DonFerrari said:
Crash modelling itself wouldn't be that hard. two bodies, quantity of energy, angle and speed of impact, center of gravity... they could model the result of the crash, the cosmetic damage they could also stipulate with the mesh damaging. On one video Kaz said something interesting... "simulating driving physics isn't really hard, we think it is, but if it is complicated is because you are doing it wrong". I guess the reason for they not doing crashing physics is more lack of interest (and that most people would turn off because they would lose all races, even worse when AI bump you even when you are doing the turns the right way) than anything. And how do you evaluate how close GT simulates the driving aspect of the race? On my small experience I can say it's quite good on the fundamentals.. after playing for 6 GTs and over probably 2000h I raced kart for the first time and won, having the 3rd best lap of the month at it (20min race) and most of what I did was from learnt on GT 6 kart experience. I also know that Kaz had never run Nurburgring in real life before going for a race over there (but had over 1000h of Nurburgring racing in GT) and came out 1st or 2nd on the class he gone. GT Academy winners are racing on good level against pros that raced whole life, etc... But in the case of GT Academy and Kaz they wouldn't say anything bad because they are interested in the success of the product. So what is your opinion on the translation from your gaming to your pro racing? |
Tbh I’m pretty convinced those weak ass console CPUs are the reason why we can’t have nice things. How would they be able to cope with the crash physics of 20 highly detailed cars while still doing AI etc?! It’s just not possible.
Edit..oh yeah, just saw you’ve covered that yourself in another post already..
We'll talk again next gen.