What is left for PD to do to GT5? (Part I)

  • Thread starter crowhop
  • 50 comments
  • 3,599 views
2,621
United States
Upstate SC, USA
GTP_crowhop
So, after all of the updates and DLC to this point, what is left? I do not mean "more stuff" (cars, tracks, etc). I mean, what else needs to be tweaked that is, basically, already within the game? Please note this is not a wishlist. Hopefully this will be at least a little entertaining and a little different from the normal complaint threads.

As far as "stuff" goes, if you purchased the DLC, you got a very, very nice Test Track and the best track in the game. And it seems we will continue to get rounds of DLC. Some of the DLC content is better than others, but still, it is all relatively nice. Besides, no one here will ever be perfectly satisfied until PD comes to model and laser scan their personal car, route to work and allows them to "free roam" the dog down the road.

The Seasonal Events and Time/Drift Trials keep us coming back practically every week. While they in no way make up for the dearth of A-Spec and B-Spec events, they are better than nothing and provide a better challenge than most of the A-Spec and B-Spec career events; especially since PD has decided to give us an incredible disadvantage by starting us last, single file, 30+ seconds behind the leader who is already full speed...but I digress.
I do feel sorry for those without an internet connection or a way to update the game. I know I wouldn't be playing GT5 any longer if all I had was what came in the box. This thread/poll about creating your own A-Spec Events comes to mind. Some of those ideas are great while others are too far flung, but just about any of them would be better than what is currently available. With the lack of things to do, Online Racing is the only way to find competitive racing for many people. But that comes with a whole other set of issues.

There are many who find online racing to be great. But, if you have read this forum for the past year, you know there are also many who do not. In fact, in a quick search, I couldn't find a single thread with more than 20+ replies that was complementary of the GT5 Online experience. However, if you search, you will find various threads throughout the forum containing lists as long as your arm of suggestions to improve Online Play, but little has been changed. Finding a race of more than 3 people you do not know in an online lounge is a futile endeavor. Finding a race for your 533 HP Lexus IS F RM is impossible. From my own experience, unless you want to race 550PP or 650PP street cars, you are just about out of luck.
But the "lag bug" (described here) is, perhaps, the greatest flaw in GT5 Online Racing to date. It has suspended many online racing leagues and series. Oh, and I haven't even mentioned the difference in physics between online and offline tuning or the actual driving etiquette of most of the general online lounge driving population. There are several factors PD cannot help, but there are some they can. If there is one area for major improvement, the Online experience is it.
Note: If you are wasting your time waiting for an online lounge to suit you, GTPlanet has an entire forum section devoted to Online Racing Leagues, Series, Spot Races and Time Trials. If you can't find at least some good racing, you aren't looking in the right places. This thread has several good tips as well.

Since it closely relates to Online Racing and was added in an update to help better create Online Racing matches, let's talk about the Performance Points system of determining racing fairness. If you have done any testing at all you know that 625PP is not the same for every car. You can pick any number, really, as there are cars that are simply faster than other cars with the same PP number. In other words, a troll car. Never get into a 500PP race with an Elise. You will lose. Badly. It is simply a fact of life.
But should it be? Shouldn't the Performance Points actually tell you what a car is fully capable of? Shouldn't the initials actually be PC for Performance Capability?
To be honest, with the external variables of track type, driving skill and car diversity, we will never get a "perfect" PP system. That kind of computer programming would cost millions and billion dollar Racing Organizations struggle with this in the real world, so it makes sense it also translates into the world of GT5. Here's hoping one day we can truly get a fair race. But, in fairness (pun intended) to PD and the PP system, it is better than the old HP/kg way of doing things.

