Your thoughts about "standard" vs. "premium"

[maxpontiac]

Since it appears you are wearing your "can't read it if it's not bold" glasses:

You are a smart guy. So why would even insinuate that?

Based on what we know (and not some wild left field speculation) the standard cars are a transfer of car models.

Seriously. How can one even speculate on compatibility issues?

By all means. Explain that one.

 

[Devedander]

You are a smart guy. So why would even insinuate that?

Based on what we know (and not some wild left field speculation) the standard cars are a transfer of car models.

Seriously. How can one even speculate on compatibility issues?

By all means. Explain that one.

Lemme explain what I am getting at:

While unlikely it's possible the info collected on them is not as in depth as what was collected for recent premium models and so their results, even in the same physics engine, may not be comparable.

 

[GT]

comparable to what? Our own experiences or the premiums? If it's the same engine than is that what we are comparing it to? Or their real-life counterparts? If that is the case than to the person who has driven these 800+ cars on a circuit or dirt track they will be less then realistic?

I'm sure PD won't have civic handle like a muscle car...

 

[Devedander]

comparable to what? Our own experiences or the premiums? If it's the same engine than is that what we are comparing it to? Or their real-life counterparts? If that is the case than to the person who has driven these 800+ cars on a circuit or dirt track they will be less then realistic?

I'm sure PD won't have civic handle like a muscle car...

OK let's break it down then:

Let's say the premium cars have 1000 data points measured about each. How wide the tire is, how heavy the tire is, the center of gravity of the engine block, the weight of the door panels, the weight of the glass in the windows and how far up on the center of gravity it is etc.

Now lets say the standards which are imported from GT4 are relying on the data collected for GT4. Let's say in GT4 days they only collected 700 points of data because that's all GT4 engine was built to use.

Suddnely it's a case of go back and get measurements for these missing data points/fake them or fudge them/make the physics engine able to work with less than 1000 points of data although obviously with a hit in accuracy of how well it can work.

Outside of going back and getting any missing data points for all 800 standard cars, you are left with less information to feed the physics engine for standards than premiums.

Now that's all just a possibility, certainly nothing to say that's how it is. But it's entirely possible and since no one has got some hands on driving to test it out with standards we can't really rule it out.

 

[Bogie 19th]

I hear where Dev is coming from. Should be interesting to see how it turns out.

 

[yellowclone]

And while we konw they will use the same physics engine, since as far as I know there has been no user playable demo with them, we don't know if they handle as well. While unlikely it's possible the info collected on them is not as in depth as what was collected for recent premium models and so their results, even in the same physics engine, may not be comparable.

You are preaching to me about assumptions?

There is a saying about what happens when you assume... your whole post is based on a few assumptions about what I meant and not what I actually said. As I clearly said, GT5P got me hooked on cockpits. I have liked cockpit view in quite a few other games (Test Drive Vrally, 24 hour lemans, Rallisport Challenge, the Toca series) however GT5P was the first one to really do it right for me and get me hooked.



See how that assuming works out? Try actually reading what you are responding too instead of tossing out a knee jerk gut response:

Just because of when you fell in love with cockpit view, does not make your statement anymore true, since it is after all, an opinion. However, you did not clearly state that it was your opinion, and we are not suppose to assume, so where does that leave people like me. Am I suppose to accept your "fact" that the standard cars are broken? It is my opinion that the standard cars are satisfactory. Does that mean that it is a "fact" to everyone that plays the game?

*Edit* I guess since you put they are broken to you, that would be an opinion, but I still don't consider them broken, just not complete. I don't think any GT will ever be complete for what Kaz really wants.

You know, I fell in love with cockpit view in the first 2 Need for Speed games, but did I think that every Need for Speed after that was crap or broken? No I did not. Was I disappointed that all of the Need for Speed games didn't have it? Yes I was, but that didn't keep me from enjoying some of them.

 

[Devedander]

You are preaching to me about assumptions?

I didn't assume that's going to happen, I simply said it's a possibility that can't be ruled out and if it turns out to be true will be yet another way standards are broken.

