Your thoughts about "standard" vs. "premium"

[B13POS]

Didn't someone say that all cars will have cockpit views but you can't view them from 3rd person view?

 

[pay2021]

No doubt this is the most writed forum without a release game in the history.

@Devedander

I think they use dummys instead the shape/coheficient of the car, like rfactor, they write that values in a separate code file who has nothing to do with the 3d model of car, because of that standart and premiuns can share the phisycs/code. Things like lights and windshield wiper are just features.

 

[Devedander]

Deve there is a big difference between voicing your concerns with certain issues of the game vs. stating the same things over and over and over again. We are at 361 pages and you have been pretty much the only consistent person left in here from the start, saying the same exact things, crying about the same stuff, educating people on how this is unacceptable. Looking through your post history gives me the same feeling as leaving a funeral. I love cockpit view, it's the only view I like to use. When I found out we will have standard cars not supporting cockpit view I was shocked and pissed. I have accepted it and moved on like an adult (not swept it under the rug, but used adult logic and understand we won't have them and don't piss and moan about it 6 months later).

I think you mistake defending your position with blindly repeating.

As I have pointed out before, there is a constant flow of people who show up and make faulty claims, in the process of refuting them I end up saying pretty much the same thing over and over again because... well how I see it so it's not like I am going to be able to switch up what I say as my view hasn't changed.

It's not my fault many people can't be bothered to read back and see their claim has already been discussed and explained away or don't really understand the process of making a game to know what they don't know.

 

[Devedander]

You're either a pesimist or an idiot.

You can't be missing parameters. If some aer missing, then because the code relies on each paramter to interpret what should be happening, cars would glitch out everywhere, if that worked at all. Coming from someone who has written a few small things, I can tell you you can't just block off loose ends - the whole things works or it doesn't. The engine can't do only part of it because it all works with each other.

It's funny you call me an idiot, but then state problems that I specifically addressed as if I hadn't thought of them...

For instance, how can you use data files with less variables stored? Simple, you either dummy it in or make the code robust enough to handle missing variables.

Did you even see where I specifically addressed how to handle missing T and C variables or did you just want to spout off so badly you skipped over that?

See here: https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=128481&page=360#post4052631

And that's just an ugly pseudo code example. If you honestly don't understand how a physics engine can function with older data models with less data, than you are just talking above your paygrade. I am certainly no professional coder, but the theory behind it and the practice is not something terribly advanced.

If you have ever imported and old model into a newer 3D modeling application, it's quite possible the newer one supports many features the old one didn't, yet it can still read in the old file.

And a very simple example Slipstream used earlier that might be better suited for you to understand is look at MP3 files. Currently they have all sorts of data stored about album title, art, artist etc etc. Back when they first came out the number of fields were much less, however modern music playing apps have no problems with these older files that are missing fields entirely.

Being backwards compatible happens all the time and it only shows how little you know aobut what you are talking about that you would say that's the huge hang up.

And secondly, they aren't going to have two seperate engines, one for standard cars and one for prem cars. You can't run them at once because of once again glitches when they occasionally meet and because it would be way way way way too hard for even a PS3 to run to complete engines at once. Hence standard cars can only be run with standard cars. This sounds even more limiting and unlike PD. Not only that, but then you have to have the code for teh engine for both. That takes even more space and would waste even more time.

And not once have I ever said there would be two seperate physics engines. I was very careful to say in fact that there would not be and even went to great lengths too illustrate and describe that point.

I believe that the engine has been remodeled and hence is acting differently, but that data is still teh same for all of it. Yes the weight of the car makes the car drive differently under the new physics engine, but they don't have to go and reweigh the car to find out its the same.

I have been saying exactly this... again, I know they are really long posts, but if you are going to bother to critique them, at least be decent enough to read them first.

THe main difference I believe between them is jsut the drivers cam, and the level of graphics. They need to be done seperately for each and every car. Hence you can have them both running together and each one has to be done up alone allowing PD to release the game with different standards.

Ironically I wouldn't be surprised if many of the cams are setup through some algorythm rather than manually per car. So far we have seen roof cams that look very different from mother roof cams and it seems quite possible they have just run some algorythm that says put roof cam centered left to right, directly over driver seat and 6 inches above the roofline or something.

Again, you said I assumed, which I might have, but you also said not to assume. You said that you didn't assume anything, and then a few post later, you said it was a general assumption

Yes it's called context. You were assuming what I meant and what I said and going with it as fact. When I say it's all general assumption, I am not assuming they actually did it, I am saying that in order to show you how something is possible, let's just generally assume these points for the sake of argument, I am not assuming any of it as fact, just using it as example of what's possible.

