• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

Gran Turismo 6 |OT| Moon Rover The Castle

Apr 15, 2005
8,847
0
0
He said we'd hear more about the new track in a February update which didn't materialise, then he said we'd get an update before March 7th, possibly the BMW VGT and surprise, surprise... GTP is just like King con artist Polyphony - full of shit.
 

ruttyboy

Member
Aug 31, 2010
2,070
0
0
He said we'd hear more about the new track in a February update which didn't materialise, then he said we'd get an update before March 7th, possibly the BMW VGT and surprise, surprise... GTP is just like King con artist Polyphony - full of shit.

To be fair to Jordan that's what he was told directly by "Sony and Polyphony Digital representatives" at that stream event back in January. In a way it's heartwarming to know he doesn't get any special treatment and is lied to just like the rest of us ;-)
 

Kukuk

Banned
Dec 8, 2008
1,103
0
0
Man, I just can't fucking do the 24 minutes of Le Mans. Using the Sauber C9, I just cannot stop the thing from spinning out while breaking. I'll try giving it a little throttle to pull myself out of it, but that only seems to make it worse. I'm not trying to turn while breaking, so that's making me even more baffled.

Any tips on cars, or adjustments to this one?

Oh, it's also killing me because it takes like 2 seconds to shift up. Even if I can break properly, cars just fly past me, because I can't pick up speed fast enough.
 

Dead Man

Member
Aug 24, 2007
54,245
0
0
Man, I just can't fucking do the 24 minutes of Le Mans. Using the Sauber C9, I just cannot stop the thing from spinning out while breaking. I'll try giving it a little throttle to pull myself out of it, but that only seems to make it worse. I'm not trying to turn while breaking, so that's making me even more baffled.

Any tips on cars, or adjustments to this one?

Oh, it's also killing me because it takes like 2 seconds to shift up. Even if I can break properly, cars just fly past me, because I can't pick up speed fast enough.

If tuning is mostly the same as in previous GT's, increasing the front brake bias may help.
 

ruttyboy

Member
Aug 31, 2010
2,070
0
0
New update. No new content or significant additions, but the babyfication of the game continues apace with traction control and SRF for Karts...
 

offshore

Member
May 26, 2009
8,292
0
0
UK
Update is pathetic.

What I don't get is that immediately after GT5's release, PD were actually listening and implementing things people wanted, and pretty quickly as well.

That all seems to have gone right out of the window with GT6. It's baffling.
 

offshore

Member
May 26, 2009
8,292
0
0
UK
It feels like PD has moved on to another project at this point.
Probably, but surely this is a mistake.

- Why burn your most passionate, hardcore, GT buyers - those who didn't ditch the series after 5 - by not delivering updates people want sharpish?

- Why, if Sony/PD knew that they couldn't deliver updates for 6 sharpish, did they release the game?

- Why, if Sony/PD knew that the game wouldn't be finished, did they even release the game in the first place?

- Hell, why did they even announce it at all if they knew they'd be problems?

I'd said a few pages ago that all this mismanagement by Sony probably wouldn't matter by the time GT PS4 is shown. Honestly, I'm not so sure now. After GT5, PD did work to update the game damn sharpish, and yet still the vast majority of the audience left, leading to GT6 flopping.

Now that the ones who have bought GT6 are left with missing features 3 months after release - and with next gen now taking off - why should they trust GT7 will be any different? The whole thing is an absolute goddamned shambles and someone at Sony should be fired for their utter incompetence about their inability to manage this studio and GT properly.
 

Dilly

Banned
Mar 24, 2008
9,667
3
1,035
Belgium
I'm coming from years of PC sims, and recently bought a PS3 and GT6 to see what the fuzz is about.

Find it a bit sad to have such a great car roster, with such a lackluster career in general. Compared to what the likes of pCARS is trying to achieve with much less.
 

benzy

Member
Sep 18, 2010
9,184
195
875
Driveclub recently went back to the drawing board... Maybe Sony is pushing PD to work more on GT7 now instead of bringing out content for gt6?

We were supposed to have at least one DLC track per month after release. I wonder what happened.
 

IISANDERII

Member
Feb 1, 2012
10,491
56
505
Hi Park
I'm liking this update! Before entering a room, it tells you the performance restrictions and it tells you if boost is on. That alone will be a huge time save.
 

