Totally disagree. Whatever time of day or weather it is during a race, it'll be a realistic representation of it. Dynamic or not. Damage, however, is far more important than dynamic weather, so you get penalised for your crap driving.
Think positive: why we should be glad GT5 is delayed till spring '10?
- Thread starter steven
- 147 comments
- 10,039 views
- Status
- 799
- Chance2012
- 280
What?? No, I'm saying the part removal will only be applied to race cars, and I was pointing out it's possible when this was stated, some people mistakenly thought it meant all damage would only be applied to race cars, as you just did.
And I'm going to strongly disagree with that. It's perfectly common for major features to go unannounced until close to launch, and we're not even close to launch yet. At TGS, Kaz confirmed GT5 would include customizable aero parts. Are you seriously saying this indicates they hadn't planned to include them until that afternoon? The Constructo weapons for the new Ratchet game were revealed until three months before launch. The new travel method, where you actually fly from planet to planet, encountering other ships, and discovering and exploring mini-moons wasn't revealed until two months before launch. Do you really think they just decided to throw that stuff in at the last minute, "proven" by the fact we didn't know about it before?
The fact is, it's only the pretenders to the throne that need to build hype by coming out early and saying things like, "Our game will have 43 hojillion features! 43 hojillion!! I triple-dog-dare the Emperor to have that many. Our game will have the most cars and the best graphics, and be the best game EVAR!" Hype is all the pretender really has, because without the hype, no one would bother paying attention to him at all. If he had what really countsan outstanding gamehe'd have the luxury of being like the Emperor, kicking back and saying, "Of course it's going to be great. How great? Well, wait and see.
"Umm, as I just said, he specifically said it was because of the extra modeling.
Haven't you argued in the past that manufacturer approval should be a non-issue, evidenced by the fact that other developers have gotten it?
And would say it's possible, and in line with everything elselike Kaz saying he wouldn't add damage until it could be done realisticallythat procedural damage was always the planpossibly dating back to the beginning of the seriesand it wasn't until the PS3 that he had the power to actually pull it off.
Also, if canned deformation was the original plan, as you assert, I contend we would've seen it at GC. The fact that we saw no deformation at all tells me that it was already decided it would be procedural, but the implementation wasn't ready for public consumption.
True dat!
- 1,419
Seriously bro i think you're hearing voices, maybe heat hazed from those hot dry NZ days but i never said anything abut GT4 let alone it being the best simulator ever.
and By the way, i quit MMO Racers ever since MotorCity Online went...offline.
if EA would bring this back, it would bring grace back to their studios.
R.I.P.
Last edited:
- 7,830
- U S A
- Tetsumura
- Nigel Fox
- 1,335
- WA
- TEAM-SWD-daus26
If anything, I don't want the game to be as quickly developed as GTPSP.
The fact that some of the info they released between GC and TGS are inconsistent, tells me that plans have changed and mostly for the better. For example, the "170" premium number is no longer in that list. Perhaps, the original plan was to release the game this year, but in doing so, they can only model a few with interiors and damage. But with the new March window, they removed it cause they have more time?
Also, the number 20, clearly now means "location" giving us a better chance that it's not just 20 unique tracks. Another good thing is that the 60 is now 70! Yeeaah.
In a IGN interview, drag racing didn't seem to be planned. Kaz made it seem like, "Hey, with our new launch window, we can include that in no problem. Sure, why not." Also in that interview, Kaz talks about the possibilities of dynamic weather. He didn't totally deny it, thus another possibility of it including in the final game.... because of more time perhaps?
Basically what I'm trying to say is the game being release in March rather that this year gives PD more time to include and polish more stuff in the game.
But yes, there were some negatives like the absent mention of head-tracking, 50 less cars, and such, but overall, I think there's still a good chance that it may still be present in the final game.
The fact that some of the info they released between GC and TGS are inconsistent, tells me that plans have changed and mostly for the better. For example, the "170" premium number is no longer in that list. Perhaps, the original plan was to release the game this year, but in doing so, they can only model a few with interiors and damage. But with the new March window, they removed it cause they have more time?
Also, the number 20, clearly now means "location" giving us a better chance that it's not just 20 unique tracks. Another good thing is that the 60 is now 70! Yeeaah.
