The GT5 expectation thread (including preview titles)*

[Neb]

They keep praising the environment because when you're watching a replay or in photomode, you have time to admire stuff like that...

...pretty simple. A lot of details are missed when you're actually racing.

Not really. And if no motionblur is in use and DOF then the surroundings will be even more noticable.

Stuff like this will stand out detracting from experience due to not looking realistic (due to flatness etc). However in replay with tons of blur from motionblur and depth of field hides most but the cars. Of course playing with such blur amounts would be impossible. A finer balance how graphic load is distributed is better IMO.

(GT5p)
http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/2528/21235633.jpg
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/8761/78350500.jpg
http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/8637/55023615.jpg
http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/7119/59355620.jpg
http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/5495/58003939.jpg

 

[tha_con]

Not really. And if no motionblur is in use and DOF then the surroundings will be even more noticable.

Stuff like this will stand out detracting from experience due to not looking realistic (due to flatness etc). However in replay with tons of blur from motionblur and depth of field hides most but the cars. Of course playing with such blur amounts would be impossible. A finer balance how graphic load is distributed is better IMO.

I can say, for me personally, that I pay attention to absolutely nothing except the cars around me and the pavement. I'm never looking at trees, the sky cap, nothing. Then again if I'm playing a simulator I'm watching my line, the turn coming up, who's around me, how I can pass them, watching my speed and brake power so I don't lose traction...I just don't have time to say "oh look at that, the tree is flat!".

 

[Neb]

No mather how much one focus on the road and driving line marker the surroundings to your sides and front will be visible. It will either detract or add to the visual experience that is a part of the expereince in driving a car in a game, that is to make you relate to reality.

 

[tha_con]

No mather how much one focus on the road and driving line marker the surroundings to your sides and front will be visible. It will either detract or add to the visual experience that is a part of the expereince in driving a car in a game, that is to make you relate to reality.

Being visible doesn't mean I can study it. You do play simulation racers, right? Even in NFS titles, any racing title with a lot of speed to it (from a bumper/hood/cockpit view) will be "fast".

If you're telling me that while playing you're also noticing low resolution textures and "flat trees" then I'll have to politely say I don't believe you. You may say that, but I just don't believe it. Unless you're actively looking for it, in which case you're not going to be doing very well in a race, you won't notice it. The time period in which these things are visible is extremely brief, and they are generally far enough away that you won't notice.

I'll just leave it at that, I don't want to continue a discussion that we clearly disagree on, lol.

 

[Neb]

Sure no problem but I do spot easily while driving flat lighting aplied on objects, flat looking objects, lacking shading etc that heavily detracts from realism. Why for example NFS:Shift environments looks so much better and realistic than Simbim's GTR2's flat looking world. This adds to the feeling of *being there* driving a car and increases immersion factor!

As much as people gush over realistic looking cars and how it adds to the immersion so does the the surroundings if they look realistic.

 

[patsu]

Anyhow, with Burnout crushing racing games in terms of damage and GRiD laughing at the sims (even maybe Toca 3!) in terms of visual modeling I get a chuckle looking back at all the anti-damage rhetoric for sims in the 2005-2007 threads here at B3D. Where is all the venom demanding GT5 *not* include damage modelling until it is realistic in terms of performance and visuals? That line of thought seems more appropriate for this thread than lapsing back into comparing.

Isn't Kazunori planning for realistic damage modelling now ? We have all seen the interim damage effects. Many people are not happy with it. I don't see them changing their position.

Visual damage is meaningless if the gameplay is affected negatively. As I understand, most people demand damage modelling mainly to prevent bumper car driving. IMHO, whether they show accurate damage or not is not so important.

Did everyone just change their mind? Where are all those GT fanatics that bemoaned damage ever coming to their franchise? (Real question! A lot better than where the above was going too).

I think at this moment, people are more concerned with release schedule, advancement in gameplay, number of cars in a race, and whether damage apply to all cars uniformly.

Unless Kazunori gives his fans alternatives (e.g., Using the resources to handle weather effects and day-night cycle), all gamers can do is to wait. It is unclear whether damage modelling will resolve cheating issues or improving driving experience. I remember Kazunori mentioned that some people will be frustrated by car damage because it increases the difficulty.

Once that hurdle is crossed, then realistic damages is just eye-candy.

 

[upnorthsox]

It isn't even that imo. The environments make a BIG difference--if they didn't we would all be racing in Atari style worlds with photorealistic cars. It is called balance.

Take PGR4 which by all accounts has extremely detailed environments that look great. Now I am sure there are games that may have higher resolution textures or more geometry in the world assets. In fact the PGR buildings when up close have surprisingly "low" texture resolution.

But at (a) the distance you race from the buildings and (b) the speed you travel, even when going slow, BC reached the right compromise for detail.