It seems that with each Online Car Dealership refresh, PD updates and refreshes some "Standards" with slight tweaks; making them look better and better as time goes. With update 2.02, they allowed us to change the wheels on Standard cars and, in conjunction with a standard cockpit view, there are a few Standard cars that could pass as Premiums. In fact, save for a couple of glitches, the entire game has become even more visually impressive with time. This is all amazing when considering just how ancient the PS3 is from a graphics and technological perspective. You can buy a laptop at Wal-Mart for under $500 that has more processing and graphical capabilities than the PS3 has. The improvements have been a pleasant surprise to me and has opened up an entire section of my dusty garage. The only thing left to to say here is "Thank you, sir, may I have another?".

Speaking of a dusty garage, if yours is anything like mine, it is a jumbled mess of new and used cars with very little organization. I don't know which cars need an oil change, which ones are brand new and 0/0/0, which ones were purchased "new" from the OCD, which ones have been max tuned, which ones are stock, which ones have been broken in, which ones I've lightly tuned, etc, etc, etc. And my Favorites list isn't much better. The sortable menu tabs are okay and it could certainly be worse, but it could be much, much better as well.
I know, this is my own fault. And I would guess there are some here who have their garage perfectly organized and tidy. But I would also guess the majority here has a garage much like mine. And this thread has a great idea for making it a lot better.

Since Garage organization is (probably) possible and (definitely) needed, why not Paint Chip organization? According to my item list at the moment I have 2484 paint chips. If I sort by hue, descending, the first color on the list is Guardsman Blue. If I sort by hue, ascending, the first color on the list is Midnight Blue. You following me here? Supposedly, descending should go lightest to darkest and ascending should go darkest to lightest. It seems I have a problem. I have to scroll through several hundred chips just to get to the light colors. And that isn't the only problem. For instance, Jaguar Carnival Metallic. I have a total of 6 of these paint chips I can use. This is a good thing since Jaguar Carnival Metallic is a great color. I like Jaguar Carnival Metallic. I purchased several expensive Jaguars simply for this color. They are all the same exact hue on the sample paint car, but one of the sample paint swatches is a slightly different hue from the others. And they are spread across 4 different chips, so I actually have 4 different chips of the same Jaguar Carnival Metallic color. Why? From reading some threads, I know that trading paints throws off the paint organization programming, but I haven't traded paints in a while and I haven't traded very many. And I could probably list 25 examples just like this one.
Basically, the Paint Chips could use a good reset. And why isn't the manufacturer listed in the Paint Chip Description?
Side note: If you want to use the "Select Multiple" to delete your excess chips, be careful. The game mysteriously deleted every picture I had ever taken on GT5 (200+ pictures) when I simply "Selected All". I had planned to move them all to the PS3 XMB, but the game froze and 2 minutes later, they were gone. So, you've been warned. It could happen to your chips or pictures too.

Well, that's all for now. Part II, if wanted, will come later as there's a lot more to cover.
 
i didnt read thro it all, but a full leaderboard would be a great add in my world, and not the weekly deleted ones.
 
The online time-shift racing bug needs to be fixed
Microphone 'mute all' option that you only set once
Stop putting TCS at 5, i'm tired of putting it back to 0
Online 'filter by tyre type' option
Online 'filter by best signal' lobby
Online 'filter by PP' option
Allow adjusting brake bias in shuffle races and fix brake bias to 4:1 default
Make soft racing tyres cost ten million credits per car
Rebuild the menu interfaces because they were designed by an idiot
 
All I know is that I will be buying GT6, GT7, GT8, etc, etc. I love the series and plan on sticking with it. I am pretty sure I'm not alone.
 
I don't care what changes are made, just make them frequent PD, however big or small, every week! Rockband 3 churns out songs each week, so can you! err. just not songs, oh dear no!

I'd like DLC in the shape of "challenges" that I can own, and load up via in game special events.
Even like 99 cents , and allow for special challenges, that will be ranked in leaderboards, requires a specific car, or range of cars, tuning restrictions, that call for a certain goal around a track, etc.

as I said already 6 months ago, just make a massive expansion pack to this game, we have 3 more years until PS4 / GT6-Prologue are out.
 
