Your thoughts about "standard" vs. "premium"

[RedSuinit]

Double post, delete please.

 

[Devedander]

Ok, actually the article that I thought was from E3 2009 was actually from E3 2010. The earliest article I have found so far is from Gamescom 2009, which was in August, which incedently is the same time that we were told there were going to be two teirs of vehicles, standard and premium. If anyone has an article or video that mentions this many cars before Gamescom 2009 post it and help me out. I want to get to the bottom of this. This is however not looking good for those of you who keep touting on and on about how PD DECIEVED US! THEY TOLD US 1000 CARS A LONG TIME AGO AND DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT HOW THERE WOULD BE TWO TEIRS OF CARS!!!

Umm I will give you the 1000 thing, but no one said we weren't told there were two tiers... we all know that standard thing was out last year (again that wasn't really an official announcement but that's just a technicallity). What we have been saying is the dramatic of a disparity was never even hinted at and in fact more or less covered up (almost certainly intentionally) this whole time.

 

[JDMKING13]

Agree.

If anyone "KNEW" that the differences between standards and premiums were so big back in 09, then why weren't all these points brought up then?

The fact is nobody "KNEW". And if you did, then please show me a post saying that you said what the differences were.

As Devedander said, we all had to assume, but I can bet that NO ONE assumed correctly.

August 18, GamesCom, held in Cologne, Germany: Gran Turismo 5 has been announced! Here is the latest information on the game design.

■ models included
1,000 vehicles
170 Premium new models (full interior modeling, the interior corresponds to vehicle damage)
830 kinds of standard model (some are from Gran Turismo 4 that have been carried over to GT5) [Read: Cars we have seen in GT4 before]

I understood that there will be 1000 car models.👍
170 of them are fully modelled with damage.
830 are gt4 level models

hmm... lets wait for official translation.

Disappointing only 170 car with damages and interiors. Ages just to convert gt4 in hd?

thanks mate this seems quite logical to me! 👍

hmm that 170 cars thing seems to suggests since the release of prologue (70+cars) they've only made a 100 or so more with full interior, well heres hoping that the 170 car thing is in regards to interior damage i.e windscreen etc.

but alternativley look on the bright side, if it is 170 cars, and we know they've just revamped gt4 models a 2009 release looks more and more likely.

I will still buy gt5 but I am a bit annoyed because I have waited like 3 years for this game when only 17% of the cars have full interiors and damage, and the other 83% have been carried over from a ps2 game (gt4) that was released in 2005, when the game was promised as a launch title and still 3 years on theres no release date and 83% of the cars like I said earlier are exactly the same as in gt4 then thats just bull:censored: and nothing but. I will still buy gt5 and I will probably enjoy it, but after 3 years of delays and an E3 trailer showing damage that falsely led me to believe that all cars will have damage and full interiors I did expect that the full game will have all features on all cars

On a happier note though, it does give more hope that the game will be released in 2009

EDIT: But if all the vehicles have interiors and damage but the interiors on some of the cars don't react to damage then I will still be extremely happy with the game

Again read this from 74 to 100 its very similar to this thread https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=115870&highlight=amar+winds&page=74

As Red said this information matches up with the information we got now except we got more premium and less standards. Yes many assumed and many were wishful the information was false and some people took it as it is, but again in the end it was there and talked about.

 

[Dravonic]

Ok, actually the article that I thought was from E3 2009 was actually from E3 2010. The earliest article I have found so far is from Gamescom 2009, which was in August, which incedently is the same time that we were told there were going to be two teirs of vehicles, standard and premium. If anyone has an article or video that mentions this many cars before Gamescom 2009 post it and help me out. I want to get to the bottom of this. This is however not looking good for those of you who keep touting on and on about how PD DECIEVED US! THEY TOLD US 1000 CARS A LONG TIME AGO AND DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT HOW THERE WOULD BE TWO TEIRS OF CARS!!!

This is what they said:

-830 standard models (compatible models taken from GT4)

Very few people at the time (a very important detail: at the time) considered this meant direct GT4 ports, and those were easily ignored and put down. Most of the people assumed these GT4 cars were reworked, improved. Shouldn't they, at the time, where all the footage shown until then was from premium cars? Nothing but a small sentence from a japanese webpage that was discredited after being removed from the website said otherwise. Should we have realized then this was a possibility so we weren't so shocked now? Sure, our mistake. However, suddenly a sneaky sentence from a sneaky webpage is enough to get PD off the hook? Please, obviously not. It was immoral PR from the very beginning. A webpage that was never supposed to become public won't change that unfortunately.