So it isn't an issue of, "Environments don't matter" -- of *course* they matter! The question is if a low resolutiond decal 30 feet off track makes a difference to *harming* the visual experience while gaming. Does a "low quality" proper that looks great in gameplay (but poor if you go off the gameplay "track" to go check it out closely) really matter? Do we want designers to create far off / less relevant props of equal quality and diminish other props to do so? e.g. Should the mountains 30 miles away in racing games be amazing photos or should they model all that in realtime? Duh.

Anyhow, with Burnout crushing racing games in terms of damage and GRiD laughing at the sims (even maybe Toca 3!) in terms of visual modeling I get a chuckle looking back at all the anti-damage rhetoric for sims in the 2005-2007 threads here at B3D. Where is all the venom demanding GT5 *not* include damage modelling until it is realistic in terms of performance and visuals? That line of thought seems more appropriate for this thread than lapsing back into comparing.

Did everyone just change their mind? Where are all those GT fanatics that bemoaned damage ever coming to their franchise? (Real question! A lot better than where the above was going too).

You can start here and it go off and on for the next 20 pages or so.

http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1323330&postcount=2752

 

[djskribbles]

Environments matter, but not nearly as much to me. When I'm playing, I'm hardly focusing on the environment (only on long straightaways), and in replays I actually focus less on the environments because I like to admire my driving skills so I focus mainly on my vehicle. :smile:

 

[patsu]

Car junkies would most likely focus their attention on the cars (Just like how you admire a beautiful woman without looking at the background or her footprints). A sim guy would pay more attention to damage, realism, sense of speed, handling, etc. A graphics guy may look at the entire picture, composition, effects and more. Most of the fans will be a combination of all three.

Don't think we will ever arrive at one clear cut position though.

 

[tha_con]

I guess I should be clear. Environments matter, I just never pay attention to them while I'm racing, so they don't necessarily matter to me ALL of the time.

 

[DJ12]

The difference between speed limit in WRC and the other race modes is that in WRC your car is not allowed to surpass a certain limit while racing. Dont quote m on that though because I dont remember clearly. In other race modes the speed limit is directly related to the car classes i.e you are not allowed to use an S class car in a certain A class car race.

As far as I recall the only "speed limits" are those of the country roads you are driving on between stages. The only limits on stages are bravery and power.

All the cars have pretty much 300bhp as they run relatively tiny turbos to stop them being more powerful than group B monsters of years gone by.

 

[PowerK]

New trailer for GT5

Toyota FT-86 Concept Trailer (720p)

Right Click -> Save As (109MB)
http://cdn2.gran-turismo.com/jp/common/data2/movie/20091016_ft86/ft86.wmv

 

[Phil]

There's some talk regarding the FT-86 trailer that suggests the Stelvio alpine-pass (2nd highest pass in the Alps) could be featured in GT5...

link:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=18081267&postcount=13192

 

[DJ12]

Is that the road Top Gear went down when trying to find the Worlds best road?

 

[Phil]

That's the one.

 

[deepbrown]

That's the one.

Holy shit! I really hope it's in there. We all deserve to race that track. I'd put it a very high possibility since the Top Gear test track will be in the game and I'm sure the guys would have asked Polyphony to put that track in the game.

:O

Hurray.

 

[patsu]

How the *beep* do you race on that road ?

 

[DJ12]

I hope you can bin it off the side of the road. That will be fun to watch.

 

[Phil]

Holy shit! I really hope it's in there. We all deserve to race that track. I'd put it a very high possibility since the Top Gear test track will be in the game and I'm sure the guys would have asked Polyphony to put that track in the game.

:O

Hurray.

Don't get your hopes up. :smile:
Stelvio might be impressive stats wise (2757m / 48 hairpins on the east-side alone), but it's far from the best road ever. The hairpins are so tight, that realistically you wouldn't get around in a Lamborghini let alone in a race car. The elevation around those corners also make it extremely dificult to get through without scrapping off any spoiler/splitter or even touching down. When I was there, the only way I was able to get through those hairpins was to take the outter path of the corner and that at less speed than you would walk by foot.

Apart from the name and the scenery, Stelvio wouldn't be a track I'd model in a game like this. Not the east-side anyway, the west-side that leads to Bormio though has some bloddy good driving though. Maybe if they use the Stelvio setting and modify it a bit...


IMO, Col d'Iseran (highest pass in Alps) or the Route de la Bonette (highest paved road in the alps) would be better suited and are much better to drive. Col de Turini is quite a nice stretch of road too (featured in the same Top Gear episode), although some parts are extremely narrow and the road is in a very bad shape. All these are in the south of France.

In Switzerland, Susten, Grimsel, Flüela and the Furka pass (just to name a few) are also much better driving roads that not only have the scenery but the excellent roads and corners as well...


Still to have any such a track in GT would be a dream come true. The Eiger track, as good as it is, does not resemble any alpine pass road, eventhough it's the closest in a GT game yet.

 

[Nesh]

How the *beep* do you race on that road ?

wuss

j/k

Thats what is known as "challenge"