Just because of when you fell in love with cockpit view, does not make your statement anymore true, since it is after all, an opinion. However, you did not clearly state that it was your opinion, and we are not suppose to assume, so where does that leave people like me. Am I suppose to accept your "fact" that the standard cars are broken? It is my opinion that the standard cars are satisfactory. Does that mean that it is a "fact" to everyone that plays the game?

*Edit* I guess since you put they are broken to you, that would be an opinion, but I still don't consider them broken, just not complete. I don't think any GT will ever be complete for what Kaz really wants.

You know, I fell in love with cockpit view in the first 2 Need for Speed games, but did I think that every Need for Speed after that was crap or broken? No I did not. Was I disappointed that all of the Need for Speed games didn't have it? Yes I was, but that didn't keep me from enjoying some of them.

So where is the line in the sand where something is broken? Let's say PD decides to render the cars are black boxes. But they still drive well... so they aren't broken?

Let's say they decide to not render any backgrounds on tracks at all, just a road. But it still drives fine and it's the same corners so not broken?

They are broken in the very essence that they are not the standard PD set for themeselvse and implied we would be getting through GT5P.

 

[Spagetti69]

Deve, I'd want you in the trenches on my side mate. You are the terminator, you cannot and will not absolutely be stopped lol.

 

[infamousDee]

I remember a while ago people around here were laughing at FM3 and all it's shortcomings... then PD announced standard cars...

I really hope that what T10 are doing to the Forza crowd stays a "look what they did" situation in that respect.

It would have bode well for the GT crowd to think "there but for the grace of luck go we" when looking down their noses at the other games out there...

I'm not really sure of your point there. I see no wrong in "looking down my nose" at Forza for its poor standard of car models. In fact, I view Standard cars in very much a similar light, which, incidentally, is why I choose to drive neither. If we apply a little logic here, which game do you suppose will gain the benefit of my attention; the game in which I choose to drive a portion of its cars, or the game in which I choose to drive none?

 

[shadynader]

OK let's break it down then:

Let's say the premium cars have 1000 data points measured about each. How wide the tire is, how heavy the tire is, the center of gravity of the engine block, the weight of the door panels, the weight of the glass in the windows and how far up on the center of gravity it is etc.

Now lets say the standards which are imported from GT4 are relying on the data collected for GT4. Let's say in GT4 days they only collected 700 points of data because that's all GT4 engine was built to use.

Suddnely it's a case of go back and get measurements for these missing data points/fake them or fudge them/make the physics engine able to work with less than 1000 points of data although obviously with a hit in accuracy of how well it can work.

Outside of going back and getting any missing data points for all 800 standard cars, you are left with less information to feed the physics engine for standards than premiums.

Now that's all just a possibility, certainly nothing to say that's how it is. But it's entirely possible and since no one has got some hands on driving to test it out with standards we can't really rule it out.

3:30 onwards should calm your fears....

http://uk.gamespot.com/ps3/driving/granturismo5prologue/video/6179844/gran-turismo-5-prologue-polyphony-digital-studio-tour

But there is nothing i can do to calm your polygonal worries other than point out the obvious fact that youre not going to enjoy this game as much as the majority of us. Oh well it sucks to be you!

 

[yellowclone]

I didn't assume that's going to happen, I simply said it's a possibility that can't be ruled out and if it turns out to be true will be yet another way standards are broken

.

So where is the line in the sand where something is broken? Let's say PD decides to render the cars are black boxes. But they still drive well... so they aren't broken?

Let's say they decide to not render any backgrounds on tracks at all, just a road. But it still drives fine and it's the same corners so not broken?

They are broken in the very essence that they are not the standard PD set for themeselvse and implied we would be getting through GT5P.

As for you not assuming on the physics:

You did say the word unlikely. The word unlikely indicates to me that it is still an assumption. Assumption - To take as granted and true, but not proven

As for the fine line for broken cars:

If you can clearly identify the car, clearly identify the track, and it clearly goes around the track, I don't consider it broken. Is it perfect, and the best graphics we have seen? No, but atleast they don't make my eyes bleed, and I can still race my favorites from the past that are not premium, that, in my opinion, they are not broken. I know they don't have cockpit view, and visibility is not less in bad weather, but I still don't call them broken. I just think broken is too harsh for cars that most of us loved 6 years ago. Just look, like me and other have said, at the standard cars as bonuses. I know people say that it was misleading to say 1000 cars and now only 200 are Premium. As far as I remember, an official car count was not stated by PD until last year maybe, and then is when Kaz said they would be split into 2 categories. At that time, we didn't know what the difference was, but it was stated.