 

[Tenacious D]

First of, does it matter how many people work at PD? if they didn't make something happen with that huge budget, that's PD's fault. There might haave been more people working on, say, Modern warfare 2, but did it have GT5's massive budget? I for one doubt it.

While this is undoubtedly true, I think you're missing the point in how it all worked out and the resulting difference in expense. The MW team didn't travel to sites of wars all over the world, hire out companies of special forces, armor, or batteries of artillery, and have their team participate in many actual battles.

In the interest of not going too long off-topic (didn't you say the gallery would be up by the end of the weekend?! ), good is entirely subjective. A fairly extensive look at any unedited shots over in the galleries shows pictures that can't hope to compare to anything this generation. Saying otherwise is really just cheerleading for GT. Are they great for what they were working with? Sure. But not to modern standards. Your images might be all the representation people who are bothered by this two-tier junk need to prove a point .

JUNK??

Just yanking. I know I thought I'd have it done by this Sunday, or at least started, but... well, mom passed away over the 4th of July weekend, and I got roped into some escapist fun with my bro and his wife Saturday, plus it's been a typical midwestern sizzler of a summer and exhausting for me. Not a summer person.

And I will have to say that I owe Kaz and his team a great debt of gratitude for making GT4 such a superb game. It's been very therapeutic for me, and, uhm... I found out that I've taken nearly 2,000 pics just over the past week alone! I guess you could say that I've been completely absorbed in Photo Mode, to a crazy extent perhaps - no wonder the days have been flying by! But I've loved every minute of it.

I know you guys have been saying that the GT4 models just aren't up to modern standards, and I see where you're coming from, to a point. But it also depends on what you mean by "modern standards." If you mean this console generation, I find them to be better in some respects than some other games' cars. If you mean games released within the last 18 months, that's a different story. But keep in mind that Forza 2 isn't an old game by any stretch, it's three whole years "old."

Oh, and as for this...

...why would you feel the need to edit in GT5, since it will look better, but don't want to with GT4? That's odd.

Not really, if you understand that people are using Photoshop to make GT4 Photo Mode pics into something they aren't any more, which are images rendered in the GT4 game engine. Then they simply become an expression of what the artist is capable of with some high quality PC software, not what amazing glory is lurking within the GT4 rendering engine. I don't really see the point in presenting them as GT4 images any longer, because they aren't.

GT1 and 2 tracks would need a complete overhaul; their polygon levels are just too low to deal with the fidelity capable in a modern physics engine. You know how Test Drive Unlimited runs into huge problems on the mountain courses because they skimped out on the polygons, so that hills have a ton of flat planes instead of a gradual curve? That's what would happen with any old PS1 tracks. No amount of texture work could fix that, sadly. Because don't get me wrong, I miss a fair amount of the old tracks too.

Yeah, I can see that, but that wouldn't take a huge amount of time, I'd think, and perhaps they can be included later as DLC if PD doesn't have the time or resources to bring all the Standard stuff up to PS3 quality.

Maybe I'll leave a little tease at the end of the post...

At this stage, it doesn't really matter what PD coulda, shoulda, woulda done.

Practically any overview of the dev. process of this game tells you PD most assuredly bit off more than they could chew. However I believe Sony has contributed to the problem, but thats another issue, and as with the rest, water under the bridge. Even with the almost +50% time extention, there are still some perceived shortcomings.

Come Nov 2nd, later for some, we will get what Kaz has has decided to include, for better or for worse.

Personally, I don't think the standard car thing, graphically, will be a major flaw to the game.

The no cockpit seems to me to be the only real potential fly in the ointment.

Possibly the way they will deal with this is have a premium car available in most or all the car classes to run. Just a guess.

Herein lies the big question.
What will be the quality of the finished product?
I still believe it will be good.
But will it be as good as the dev. time it took to make it?
That will be up to each to judge.

Very true. 👍

I see what you're saying, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough: of course people can express their opinions on certain subjects regarding GT5; I'm sure someone from PD looks here from time to time and regards some topics as feedback. My point is that this fact has been discussed to an extreme extent: would we rather have only premium cars? Sure, but due to development choices this simply is not the case; we're disappointed and we criticized PD for it (even though the full product isn't out yet). We did so without experiencing the full context in which these choices are made by PD. Alright, we discussed and that's all there is to it; if we keep on going it's just a waste of time and effort which we all know is fruitless and without any result that can be deemed a worthy cause. So, what I mean is: accept it and move on.

