What will it be of GT once Kaz retires or well...

[avens]

There's no reason why you can't have simulation grade physics in any console game, even one that is supposed to appeal to people from 7 to 77. With SRF, Stability Control, TC, ABS and more available, anyone can drive any car just like they do now.

In console games the ability to turn off driving assists has existed for decades, including in GT games, but still PC sims have always been heads and shoulders above console games in terms of physics and simulation. Therefore, your argument is out of the question.

When I talk about the target audience I'm not talking about the game physics being hindered or simplified so that they are approachable for kids. That issue is already solved by the driving assists you mentioned. Instead, what I mean is that the console games developers target an audience that demands quantity over quality, more cars over focusing on each one; which is the opposite of what simulation requires, which is attention to detail.

In other words, what's the point of having the option to remove SRF and thousands of cars to drive, if there wasn't a developer in charge of simulating the characteristics of each specific car? I can't be the only one that notices how most cars in GT6 have clearly incorrect gear ratios and how the top speeds are absurdly badly made, sometimes hundreds of kilometers per hour off, both which are the very basics.

What's the point of being able to remove stability control when 'driving' around the Nurburgring, if the track lacks half the bumps and the elevation changes are missing? In Gran Turismo that modelling budget and development focus went into having yet another Miata, while in PC sims that went into laser scanning the tracks (Assetto Corsa, iRacing, and well Forza too). Remember when Top Gear featured GT4's Laguna Seca and Clarkson said the game model even lacked a whole corner? That model is still used in GT6, and when your game even lacks a corner then it cannot be considered a simulator.

This is why GT Sport is the step that PD needed to finally make a simulator. If the announcement is true (with PD it rarely is), now they will focus on featuring way less content, way better made.

Not only that, now that PD can focus on simulation then they can use some of the limited processing power of the console (in this case the PS4) to go into having better sounds and physics, instead of everything going to the graphics. Kaz himself said the lack of RAM and overall resources was the reason why the sounds were awful in GT5 and in GT6, but the reason for that is those resources were being used to have the newest shadows. That lack of processing power hurts the physics too. If GT Sport is not only about graphics and quantity, then it's possible to have improvements in other areas. .

 

[another_jakhole]

In console games the ability to turn off driving assists has existed for decades, including in GT games, but still PC sims have always been heads and shoulders above console games in terms of physics and simulation. Therefore, your argument is out of the question.

When I talk about the target audience I'm not talking about the game physics being hindered or simplified so that they are approachable for kids. That issue is already solved by the driving assists you mentioned. Instead, what I mean is that the console games developers target an audience that demands quantity over quality, more cars over focusing on each one; which is the opposite of what simulation requires, which is attention to detail.

In other words, what's the point of having the option to remove SRF and thousands of cars to drive, if there wasn't a developer in charge of simulating the characteristics of each specific car? I can't be the only one that notices how most cars in GT6 have clearly incorrect gear ratios and how the top speeds are absurdly badly made, sometimes hundreds of kilometers per hour off, both which are the very basics.

What's the point of being able to remove stability control when 'driving' around the Nurburgring, if the track lacks half the bumps and the elevation changes are missing? In Gran Turismo that modelling budget and development focus went into having yet another Miata, while in PC sims that went into laser scanning the tracks (Assetto Corsa, iRacing, and well Forza too). Remember when Top Gear featured GT4's Laguna Seca and Clarkson said the game model even lacked a whole corner? That model is still used in GT6, and when your game even lacks a corner then it cannot be considered a simulator.

This is why GT Sport is the step that PD needed to finally make a simulator. If the announcement is true (with PD it rarely is), now they will focus on featuring way less content, way better made.

Not only that, now that PD can focus on simulation then they can use some of the limited processing power of the console (in this case the PS4) to go into having better sounds and physics, instead of everything going to the graphics. Kaz himself said the lack of RAM and overall resources was the reason why the sounds were awful in GT5 and in GT6, but the reason for that is those resources were being used to have the newest shadows. That lack of processing power hurts the physics too. If GT Sport is not only about graphics and quantity, then it's possible to have improvements in other areas. .

