What do you think of SegaGT Online models? (spelling fixed)

[chaphack]

I think they look polygontastic!!
Ahhh, cool to throw polygons around man, now the cars look solider than ever. 12 cars-60fps-online-480p-widescreen.

 

[PC-Engine]

The car models look great, however, SEGA needs to work on the paint job. 12 detailed cars and 60 fps progressive is pretty sweet though.

 

[Lazy8s]

Wow! The details like the ridges and headlights on the front of the cars are fleshed out the best I've yet seen, and the shading and reflections on the body of the front white car in the first shot are very convincing.

 

[Li Mu Bai]

Ummmm.....these are clearly replay screens that aren't even as polished nor as photorealistic as GT4's. While I commend Sega for the 12 cars & 60fps, but it's not exactly as if this is an impossible feat on the X-Box. (Moto GP2)

 

[chaphack]

Stop making posts which do nothing to contribute to a thread, even one you created

 

[rabidrabbit]

I thought that for GT Online Sega was going to use much the same engine as in GT2002, and just add the online component.

This looks much better than GT2002 though, good to see Sega putting effort to improve the looks of this game. if they only could get the physics to Gran Turismo level, then they would have a true rival.

These are some of the most impressive car models I've seen for a console racing game.

 

[Li Mu Bai]

While I commend Sega for the 12 cars & 60fps, but it's not exactly as if this is an impossible feat on the X-Box. (Moto GP2)

dont you know, Xbox can NOT keep 60fps with complex graphics?

So I've been reading, but if only the physics were less middle of the road. Chaphack while I'm not doubting the Box's bw latency to pull off 60fps, though I would hardly call this a complex game structure.

 

[chaphack]

So I've been reading, but if only the physics were less middle of the road. Chaphack while I'm not doubting the Box's bw latency to pull off 60fps, though I would hardly call this a complex game structure.

By the devs, MotoGP2 has quite a complex physics.
Still 60fps 480p 12 well modelled cars, is quite comparable complex in its own ways.

 

[rabidrabbit]

So I've been reading, but if only the physics were less middle of the road. Chaphack while I'm not doubting the Box's bw latency to pull off 60fps, though I would hardly call this a complex game structure.

By the devs, MotoGP2 has quite a complex physics.
Still 60fps 480p 12 well modelled cars, is quite comparable complex in its own ways.

Bike racing physics are not really comparable to car racing physics.
2 wheels vs. 4 wheels.
Mostly flat race courses vs. bumpy rally courses.
'By the devs' = hype

 

[chaphack]

Bike racing physics are not really comparable to car racing physics.
2 wheels vs. 4 wheels.
Mostly flat race courses vs. bumpy rally courses.
'By the devs' = hype

you can always compare bike games with bike games.
then again calculating 16 bikes is a handful itself, compared to say, 6 cars?
rally games are rally games, we are on the wavelength of flat car race course. yeay?
i will do your last sentence, if everyone else, does the same.

 

[rabidrabbit]

i will do your last sentence, if everyone else, does the same.

Keep your **** hands of my sentence!

anyway, again I didn't understand half of your reply, so I cannot reply back, sorry

Edit: edited to clarify that I didn't understand, not that I was cornered (see chaps post below)

Edit: to reply to part that I did understand. You do not calculate the physics all the time, for all 16 or 6 vehicles that are racing.
Neither am I a physics expert, but I'd guess that calculating physics for a car is more complex than calculating physics for a motorbike. Though the bike's weawing driver might add one component that even the odds (if the bike driver is done in any complex way).

 

[chaphack]

anyway, again I didn't understand half of your reply, so I cannot reply back, sorry

"didn't understand" or "no way to reply back"? ie. cornered.

 

[notAFanB]

you can always compare bike games with bike games.

yes you can

then again calculating 16 bikes is a handful itself, compared to say, 6 cars?

unknown since I've forgotton most of my physics class and am unlear of the shortcuts Devs tend to use.

rally games are rally games, we are on the wavelength of flat car race course. yeay?

even then if you are serious about producing 'some' semblence of simulation you might have to deal with some hefty physics. can anyone give an overview of the routines used?


PS: yes segaGT looks rather sweet.
[/quote]

 

[Evil_Cloud]

Yes it looks quite nice, but don't all replays look 'rather nice'?

 

[chaphack]

cars look very very solid, even when comparing "all other" replays.

 

[Phil]

reply to part that I did understand. You do not calculate the physics all the time, for all 16 or 6 vehicles that are racing.
Neither am I a physics expert, but I'd guess that calculating physics for a car is more complex than calculating physics for a motorbike. Though the bike's weawing driver might add one component that even the odds (if the bike driver is done in any complex way).

Is there really a difference? Physics == physics, regardless if it's a bike or a car. More wheels is simply a factor that gets increased, just like aerodynamics etc. The only difference I see is that you'd be throwing other attributes around (a bike racer with more info regarding a driver, i.e. how he moves or crashing info [more complex collision detection])...

It'd be interesting to have Faf's or someone who as worked on physic engines input.