Well, there is something to consider about having these two threads open.

1. It gives the "downer" folk time to vent their frustration, and hope to make their point clear that this was a bad idea, even if it's the best they could do to give us a full GT game experience.

2. Lengthy discussion may bring us to a meeting of minds over the issue, and some of the downers might begin to see things in a better perspective. Of course, if interiors are a complete write off, that's another matter.

Let me tell you a few more things from the article that may help.

"Separation of the body panels of the car and their decals-things like that will only appear on the premium models, but the physics-based damage is going to apply to both". "The scratches on the body, the dents, the dirt from track-things like that will appear on both models".

My favourite quote from the article "GT5's track editor is the killer feature that will put the game ahead of its competitors for the next 5 years".

I have to say that the blurbs from this article have me very excited over this. If we don't get Grindelwald or Red Rock Valley in GT5, I'd love to try and recreate them in the Track Editor if it's at all possible.

Now, how about a little show and tell? I have a couple of images of a Ford GT by the incomparable Forza artist Jamesways, who was nice enough to sell me a couple copies, including the carbon fiber version. Unfortunately, Forza 2 online is just about dead, so I can't share anything directly. But I do have some images he took of his car to compare with what I've been able to manage with GT4's Photo Mode.

 

[kingcars]

No other racing game has offered this much content either. So what is your point?

Quality > Quantity if I really have to spell it out for you. Or at least, don't lie/embellish the quality to be something it's not.

A 1/2lb burger isn't really a 1/2lb burger if only 1/4th of it is cooked properly

 

[RedSuinit]

Quality > Quantity if I really have to spell it out for you. Or at least, don't lie/embellish the quality to be something it's not.

A 1/2lb burger isn't really a 1/2lb burger if only 1/4th of it is cooked properly

But when you slice out that 1/4 a burger and it's STILL the size of all other burgers out there? What is your point?!

 

[Organ-Donor]

RedSuinit:

 

[Spagetti69]

Don't like burgers.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Just yanking. I know I thought I'd have it done by this Sunday, or at least started, but... well, mom passed away over the 4th of July weekend, and I got roped into some escapist fun with my bro and his wife Saturday, plus it's been a typical midwestern sizzler of a summer and exhausting for me. Not a summer person.

And I will have to say that I owe Kaz and his team a great debt of gratitude for making GT4 such a superb game. It's been very therapeutic for me, and, uhm... I found out that I've taken nearly 2,000 pics just over the past week alone! I guess you could say that I've been completely absorbed in Photo Mode, to a crazy extent perhaps - no wonder the days have been flying by! But I've loved every minute of it.

First off... sorry for your loss . The escapist stuff is probably well worth it, then, and beats some video game photography any day!

My "unedited" folder of GT4 pics totals 6gb. I know of what you speak.

I know you guys have been saying that the GT4 models just aren't up to modern standards, and I see where you're coming from, to a point. But it also depends on what you mean by "modern standards." If you mean this console generation, I find them to be better in some respects than some other games' cars. If you mean games released within the last 18 months, that's a different story. But keep in mind that Forza 2 isn't an old game by any stretch, it's three whole years "old."

What else would I mean other than modern? As in, the most recent installment of other games. What does FM2 have to do with it with FM3 out? I'm also curious what you mean by "better"... some genuine, comparable examples would help shine a light.

Not really, if you understand that people are using Photoshop to make GT4 Photo Mode pics into something they aren't any more, which are images rendered in the GT4 game engine. Then they simply become an expression of what the artist is capable of with some high quality PC software, not what amazing glory is lurking within the GT4 rendering engine. I don't really see the point in presenting them as GT4 images any longer, because they aren't.

This is a long-winded non-answer. Still doesn't explain why you'd want to edit GT5 pics, since the overwhelming response from the pro-Standard side has been they look far better than GT4 (and apparently better than other modern games). If GT4 doesn't need touch ups...

I sorta, maybe, see your point, but most Photoshop touch ups are just to make the images more realistic than what the rather primitive GT4 engine can do. Improving lighting and reflections, cleaning up textures... essentially, it turns out we were just doing what PD themselves wanted to do, judging by Standards .

