Your thoughts about "standard" vs. "premium"
- Thread starter LP670-4 SV
- 10,183 comments
- 784,506 views
- 40,921
For the purposes of this discussion, that distinction couldn't matter less.
No. The Miata in GT:HD has separate body panels with honest-to-goodness body gaps. The Standard cars all will have painted on panel gaps and no separate body panels, because that is how they were originally created.
No, we really can't guarantee that the models won't be improved. But we can absolutely ascertain that none of the Standard cars will be modeled like they were in GT:HD unless they already were in GT4 (and very few cars were).
Unless PD took the cars in GT:HD from a game made by someone else, they were scratch built for GT:HD. All you need to do to confirm it is look at basically any body panel of any car in GT:HD and look at the same car in GT4. The cars in GT:HD were built piece-by-piece, and the cars in GT4 were built as a whole.
You are quite entitled to be wrong, as well. Not only are the still shots from a video more than enough to prove your unique view as being false (because we can quite clearly see that all of the Standard cars still are modeled as one piece), but PD has confirmed that GT5 will feature carryover cars from GT4/GTPSP. And because the way the cars were modeled in GT4 was in a completely different (inferior) way they were done in GT:HD, you cannot use GT:HD as any sort of yardstick for what the Standard cars will look like in GT5. End of.
- 706
Since when did GTPSP have a two-tier system?No no - I mean for GTPSP Premiums are converted to Standard-like cars.And it's really hard to tell from GTPSP intro - where is GT5 Premiums and where is Standards.I hope you understand!
You're contradicting yourself here...
- 2,110
- Russia
Since when did GTPSP have a two-tier system?
It haven't.You misunderstood me.
No.Again misunderstanding.
You are both completely wrong...depending on how you define colour.
The sun is officially classified as a "Yellow Star", and is named as such because the majority of the light coming from the sun is in the yellow region of the EMS. So yes, while the sun does emit all colours of the visible spectrum, it is not in equal proportion, and is the same regardless of whether or not there is an atmosphere between us.
Viewed through the naked eye, assuming no atmospheric effects, it appears white. This is because the eye is overloaded with so much colour information that it cannot differentiate individual colours, so you see white. However, the star is definitely not white.
- 1,851
- GTP_karlos
"If that's what the standard cars will look like, then I'll be happy! "
- 2,110
- Russia
- 706
Exactly. 👍
Now the problem though, is that some newbies will go: "If that's what the standard cars will look like, then I'll be happy!"
Good God.
What's wrong with them having their own standards (read: criteria) of being satisfied with the game?
BTW is it me or does that Eunos look horrible?
Maybe new GT5 footage is spoiling me
One thing's for sure though, that's not how standards will be.
- 8,725
It's only yellow compared to one of the bluest star out there (Vega, apparently) [LINK]. It's actually pale peach outside of the atmosphere, and off-white in it (due to absorption). All depending on your definition of white, apparently - also, looking at those colours on a monitor is not necessarily a good way to judge it, depending on its colour-temperature setting and gamma method.
You're right about the cone saturation thing, though. That won't happen on those links, I promise
Something else that's interesting is that no monitor can display pure / monochromatic colours! Who'dathunkit...
You can see why CG artists agonise over colour reproduction now. It's essentially impossible on most (RGB-based) displays, and it's quite an achievement that we have such realistic lighting (for instance) in games nowadays - and it's not just a case of plugging in the Sun's "average" (how do you find this, exactly?) colour, either. GT5
has improved lighting over GT4, and GT5 seems to have tweaked this - perhaps the Standards will just "blend in" so long as you don't look directly at them 
- 643
- Spazza
Lmao, so now this thread is about the sun? 
- 706
Well, Imma finish that argument.
The Sun gives off what is known as white light, which contains the spectrum of the rainbow.
Proof: Rainbows, and the fact we can see all colors around us all the time.
The Sun gives off what is known as white light, which contains the spectrum of the rainbow.
Proof: Rainbows, and the fact we can see all colors around us all the time.
Yep, like I said, it is classed as a "Yellow Star" because it has (amongst others) a large peak in the 590nm region, which is right at the yellow/orange interface of the EMS, why is why the term "peach" is often used.It's only yellow compared to one of the bluest star out there (Vega, apparently) [LINK]. It's actually pale peach outside of the atmosphere, and off-white in it (due to absorption). All depending on your definition of white, apparently - also, looking at those colours on a monitor is not necessarily a good way to judge it, depending on its colour-temperature setting and gamma method.
You're right about the cone saturation thing, though. That won't happen on those links, I promise
Something else that's interesting is that no monitor can display pure / monochromatic colours! Who'dathunkit...
You can see why CG artists agonise over colour reproduction now. It's essentially impossible on most (RGB-based) displays, and it's quite an achievement that we have such realistic lighting (for instance) in games nowadays - and it's not just a case of plugging in the Sun's "average" (how do you find this, exactly?) colour, either. GT5
Pure white light contains all colours in equal proportion. Thus, the sun is not pure white - very few things in nature are. The term "white light" is used because to all intents and purposes, it's as good as, but how we choose to define it in daily life should not take away from the facts, and the fact is, the sun is a "Yellow Star".