 

[gtracedriver]

Because as of the time of saying it, there is still no evidence that they did fix it... why can't someone say they still didn't fix something now? And what kinds of things would really be ok to complain about? I mean it seems the very existence of standards and premiums wasn't worthy of complaining about... how extreme does it have to be to warrant legitimate response?




How big an issue is is very subjective. I don't personally care about car sound accuracy that much. It gets the job done and I haven't ridden in many super cars so I can't be bothered to much that the game doens't match my real experiences.

BTW this "older build" is what PD hand chose to give the public to experience. Sure it's a demo and it carries the caveats that come with that, but it's still what we are experiencing. While we constantly hear how common sense it is that we must have 800 standards because making them all premium would take a decade, we seem to skip the common sense that says what people experience is what they build their perception off of no matter what disclaimers you put on it. That's why demos are carefully chosen.

Pretty sure those are older build because the newer version is suppose to have skid marks like GC. Standard cars are not shortcomings. However I think they should have increased the premiums to 250 or 300. 200 premiums though is still a lot for a racing game lol. People do not like Forza3 mainly because of physics and gfx.

OK let's break it down then:

Let's say the premium cars have 1000 data points measured about each. How wide the tire is, how heavy the tire is, the center of gravity of the engine block, the weight of the door panels, the weight of the glass in the windows and how far up on the center of gravity it is etc.

Now lets say the standards which are imported from GT4 are relying on the data collected for GT4. Let's say in GT4 days they only collected 700 points of data because that's all GT4 engine was built to use.

Suddnely it's a case of go back and get measurements for these missing data points/fake them or fudge them/make the physics engine able to work with less than 1000 points of data although obviously with a hit in accuracy of how well it can work.

Outside of going back and getting any missing data points for all 800 standard cars, you are left with less information to feed the physics engine for standards than premiums.

Now that's all just a possibility, certainly nothing to say that's how it is. But it's entirely possible and since no one has got some hands on driving to test it out with standards we can't really rule it out.

The standards are the cars from previous GT game, they threw all the code away of GT4 just using the models. Physics are new.

 

[DestinyDanny]

3:30 onwards should calm your fears....

http://uk.gamespot.com/ps3/driving/granturismo5prologue/video/6179844/gran-turismo-5-prologue-polyphony-digital-studio-tour

But there is nothing i can do to calm your polygonal worries other than point out the obvious fact that youre not going to enjoy this game as much as the majority of us. Oh well it sucks to be you!

That's a cool video

 

[With a EG6]

The Standard cars will be great , GT4 Models but better ! i just hope they have a hood cam ! and the tuning abiltys from GT4 , GT2 . Premium cars though will be 90% of the game all focused on

 

[Akira AC]

Deve, I'd want you in the trenches on my side mate. You are the terminator, you cannot and will not absolutely be stopped lol.

He'll be back

 

[II IVORBIGUN II]

I hear where Dev is coming from. Should be interesting to see how it turns out.

Well I don't because this is all assumptions without any facts!

Sorry but whilst I might be sensitive to any critical comments made against GT5, I do feel some are just moaning for the sake of it or seeking attention.

Just remember the same person moaning is the same person who started a thread saying GT5 might be delayed due to the flag issue after the go karting video. Obviously this was simply resolved by PD removing the flags and no delay occured. So why did this person title a thread by saying GT5 delayed without any facts? Answer because they knew they would get a reaction!

 

[Paul2x]

For as long as we all have been waiting for this game, they should have had all interiors modeled.

Modeled interiors is becoming the standard for racing games and GT5 is susposted to be the Knockout punch.

I'm looking forward to the new Hot Persuit coming out. Not b/c of the gameplay but i'm looking forward to seeing the cars they modeled inside and out and the sounds!