No disagreement about gear ratios, but track modeling isn't an issue (not the way you're viewing it).

GT5



TG


Firstly, he doesn't use a steering wheel. Then says he can feel the understeer with the remote using the DS2 while driving the NSX, which begs the question: did he know to disable the necessary driving assists if the default settings weren't adjusted by someone who knew the game beforehand?

The missing corner he was talking about is the "blind" turn after the starting line. Jeremy Clarkson, reeeeaaaaaaaaally?

Tanner Foust using GT5 Prologue


Tanner changes the settings, talks about the likeness the 350z and Mustang have with the real cars. Still, the gear ratios are off entirely with the Mustang if I can recall correctly.

The point I only care to make is that Clarkson is a baffoon. And Laguna Seca isn't off nearly as much as his entry is going into the corkscrew. His best time in the NSX can't beat a (tuned) Miata. His entry into the first corners pretty much prove that he didn't adjust any settings in GT4 as he screws up every other corner he attempts.

And I agree that GT5 and GT6 weren't good games, especially when compared to GT4 and FM. I've gone on to say that before when trying to argue that I don't consider GT top be a game when compared to the NFS series or FM. Yet, I still prefer GT over NFS with NFS Underground being one of my favorite games in all of the games I've ever played. It can't touch GT4 though.


"...and when your game even lacks a corner then it cannot be considered a simulator."

That's utterly debatable and a stretch to eliminate GT as a simulator. There are too many variables to account for when you're going to argue that statement.

One example when arguing this would be sound simulation. GT obliterates the competition. It isn't as appealing nor is it pleasing to the ears, but it's more accurate in every other area than it's given credit for; it's an easily overlooked feature when the debate is usually about how irritating the high-pitched noise of the transmission detracts from the overall package, the technical side of sound simulation.

 

[GBalao888]

I'll buy any Gran Turismo game if it's good or if it makes me excited for it, regardless if Kaz has anything or nothing to do with it. I grew up with Gran Turismo but Forza is pulling me away from Gran Turismo somehow.

(I was excited for GT6 but was disappointed with some aspects while praising some of the new stuff in there)

 

[Spagetti69]

12 people voted no........ Have you got your Kaz underpants on now?

 

[PureAlpha1206]

I'll buy any Gran Turismo game if it's good or if it makes me excited for it, regardless if Kaz has anything or nothing to do with it. I grew up with Gran Turismo but Forza is pulling me away from Gran Turismo somehow.

(I was excited for GT6 but was disappointed with some aspects while praising some of the new stuff in there)

I agree... If it is good then absolutely. My concern is that it seems like Forza keeps pushing forward while GT keeps stepping back. It's not a good look and I too feel pulled more to Forza than GT. If only it were not a Microsoft game and made an appearance on PlayStation

 

[avens]

@another_jakhole , really nice post there.

While you are 100% right on that, still no track before Bathurst is laser scanned, which is the simulators' standard. Also thanks for proving that the gear ratios are totally off.

 

[another_jakhole]

@another_jakhole , really nice post there.

While you are 100% right on that, still no track before Bathurst is laser scanned, which is the simulators' standard. Also thanks for proving that the gear ratios are totally off.

Hunn-garrrrr!

https://blog.eu.playstation.com/2014/06/25/fia-certifies-four-tracks-gran-turismo-6/

There's merit to that. Certification for those select circuits took ALMOST all of the first 21 years that Kaz and Co. have been working out whether or not there's a Jeep in a parking lot just outside of The Green Hell.

Edit -
We can't underestimate the power of meticulous attention to detail when and where the PD team are involved.
Well, you know what I mean. In this area of painstakingly being accurate, they are superfluous. Although, it isn't all tracks that are up-to-par.

