Reply
Highlighted
Umbrella Scientist
Registered: 05/06/2008
Offline
12271 posts
 

Re: GT5's poor collision physics and AI

Sep 29, 2009

Kenshin71 wrote: 

 

OK, thanks for that. Maybe I just saw 'damage' and my eyes glazed over. Disagree about AI and online. The online should not be a crutch for poor AI. There will be plenty of people who will hardly or perhaps never go online so the AI needs to be pretty good. A lot of people started playing GT before online existed, many will avoid it because of the clowns that deliberately crash etc.


As someone who has also played since the first game, ever since GT3, all I've wanted was a good, online GT. It's the only 'major advancement' left to make (ok and damage). Even with Prologue, we've made those clowns all but non existant, and we will continue to inform those who don't know how fun online racing is (especially compared to the AI). And, in the end, it boils down to...no AI can be human. Period.

 

 


Regarding the comment about having to take collision physics and damage together, not really. You can develop a collision physics model that is independent of damage, in fact I'd say that's how most devs do it. I read in an interview Yamauchi said they started working on damage only a couple of months ago. They should have been working on a new collision physics system way before that.


 
Make some examples, and point out to us what you see as wrong? The car deflects at appropriate angels, and travels a fair distance, compared to the moementum and angle of impact. Right now, if you hit a wall at a sharp angle, and high speed, you deflect, carry a lot of speed, and spin away from the wall. If you hit a shallow angle, more of your momentum goes in to the wall, and there's a lot less deflection. It's pretty damned good! 

 

DriverSports.org
Message 91 of 121 (12 Views)
Sackboy
Registered: 07/16/2007
Offline
479 posts
 

Re: GT5's poor collision physics and AI

Sep 29, 2009

MastrGT wrote:

Kenshin71 wrote:
I'm not here to debate.

No kidding.

It also seems as if you are not here to listen to what people try to tell you, either. For all of the following posts in which members tried to help you out and explain things, in varying degrees, in their own way, you hardly even commented on what was in most of the responses. In most cases you either flat out ignored what people tried to tell you or you didn't understand what they really wrote. This makes respondents jobs much more difficult.

#2 - sort of
#5 - directly
#36 - sort of
#40 - sort of
#56 - directly
#64 - directly
#65 - directly
#66 - directly
#70 - sort of directly
#73 - sort of directly
#76 - sort of directly
#78- sort of
#80 - directly
#87 - directly


Kenshin71 wrote:
I think most objective people recognize the collision physics are poor, the question is will PD do anything about it?

Read through the above posts again. Most of us recognise that what we've seen is only a snapshot of where they were at the time of TGS, that's all. We are the ones being objective here. I don't remember anyone saying that what we've seen is "good enough", it's OK. We also have found out that it seems the damage engine, which involves the collision physics that so concerns you, was made in only a couple of months prior to recent unveiling. Given that PD is going to take their sweet time about things, expect improvements. They probably won't tell you what improvements are coming, but expect them anyway.

On top of all of this, only some cars will have deformation and that should affect the physics. Knowing PD's past releases, I can't guarantee that you will ever be satisfied, though.


Kenshin71 wrote:
I've seen collision physics in replays of other games and GT5 is not up to par.

Considering you've only seen a few demo clips and have not played the demo yourself yet, what's your point?
Wait for the finished product to say it isn't up to par.

Cheers,

Most of the posts seem a defence of the poor collision physics and AI. I'm not interested in debate with those sort of people, no. It's like debating with Creationists. I just want to get the mesage out, it needs to be changed, improved.

 

The line I highlighted, do you not see why people might have a problem with that? Think about it.

Message 92 of 121 (12 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
I Only Post Everything
Registered: 08/14/2009
Offline
1080 posts
 

Re: GT5's poor collision physics and AI

Sep 29, 2009

well... this isint a place for religion so i wouldnt even use it as an example. there are a number of aspects of the games collision registration and AI that are immensly defensable, for you to broad-brush the opinions of everyone who defends the game truly shows you're not looking at this with an open mind. it appears to me you have an agenda and are looking for people to comiserate with you. as mentioned we will likely all readily admit that GT isnt flawless, but, most of us try to be reasonable in our expectations and a few of us are smart enough to know not to make demands.