- 40,921
To be honest, this discussion is more interesting than most of the off topic ones in this thread.Lmao, so now this thread is about the sun?
- 1,629
- RedSuinit
Now this should settle the entire Sun discussion, because this is 100% correct.
Oh really? Which debate are you taking part in then, because the one I entered was when somebody said that the sun is white? The sun is not white, unless you think science got it wrong and they did in fact not detect a higher proportion of yellow in the visible light given off?RedSuinit
How we define white light here on Earth is totally irrelevant. Even with a yellow bias it can still produce rainbows and cause us to see the colours of things all around us.
Despite what you might think, white light is equal proportions of all colours in the EMS. Any deviation from that means the light has a hint of colour. We might still call it white, just like we call various paints "white" despite them having massively different shades. White is white, there are no shades of it, just like there are no shades of black. We just simplify things in everyday life because we do not have names for all those subtle hints, so everything becomes white until it has an obvious colour.
- 8,725
That's as may be, but it doesn't really tell you anything, other than the Sun emits this thing called "white light" (whatever that is), which contains the "components" of this thing called a "rainbow", which can be observed in our atmosphere when this "white light" is compoundly diffracted by a large array of small, spheroid lenses (raindrops).
It's no different to saying that the Sun is a "Yellow Star" since these are just definitions. Similar to the term "Red" - a bit useless, in some respects. It doesn't distinguish all the hues and shades of red, rather groups them loosely (try agreeing on the boundaries, on a purely visual basis).
Think about this: what is "white"? I can guarantee that your monitor / TV will not display pure white at it's brightest possible output (that is, max R+G+B).
This is not a trivial thing, just like "what is a second?" and is the reason for the existence of the "D" series of specifications about daylight, as well as gamma correction. Then again, due to the nature of our entire optical system (eyes + brain), what we see isn't necessarily what is. In this respect, pure white (as we perceive it) is in fact heavily biased with red and blue / violet.
Here's a comparative output of the Sun, D65 ("daylight", under our atmosphere) and the approximate black body (Planck-distribution). The D65 curve is normalised to the Sun's output at 560 nm (Green peak).
The Sun is not the same colour as we see it as, nor is it the same colour as the normal (daylight) lighting conditions under our atmosphere.
This is an excercise in recognising the fact that nothing is absolute, you have to compare it to something ("the second" is one of the more interesting definitions) and is the basis for more abstract thoughts like Schrödinger's Cat; you can't "know" something without measuring it (measuring is just comparing to a "standard") and in the extreme, you can't compare something without interacting with it (and potentially modifying the outcome).
This has huge implications in digital imaging, from whence computer generated imaging, and thus game graphics. Simple things like converting the in-engine linear representation of colour and brightness in the frame buffer (essentially a texture) to the non-linear representation that our eyes are based on, has some interesting effects. Here's a blog post on the matter. It mentions that, until recently, (real-time) graphics hardware cold not support gamma-correct lighting! It's a bit of a fundamental flaw...
- 295
- RaySirX
- 6,804
- The Netherlands
To hopefully shed some light on this issue from the land of the rising sun, funny thing is when something goes off-topic in this forum it always goes extremely off-topic and approached almost scientific to prove a point.
Whatever colour the sun or the light it produces might be, it surely doesn't change the appearance of either Premium or Standard cars.
This debate may be somewhat relevant in the context of dymanic weather but only somewhat.
But please carry on, at least it's slightly more enlightening than reading some arguments seemingly originating from a place the sun doesn't shine which often seriously challenge my sunny disposition.
*Counting whether enough cliches are in place,.........that'll do*
Last edited:
gtracedriver
(Banned)
- 603
Yeah GTHD are good but not premium good. I think they will improve the standard quality, it will be fine. All car assets are used from previous except the brand new models which was never seen on GT games before.
They of course have SLR and other cars as premiums which have serious upgrade form GT4 though
Last edited:
- 6,804
- The Netherlands
No they weren't upgraded from GT4 to Premium, they were completely remodelled or build from scratch not using the car model from GT4.
If we're getting anywhere in this debate ( which I really doubt ) people should at least know by now that a Premium SLR is completely different from the SLR used in GT4 ( which, if used in GT5, would be considered a Standard ).
Imagine building an SLR out of LEGO using only, say, 25 big LEGO bricks ( GT4 ).
Now imagine building a bigger SLR out of LEGO using 2500 small LEGO bricks ( GT5 Premium ), the first one you build can't be used as all the parts are different and too big and the way the second one will be build is far more complex so even the way you build the first one becomes irrelevant.
Not sure using LEGO is the best possible example but you hopefully get that an SLR as it was in GT4 becomes completely useless and obsolete when building a Premium SLR for GT5.