MGR

Member
Mar 25, 2009
556
0
0
Pitstop / tyre wear bug still present? Check.

New UI features are fine, but how about fixing the broken shit first?
 

IISANDERII

Member
Feb 1, 2012
10,491
56
505
Hi Park
I don't think they can fix the pit/tire issue; they designed endurance races around the problem by drastically reducing them. Must be serious.

Anyway another inestimable benefit of this update is that you can now remove the floating names above cars when racing online.
 

Ted

Member
May 13, 2013
925
0
355
/home
Does anyone fancy some clean GAF road car racing on Saturday? Anytime GMT 10pm onwards.

Clio (CS), M3 (SH), RGT (SH), that kind of stuff. All stock, no cocks?
 

RaijinFY

Member
Jun 7, 2005
4,743
34
1,465
37
Probably, but surely this is a mistake.

- Why burn your most passionate, hardcore, GT buyers - those who didn't ditch the series after 5 - by not delivering updates people want sharpish?

- Why, if Sony/PD knew that they couldn't deliver updates for 6 sharpish, did they release the game?

- Why, if Sony/PD knew that the game wouldn't be finished, did they even release the game in the first place?

- Hell, why did they even announce it at all if they knew they'd be problems?

I'd said a few pages ago that all this mismanagement by Sony probably wouldn't matter by the time GT PS4 is shown. Honestly, I'm not so sure now. After GT5, PD did work to update the game damn sharpish, and yet still the vast majority of the audience left, leading to GT6 flopping.

Now that the ones who have bought GT6 are left with missing features 3 months after release - and with next gen now taking off - why should they trust GT7 will be any different? The whole thing is an absolute goddamned shambles and someone at Sony should be fired for their utter incompetence about their inability to manage this studio and GT properly.


Yep pretty much...
You can say to quite a bit about MS lately but one thing is sure, they would have not treated a mainline Halo like Sony did with GT6.
 

ruttyboy

Member
Aug 31, 2010
2,070
0
0
Does anyone fancy some clean GAF road car racing on Saturday? Anytime GMT 10pm onwards.

Clio (CS), M3 (SH), RGT (SH), that kind of stuff. All stock, no cocks?

If I'm around on Saturday night (I don't know yet) then count me in!
 

amar212

Member
Jul 13, 2007
6,383
0
920
www.gtsurgeons.com
I don't think they can fix the pit/tire issue; they designed endurance races around the problem by drastically reducing them. Must be serious.
.

After commencing a small investigation with one of my friends, reading various subjective explanations on GTP and thinking of ways game actually works, I today believe that particular problem (tyre/fuel issue) is just another RAM issue, closely interconnected with sub-engine-mechanic of PP calculations.

First thing I "discovered" is how my own personal experience is not drastic as many reported ones. I never had drastic changes in tyre-wear nor drastic changes in fuel depletion in races I've used for my testing (Willow Springs, Suzuka Wet and Silverstone endurances) as other reports. However, I discovered why: I always run no-ABS with custom brake-bias and I always take into consideration the sub-mechanic that depletes the fuel faster in higher-revs (as it is since GT5).

I observed some replays of my friends and discovered they always run the race in almost 100% of grip/cornering abilities/braking/revs of the car. Also, they were all doing the same thing after the first pit-entry: they would speed up their pace drastically, go into overtakes aggressively, etc, in order to sub-consciously (I presume) compensate for time lost in the pits.

I did most of my testings on Suzuka Wet race, using the same car all the time - NSX GT500 LM Base Model. Since wet-sequence was always the same (rain starts falling in lap 2, ends in lap 8) I could run very consistent laps throughout my testings (which led to similar conclusions on Silverstone race). After the first 5 laps - before entering the pits - I had tyre-wear around 7(F)-6(R) and something below half tank depleted. After the race end (lap 10) I had 6(F)-5(R) tyres for the second stint with fuel around the same 10% difference more-less. So, I had to agree that difference is there and it exists, but it was not drastic as many were reporting and I would probably never realize it even exist if it was not reported.

So, I start to observe why is my experience a bit different and what could be the reasons for obvious difference in wear/depletion (and laptimes, which I will tackle soon).