Judgement calls... S happens. But so does excellence.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Hunn-garrrrr!

https://blog.eu.playstation.com/2014/06/25/fia-certifies-four-tracks-gran-turismo-6/

There's merit to that. Certification for those select circuits took ALMOST all of the first 21 years that Kaz and Co. have been working out whether or not there's a Jeep in a parking lot just outside of The Green Hell.

Edit -
We can't underestimate the power of meticulous attention to detail when and where the PD team are involved.
Well, you know what I mean. In this area of painstakingly being accurate, they are superfluous. Although, it isn't all tracks that are up-to-par.

Judgement calls... S happens. But so does excellence.

You think the FIA certified the tracks on behalf of PD because the tracks have such meticulous attention to detail far and above any other game? You are aware that there are many, many laser scanned versions of tracks in various other games that have their tracks measured to the cm right? As I said from the beginning, unless the FIA is making this "certification" available to all games it's just a rubber stamp publicity stunt due to the partnership with GT. I'd go so far as to say that unless a track is laser scanned, it has no business receiving FIA certification to begin with.

 

[avens]

Hunn-garrrrr!

https://blog.eu.playstation.com/2014/06/25/fia-certifies-four-tracks-gran-turismo-6/

There's merit to that. Certification for those select circuits took ALMOST all of the first 21 years that Kaz and Co. have been working out whether or not there's a Jeep in a parking lot just outside of The Green Hell.

Edit -
We can't underestimate the power of meticulous attention to detail when and where the PD team are involved.
Well, you know what I mean. In this area of painstakingly being accurate, they are superfluous. Although, it isn't all tracks that are up-to-par.

Judgement calls... S happens. But so does excellence.

That certification does not mean the tracks were laser scanned. It's just marketing, being so baffling that they didn't even mention which tracks were "certified".

We know Bathurst was the first laser scanned track because of the coverage here on GTPlanet, that included photos of the PD team doing their job with new machines, and actual attention to detail for the first time.
https://www.gtplanet.net/bathurst-scanned-for-gt6/
https://www.gtplanet.net/tag/mount-panorama/

There's another way to tell that too, which is that Bathurst (GT6 DLC) was the very first track of the game that included all the bumps and elevation changes. For example Silverstone (GT6) lacks many, feels flat, and that fact contributes to GT6 feeling sterile in comparison to other games/sims.

This is why laser scanning matters:



1) See how in Assetto Corsa the track feels like the rollercoaster the Nordschleife is. Way more bumpy, more blind turns, overall higher difficulty and more engaging.

2) Laser-scanning guarantees the track is 100% correct. In iRacing, Assetto Corsa and recently Forza 6 (Nordschleife included) you know you are "driving" the real deal, instead of a representation we know it's not the same (GT6). This aspect is a key difference between a "videogame" and a "simulator", making GT6 a videogame.

3) The video alone clearly proves GT5's (and GT6's) Nurburgring is not laser-scanned, meaning that at least all the GT5 tracks don't meet that standard, included those "FIA certified" from that time. Since we don't know which were "certified", still we can safely say that Suzuka (a most likely "certified track") wasn't laser-scanned because that one was made in the GT5 days (before GT5 DLC even) and that track hasn't received layout updates since.

 

[Imari]

In this area of painstakingly being accurate, they are superfluous.

Are you sure that's the word you're looking for?

Superfluous: unnecessary, especially through being more than enough.
"the purchaser should avoid asking for superfluous information"

Synonyms: surplus, redundant, unneeded, not required, excess, extra, spare, to spare, remaining, unused, left over;
useless, unproductive, undue, in excess, surplus to requirements; expendable, disposable, dispensable,unwanted, waste

 

[Huks]

That certification does not mean the tracks were laser scanned. It's just marketing, being so baffling that they didn't even mention which tracks were "certified".

