest concept as well. i wonder if this is coming.

 

[SSQES]

Mercedes have used the "Vision" name on there latest concept as well. i wonder if this is coming.

View attachment 471368

No, a lot of concept cars have vision if their name, doesn't mean they are coming

 

[Imari]

Where did you read about the design brief of VGT being a GT car ( gran tourer ) ?

I read the Gran Turismo website. It says specifically in the VGT section:

The project started with a question from Kazunori Yamauchi: "Would you be willing to design your rendition of Gran Turismo for us?" The videogame’s name "Gran Turismo" (GT) refers to a 2-door sport car, known as a Grand Touring car in the automotive world.

The manufacturers who have answered our call are now delivering new Grand Touring cars in succession. “Vision Gran Turismo” is a 15th anniversary celebration that will be hosted by Gran Turismo, car manufacturers and users around the globe. The cars presented will appear one after another in Gran Turismo 6, and as those cars will be driven by more and more people, the festival will get bigger and bigger.

Emphasis mine, because that's the important part.

http://www.gran-turismo.com/au/products/gt6/vgt/

Like the original 12 month planned rollout time scale, we can't know what changed after release. But at release, I think based on the above it's fair to assume that the manufacturers had been asked to make a Grand Tourer. That name can be interpreted pretty broadly in many ways, but there are some elements of design that show up on some VGTs that are definitely inappropriate for any car of that type.

For instance, you'd normally expect such a car to have a roof for comfort while travelling long distance. But maybe something like the VW VGT Roadster is OK, or at least close enough that it's not worth quibbling about. You could drive that long distance comfortably enough. The Alpine one probably isn't, because not only is it open topped it only seats one person with no apparent space for any sort of luggage. It's almost pure race car, and there's almost no part of the description of a grand tourer that it does satisfy.

 

[Samus]

Indeed. Some of those cars are not Grand Tourers in any way. Either the design brief changed, or the manufacturers just didn't get the full memo.

 

[Imari]

Indeed. Some of those cars are not Grand Tourers in any way. Either the design brief changed, or the manufacturers just didn't get the full memo.

It's funny, if you read the descriptions on the GT website (some of which are quite good), it's immediately apparent which were designed as GT cars and which were designed to be race cars. The GT cars always mention it in the blurb, whereas the race cars talk about the excitement of the track, their motorsport heritage and crushing their opponents.