As a HUGE GT fan, and I'm counting the days but have since been so impressed with other titles I'm doubting GT5's ability to take the top spot.

Hope I'm wrong. =)

 

[LaBounti]

The standards are the cars from previous GT game, they threw all the code away of GT4 just using the models. Physics are new.

Using GTPSP as a measure the physics were derived from GT5P and they dont handle like they did in GT4. So its safe to assume the cars will do donuts and drift no different than premiums and still have their own weight and suspension properties. I can tell you the S2000 does not drive anything like the SL65 in GTPSP.

 

[Devedander]

I'm not really sure of your point there. I see no wrong in "looking down my nose" at Forza for its poor standard of car models. In fact, I view Standard cars in very much a similar light, which, incidentally, is why I choose to drive neither. If we apply a little logic here, which game do you suppose will gain the benefit of my attention; the game in which I choose to drive a portion of its cars, or the game in which I choose to drive none?

You are one of those who look down your nose equally then... and I can certainly accept that. It was more in reference to those who are here to strongly criticize one thing but then shutup and dissapear when their own turn comes around.

As for you not assuming on the physics:

You did say the word unlikely. The word unlikely indicates to me that it is still an assumption. Assumption - To take as granted and true, but not proven

If you look at the context I was saying why I felt the standards were a bad thing (because they lack cockpits) and then there are numerous other things which are floating around out there that are quite possibly bad but we have no evidence for either way.

That's about as non commital as it can get without just not saying it at all...

I in no way am holding those things against PD or GT as it is, I am just saying they are legitimate possible and due to our lack of ability to try anything out with standards we can't rule them out. Could well go either way.

As for the fine line for broken cars:

If you can clearly identify the car, clearly identify the track, and it clearly goes around the track, I don't consider it broken. Is it perfect, and the best graphics we have seen? No, but atleast they don't make my eyes bleed, and I can still race my favorites from the past that are not premium, that, in my opinion, they are not broken. I know they don't have cockpit view, and visibility is not less in bad weather, but I still don't call them broken. I just think broken is too harsh for cars that most of us loved 6 years ago. Just look, like me and other have said, at the standard cars as bonuses. I know people say that it was misleading to say 1000 cars and now only 200 are Premium. As far as I remember, an official car count was not stated by PD until last year maybe, and then is when Kaz said they would be split into 2 categories. At that time, we didn't know what the difference was, but it was stated.

And it's very subjective... some people would consider a car broken if it's engine sound was signifincantly inaccurate, others if the cockpit was laid out wrong, some would think the game broken if it still didn't have damage.

What constitutes broken changes over time though, as I said. Once a standard is introduced, it's often considered broken to go back to what was before even if BEFORE it wasn't considered broken.

Look at medical standards of care for instance... once a certain standard of care is set, it's unacceptable to perform below that standard even if just a few weeks ago it was fine... that's before the standard was set.

PD set the standard with GT5P. GT5 will handily best GT5P in a lot of areas, but it will also fall short in some with it's standard cars.

Pretty sure those are older build because the newer version is suppose to have skid marks like GC. Standard cars are not shortcomings. However I think they should have increased the premiums to 250 or 300. 200 premiums though is still a lot for a racing game lol. People do not like Forza3 mainly because of physics and gfx.

I think it's quite possibly an older built, also could be the same build with skid marks taken out or a newer build with skid marks taken out. It's possilble they weren't happy with skid marks after the last game show or they will be retooling them signifncantly and so took them out of a newer build while they work on them. No one knows for sure, all we can go on is guessse as to why and why not they would do something.

The standards are the cars from previous GT game, they threw all the code away of GT4 just using the models. Physics are new.

Generally speaking how it works is each car model contains some assets:

Graphics - what you see
Sound - associated sounds
Data -information about the car (weight, size, downforce etc)

All game engine code was thrown away including the previous physics model, however that doesn't mean they threw away all the data about the cars. It would be pretty silly too actually... taht's a lot of work to throw away.

Most likely the entire car asset (graphics, sound and data) were brought along.