We know Bathurst was the first laser scanned track because of the coverage here on GTPlanet, that included photos of the PD team doing their job with new machines, and actual attention to detail for the first time.
https://www.gtplanet.net/bathurst-scanned-for-gt6/
https://www.gtplanet.net/tag/mount-panorama/

There's another way to tell that too, which is that Bathurst (GT6 DLC) was the very first track of the game that included all the bumps and elevation changes. For example Silverstone (GT6) lacks many, feels flat, and that fact contributes to GT6 feeling sterile in comparison to other games/sims.

The Nordschleife and Circuit de la Sarthe have been laser scanned in GT since 2004 according to amar212. The scanning of the Nordschleife was even covered by a gaming magazine at the time.

Both are laser scanned, Nurb more than 10 years ago (IIRC it was the first laser-scanned track in GT series, it was demoed in BMW Virtual Drive demo in autumn 2004) and since then they're using their own track-data software to also separately record the surface ondulations every year they are racing there in past few years.

LeMans was scanned back in GT4 days (1st time) and then again in 2009.

PD does not highlight that much, but they have their own laser scanner equipment paired with specially built software for surface measuring (normally used by motorways authorities) and they also run the track with the car equipped with 6 cameras and later they are taking aero-footage, both photo and video.

Concerning laser scanning the tracks I remember reading in a magazine how they would drive a pick up truck along the Nordschleife to capture the road surface for GT4 and they listend to Britney Spears all the time while doing that. IIRC the article said it cost Sony 2 million bucks to capture the track.

I have to dig out that magazine I guess.

EDIT: I have to add that the magazine came with a DVD that featured GT4. A professinal racer drove Nordschleife in GT4 and his only complaint was that a certain part of the track wasn't dark enough as in the the shadows of the treeline were a little bit too low.

 

[avens]

The Nordschleife and Circuit de la Sarthe have been laser scanned in GT since 2004 according to amar212. The scanning of the Nordschleife was even covered by a gaming magazine at the time.

I don't see proof of that on that link, just a statement from the king of exaggeration (Amar), and the track videos I posted speak for themselves to prove it was not laser-scanned.

1.- In that link there's no pictures at all (1), so that then we could judge by ourselves if the coverage actually happened (2) and if PD was actually laser-scanning instead of the magazine being wrong about it (3).

2.- In the videos I posted it's very clear the GT5 and GT6 track lacks tons of stuff present both in real and in Assetto Corsa's version, meaning the GT5 track is not accurate and certainly was not laser-scanned.

Watch the videos, because this clearly is not the same as this, so it's obvious they didn't use the same technology to scan the track.

In the end the problem is this: Should I believe Amar, or my own eyes?

3.- I mean, even if this so called magazine did state the track was being laser-scanned, in any case there's no way that was true, because the actual results -the track- show it's not true.

4.- Personally, I think it's quite obvious that if the magazine did cover the scan of the track, still it was only yet another publicity stunt from PD.

We've seen it dozens of times before, alike the so called "FIA certification" was (something that didn't exist before that occassion and that doesn't even mention the specific tracks and why), or the Silverstone launch event in which PD announced car and plates customization and monthly DLC (all false), the public Q&A that ended up in it only being a publicity stunt to improve PD's reputation (didn't answer a single question here), the blog (only two good publications at the very beginning of it and that was it), the game trailers looking nothing alike the game (PD is maybe the very worst offender across all game companies on this regard even above EA), and so on and so forth.

I assure you that in upcoming years PD will scan the track again, which shouldn't be a necessity if it was already laser-scanned. Reason is GT's is clearly lacking in comparison to Forza's and others, despite PD saying they are the same when they are obviously not.

 

[Huks]

2.- In the videos I posted it's very clear the GT5 and GT6 track lacks tons of stuff present both in real and in Assetto Corsa's version, meaning the GT5 track is not accurate and certainly was not laser-scanned.