In a IGN interview, drag racing didn't seem to be planned. Kaz made it seem like, "Hey, with our new launch window, we can include that in no problem. Sure, why not." Also in that interview, Kaz talks about the possibilities of dynamic weather. He didn't totally deny it, thus another possibility of it including in the final game.... because of more time perhaps?
Basically what I'm trying to say is the game being release in March rather that this year gives PD more time to include and polish more stuff in the game.
But yes, there were some negatives like the absent mention of head-tracking, 50 less cars, and such, but overall, I think there's still a good chance that it may still be present in the final game.
- 274
Hot dry NZ days? LOL
I wish.
First Forza just annihilated GT4, completely.
Try 1987 Porsche in first Forza, now this is Porsche, this is how Porsche drives.
It's not same Impreza but with RUF model how it was in GT4
Last edited:
- 4,323
Oh I see, kind of read it wrong.
BTW it the whole deal still beg the question:
If procedural damage was alway planned.
Procedural damage would be applied to all cars and not just some once completed (your argument that simply having procedural damage means all cars would have it).
And we saw procedural damage as far back as E3...
Why did we not see damage on any other cars until just recently?
It seems to me that the recent new procedural damage engine is just that and what we saw before were one off's done for each car and so far the sub only had it good enough to really demo.
Otherwise I think we would have seen good damage on multiple car, or at least KY's response would have been "it's coming" rather than "we are seeing how far the fans want to go with damage".
I think it can go either way and you have to look at the circumstances to judge which is the most likely/reasonable/prudent line of action.
Again we have damage shown to only one car up until TGs, KY saying not all cars would feature damage modeling and only race cars would, GC demo of damge to only one car along side many STRONG hints of a 2009 release (including having it written on at least one large promotional board, the leaked santa commercial amongst other things), negative feedback on the damage shown, KY saying that they were seeing how far the fans wanted to go with damage, then TGS bringing a suddenly unexpected later release date and announcement of damage on all cars, followed up KY talking about an all new procedural damage engine.
As I look over that it really looks to me like decisions unfolding, not a previous decision being unveiled. It certainly doesn't preclude the possibillity of it happening some other way, but I think the path of least resistance points to a last minute decision to add more.
Yes sometimes features are announced very near lauch, and I still hold TGS was originaly supposed to be near launch as it falls into the timeline of "very shohrtly after GTPSP" nicely.
If Ratchet and Clank had announced some travel method that was widely panned and dissapointed a lot of it's user base, they might well decide to push back to change their game based on that... in which case it would look a lot like what we have seen so far from GT5.
So yes, announcements near launch can happen, but the way this announcment unfolded really looks like a change of plans more than a slowly revealed reality.
Well to be fair, I think PD are quite the hype machine (although in a slightly different way) and they don't seem to have any problems touting what they have the most and prettiest of.
Yes we agree that extra modeling takes time, where we differe is how that fits into the big picture. I say it fits in as: Let's do damage to all cars... no, that would take too long... where do we draw the line? How about race cars? Sounds good, we can still make our 09 release with that.
I have argued that to say a dev won't allow it is flawed because other games have it, but if one company is stricter, pricier or something else different than another, well that's a different matter all together and then it's decision time as to how to work around that problem or just let it go.
Possible, but also possible that his plan was to do it one off on each car pefectly and that proved to be too time consuming to do it to all cars.
Finally when demand showed that users wanted something on all cars, KY stepped back and said fine, keep the super awesome one off stuff on the race cars, and let's build a basic procedural system for the other ones so people can have what they want. You have 6 months, go.
No my original asserction was that we would see no damage on most cars. That's not true anymore, but it fits in at GC.
Or... GC fits in with one off damage to each car. The damage to the subaru we saw was pretty dynamic for a procedural damage model. I mean if you are just figuring out how to dent a panel then that' not tricky, but doors and crumpling hoods is a bit bigger an undertaking never mind the internal modeling.
Thus:
Original plan: Damage only to race cars, one off it for each, make it look perfect.
Updated plan: Everything needs at least some damage - Make a basic procedural model for the basic cars, let the race cars still have their perfected 1 off modeling.
It seems unlikely they perfected a realistic and "perfect" procedural damage model that does what we saw on the subaru but still needed to build a new one just to handle basic scratch and dent on the basic casr?
Also if they had a procedural model at GC, why would we have seen only 1 car with damage, as you said it would be silly to turn it off from a coding perspective and much more impressive to see everything with the subaru damage?