 

your assertion that the collision physics are "poor" is purely a matter of your opinion as there are not facts presented to back it up. without any firsthand experience or facts there is little left but to look at what we've seen and compare it to our own experience with past GT titles. Debating with people that only see your side of an issue isnt debating, its rallying.

Photobucket
Message 93 of 121 (12 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Umbrella Scientist
Registered: 05/06/2008
Offline
12271 posts
 

Re: GT5's poor collision physics and AI

Sep 29, 2009

Kenshin71 wrote:

Most of the posts seem a defence of the poor collision physics and AI. I'm not interested in debate with those sort of people, no. It's like debating with Creationists. I just want to get the mesage out, it needs to be changed, improved.

 

The line I highlighted, do you not see why people might have a problem with that? Think about it.


That's your opinion though, and others have the opposite. And obviously most people don't agree with you. You asked, and you found out. Truth is true.

 

But if you really paid attention, you should realize that in some way a lot of people agreed with you. Unfortunately, your eyes must have kept glazing over. When I talked about real deformation, I was partially agreeing that there is an extent to which the current collision physics aren't realistic. But to me, the only direction to go with it, the only way to fix it is to incorporate real deformation. Not just the superficial stuff, because that was never what I was talking about.

DriverSports.org
Message 94 of 121 (12 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Sackboy
Registered: 05/22/2008
Offline
392 posts
 

Re: GT5's poor collision physics and AI

Sep 29, 2009
@Kenshin71,   You say you just want to get the word out that it needs to be changed and you post this information on a DISCUSSION FORUM and then when people discuss your topic and use your own evidence to back up their claims, you choose to do what?  Ignore the points they make that are contradictory to yours.  It just doesn't make any sense to come to a DISCUSSION FORUM, start a topic, realize that very few people agree with you 100% and then say you don't want to debate the topic.  This behavior is akin to the child getting mad at his playmates and taking his ball and going home.  If you just wanted to put the information out there, you should have bought some ad space (maybe a billboard in Japan near PD's studios) instead of coming to a DISCUSSION FORUM where people are going to have opinions that differ from yours. 
DIsclaimer: My opinions are just that, MY opinions. They in no way shape or form express the opinions of anyone else unless they happen to agree with me.

Actual quote from a driver: "I never brake check anyone, but if I see you right behind me, I'm going to brake as hard as I can"
Message 95 of 121 (12 Views)
MVP Support
Registered: 12/04/2003
Online
44383 posts
 

Re: GT5's poor collision physics and AI

Sep 29, 2009

Kenshin71 wrote:

MastrGT wrote:



Kenshin71 wrote:
I've seen collision physics in replays of other games and GT5 is not up to par.

Considering you've only seen a few demo clips and have not played the demo yourself yet, what's your point?
Wait for the finished product to say it isn't up to par.

Cheers,

Most of the posts seem a defence of the poor collision physics and AI. I'm not interested in debate with those sort of people, no. It's like debating with Creationists. I just want to get the mesage out, it needs to be changed, improved.

 

The line I highlighted, do you not see why people might have a problem with that? Think about it.



I don't have to think about it. I've seen these discussion before, been part of them and know that we can't do anything about this sort of thing, except endlessly discuss it and hope for the better, only you haven't discussed much.

PD has their plan, they are working on it, and we have to wait to see what we get. PD has already heard the complaints, voiced world-wide, about what they are presenting. Maybe they didn't like what they heard and that is part of the reason we are now looking at March/Japan. We don't know this, for sure, because they haven't directly said anything. If it is true, then the damage was already done before you posted here, PD's minions will keep at work, and we'll get a better sim regardless.

Cheers,
Message 96 of 121 (12 Views)
Sackboy
Registered: 07/16/2007
Offline
479 posts
 

Re: GT5's poor collision physics and AI

Sep 30, 2009

meatbag_ wrote:

well... this isint a place for religion so i wouldnt even use it as an example. there are a number of aspects of the games collision registration and AI that are immensly defensable, for you to broad-brush the opinions of everyone who defends the game truly shows you're not looking at this with an open mind. it appears to me you have an agenda and are looking for people to comiserate with you. as mentioned we will likely all readily admit that GT isnt flawless, but, most of us try to be reasonable in our expectations and a few of us are smart enough to know not to make demands.