Watch the videos, because this clearly is not the same as this, so it's obvious they didn't use the same technology to scan the track.

What "tons of stuff"? There's a lot of factors that make it difficult to compare track accuracy from cockpit view videos. The apparent level of difficulty and the rollercoaster-like feeling are affected by the FoV and the seat position, which are different in the two videos.


As for the apparent bumpiness, that's greatly affected by differences in how GT and AC simulate head motion and image stabilisation of the brain. To properly compare track bumpiness between the two games, we'd need to see how the suspension is reacting to the road surface... fortunately for us, there's a car in both GT6 and AC where the suspension is clearly visible from the cockpit.



Now, I'm aware that the GT6 video is of the Street version of the X-Bow which may have softer suspension, but the only YT video of the R lapping the Nordschleife has absolutely terrible quality. (Seriously, what the hell is this?) Don't think it will make a significant difference here though.

Pay very close attention to the movements of the suspension and the wheels. I think you'll find that the track is roughly just as bumpy in both games, which makes for a pretty good case that GT's Nordschleife is laser-scanned.

TL;DR: The camera lies.

 

[girabyt3]

What if the Schulze GTR GT3 also was working as a laser-scanner on the nurburgring and scanned the whole track while doing the VLN??. Remember it capture many data for GT6, and maybe it laser-scanned the track as well, but they didn't tell it for many obvious reasons. Remember that Nurburgring was reworked for GT-sport too.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Laser-scanning is a hugely time-intensive process. iRacing's approach takes roughly an hour per 300ft. So no, PD wouldn't have been scanning the track with a race-speed GT-R.

 

[girabyt3]

Laser-scanning is a hugely time-intensive process. iRacing's approach takes roughly an hour per 300ft. So no, PD wouldn't have been scanning the track with a race-speed GT-R.

Still grabbed data for Gran Turismo

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Still grabbed data for Gran Turismo

It has a telemetry system that provides data that Kaz & Co can interpret for GT6 use (and vice versa, in limited ways).

Not even remotely the same thing.

 

[Imari]

I think you'll find that the track is roughly just as bumpy in both games, which makes for a pretty good case that GT's Nordschleife is laser-scanned.

I dunno, man. They could easily have just done what other developers of the time did and simply added bumps by hand. I mean, the pCARS Nordschleife isn't laser scanned either and it's plenty bumpy.

Laser scanning in 2004 is way, way ahead of it's time. iRacing made a big deal out of laser scanning tracks in 2008, it was one of their main selling points. Yet Polyphony forgot to mention this several years earlier? It would have been revolutionary.

Maybe they did. It's possible. But it's a fairly extraordinary claim, and as such I think it requires a bit more evidence to back it up than a couple of guys on a message board saying what they think they remember. There's apparently a magazine, and so there's absolutely hard evidence out there.

 

[daan]

What if the Schulze GTR GT3 also was working as a laser-scanner on the nurburgring and scanned the whole track while doing the VLN??.

I think we'd have noticed.

 

[Tired Tyres]

I don't see proof of that on that link, just a statement from the king of exaggeration (Amar), and the track videos I posted speak for themselves to prove it was not laser-scanned.

1.- In that link there's no pictures at all (1), so that then we could judge by ourselves if the coverage actually happened (2) and if PD was actually laser-scanning instead of the magazine being wrong about it (3).

2.- In the videos I posted it's very clear the GT5 and GT6 track lacks tons of stuff present both in real and in Assetto Corsa's version, meaning the GT5 track is not accurate and certainly was not laser-scanned.

Watch the videos, because this clearly is not the same as this, so it's obvious they didn't use the same technology to scan the track.

In the end the problem is this: Should I believe Amar, or my own eyes?

3.- I mean, even if this so called magazine did state the track was being laser-scanned, in any case there's no way that was true, because the actual results -the track- show it's not true.

4.- Personally, I think it's quite obvious that if the magazine did cover the scan of the track, still it was only yet another publicity stunt from PD.