Now what that means is all speculation, but it's entirely possible that it means they have upped the anti in terms of what data they collect for the premiums meaning the standards (if not updated) may have less to work with.

Example: Let's say during GT4 they measured tire widgth and height to figure out how much friction it could handle.

Then in GT5 they measure the thickness of the rubber, the width, the height, the weight, assign a value to the flex for relative to the tread pattern and heat disspation ability of the material.

Now you make your physics engine to calculate what the tire is doing relative t the ground... with GT4 level data, you can get a good generic value, with GT5 data you can incorporate a lot more detail and get a lot more accurate results.

That's what I am saying is POSSIBLE.

Remember the physics engine is just the math, the data you feed it has as much to do with the results as the engine itself. A physics engine is not just some amorphous term that covers anything physics related... you have to understand how it works to grasp what I am saying.

He'll be back

From the fture to save you...

Well I don't because this is all assumptions without any facts!

Yes and? That's exactly what I said... I said the no cockpits was fact (which I feel it is) and there are lot sof things we still don't know about standards, many of which could prove negative. Honestly at this point, I am not feeling like giving the benefit of the doubt... after the silent treatment with standard cars during development I am worried that anything not spelled out or given to us to let us play with and discover for ourselves is potentially something they have a reason to want to hide.

Just remember the same person moaning is the same person who started a thread saying GT5 might be delayed due to the flag issue after the go karting video.

You mean the person who posted a thread quoting a website which claimed it might be a cause for delay? This was mentioned on the GTP news page also with reference to numerous sites saying it might cause a delay. I am not making stuff up for attnetion, I was just posting what I saw elsewhere.

Obviously this was simply resolved by PD removing the flags and no delay occured. So why did this person title a thread by saying GT5 delayed without any facts? Answer because they knew they would get a reaction!

Yes obviuosly after the fact that's exactly what happened... it was also what was most likely to happen the whole time... doesn't mean it was in any way garaunteed and it's not like we have seen stranger in the gaming world.

Maybe some people just like to post negative stuff for attention (lord knows I get enough attention around here without trying so I don't know why that woudl be directed at me) but some people are definitely too blinded by their own love of GT to give things a fair and unbiased look before responding to them...

3:30 onwards should calm your fears....

http://uk.gamespot.com/ps3/driving/granturismo5prologue/video/6179844/gran-turismo-5-prologue-polyphony-digital-studio-tour

But there is nothing i can do to calm your polygonal worries other than point out the obvious fact that youre not going to enjoy this game as much as the majority of us. Oh well it sucks to be you!

I'll take a gander when I get home... as for how much I enjoy it? You are probably right... reminds me of this greasy spoon I went to with a buddy the other day... the steak was... meh at best... he doesn't care, he is happy to have any kind of meat on a plate... I however had hopes of a high quality steak dinner...

He overlooked the fact that it was clearly overdone and greasy... but he loved it!

EDIT guess you are talking about the drawers full of spec sheets? That certainly bodes well but it still leaves up to question whether the updated data for the standard models from what they had before and whehter there is data they use that is not part of the specs (for instance as I pointed out above temperature related effects or calculated effects like downforce and lift relative to speed)

That last bit with the tiltomatic GT4 pod really had my eye though... I think the real next step for driving sims isn't 3D but rather movement/momentum feedback... when I can stop rellying on seeing how the car reacts and figuring out what it's doing to just feeling it right away... man that's gonna be huge.

I am sad PD turned down offers to work with (I think) dbox for GT5

 

[shadynader]

I'll take a gander when I get home... as for how much I enjoy it? You are probably right... reminds me of this greasy spoon I went to with a buddy the other day... the steak was... meh at best... he doesn't care, he is happy to have any kind of meat on a plate... I however had hopes of a high quality steak dinner...

He overlooked the fact that it was clearly overdone and greasy... but he loved it!

Unless that's one of your famous far flung analogies, I would have to say, unless your friend has the best looking potatoes, vegetables, gravy and a sizable chunk of meat that is better looking than any meat you have witnessed before, I'd have to say me and your friend very little in common. 👍

 

[Akira AC]

Generally speaking how it works is each car model contains some assets:

Graphics - what you see
Sound - associated sounds
Data -information about the car (weight, size, downforce etc)

All game engine code was thrown away including the previous physics model, however that doesn't mean they threw away all the data about the cars. It would be pretty silly too actually... taht's a lot of work to throw away.