- 4,323
DLC is fine. But when 15 the most interesting cars in the whole game just cut off the box before release, this is not fine.
There are a lot of awesome new cars in Forza 3 like Tuareg, Yaris and Dodge RAM (where the hell is Prius?)
The only problem there are also some very boring ones like ZR1, GT3 RS, Corvette 60-th, old Alfa, BMW M1 and so on. So boring that they are not included in game and you should download them or pay extra for them. Don't have internet at home, sorry Turn 10
I just canceled my preoder, racing hard Yaris and Dodge RAM and never being able to see M1 and 1960 Corvette doesn't fit to my image of racing game.
- 9,054
- Murica
- BasedAckbar
Wait, I'm confused...The ZR1 and others are boring, but the Yaris and Prius aren't?
Irony.
Forza 3 cars on disk = Forza 2 + Forza 2 DLC + new crap like Chrysler 300C, SUV.... + Veyron and new Camaro
All interesting new to series cars are for downloads only. All of them, except Veyron and new Camaro.
It's like Prologue without GT-R, Ford GT, Ferrari F1 and Morrison Corvette
- 7,830
- U S A
- Tetsumura
- Nigel Fox
I picked up on it right off, but sometimes sarcasm doesn't come across so easily with our foreign speaking friends.Wait, I'm confused...The ZR1 and others are boring, but the Yaris and Prius aren't?
- 280
It's not an "argument." It's how procedural modeling works, and in fact, is the entire point of procedural modeling (with the added benefit of being more "realistic").
As I've already explained to you, it's likely the implementation hasn't been optimized to the point where it can run efficiently for multiple cars. Optimization is generally the last step of the design phase.
Wasn't the initial public demonstration of Forza's damage model a single car on an empty track? Surely, this is a clear indication that prior to that, they had no intention of enabling damage when more than one vehicle was present. Wouldn't you say?
He did say, "It's coming." "First step," remember?
That statement makes you appear rather naïve.
Understatement FTW. \o/
You seem to be missing the point entirely.
What takes extra time is the modeling of the engine bays, etc. on the cars subject to part-removal, and that's why only race cars will be subject to that particular form of damage. However, procedural deformation doesn't require any extra modeling, and is therefore applied to all cars, both race cars and production cars. Don't forget, the feature list leaked in mid-August, well before GC, said the game engine would feature "Damage representation (reproduced in full by real-time collision deformation)." (emphasis mine) That makes it pretty clear that the decision to go with procedural deformationwhich applies to all cars, mindwas made prior to the public's reaction to the GC build and even prior to the leaking of the list, contrary to pretty much all of your claims here.
That's not what I'm talking about. You're now claiming that prior to GC, the plan was to have canned deformation only for race cars, but thanks to the nerd rage over the GC build, they're now scrambling to add a procedural model instead. That's clearly wrong, but my point was, even if it were true, then they likely would've had some canned deformation ready to go for GC. After all, it was only a single car they needed to prepare, right? But in fact, we saw no deformation at all. This tells me the procedural deformation wasn't ready to be shown, but since PD doesn't fake stuff, we saw nothing of that aspect of the damage model until TGS.
It wasn't ever true, and it didn't fit in at GC.
That statement doesn't make very much sense. Words like "dynamic," "procedural," and "real-time" are basically synonymous for the purposes of this discussion. You just said the dynamic modeling was surprisingly dynamic. Do you find water surprisingly wet?
On the contrary, deformation is far more complicated than flapping, but otherwise pristine parts. Not coincidentally, we saw the latter first.
Canned damage doesn't look perfect. It looks ridiculous.
You may consider that "perfect," but "laughable" is the word that comes to my mind.
They're two different models, and the second will also apply to the race cars.
- 4,323
As I've already explained to you, it's likely the implementation hasn't been optimized to the point where it can run efficiently for multiple cars. Optimization is generally the last step of the design phase.
Wasn't the initial public demonstration of Forza's damage model a single car on an empty track? Surely, this is a clear indication that prior to that, they had no intention of enabling damage when more than one vehicle was present. Wouldn't you say?
First off Forzas damage model was one off, so it makes sense that only one car was shown with damage because of just that. Now let me ask this... if only one car had damge done in a one off, but they still wanted to provide a racing environment with mulitple cars on track.. what would the result have been? Yes it would be 1 car with damage and the rest invincible.