Yeah, I can see that, but that wouldn't take a huge amount of time, I'd think, and perhaps they can be included later as DLC if PD doesn't have the time or resources to bring all the Standard stuff up to PS3 quality.

Huge amount of time? Shrinking a game down to form PSP took them how long? Remodelling a track would take a fair chunk of time, especially from a team that brags about taking 2.5 years to build a track.

Now, how about a little show and tell? I have a couple of images of a Ford GT by the incomparable Forza artist Jamesways, who was nice enough to sell me a couple copies, including the carbon fiber version. Unfortunately, Forza 2 online is just about dead, so I can't share anything directly. But I do have some images he took of his car to compare with what I've been able to manage with GT4's Photo Mode.

...and in each GT4 image I can pick out a lot more jaggies, and murky textures, than the comparison shots. And as you've pointed out, that isn't even the newest iteration of the competition. Nevermind the fact that GT Standards can't offer the amount of customization. This is sort of the point I've been trying to make; how in any way are those "better" or even "competitive" with other games' models? They were great at the time, just as GT1 models were in 1997, and just how Premiums are great today.

But when you slice out that 1/4 a burger and it's STILL the size of all other burgers out there? What is your point?!

I'm getting one burger the size of every other burger out there, being touted as burger 4x the size of them. Then I find out that the rest of the meat to make up this mega-burger is from 5 years ago.

...wait, did I do that right?



__________________________________________

The people who keep falling back on the defense that "well it's not all about graphics" are missing the point of the people who take issue with the two-tier system; the differences between the two run deeper than just the graphics. The graphics are argued a lot more (and probably somewhat pointlessly, since people will continue to turn a blind eye to them and say they look better or "good enough" because they're from PD), because it's the most obvious when just looking at the two, but the differences in headlights, physical damage, and (potentially) customization all add up.

 

[bullie77]

Because it was too hard and realistic for them. Everyone wanted to be able to mash the accelerator in the middle of a turn and not spin out. The physics in the TT demo were VERY good.

Too hard for some? Perhaps. Too realistic? No.

I highly, highly, doubt that a Nissan 370Z in stock tyres would spin out as easily as it happened in TT, in real life, even if stepped all the way down in a corner. Besides, IRL, one would have the feel of the car starting to spin and the progressiveness of the pedal control that you cannot find in a Sim.

The game is good, very good globally. But not THAT good (read realistic).

PS - Fanboys can now make a line in order to start beating me up...

 

[amar212]

PS - Fanboys can now make a line in order to start beating me up...

Why do you call the people who will disagree with your above oppinion "PS fanboys"?

If I think TT demo has the best surface-tyre-weight-lateral-longitudinal-torque-physics ever made for commercial use in any interactive experience available (and I'm not using word "game" bacause iRacing tend to think their code is not a game, so I respect that) am I an "PS fanboy"?

Bullie, you should be more careful with those titles you're ready to give to people just because they disagree with you.

 

[Bekimche]

I've had iRacing for about 3 weeks now, if GT5's physics are anywhere near as good...lets say 80% as good, I would be over the moon. TT physics were ridculous

 

[Luminis]

Actually, YES THEY HAVE. Gamescom 2009 was the FIRST time they made an official (heck, they had never even made an UNOFFICIAL one) announcement on how many cars there were going to be in GT5, and in that announcement they told us there were going to be 2 teirs of cars. So yes, they have always advertised it as 1000 cars with 800 standard, and 200 premium. This arguement is now obsolete.

You missed the point of my post completely. What I was saying was that PD never advertised the game to have the 200 premium cars as the actual content and the 800 standard cars as a bonus. That's what the post you quoted was about: Whether they have been advertised as a bonus, or not.

Unless you find an official source that say somethig like "Gran Turismo 5 is going to feature 200 cars, pushing the PS3's cutting edge technology to its limits and, as a bonus, will give you an additional 800 cars, which have been carried over from past Gran Turismo games", I'm going to go with NO THEY HAVEN'T.

While this is undoubtedly true, I think you're missing the point in how it all worked out and the resulting difference in expense. The MW team didn't travel to sites of wars all over the world, hire out companies of special forces, armor, or batteries of artillery, and have their team participate in many actual battles.

Of course there is a reason they ended up with as much expenses as they did. But, all in all, I find it mindboggling that they spend such amounts of money to get the reference material (appearently, for 200 cars only, not the full 1000) that it had such a major impact on the expenses. In my opinion, it looks like they set their priorities in a, well, strange way.