We've seen it dozens of times before, alike the so called "FIA certification" was (something that didn't exist before that occassion and that doesn't even mention the specific tracks and why), or the Silverstone launch event in which PD announced car and plates customization and monthly DLC (all false), the public Q&A that ended up in it only being a publicity stunt to improve PD's reputation (didn't answer a single question here), the blog (only two good publications at the very beginning of it and that was it), the game trailers looking nothing alike the game (PD is maybe the very worst offender across all game companies on this regard even above EA), and so on and so forth.

I assure you that in upcoming years PD will scan the track again, which shouldn't be a necessity if it was already laser-scanned. Reason is GT's is clearly lacking in comparison to Forza's and others, despite PD saying they are the same when they are obviously not.

1. Laser scan does NOT mean 100% perfect accuracy. The data still has to be interpreted.

2. I love the Assetto Corsa version of the 'Ring. It's the best version. He's the shocker. I find the GT6 version is bloody close to it in terms of accuracy.

It's not a question of who you should believe. PLAY the games and make your mind up rather than watch videos which will not share the same FOV.

 

[Imari]

2. I love the Assetto Corsa version of the 'Ring. It's the best version.

Have you played the iRacing version?

 

[Tired Tyres]

Have you played the iRacing version?

No. I haven't tried that version.

 

[girabyt3]

I dunno, man. They could easily have just done what other developers of the time did and simply added bumps by hand. I mean, the pCARS Nordschleife isn't laser scanned either and it's plenty bumpy.

Laser scanning in 2004 is way, way ahead of it's time. iRacing made a big deal out of laser scanning tracks in 2008, it was one of their main selling points. Yet Polyphony forgot to mention this several years earlier? It would have been revolutionary.

Maybe they did. It's possible. But it's an extraordinary claim, and as such I think it requires a bit more evidence to back it up than a couple of guys on a message board saying what they think they remember. There's apparently a magazine, and so there's absolutely hard evidence out there.

Well, think this. The Japanesse technology is allways a few years ahead of the common technology, just remind they have tsunami and earthquake sirens (that only sounds if one of those will happen 1 minute or 30 seconds after being activated, which also saved a lot of lifes back at 2011). I even remember that Japan had phones with TV back in 2006 (some of them appeared in Tokyo Drift), those phones didn't become worldwide until a few years later. And also Holograms, robots, cars with AI (like the Toyota POD). Japan is full with technology, so yeah, Laser scanning in 2004 was way beyond time, but Japanesse people could easily being the first to do it. Maybe PD could be the first with laser-scan technology, I mean. Every bump LaSarthe has is on GT (Mulsanne straight's specially. I remember there's a little bump near after the first chicane that makes you jump a little bit, which it's still there), which it can mean they laserscanned the track back in 2004 and again in 2009, and Nurburgring as well

Remember as well Kaz runs the VLN, and we all know which sim he uses before the 24h. You don't go to the 'Ring, or other track without knowing it well, so basically he could say "there's a bump on this corner, a little jump there, etc)

 

[Imari]

Well, think this. The Japanesse technology is allways a few years ahead of the common technology...

I'm far more well aware of technology in Japan than you are. But that doesn't make it any more likely that PD used laser scanning. The argument is not that they couldn't have done it because it was ahead of it's time, laser scanning was possible in 2004. The argument is that it was so unusual at that time that they would have jumped on the chance to talk about it at every opportunity. We wouldn't just be finding out about it now.

Every bump LaSarthe has is on GT (Mulsanne straight's specially. I remember there's a little bump near after the first chicane that makes you jump a little bit, which it's still there), which it can mean they laserscanned the track back in 2004 and again in 2009, and Nurburgring as well

The optimism is real.