All I know is that I will be buying GT6, GT7, GT8, etc, etc. I love the series and plan on sticking with it. I am pretty sure I'm not alone.

Self admitted GT fanboy slut. Hope PD can fix a majority of the items listed above, particularly the online experience, but for the most part my investment has been money well spent.

If it's that much of a hassle, move on to GT6 for the PS3. If 6 is coming out on the PS4, there's no reason not to keep improving, which I'm sure they will.
 
letting us make events is really all this game needs..
having gt500 cars tuned well above yours , pure bliss , heck a simple AI boost meter would solve the games AI problems
 
letting us make events is really all this game needs..
having gt500 cars tuned well above yours , pure bliss , heck a simple AI boost meter would solve the games AI problems
Yeah...the AI. I haven't even really mentioned it, yet.
Watch a B-Spec race and record the lap times. Then go do laps at the same track with the same car and you'll see just how bad it is. It is sad, really.
 
Pretty much.

I didn't bother reading the wall of text. :dopey:

You were wrong. Proficient readers read fast and this is not a wall of text but a well organized post with relevant paragraphs and punctuation. You should make the effort. Short posts surely aren't always more interesting...

Back on topic, I agree with the OP, especially as far as the garage is concerned. There's absolutely no way to make it tidy and get the kind of information we want quick. In a future update, I hope.
 
Where to start? There is still a glitch/bug associated with seasonal time trial events. Cars used to participate in these events don't collect dirt and use oil while they do gain mileage. Certain cars also seem to have a bug in the power limiter. Alfa Romeo 156 and Peugeot 207 are two of such cars which are affected by a unusually big decrease in power when the power limiter is adjusted from 100% - 99.9%.

Just a couple of examples of old mistakes that PD have left broken despite several patches. I'm sure there are more of such weird bugs that PD could try to find and fix. On top of that there is still room for further functionality improvements. However, looking beyond bug fixes and general betterment, I think the game has enough feautures. All I expect them to add from here on are some creative Seasonal Events and a good selection of track- and car packs as DLC. Enough to keep me entertained until GT6.
 
Last edited:
Make an announcement that GT5 will continue to be updated monthly until GT6 releases on PS4 the payday following E3 2012 or Feb 14th 2013 (height of tax refund season in the US). The "other console" has stomped its foot yesterday, it's time for PlayStation to steamroll that sucker!

Message boards are not the same as reading a book.
 
That was goood. Part 2 would be appreciated.

I have nothing to add, except that I 100% agree with all of it.

Well, I do have ONE thing to say. We had to wait a little less than a year for there to be undeniably noticeable graphical improvements to the standard cars with update 2.02. Some of us saw it as time went on that standard cars were beginning to look better, others thought it was all in our heads. I noticed that most of the Miatas/Skylines didn't change, until 2.02. The fenders were always choppy, or badly pixelated, on the edges.

It's just nice to brag about it :)
 
In-track car changing. I seriously wonder why we don't have it yet, PD already changed the loading so first the track gets loaded and then each car separately, so what's the problem of removing just our car from the RAM and load up another one?
 
The only thing i want from a usability point of view is a garage button inside GT Auto and Practice, so i can change cars without needing to slog through 3 more screens. Apart from that everything else is a bonus.
 
Was hoping they would update A-Spec and make it deeper and more immersive. They already have the tracks and the cars, so what's stopping them from creating a whole load of races and championships using a wide variety of restrictions/exclusions.

Just looked at the GT3 and GT4 A-spec - so much better!
 
Most major issues can't be solved in GT5, or at least would mean an excessive amount of work for a game released in 2010.
Every single game has non fixed bugs, some minor and some major, because solving them could lead into introducing more bugs to it and in the end the company gets nothing out of that work.

I always think of GT5 as a beta version of GT6. We all know the game was released 2 years before the developer wanted, so I have my hopes high that GT6 will make it to the PS3 and not PS4 in 5 more years.