But when you slice out that 1/4 a burger and it's STILL the size of all other burgers out there? What is your point?!

It depends on how easy it is to avoid the 3/4 of the burger's patty that you dislike. While you claimed that it's easy to do so already, to my knowledge, we don't know how easy it is to avoid that part of the patty - or whether it is possible to do it at all. Because, if you can't avoid the parts of the patty that you don't like, it doesn't matter how big the amount of beef, that you would like, is.

Sticking with that burger analogy is getting kind of tiresome, though

 

[Captain Roh]

I've had iRacing for about 3 weeks now, if GT5's physics are anywhere near as good...lets say 80% as good, I would be over the moon. TT physics were ridculous

I've never had the opertunity to play a PC sim. I would love to but I only have PS3 and laptop at the moment.

Would you mind explaining the differences? I drive in real life and the only place i feel prologue is lacking is the force feedback. Is this basically where the PC sims differ? Ie. the 'sensation' of actually driving? I consider the physics of prologue to be quite good. Well, the best of any game i've played actually, its why i still play it 👍 Without PC experience its hard for me to understand how one sim can be better than another. Tyres are massively important obviously, but I thought prologue did those quite well. I can only imagine its in the way information is relayed back to the user. Wether thats more realistic feedback from bumps, curbs, steering inputs, tyres breaking away, brake lock etc. But thats all force feedback and rumble motors. I'm confusing myself

Sorry to ask but i'm genuinly interested. No ones ever expained to me how they feel different, people just say; they do!

Also, on the TT, i may just be interpriting hard with realistic, but i thought the physics were as good if not better than prologue. What did you mean by ridiculous? Good, bad?

Thanks in advance Bekimche 👍

Or anyone else with some helpful insight


Sorry for off topic by the way

 

[Organ-Donor]

I was also wondering what he ment when he said the TT physics were ridiculous.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Too hard for some? Perhaps. Too realistic? No.

I highly, highly, doubt that a Nissan 370Z in stock tyres would spin out as easily as it happened in TT, in real life, even if stepped all the way down in a corner. Besides, IRL, one would have the feel of the car starting to spin and the progressiveness of the pedal control that you cannot find in a Sim.

The game is good, very good globally. But not THAT good (read realistic).

PS - Fanboys can now make a line in order to start beating me up...

I've had iRacing for about 3 weeks now, if GT5's physics are anywhere near as good...lets say 80% as good, I would be over the moon. TT physics were ridculous

I have to agree on the physics part.

Some here at GTP are under the illusion that a wicked loose car with no grip = "realistic".

If thats the case, then they should be extolling the virtues of FM2, since the TT was reminiscent of the handling in that game.

That maybe something close to what he meant.

 

[Tenacious D]

What else would I mean other than modern? As in, the most recent installment of other games. What does FM2 have to do with it with FM3 out? I'm also curious what you mean by "better"... some genuine, comparable examples would help shine a light.

Well, then the naysayers were right in saying FM2 was really just FM1.5. After all, the 360 is supposedly so much easier to program and get comparable examples on, right?

And this is the thing. I have pics from a game which is a full two generations leap over GT4, and yet, I prefer many of the GT4 pics. I prefer the GT4 car models. There aren't issues with them, such as the missing nose canard on the right side when you give the Ford GT in any Forza a nose aero upgrade.

I was getting a bit frustrated with FM2 when my photos weren't coming out as good as I wanted, and I hadn't spent as much time in GT4's Photo Mode. Some were great, but many... well, weren't. And I have some pretty homely FM2 images. Getting back into GT4's Photo Mode was quite a revelation after the fist fights I had with FM3's version, which is mostly better. But not completely. And this is the "modern" game.

This is a long-winded non-answer. Still doesn't explain why you'd want to edit GT5 pics, since the overwhelming response from the pro-Standard side has been they look far better than GT4 (and apparently better than other modern games). If GT4 doesn't need touch ups...

Because the Premium cars in GT5 look more real than real sometimes.

I sorta, maybe, see your point, but most Photoshop touch ups are just to make the images more realistic than what the rather primitive GT4 engine can do. Improving lighting and reflections, cleaning up textures... essentially, it turns out we were just doing what PD themselves wanted to do, judging by Standards .

Just browsing the galleries, that hasn't been my experience to the admittedly brief exposure. Mostly I saw wonderful examples of creative PS effects.