First I discovered the aforementioned difference in tyre-wear when using ABS-off. I had pretty much balanced wear throughout the race, unlike other reports. I realized how the ABS is the main culprit for that, because of the default brake-balance that game have for ABS and which noone probably even bothers to adjust. As we are all aware, game uses default BB of 5-5 for all cars and it actually becomes a significant issue when running an race with tyre wear with ABS ON because of two problems:

1) default 5- balance is not the accurate balance for mass-shifting that corresponds with suspensions and individual characteristics of any vehicle - as I preach since GT5, the BB for every car should be adjusted accordingly and individually, either you use ABS or not (but it becomes a prerogative if ABS is not used), and
2) default 5-5 balance with ABS-on does not "override" the proper balance values and becomes a menace once the tyre-wear comes in picture because it actually wears the tyres - especially the rear ones - much more then it should

With my NSX I used 6-1 balance (one I usually use for Race compound for MR/FR vehicles below 1400kg of curb weight) and I had the above results in wear (7-6 after first pit, 6-5 when race ended).

*** for those unfamiliar with my personal "non-ABS crusade" for GT games it is worth noticing how "ABS" in Gran Turismo games IS NOT SIMULATING real-life ABS effect nor it has any connection with it. ABS in Gran Turismo is just a braking assist that not only prevents the brakes from locking (in totally artificial way compared to real-life ABS), but it also influences on traction and stability properties, despite player have other assists deactivated. BUt nevermind that now.

Second, I noticed how almost noone (of other replays I watched and reports I read on GTP) takes into account the very ancient property of tyres in GT series (since GT3), where fresh set of tyres is actually cold immediately when you get out of the pits. The actual first lap on fresh tyres becomes a crucial for their later "development" during the race, because damaging the tyres in cold-state have serious repercussions on their wear in later stages. Because they are cold, fresh tyres don't have strong lateral grip as heated tyres and you have to be careful not to take much lateral forcing into red-zone because they will wear unevenly and much faster later. The key "issue" here is how all races in GT start from the rolling-start and with tyres already "heated" for the race - so many players are used to drive on 100% of potential from the start, despite of the stint. However, it is very damaging to run cold tyres in the same way as pre-heated and I see a second reason for greater wear of tyres in the second stint because of that. But that issue couldn't affect the wear so significantly (either in my or others experiences), so there have to be some another thing on top of everything.

And third, as I sad before, I discovered how the difference in my fuel depletion is also not drastic as other reports, but how it definitely exist. As aforementioned, by observing other people replays I discovered I actually run races much more calmly and conservatively, without going into red areas of revs and with early shifting. I have to notion another race-related "issue" that appeared, and that is how after the pitting I run into much more traffic than in the first stint because of the position of the AI cars and their pit-sequences and I was getting into the slipstream more often, which also results with much higher revs and faster depletion.

So, I highlighted three reasons: brake balance/ABS, tyre heat state usage and actual usage of the power (engine) related to fuel consumption. All of those could partially answer the reasoning for the change of depletion/wear among stints, but even together they couldn't make the difference so drastic.

But, there was another serious thing besides actual depletion/wear: the lap-times in second stint were always slower then in the first stint. No matter how hard you try, you simply can't drive times in the second stint close to those in the first. All factors above also could't influence that by themselves by no logic. But there had to be a logic for all that. So, what is the fourth factor - and IMO most important issue?

It is actual PP sub-calculation engine or, as I call it, "inability of game to determine the starting PP values for the cars in pre-pit and after-pit state". So, what the hell does that even mean?

By observing the times on Suzuka Wet race I noticed the strange pattern: When my first lap time (on pre-heated tyres) and full tank was 2:04/2:05, my 4th lap (prior to pit entry) was 2:01. But after I went out of pits, my first fast lap (6th lap) was 2:09 and my last lap would actually be around 2:05, 2:04 in the best occurrence. And then all puzzles begun to fit.

My personal belief is game simply can't override two different states when entering/exiting the pits:

>>A) first pit entry "state", where car weight is its default PP weight (one displayed in Dealership) + fuel weight and minus fuel used during the first stint, and
>>B) pit exit "state", AKA the moment when cars start to accept additional fuel in the pits and continuing the race with new tyres and "newly added" fuel

I believe that car in the "first state" have its Dealership weight with added weight of the fuel already INCLUDED in the overall weight - and that game ALWAYS uses that weight, with or without fuel depletion enabled, in the races as cars starting weight (in all game modes). What I am basically saying is that cars in game have additional weight of the fuel included all the time during race as their TRUE START WEIGHT VALUE. So, during the first stint, the depletion sub-mechanic is simply lowering the weight of the car accordingly to consumption form that "TSWV". For sake of the numbers, let's say that car have Dealership weight of 1200kg+200kg of fuel = TSWV of 1400 kg. After the first stint, I am entering the pits with 3/5 of the fuel consumed, so my car actually have approx. 1280 kg (>>A). Because of the lowered weight I managed to run faster laps as fuel depleted (and it was always lap #3 or sometimes #4 because of the combination of lower weight and fastest state of tyres and maybe some slipstreaming).