It's the difference between "I assume you meant to say THIS therefore I am going to go with it as if that's for sure what you meant" and "Well it's possible the 49ers will win the superbowl, let's assume that they recruit a star quarterback and he carries them the whole way, see it's possible then".

If you tried a little harder at the comprehension part and less at the defense part you might be getting somewhere....

saying assumption because he told me not to assume, but yet he was doing the same thing in a sense, but not admitting to assuming. To me, the word unlikely, alone, is an assumption, so he kind of brought it on himself. Just because he gives a LONG educated guess does not make it true, and therefore, it is an assumption/speculation.

You really need to learn the difference between assuming something to be fact, and making assumptions to illustrate a point. I am not assuming PD did it the way I laid out at all, I am only saying it's possible they did, specifically to show people who don't seem to comprehend how it could happen exactly how it could happen. When someone says "The 49ers could not win the superbowl because they have a crap QB) you don't have to assume the 49ers will win the superbowl to say "well if they did recruit a star quarterback, then they could win the bowl and thus it's not right to say they can't win the superbowl"

 

[shadynader]

Good news Dev!

GT5 has been delayed! You now have two threads to post in. Time to dust off that old PD can't be trusted angle 👍

 

[yellowclone]

You really need to learn the difference between assuming something to be fact, and making assumptions to illustrate a point. I am not assuming PD did it the way I laid out at all, I am only saying it's possible they did, specifically to show people who don't seem to comprehend how it could happen exactly how it could happen. When someone says "The 49ers could not win the superbowl because they have a crap QB) you don't have to assume the 49ers will win the superbowl to say "well if they did recruit a star quarterback, then they could win the bowl and thus it's not right to say they can't win the superbowl"

You really need to stop back tracking. You did say unlikely when you were talking about the data collected for the physics. I didn't assume you said that and I didn't take it out of context, that is simply what you said. It is unlikely that the 49ers will win the Super Bowl is still an assumption. It is likely that the 49ers will win the Super Bowl is also an assumption. No matter how much you backtrack and make analogies does not change the FACT that you said unlikely when you was talking about the data collected.

However, this is way off topic and is not contributing to this wonderful thread (sarcasm), so I will leave it at that, and I am finished with this discussion. I know that you will have to get the last word in, and I am fine with that.

 

[Akira AC]

Hey deve maybe PD was reading this thread and they decided to pass everything into linear calculations and vectorial calculations with scalar numbers,
permission to say cook.

 

[BlacqueJacques]

I will comment soooooooooooooon

I promise before the end of October, er November, er Christmas!

And don't ask which year

 

[GT]

I can just smile about it see

 

[Devedander]

You really need to stop back tracking. You did say unlikely when you were talking about the data collected for the physics. I didn't assume you said that and I didn't take it out of context, that is simply what you said. It is unlikely that the 49ers will win the Super Bowl is still an assumption. It is likely that the 49ers will win the Super Bowl is also an assumption. No matter how much you backtrack and make analogies does not change the FACT that you said unlikely when you was talking about the data collected.

Link and quote please? Seriously. I write a lot, so as not to get confused I would like know what exactly you are referring to.

And no, saying "it's not impossible for the 49ers to win, for instance lets assume they get a new QB, then they could win" is not assuming the 49ers will win. It's also not assuming they will loose. It's stating that there is not sound to state factually that they cannot win.

However, this is way off topic and is not contributing to this wonderful thread (sarcasm), so I will leave it at that, and I am finished with this discussion. I know that you will have to get the last word in, and I am fine with that.

Thanks!

Good news Dev!

GT5 has been delayed! You now have two threads to post in. Time to dust off that old PD can't be trusted angle 👍

I honestly have no idea what there is to say about the dealy other than what everyones saying already...

 

[big dani]

i am sure that the new delay has something to do with standard cars, they saw react of fans,maybe we will get cokpit view after all?

 

[Kcekelkai]

i am sure that the new delay has something to do with standard cars, they saw react of fans,maybe we will get cokpit view after all?

Dont get your hopes up . Im sure if they release it tommorow it will be the same as 3 months from now .

 

[tinram]

At the rate GT5 is going, maybe this will be a standard car, no cockpit view.

 

[yellowclone]

Link and quote please? Seriously. I write a lot, so as not to get confused I would like know what exactly you are referring to.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=128481&page=358#post4051489, last sentence.

 

[shadynader]

I honestly have no idea what there is to say about the dealy other than what everyones saying already...

Nonsense!

You know as well as I that once the dust settles in a few days time and people start trying to justify PD/SONY'S decision to delay, as people do. You'll be there bustin' out some trademark Dev moves.

If I was a betting man, I would be willing to bet that something along these lines will be posted more than once in the coming days/weeks.