Huge amount of time? Shrinking a game down to form PSP took them how long? Remodelling a track would take a fair chunk of time, especially from a team that brags about taking 2.5 years to build a track.

I estimate more than a year for the whole project, but then I'm guessing as much as you are. And, I take it you aren't impressed with Rome or Madrid, or the Nurburgring complex? I certainly am.

...and in each GT4 image I can pick out a lot more jaggies, and murky textures, than the comparison shots.

Then you're going to have to throw out a lot of real world photographs with these.

And as you've pointed out, that isn't even the newest iteration of the competition. Nevermind the fact that GT Standards can't offer the amount of customization. This is sort of the point I've been trying to make; how in any way are those "better" or even "competitive" with other games' models? They were great at the time, just as GT1 models were in 1997, and just how Premiums are great today.

Accuracy. Detail.

The people who keep falling back on the defense that "well it's not all about graphics" are missing the point of the people who take issue with the two-tier system; the differences between the two run deeper than just the graphics. The graphics are argued a lot more (and probably somewhat pointlessly, since people will continue to turn a blind eye to them and say they look better or "good enough" because they're from PD), because it's the most obvious when just looking at the two, but the differences in headlights, physical damage, and (potentially) customization all add up.

Maybe we're all a bit batty. I know that I'm an artist and approach GT4 and the Standard cars a bit differently than some of you. I love good Literalist art, such as the work of Charles Evers or Keith Ferris, even though Keith does have his rough approach too. At the same time though, I can appreciate good Impressionist work.

Yes, it's pretty obvious that the Standard cars don't match the quality of the Premiums. They're rougher, lower poly, they supposedly all have textures for headlights (you guys are wrong on that). But tell us that they shouldn't even be in GT5 and watch our claws come out. You can say I'm crazy for wanting to Photo Mode a single one of them. But I can hardly wait. I want to drive them. I want to race them. Side by side with Premiums even. And snapping pics all the way.

You missed the point of my post completely. What I was saying was that PD never advertised the game to have the 200 premium cars as the actual content and the 800 standard cars as a bonus. That's what the post you quoted was about: Whether they have been advertised as a bonus, or not.

Unless you find an official source that say somethig like "Gran Turismo 5 is going to feature 200 cars, pushing the PS3's cutting edge technology to its limits and, as a bonus, will give you an additional 800 cars, which have been carried over from past Gran Turismo games", I'm going to go with NO THEY HAVEN'T.

I refer my friend to remarks made by JDMKING13 above.

Of course there is a reason they ended up with as much expenses as they did. But, all in all, I find it mindboggling that they spend such amounts of money to get the reference material (appearently, for 200 cars only, not the full 1000) that it had such a major impact on the expenses. In my opinion, it looks like they set their priorities in a, well, strange way.

You're certainly entitled to it, but maybe you should expense out a racing game budget sometime. Besides, you're forgetting the tracks, and there's no telling how many there are.

If thats the case, then they should be extolling the virtues of FM2, since the TT was reminiscent of the handling in that game.

Eh, I disagree completely.

 

[bullie77]

Why do you call the people who will disagree with your above oppinion "PS fanboys"?

If I think TT demo has the best surface-tyre-weight-lateral-longitudinal-torque-physics ever made for commercial use in any interactive experience available (and I'm not using word "game" bacause iRacing tend to think their code is not a game, so I respect that) am I an "PS fanboy"?

Bullie, you should be more careful with those titles you're ready to give to people just because they disagree with you.

There's a difference between "Disagreeing" and "Savagely bash anyone who dare to question Kazunory Yamauchi Almighty-San".

You, and many others, are on the first group. Those are the ones with whom I can have a dialogue. Others are on the later. Those are the fanboys.

See the difference?

 

[Luminis]

I refer my friend to remarks made by JDMKING13 above.

How do those remarks relate to whether PD anounced the standards to be a bonus or not? O.o

You're certainly entitled to it, but maybe you should expense out a racing game budget sometime. Besides, you're forgetting the tracks, and there's no telling how many there are.

I guess it's just that I disagree with what PD deemed more important... Travelling across the globe to get first hand reference material (of both cars and tracks, admittedly) versus using more budget towards 'completing' the game (as in, keep everything on a coherent level of quality), if I may put it that way.