Remember as well Kaz runs the VLN, and we all know which sim he uses before the 24h. You don't go to the 'Ring, or other track without knowing it well, so basically he could say "there's a bump on this corner, a little jump there, etc)

Which is far more likely, and which is how other games like pCARS did it, and is not laser scanning. Unless you think that Kaz is a laser.

 

[citroengt1]

It's not an easy question in anyway, what would happen to the GT title after Kazunori leaves the company in one way or another.The game is based on passion for cars, driving and capturing those moments.But on the other hand you have the PD team which followed Kaz trough out the years, and now how plenty of knowledge and first-hand experience with the Kaz's motivation for the game.Which gives me no doubt that the future titles without Kazunori would still be great games.

And let us not forget the one important thing that GT games always delivered, and that is the surprise element.
Every GT game, as far as i know (i haven't played GT1, GT2 or GT3 to know them, so someone fill those up if you can)
had some surprising content that no one expected nor wanted, but we all enjoyed anyway:
GT 1 - (didn't play, please add the surprising game content)
GT 2 - (didn't play, please add the surprising game content)
GT 3 - (didn't play, please add the surprising game content)
GT 4 - Graphics quality, Photomode and replay saving
GT 5 - Course maker, 3D, Red Bull X1 (face it, an F1 future concept)
GT PSP - GT4/GT5 hybrid in your hands
GT 6 - GT Vision (literally testing real concepts cars), Moon driving

 

[girabyt3]

GT 1 - (didn't play, please add the surprising game content)

New genre, and legend was born (first ever console racing sim)

GT 2 - (didn't play, please add the surprising game content)

Cars' number and gameplay (way beyond PS1's time), Pikes peak videogame debut with rally too

GT 3 - (didn't play, please add the surprising game content)

Physics, 1st ever real wheel support, and graphics quality way beyond it's time (even today looks awesome considering the age)

 

[Tired Tyres]

I'm far more well aware of technology in Japan than you are. But that doesn't make it any more likely that PD used laser scanning. The argument is not that they couldn't have done it because it was ahead of it's time, laser scanning was possible in 2004. The argument is that it was so unusual at that time that they would have jumped on the chance to talk about it at every opportunity. We wouldn't just be finding out about it now.

If PD was a western company I'd agree with you. If I made a sim race game with laser scanned tracks I'd use that as a sales pitch without doubt. PD are not western in outlook though. It's perfectly possible for them to see laser scanning as a tool to do a job and that's that.

Remember this?

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/art-morrison-1960-corvette.104917/

http://jalopnik.com/238136/from-bucket-to-binary-morrison-corvette-scanned-into-gran-turismo

They laser scanned a car and never said anything about it.

The first time I can remember PD ever showing laser scanning was during the footage of the rebuild and digital recreation or Mario Andretti's Hornet.

It would not surprise me at all if they did laser scan the Nordschleife back in 2004. Anyway - Amar212 is not prone to making things up.

 

[Samus]

PD might not have said anything but given the legendary status of the track and it's constant press coverage even back in 2004, surely it would be on record somewhere that it was done. I seem to recall quite the coverage when AC said they were going to laser scan it, why did nobody pipe up and say PD did it years earlier?

I mean it's not something you can rock up and do it half an hour with nobody noticing, and I imagine techniques back in 2004 were even slower than today.

 

[Imari]

If PD was a western company I'd agree with you.

I wish people wouldn't do this. It's not an eastern/western thing. At best, it's a Polyphony/everyone else who understands how marketing works thing.

Anyway - Amar212 is not prone to making things up.

He's prone to being extremely vague and not providing any references for his information. He's confirmation bias personified, people remember all the things he said that turned out to be right and forget the rest. Or interpret it such that they can believe.

I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm saying Amar's word isn't good enough when there's certainly better sources out there if it did happen.

 

[cutmeamango]

Oh oh oh, this topic is a gift.



They had an aerial (helicopter) topography photo mapping system too.

Truth is, laser-scanning is a bullet point now, because the triangle budget allows you to retain and reproduce way more surface info.