 

your assertion that the collision physics are "poor" is purely a matter of your opinion as there are not facts presented to back it up. without any firsthand experience or facts there is little left but to look at what we've seen and compare it to our own experience with past GT titles. Debating with people that only see your side of an issue isnt debating, its rallying.


 

My only agenda is for PD to make a game with good collision physics and AI.

 

The fact is a Ferrari is bouncing off guardrails at high speed in an absurd way. Not sure what facts you want, the fact it bounces off a stationary object like a bumper car? The speedometer registers a decrease while visually it looks ridiculous? I can't see how anyone in their right mind could say the collison physics in that video are anywhere near good. Comparing with past GTs is pointless since the game has always been known for its bumper car physics and dumb as rocks AI. You should be comparing with other current gen racing games/sims on the market.

 

This mentality of 'be reasonable with your expectations' and 'know not to make demands' is defeatist. I've been in the betas for LBP, Resistance 2, Killzone 2, Uncharted 2, MAG, so I know there are developers who really want to improve their game and listen to the community. They actively seek feedback and weigh up expectations and demands.

 

You mentioned GT not being flawless, is there a thread where the flaws and suggested fixes/improvements are listed and discussed? I'd like to see what issues others on this board have.

 

Message 97 of 121 (12 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Uncharted Territory
Registered: 10/03/2007
Offline
1436 posts
 

Re: GT5's poor collision physics and AI

Sep 30, 2009
Grabs popcorn and a Koozzy blanket
Listen to the lullaby
of carbon monoxide


Message 98 of 121 (12 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Umbrella Scientist
Registered: 05/06/2008
Offline
12271 posts
 

Re: GT5's poor collision physics and AI

Sep 30, 2009

GT5 Prologue's "Quirks, Bugs, and Glitches"

 

Tree'd

Message Edited by ForgetfuI on 09-29-2009 07:58 PM
DriverSports.org
Message 99 of 121 (12 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
Sackboy
Registered: 01/21/2007
Offline
642 posts
 

Re: GT5's poor collision physics and AI

Sep 30, 2009

Kenshin71 wrote:

meatbag_ wrote:

well... this isint a place for religion so i wouldnt even use it as an example. there are a number of aspects of the games collision registration and AI that are immensly defensable, for you to broad-brush the opinions of everyone who defends the game truly shows you're not looking at this with an open mind. it appears to me you have an agenda and are looking for people to comiserate with you. as mentioned we will likely all readily admit that GT isnt flawless, but, most of us try to be reasonable in our expectations and a few of us are smart enough to know not to make demands.

 

your assertion that the collision physics are "poor" is purely a matter of your opinion as there are not facts presented to back it up. without any firsthand experience or facts there is little left but to look at what we've seen and compare it to our own experience with past GT titles. Debating with people that only see your side of an issue isnt debating, its rallying.


 

My only agenda is for PD to make a game with good collision physics and AI.

 

The fact is a Ferrari is bouncing off guardrails at high speed in an absurd way. Not sure what facts you want, the fact it bounces off a stationary object like a bumper car? The speedometer registers a decrease while visually it looks ridiculous? I can't see how anyone in their right mind could say the collison physics in that video are anywhere near good. Comparing with past GTs is pointless since the game has always been known for its bumper car physics and dumb as rocks AI. You should be comparing with other current gen racing games/sims on the market.

 

This mentality of 'be reasonable with your expectations' and 'know not to make demands' is defeatist. I've been in the betas for LBP, Resistance 2, Killzone 2, Uncharted 2, MAG, so I know there are developers who really want to improve their game and listen to the community. They actively seek feedback and weigh up expectations and demands.

 

You mentioned GT not being flawless, is there a thread where the flaws and suggested fixes/improvements are listed and discussed? I'd like to see what issues others on this board have.

 


Ask, and you shall receive! Here you go.

 

 

P.S. Forgetful, Great minds blah blah blah...

Message Edited by DragonX2X on 09-29-2009 11:00 PM
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
Message 100 of 121 (12 Views)
Reply
0 Likes