 

[Bekimche]

I meant ridiculous as in it was so ridiculous the way the car behaved at the slightest loss of traction. FFB was weird and needs improvement especially when oversteer occurs. If the TT was a beta, I would say it was very buggy but I have high hopes that GT5 will be just right. TT 370z just had no progression to it, could of been tyre modelling, general physics, poor ffb feeding misleading information or a mixture of all three.

 

[JDMKING13]

I meant ridiculous as in it was so ridiculous the way the car behaved at the slightest loss of traction. FFB was weird and needs improvement especially when oversteer occurs. If the TT was a beta, I would say it was very buggy but I have high hopes that GT5 will be just right. TT 370z just had no progression to it, could of been tyre modelling, general physics, poor ffb feeding misleading information or a mixture of all three.

Damn I thought the the TT demo was a huge step up, I didnt even want to play GT5P anymore. The N3 tires where actually grippy unlike GT5P I don't know how you say it was buggy though.

 

[Bekimche]

Don't get me wrong, it is a step up, then again GT5p physics weren't bad either. Both had good and bad in my opinion. I still enjoy playing GT5p. I was just saying if the TT physics were a beta I would say they were buggy and need improvement cause I can't think of any other way to put it.

 

[amar212]

I was just saying if the TT physics were a beta I would say they were buggy and need improvement cause I can't think of any other way to put it.

One VERY important question: what were your FFB strength setups?

You have to notice TT-demo came with all-new FFB engine that had nothing to do with FFB as we knew it from Prologue or GT4.

In order to get sublime and correct information back on the wheel - and be able to drive on the edge - you had to have FFB no stronger than 5 (as for G25 is concerned in my case).

 

[Captain Roh]

I meant ridiculous as in it was so ridiculous the way the car behaved at the slightest loss of traction. FFB was weird and needs improvement especially when oversteer occurs. If the TT was a beta, I would say it was very buggy but I have high hopes that GT5 will be just right. TT 370z just had no progression to it, could of been tyre modelling, general physics, poor ffb feeding misleading information or a mixture of all three.

I dont want to disagree, because like i said before i have no experience with PC sims, however, in real life, you can drive a hyper car to the ragged edge of its grip limit... They have excellent mechanical grip due to a sorted chassis, HUGE tyres with loads of grip too, normally some kind of splitter or wing providing a little downforce on the track, but if you push it too hard....

You hear it all the time in auto shows or magazines, 'it grips so unbelievably well, but pass the limit even slightly, and it will kill you'! The point is with high powered race preped cars especially (tuned 370z for example) if you pass the limits you will break traction. violently! and spin. As soon as you dont have traction the massive power just keeps the wheels on spinning.

I thought the TT was brilliant. Like i keep saying though, i have no frame of reference. And i still dont know why PC sims are better because no one seems to be able to tell me.

The interesting point you made was about FFB though. I figured the biggest difference between console and PC is here. Maybe the 370z just didnt have enough feedback, I know i swapped ends without warning a few times. I just thought it was my incompetance!

Don't get me wrong, it is a step up, then again GT5p physics weren't bad either. Both had good and bad in my opinion. I still enjoy playing GT5p. I was just saying if the TT physics were a beta I would say they were buggy and need improvement cause I can't think of any other way to put it.

No ones getting at you dude. Well, i can only speak for myself but i was just interested in your opinions and insight 👍

One VERY important question: what were your FFB strength setups?

You have to notice TT-demo came with all-new FFB engine that had nothing to do with FFB as we knew it from Prologue or GT4.

In order to get sublime and correct information back on the wheel - and be able to drive on the edge - you had to have FFB no stronger than 5 (as for G25 is concerned in my case).

Thats interesting. I always thought that, if you could handle it, the stronger the feedback the better. Obviously the big knocks will be amplified, but the smaller resistances and feedbacks would be better felt?

 

[Bekimche]

Yeah I know it had a new FFB engine, I tried different settings. I can't remember what I had it on but I did try various settings. Mind you for my G25 I have a larger diameter MOMO Race Wheel which needs a little more FFB strength than the equivalent strength when using the standard G25 wheel. With the bigger wheel it makes driving alot easier and realistic, you have more feel of the car, I highly recommend it. In iRacing and LFS it feels fantastic.

 

[Bekimche]

I dont want to disagree, because like i said before i have no experience with PC sims, however, in real life, you can drive a hyper car to the ragged edge of its grip limit... They have excellent mechanical grip due to a sorted chassis, HUGE tyres with loads of grip too, normally some kind of splitter or wing providing a little downforce on the track, but if you push it too hard....