Now had T10 had interviews where they said only some cars would have damage and they would be the race cars, and then only a race car was shown with damage and better yet, it was shown alongside invincible production cars... then yes I would say so.
Again, you keep taking individual points that are quite possible on their own, but ignoring the big picture and the timeline. In the face of everything else (including the expected 09 release which means GC and TGS WERE close to release - and yes I know some people don't beleive the 09 release was ever a real intent, but again, all circumstantial evidence points to it was) one car on track with damage, a quote that not all cars would have damage and the way things played out after GC along with PD never filling in the press with a disclaimer like "this is only ready to show on one car, but trust us, this will be on all cars!" it seems unlikely that all cars were at that point supposed to have damage.
He said this was PD's first step in damge, he didn't say what was coming next or when. Had PD not released further damage modeling until GT6 the statement would still have been true. You cannot infer a timeline from that statement.
How so? It CAN go either way... most reasonably it goes one way... the way I have outlined... but if you go with the path of MORE resistance and fight for "what wasn't denied was the truth" then yes it coudl go otherways too.
No I am not msising the point, I understand exactly what you are saying. I agree that modeling engine bays is very time consuming and I agree that once a procedural engine is done, it takes no more time to add it to all cars than it does to one.
What I am saying is that I think PD went the one off route originally and combined with modeling engine bays realized that was going to take too long for all cars so drew the line somewhere factoring in both the time to model engine bays and to model one off damage.
Again, if they were just using the same procedural engine they do on the race cars but limiting what could pop open, the wouldn't need to build an entirely new engine now.
I didn't forget, and I didn't forget KY clarifying what that meant (doors hanging off etc) and that it would only be on race cars.
And real time collision deformation does not mean procedural, canned deformations is what I read and what the subaru looked like in the demo. You saw the same damage, same bent panels, same parts hanging off, over and over after different kinds of crashes. That doesn't look like dynamnic damage, that looks like canned damage.
Outside your argument that it wasn't every denied (and in the face of the fact that it wasn't ever properly confirmed) I don't think it's clearly wrong at all.
And that tells me that the "no cars with damage" we saw at GC was just what was intended for final release. The lack of a disclaimer, the lack of mention that other damage was coming even in interviews after everyone had expressed a negative impression of the damage shown... not until TGS when PD had had time to soak and rethink their game plan did we hear about damage to the rest of the cars and everything since then suggests it was a decision between GC and TGS.
Just like Angel said, I think you want to see more than is really there and thus find ways to make possible what you want to see rather than being objective and seeing what's most reasonable.
You don't know it wasn't true and it does fit in at GC if you see the timeline at GC being an 09 release, a demo of what is mostly finsihed and KYs previous comments on the matter of damage. It doesn't fit in at GC if you have decided that it was never true, but again, the more reasonable understanding (which doesn't involve assuming poor communications and lies of omission) is that it was true.
No, a procedural engine is only as dynamic as it's programmed. Procedural engines have their limitations. GTA4 uses procedural damage modeling, but it obviously has it's limits. When I say it's awfully dynamic I mean that the level of detail in the damage would be very had to produce on a procedural level, it looks more like it was canned. Doing it canned means you get the same thign over and over again, but it also means you can focus on making that one thing look really good.
That canned damage looks bad, especially zoomed in and in super slow mo. But that is not the only kind of canned damage. Canned damage can be very good looking depending on how much time is spent on it and how it is applied. The damage we saw to the subaru in the GC demo could easily have been (and I think was) canned damage. Each part that deformed or dangled was programed with that particular damage one off.
Forza's damage was a welcome addition in Forza 1, but even then it was kind of wonky, now it's just plain showing it's age and I think very wise of PD to take the extra time to one up it.
[/quote]They're two different models, and the second will also apply to the race cars.[/QUOTE]
Well if they are going to build a procedural engine, and it doesn't otherwise conflict with the canned damage on the race cars, I see no reason why not... that's my point of view at least
- 489
Both cars are damaged. Damage confirmed for all cars in a race.
Bumpers and doors falling off only on race cars, but damage to all cars (production cars and race cars).
Forzas damage looks awkeward, even worse than GT5s damage from TGS, at learst bumpers hang lose, doors fall off and swing open when they are hit.
There is only textured damage to the paint, but i guess that is going to be adressed with the new dynamic crash engine.