Most likely the entire car asset (graphics, sound and data) were brought along.

Now what that means is all speculation, but it's entirely possible that it means they have upped the anti in terms of what data they collect for the premiums meaning the standards (if not updated) may have less to work with.

Example: Let's say during GT4 they measured tire widgth and height to figure out how much friction it could handle.

Then in GT5 they measure the thickness of the rubber, the width, the height, the weight, assign a value to the flex for relative to the tread pattern and heat disspation ability of the material.

Now you make your physics engine to calculate what the tire is doing relative t the ground... with GT4 level data, you can get a good generic value, with GT5 data you can incorporate a lot more detail and get a lot more accurate results.

That's what I am saying is POSSIBLE.

Remember the physics engine is just the math, the data you feed it has as much to do with the results as the engine itself. A physics engine is not just some amorphous term that covers anything physics related... you have to understand how it works to grasp what I am saying.

Your right in your definition but you're wrong about your assumptions because is incorrect to say that a Nissan R34 skyline has the same driving characteristics in GT4 and in GT5p,that is incorrect and to prove again that you're indeed wrong play the GT5TT demo,all characteristics of tires and surfaces interaction has change from GT4 and as you said the data encoding for each car did indeed change, although same values over different variables will not get you to the same results,I'm sure you get this so I will not go with silly analogies.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Deve is just mentioning a possibility; the people screaming "NO, ASSUMPTIONS!" are being equally presumptuous to think Standards have all the same values as Premiums. We simply don't know one way or the other.

The 1000 pieces of data versus 800 pieces of data makes sense to me, as I can only assume the calculations have become more complicated in GT5 versus GT4, and require more measurements and values to do this. They can still run the same physics engine between tiers though; if this situation were in-fact true, it's just that the Premiums would have a more in-depth relationship with the engine.

PSP certainly handled differently (read: better) than GT4, but that could be due to increased info for the cars (recollecting data), or just tweaks to the general physics engine, or both.

 

[Dan_]

I'll second Slipz, there is no concrete evidence to back any of those thesis, but Davedander certainly got a interesting point. However, there is a detail which can make things a little bit clearer, PD always collect astonishing amounts of data on each car they model, wheter they have enough data to feed the new physics engine and wheter they actually fed the databases with the extra info is still a mistery.

GTPSP has the same physics engine of Prologue? That would make for a decent comparison.

 

[Devedander]

Your right in your definition but you're wrong about your assumptions because is incorrect to say that a Nissan R34 skyline has the same driving characteristics in GT4 and in GT5p,that is incorrect and to prove again that you're indeed wrong play the GT5TT demo,all characteristics of tires and surfaces interaction has change from GT4 and as you said the data encoding for each car did indeed change, although same values over different variables will not get you to the same results,I'm sure you get this so I will not go with silly analogies.

I didn't say that at all... they could drive very differently between GT4 and 5... but a standard in GT4 might still not have as much accuracy as a premium if it's missing some data points.

Super simplified exmple:

In GT4 they collect weight of car and square inches of tires touching the ground. That's it.

They use these to figure frictional coefficient and when the car will break loose and the forumlas they use to do it are only recorded as integer values.

Great.

Now we get GT5. They sample weight of car, tire contact pad, downforce from spoiller and weight of fuel tank and the formulas used are more refined and their values stored as floats.

Now they can figure out a more accurate result, not only is the basic accounted for, but if you are going faster you get extra traction from downforce and when your tank is emptier your car is more squirly.

Now we bring in that car from GT4, feed it's 2 data points into this new physics engine which can calculate 4 data points worth of info but only is given two.

Now maybe this new physics engine is better written than the previous one, so even with only 2 data points the experience is better than it was in GT4 after all the results of the physics calculations are now recorded to a much higher level of accuracy (float vs int) however you still get no value for increased downforce at speed or squirlyness as your tank runs dry... but without going back and updating the cars data, you are not on par with premium GT5 cars.