I don't care about the delay as Kaz is just making sure that the game is perfect. Unlike other certain racing games that just get released full of bugs.

Maybe It's to add more poly's and cockpits to the 800...

You won't be able to resist, it's in your DNA.

 

[Devedander]

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=128481&page=358#post4051489, last sentence.

I am gonig to go ahead and give you that whether or not it's unlikely is an assumption, however I was more agreeing with the already expressed opinion so as to illustrate I am not trying to say it's likely or a certainty.

And I would point out that it's not a case of I assumed something and went on with it depending on it to be true to make my point... whether it's likely or unlikely makes no difference to the explanation I was giving.

So yes and no.

Nonsense!

You know as well as I that once the dust settles in a few days time and people start trying to justify PD/SONY'S decision to delay, as people do. You'll be there bustin' out some trademark Dev moves.

If I was a betting man, I would be willing to bet that something along these lines will be posted more than once in the coming days/weeks.

You won't be able to resist, it's in your DNA.

Touche...

You know me far too well! Well played

 

[yellowclone]

I am gonig to go ahead and give you that whether or not it's unlikely is an assumption, however I was more agreeing with the already expressed opinion so as to illustrate I am not trying to say it's likely or a certainty.

And I would point out that it's not a case of I assumed something and went on with it depending on it to be true to make my point... whether it's likely or unlikely makes no difference to the explanation I was giving.

So yes and no.

YAAAAAA! I had a draw on an arguement with Devedander.

I hope you realize that all this has been in good fun on my part, and just something to kill some time until GT5 is actually released, which now is even longer. Can't wait to race you guys online (whenever it might be).

 

[gtracedriver]

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.

I am just saying they have improved and using new physics model for all cars. There is a possibilty that some one may like GT4 physics more than driving the same car on GT5 lol

 

[Devedander]

YAAAAAA! I had a draw on an arguement with Devedander.

I hope you realize that all this has been in good fun on my part, and just something to kill some time until GT5 is actually released, which now is even longer. Can't wait to race you guys online (whenever it might be).

No, you won... but only technically... but then that is the best kind of winning...

 

[Spagetti69]

Nice too see you venture out earlier deve. To another thread. Was it nice to get out?

 

[Devedander]

Nice too see you venture out earlier deve. To another thread. Was it nice to get out?

It's like their's a whole nother world out there!

 

[Tornado]

Oh Deve, one day I hope to see you in the Automotive or Opinions threads. That would be grand.

 

[Akira AC]

Oh Deve, one day I hope to see you in the Automotive or Opinions threads. That would be grand.

also in the programming and computational threads,you should make some discussions over there as well.

 

[Devedander]

Oh Deve, one day I hope to see you in the Automotive or Opinions threads. That would be grand.

It would be ugly... I don't even know how to change my own oil and as far as I am concerned rotary engines run on 1 part oil and 3 parts magic.

also in the programming and computational threads,you should make some discussions over there as well.

Where are these programing threads?

 

[Akira AC]

Where are these programing threads?

here:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=64

I saw a couple of them discussing about programming in C++ and encoding,I don't like to get into these threads because they I like to check this forums to spare my mind from programming stuff,they can really value your opinions.

 

[Devedander]

here:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=64

I saw a couple of them discussing about programming in C++ and encoding,I don't like to get into these threads because they I like to check this forums to spare my mind from programming stuff,they can really value your opinions.

Amazing! After all these years I have been through the wheel and cockpit forum but somehow missed the computer one entirely...

 

[SlipZtrEm]

It would be ugly... I don't even know how to change my own oil and as far as I am concerned rotary engines run on 1 part oil and 3 parts magic.

Judging by their consumption rate; probably 3 parts oil, 1 part magic .

Having such a strong debater would certainly make the Auto boards more interesting.

On-topic: so... since we're all in the dark, might as well take guesses; production issue the reason for the current delay, or Mr. Kaz "Feature-Creep" Yamauchi himself?

 

[Devedander]

Having such a strong debater would certainly make the Auto boards more interesting.

No having an educated debater makes things interesting... an uneducated debater is just a troll. Since I know very little about engines... well you can see where that's going.

On-topic: so... since we're all in the dark, might as well take guesses; production issue the reason for the current delay, or Mr. Kaz "Feature-Creep" Yamauchi himself?

I put my bet on jailbreak protection.

 

[Tornado]

It would be ugly... I don't even know how to change my own oil and as far as I am concerned rotary engines run on 1 part oil and 3 parts magic.

3 parts oil, 2 parts magic, and (for turbocharged models) 2 parts apex seals.

 

[CoolColJ]

Standards and premiums on the same track - case closed