How convenient for you. I see you also ignored the bit I spent so much time digging up about the Isuzu 4200R, though I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and guess that maybe you just didn't see it before posting. I'm even curious if you even read the thread I linked where the designer of what was essentially the original Vision GT car posted on this forum talking about its creation, which you had to have seen since you quoted it.
Whatever works best for you, I guess.
👍
No. It's pretty obvious what you're saying. The auto manufacturers are doing most of the heavy lifting in actually getting these cars into the game.
The problem is that the notion that Kaz would allow another company to do most of the work for their game is incompatible with everything we've
ever head about PD's staffing tendencies (including things Kaz has outright stated), but more importantly:
Well, first of all, they probably
do walk out the door with most of their computer models. I'd be amazed if even PD's good buddies at Nissan gave PD frequent access to their internal modeling data (which, it should be pointed out for the folks at home, are some of the most highly guarded trade secrets any industrial manufacturer has) at any given time. For example, when PD was modeling the Corvette C7 for simultaneous release with the concept car reveal, I'm pretty doubtful anyone gave PD the CAD/CAM data to build it when GM were so paranoid about it leaking
that when it did anyway the parts manufacturer
retained a law firm specifically to threaten Jalopnik with legal action if they didn't remove it.
But for the purposes of this discussion, the really important part is that car manufacturer computer modeling data are worthless for the purposes of "saving time" modeling a car for a video game.
PD doesn't model cars using CAD software. Auto manufacturers do. PD model cars from scratch for their needs using 3D animation software (specifically,
they use Autodesk Maya). Car manufacturers don't. The two types of programs are completely different skillsets, with very different training involved, completely different fields of study and completely different goals. The end result of working with both programs is also not directly cross compatible; or, if you're one of the several auto manufacturers that use proprietary CAD software, not compatible at all. This is particularly important for the Red Bull thing you went out of your way to state you are ignoring, because Adrian Newey and Red Bull blatantly wouldn't be working with
3D animation software when trying to determine theoretical performance numbers using the software they use to test their Formula One designs, because they obviously don't design their Formula One cars using
3D animation software.
This is all ignoring that you're taking data that is infinitely more detailed than any video game would be able to run in real time, and not
editable in real time either; and claiming that providing that data to PD constitutes doing "most of the work."
Here's a good read on the subject.
Every year, dozens of meaningless design student orgasm concept cars are displayed at every major auto expo, to ever increasing indifference. That's even why most of the old stalwart design houses (including Bertone, one of the companies formerly involved with the VGT program) have died out or been bought up over the years. The
only time such cars are given major attention is when they have relevance to cars that are actually going to go into production (or are production capable with changes); or at least showcase some new technology that is about to filter in.
Actually, the BMW seems to have been one of the ones with longer legs than most of them. Probably because it has much clearer ties to the road cars BMW produces, I suspect. It, the Mercedes and the Toyota are the big ones.
You mean the publicity at Goodwood at the
Sony-sponsored event showing off several of the
Sony-commissioned cars which was running during the Festival of Speed?