Scale that up many hundreds of data points and advanced calculations etc and you see where I am going with GT5.

Again, only one of many possibilities, certainly not saying this is in any way a fact, just that it's possible and we have no accsess to standard cars to rule it out.

 

[RedSuinit]

As for the "standards "may" handle differently" I really would like to know what kind of data PD might have collected on the premiums that is different that the standards? I mean what possible difference in data could there be? Please, enlighten me. As far as I have ever seen, right down to the hp and torque curves, almost every detail for every car is pretty darn close to accurate (I'm talking about GT4 here). So please, enlighten me.

EDIT: The above is a good point, if it was right. If you have the ability, pop in GT4, and take out the Ford GT LM w/ spoiler and race it on infenion raceway, then race the SAME CAR, that doesn't have the spoiler (yes it's there, same power, weight, everything is exactly the same between the two cars, the ONLY difference is the spoiler) and the car with the spoiler handles MUCH better than the one without.

 

[Dapper]

Look at medical standards of care for instance... once a certain standard of care is set, it's unacceptable to perform below that standard even if just a few weeks ago it was fine... that's before the standard was set.

How come Magic Johnson has higher T-cells, lives longer, and lives better than most people with HIV?
(this is after 2 decades, not weeks)

 

[Devedander]

As for the "standards "may" handle differently" I really would like to know what kind of data PD might have collected on the premiums that is different that the standards? I mean what possible difference in data could there be? Please, enlighten me. As far as I have ever seen, right down to the hp and torque curves, almost every detail for every car is pretty darn close to accurate (I'm talking about GT4 here). So please, enlighten me.

I would obviously have to see what they are actually recording to make an edcuated statment, but a guess could be ventured:

tire material and viscocity relative to temperature
engine mount location and resultant change in cog
weight of door panels and body panels and glass and roof (to better calculate cog and effects of resistive forces like wind)
wheel weight and resultant momentum and frictional losses

Who knows... remember back when GT4 was made they futureproofed the cars and we couldn't imagine what more they would need to record about them to get better models... then look what happened.

You can always record more data.

How come Magic Johnson has higher T-cells, lives longer, and lives better than most people with HIV?
(this is after 2 decades, not weeks)

Money... lots and lots of money.

I honestly don't know, that guy is just super lucky.

But that's not what I am tlaking about when I say standards of care (no matter what you do for people, some cancer patients will die fast and some will outlive the odds by a lot or even go into remision) what I mean is stuff like:

Must have IV antibiotics for 3 days post surgery
Must scrub hands before surgery for 2 minutes
Must maintain sterile surgery suite

At some points none of those were standards of care, but once they became established, you didn't revert. However you also didn't go back and consider previous surgeries botched because they didn't do those before they were the standard.

 

[RedSuinit]

I would obviously have to see what they are actually recording to make an edcuated statment, but a guess could be ventured:

tire material and viscocity relative to temperature
engine mount location and resultant change in cog
weight of door panels and body panels and glass and roof (to better calculate cog and effects of resistive forces like wind)
wheel weight and resultant momentum and frictional losses

Who knows... remember back when GT4 was made they futureproofed the cars and we couldn't imagine what more they would need to record about them to get better models... then look what happened.

You can always record more data.



Money... lots and lots of money.

I honestly don't know, that guy is just super lucky.

Well seeing as how they are using the tire models from GT5 and not GT4 I don't see how that is relevant.

They measured COG in GT4, once again, your point?

Minus the COG business the wind resistance point could be very true. It will be interesting to see what some basic tests will come back with.

Once again wheel and tires are from GT5, not GT4.

 

[JDMKING13]

D I just don't get what your saying majority of cars in GT where in GT4 the premiums are just recreated physically ,however they do not use GT4 physics Its a new Physics system. Again those Premiums was once GT4 cars when they collected all the data. So know your saying its a possibility that the standards wont drive like the Premium i don't know man I highly doubt that .

 

[TiZzla]

Kaz said himself that all the cars run on one physics engine. Its the data they allocate to each car that makes them handle differently using the same physics model.