The only GT5 glitch that deserves some attention is the "lag bug", but that can be solved the same way frame rate issues did: removing spectators and some eye candy, and limiting "race for real" lobbies to 8 players.
Not the greatest fix but it's better than being 10% slower, when in racing 1% is a lot.
 
  • Allow selection of garage cars in Arcade Mode
  • Show engine oil condition in garage
  • Bring back tracks from previous GT
  • Bring back Manufacturer races (non-seasonal)
  • Bring back type races (e.g. Lancer Evolutions only)
  • Enable custom races in GT mode (User selects race parameters e.g. track, PP range etc.)
 
Since it closely relates to Online Racing and was added in an update to help better create Online Racing matches, let's talk about the Performance Points system of determining racing fairness. If you have done any testing at all you know that 625PP is not the same for every car. You can pick any number, really, as there are cars that are simply faster than other cars with the same PP number. In other words, a troll car. Never get into a 500PP race with an Elise. You will lose. Badly. It is simply a fact of life.
But should it be? Shouldn't the Performance Points actually tell you what a car is fully capable of? Shouldn't the initials actually be PC for Performance Capability?
To be honest, with the external variables of track type, driving skill and car diversity, we will never get a "perfect" PP system. That kind of computer programming would cost millions and billion dollar Racing Organizations struggle with this in the real world, so it makes sense it also translates into the world of GT5. Here's hoping one day we can truly get a fair race. But, in fairness (pun intended) to PD and the PP system, it is better than the old HP/kg way of doing things.

Very good post indeed. I agree with most points, but let me just comment on the PP system, since this is something I've given quite a lot of thought.

It's quite clear that PD had to make a choice between two approaches for the PP system. The one they followed is quite clearly to base the PPs on a formula involving some of the cars' specifications, like power, torque, weight and aerodynamics while ignoring others. Which ones they ignore in this approach is also quite understandable, because it is almost impossible to judge, if e.g. lowering the suspension (which in itself lowers the centre of gravity which should be a good thing) in that particular set-up used will actually make the car worse. There's simply a myriad of possible set-ups, the effects of which a formula just cannot predict. Upgrades that influence weight and power naturally have an effect on PPs, but also drivetrain updates do not, possibly because again it is unclear (or at least different for each car), how much they make a car better. So, with the decision to use this approach, the way it was executed is understandable. That doesn't mean the formula shouldn't be tweaked. I think it's obvious that currently lightweight cars have to many PPs.

The second approach, of course, would have been to actually test the cars on different tracks, assigning a base PP-figure based on actual performance, and calculate changes from upgrades based on that. I think this solution was discarded, because PD simply was lacking the time to actually do the testing on 1000+ cars with multiple drivers that will give them comparable results. Because to get meaningful data, you will need one and the same driver to drive all of the cars. And that takes at least a couple of months for one track, let alone for a number of tracks.

The above situation has led me to start my own testing program on 4 different tracks representing different characteristics with all of the cars, which I'm currently half way through (took me a couple of months to get to this point). I've put together a system which should, on average, give similar results to the distribution of PPs like it is now, while ironing out the obvious flaws of highly over- or underrated cars. Of course, different drivers will get different results for some cars based on their abilities, but a) I have only one driver at my disposal, i.e. me, and b) I'm pretty confident that the results are at least a good indication of a car's actual capabilities. The results in such a process will, of course, get better the more tracks are being used.

If you're interested in how I'm doing this in detail or in the results I've gotten so far, send me a private message. I plan to post the results also once I'm through with all non-race cars (as these are the ones I'm currently testing in ascending order of PPs), but that will take some additional time as I only have time to do testing of 10-15 cars per week.
 
I really don't agree with ditching GT5. There's still a lot of things that can be done to this game.
 
Fix the shadows still, some still look blocky.
Engine noises
Weather effects, like have rain on the car body work, (like on F1 2010, F1 2011)
Allow the Ferrari F1 cars into the races.
More photomode locations, like inside the pit garage.
 