You hear it all the time in auto shows or magazines, 'it grips so unbelievably well, but pass the limit even slightly, and it will kill you'! The point is with high powered race preped cars especially (tuned 370z for example) if you pass the limits you will break traction. violently! and spin. As soon as you dont have traction the massive power just keeps the wheels on spinning.

I thought the TT was brilliant. Like i keep saying though, i have no frame of reference. And i still dont know why PC sims are better because no one seems to be able to tell me.

The interesting point you made was about FFB though. I figured the biggest difference between console and PC is here. Maybe the 370z just didnt have enough feedback, I know i swapped ends without warning a few times. I just thought it was my incompetance!

You are absolutely right. Race prepped cars, different suspension setups, tyres etc that are more suited to racing and gripping as much as possible will definitely break out violently when you pass the limits. In iRacing for example, most cars on there are all suited for racing and have been setup for maximum grip. The Ford V8 supercar and Corvette C6.R are extremely touchy and violent but awesome fun trying to tame them. It would be almost impossible to try and powerslide either of those cars without tinkering with the car's settings.

Unfortunately iRacing doesn't have more street production cars that could be compared to GT besides the Pontiac Solstice. That car is very underpowered but I can push it very hard and still control it. It has a violent snap back if you are sideways at an extreme angle (similar to a s2000 in real life) but after practice and learning how the car behaves, it becomes easy (and fun too!). So yeah when I talk about the TT I am always referring to the stock 370z because that is meant to be the street production model with no modifications and drive like a real one would if you bought it from a dealership. In reality a stock 370z would be much easier to chuck around and control, compared to the underpowered solstice. But that's not the case here, the 370z has no progression, I can't ease the car out of a powerslide, it is extremely difficult and shouldn't be. The reason behind that? I'm not sure. In iRacing I can feel exactly what the car is doing, it feels like I am connected with the car. This is what I hope GT5 can achieve too.

And no problem mate I know nobody was getting at me, sorry if it came across like that 👍

 

[Captain Roh]

You are absolutely right. Race prepped cars, different suspension setups, tyres etc that are more suited to racing and gripping as much as possible will definitely break out violently when you pass the limits. In iRacing for example, most cars on there are all suited for racing and have been setup for maximum grip. The Ford V8 supercar and Corvette C6.R are extremely touchy and violent but awesome fun trying to tame them. It would be almost impossible to try and powerslide either of those cars without tinkering with the car's settings.

Unfortunately iRacing doesn't have more street production cars that could be compared to GT besides the Pontiac Solstice. That car is very underpowered but I can push it very hard and still control it. It has a violent snap back if you are sideways at an extreme angle (similar to a s2000 in real life) but after practice and learning how the car behaves, it becomes easy (and fun too!). So yeah when I talk about the TT I am always referring to the stock 370z because that is meant to be the street production model with no modifications and drive like a real one would if you bought it from a dealership. In reality a stock 370z would be much easier to chuck around and control, compared to the underpowered solstice. But that's not the case here, the 370z has no progression, I can't ease the car out of a powerslide, it is extremely difficult and shouldn't be. The reason behind that? I'm not sure. In iRacing I can feel exactly what the car is doing, it feels like I am connected with the car. This is what I hope GT5 can achieve too.

And no problem mate I know nobody was getting at me, sorry if it came across like that 👍

No worries. Cheers for the response mate 👍

I guess there are lots of people out there guilty of comparing the likes of forza and GT to full blown racing sims. Like you pointed out there really arent any production type cars in those to make a proper comparison with. Even within the console games there are noticable differences in feeling between production cars and race cars. It wouldnt be a massive leap to conclude then, that even the worst iRacing car therefore feels as good as one of the best in GT for example. Couple that with the obviously superior feedback sensations and you're onto a winner.

I hope you're right about the TT demo too, saying that there was possibly a bug. I have to admit i didnt spend too much time with the standard 370z, so when you spoke about the TT i automatically asumed you meant the tuned version. Sorry about that

 

[Bekimche]

To correct you, I don't believe there were any bugs in the TT demo, it was just a figure of speech that the physics did need more improvements and I believe it will be GT5.

 

[the Interceptor]

Given that the physics changed noticeably between the three versions of Prologue (original, specII, specIII) and the TT demo, I think it's safe to assume it is something they are constantly working on.