In the Forza 3 demo you can hit another car head on, but your tail lights will be damaged aswell, just because the overall amount of damage makes the game load the preset heavily damaged model. The damage in Forza 3 looks strange compared to other games like Dirt/Grid and even Shift.
I hope PD does a better job.
- 403
- Reaper7411
let's face it, none of are happy about this march crap. if 360's didn't regularly reflow their own boards, and took standard usb wheels I'd certainly have gotten one by now so that I'd have goddamn something to play.
odd question: exactly what kind of race is being pictured above?
there are co drivers, but also standard wheel to wheel racing. unless I'm mistaken, I believe the type of rally pictured, is the "sega rally" *lol*
odd question: exactly what kind of race is being pictured above?
there are co drivers, but also standard wheel to wheel racing. unless I'm mistaken, I believe the type of rally pictured, is the "sega rally" *lol*
- 4,323
By all accounts PD looks to be shaping up for an awesome job on damage at least for race cars. It's a shame it won't be the same across the board, but if they get mechanical damage down right for all cars, that's a huge plus, the damage eye candy... well some is better than none.
And I agree, T10 would do well to redo their damage modeling. It was great the first time around, but it's definitely showing it's age.
I think the conclusion was that rally cars kind of had co drivers built in to the model if you will. So a rally car will always have a co driver no matter what's going on. I assume with the WRC license will come single car (I mean not 4 cars starting at the same time) rally races... mulitple car rally races would be sad in my opinion.
evilfoxhound
(Banned)
- 639
Can I just take this opportunity to quickly plug my GT5 Fan Trailer 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLUtJNpJza0
(Didn't want to create a whole thread for it, so I will sneak it in here)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLUtJNpJza0
(Didn't want to create a whole thread for it, so I will sneak it in here)
- 403
- Reaper7411
Can I just take this opportunity to quickly plug my GT5 Fan Trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLUtJNpJza0
(Didn't want to create a whole thread for it, so I will sneak it in here)
that's actually a really nice trailer.
delayed or not, I hope gt5 is at least half that fun.
- 489
The screenshot (Photomode) was released after the TGS, so i guess its the TGS demo and the standard race with rally cars only. The co drivers seem to be a part of the WRC car models and will most likely be sitting there in every race.
But there is no official statement reguarding the co drivers.
- 280
No, you're cherry picking information and twisting it to cast PD in the worst possible light. PD are a relatively small house, yet have managed to sell upwards of 50 million copies of their game. As a result, most people assume they are reasonably competent. The difference with you is that you are hell bent on somehow "proving" the opposite.
No, one cannot infer a timeline from that, nor can one infer there is no timeline, as you have done. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Fortunately, we don't need to infer anything, as the leaked feature list tells us it was already planned for GT5.
No, developers don't typically change horses midstream, even if public reactions to their initial showings are negative, so it's decidedly not "most reasonable" to assume that's what happened, especially in light of the clear evidence it didn't happen.
Good. I'm glad we've finally established that. Maybe we can soon put an end to this nonsense.
You have no proof of that, and I've just shown you proof to the contrary.
That is not deformation, and while you may not be aware of this, Kaz almost certainly is, so if you could show me the article where he made such a "clarification," I'd be much obliged, because I strongly suspect it never happened.
That is, in fact, quite literally what it means. If you're going to argue about jargon, it would be best if you fully understood it.
We know that as early as mid-August, procedural/real-time/dynamic deformation was the plan, and you've finally conceded that such deformation would apply equally to all cars, which directly contradicts your assertions that they hurried to add it after the public reaction to the GC build. So that means we're pretty much done here, right?
You just got done telling me how dynamic it looked!
For the record, I thought the part-removal looked fairly scripted myself. I hope they improve it between now and launch. I felt compelled to say that out loud, on the vanishingly small chance you're correct and PD are indeed powered solely by nerd rage.
There was a disclaimer, but you dismissed it as insufficient. Basically, you're claiming the fact Kaz failed to lay out a detailed timeline for damage refinement somehow proves he never intended to change it at all. This is patently ridiculous in and of itself, but doubly so in light of the fact that he gave us the very disclaimer you demand.
Ah, I see. Fair enough.
Not really.
Sorry, but are you saying what we saw in the video I linked is already an improvement from FM1?
- Status
Similar threads