Let's hope GT6 is everything we wanted GT5 to be (+ more of course). We can hope for the best for gt5 but there will only be.so much done for the current game...
 
Very good post indeed. I agree with most points, but let me just comment on the PP system, since this is something I've given quite a lot of thought.

It's quite clear that PD had to make a choice between two approaches for the PP system. The one they followed is quite clearly to base the PPs on a formula involving some of the cars' specifications, like power, torque, weight and aerodynamics while ignoring others. Which ones they ignore in this approach is also quite understandable, because it is almost impossible to judge, if e.g. lowering the suspension (which in itself lowers the centre of gravity which should be a good thing) in that particular set-up used will actually make the car worse. There's simply a myriad of possible set-ups, the effects of which a formula just cannot predict. Upgrades that influence weight and power naturally have an effect on PPs, but also drivetrain updates do not, possibly because again it is unclear (or at least different for each car), how much they make a car better. So, with the decision to use this approach, the way it was executed is understandable. That doesn't mean the formula shouldn't be tweaked. I think it's obvious that currently lightweight cars have to many PPs.

The second approach, of course, would have been to actually test the cars on different tracks, assigning a base PP-figure based on actual performance, and calculate changes from upgrades based on that. I think this solution was discarded, because PD simply was lacking the time to actually do the testing on 1000+ cars with multiple drivers that will give them comparable results. Because to get meaningful data, you will need one and the same driver to drive all of the cars. And that takes at least a couple of months for one track, let alone for a number of tracks.

The above situation has led me to start my own testing program on 4 different tracks representing different characteristics with all of the cars, which I'm currently half way through (took me a couple of months to get to this point). I've put together a system which should, on average, give similar results to the distribution of PPs like it is now, while ironing out the obvious flaws of highly over- or underrated cars. Of course, different drivers will get different results for some cars based on their abilities, but a) I have only one driver at my disposal, i.e. me, and b) I'm pretty confident that the results are at least a good indication of a car's actual capabilities. The results in such a process will, of course, get better the more tracks are being used.

If you're interested in how I'm doing this in detail or in the results I've gotten so far, send me a private message. I plan to post the results also once I'm through with all non-race cars (as these are the ones I'm currently testing in ascending order of PPs), but that will take some additional time as I only have time to do testing of 10-15 cars per week.

I think upgrades like Tires, Suspension Tuning, Adjustable LSD, Carbon Fiber Driveshaft, etc. are all static across every car within the game. They all produce the same results no matter the car. And you are just as likely to hinder the performance of a car with a Tuned Suspension as you are to help it. It is 50/50, at best.
For example, Ride Height. +10 Front and +10 Rear can be equally as fast as -10 Front and -10 Rear if the other settings are adjusted correctly.
Adding Chassis Reinforcement is another setting which may or may not produce positive results. It all depends upon the car in question. So I think PD gets it right when they do not factor those things into the PP equation.

In game, if I remember correctly from Online, we are allowed limit the Performance Points OR the HP and Weight. Why not allow us to limit all three? And why not add Max Torque into the fray and allow us to limit that as well? Torque is basically the measure of actual work done and Horsepower is, in a manner of speaking, potential power. They are two different things.
I think PP, HP, Torque and Weight should all be things we could limit in order to get the best possible matchup.

As for the Performance Points equation, Aero Drag is likely the biggest X factor. Every car handles air differently. The ones that move it least, move fastest.
And if there is one area of GT Tuning that is vastly subpar it is Aerodynamics.

And I do look forward to reading your test results.
 
Last edited:
Sometime later in the week I will post Part II. It will touch on the AI, B-Spec, Pit Strategies, Track Creator, Timing and Scoring information, Aero Packages, Race Modifieds and a few other topics.

I think the thing that makes GT5 fans so passionate and critical is just how great the game is as it is. PD got a lot of things right. It is very, very close to being a near-perfect game. If it weren't, we'd have scrapped it long ago.
 
Back