And then comes my "pit exit state" (>>B). I believe that game simply can't - does not have RAM on disposal for that for all cars in race - to calculate the new weight accordingly to state of depletion (1280 kg in my example). I presume game simply "reads" the first lap starting value in full (aforementioned "True Start Weight Value" of 1400 kg) and lumps extra fuel on that number as addition = resulting with car that have more weight than on the very start of the race. In my example-calculation, when exiting the pits after the first stint, car have all added fuel added on TSWV weight, so if I decided to go with 50 litres (100 kilograms of weight for example), instead of having 1380 kg when leaving pits, car actually have 1500 kg - 100 kg more than it had on the very start of the race.

When I put that idea into aforementioned 3 reasons for occurrence of increased tyre-wear/fuel depletion that are - in my opinion - simply result of way people actually drive the race, it became only logical explanation of the overall issue.

It can explain why is the actual fastest lap in the 2nd stint - the last lap of the race - almost the same as the first lap of the race = only in that moment car have the same weight (using the additional fuel added on TSWV value in the pits brings the weight down to initial TSWV value, but never close to weight car have when entering the pits for the first time)

It can explain why are my tyres more worn in the 2nd stint = during the second stint car is almost 10% heavier than in the 1st stint - due to fuel being added on the "TSWV" value - which results with more mass being pushed on suspensions and increases the wear (more weight-more wear)

So, to conclude, I think there are two groups of factors: individual (where combination of ABS and actual way the car is driven by the player influences difference in wear between stints) and the problem with calculation explained above, which is purely issue of the game.

All above is my subjective and personal belief.

I guess it could be corrected if PD would find a way to allocate RAM to keep the real-time weight-data (Dealership weight + remaining fuel) prior the fuel has been added in the pits, but I have no idea how actually RAM-taxing could that be.

Sorry for the lengthy read, I did my best to try to explain my theory.
 

ruttyboy

Member
Aug 31, 2010
2,070
0
0
Amar's Investigation

An interesting read Amar. I can wholeheartedly believe that there is a weight calculation error and follow your reasoning based on the evidence you present, however, I am not prepared to put it down to RAM limitations.

I'm no programmer, but I don't believe it's due to RAM because:

a) Surely the weight of the car is just an integer and so literally a few bytes (256MB isn't that small!)

b) That weight integer already exists for the car (otherwise it wouldn't know what the weight is at all) and so it would take no more memory whether the weight was incorrect or not.

Besides, if RAM is at such an extreme premium, it would be madness to store both the TSWV and the dynamic weight of the car when you could just increment the dynamic weight as necessary and store one value rather than two.

If the weight is indeed wrong as you suggest then surely it's simply down to someone getting the calculation wrong?

In fact your reasoning implies that RAM isn't a problem, as following your logic they are indeed storing two values for weight; otherwise once the dynamic weight was discarded on pit entry, the TSWV would not be available to add fuel to on pit exit (assuming they wouldn't fetch it from the disc mid-pit).
 

Mobius 1

Member
Aug 6, 2006
8,845
0
0
North Point
If I'm around on Saturday night (I don't know yet) then count me in!

In. Add me in PSN please.

After commencing a small investigation with one of my friends, reading various subjective explanations on GTP and thinking of ways game actually works, I today believe that particular problem (tyre/fuel issue) is just another RAM issue, closely interconnected with sub-engine-mechanic of PP calculations.

First thing I "discovered" is how my own personal experience is not drastic as many reported ones. I never had drastic changes in tyre-wear nor drastic changes in fuel depletion in races I've used for my testing (Willow Springs, Suzuka Wet and Silverstone endurances) as other reports. However, I discovered why: I always run no-ABS with custom brake-bias and I always take into consideration the sub-mechanic that depletes the fuel faster in higher-revs (as it is since GT5).

I observed some replays of my friends and discovered they always run the race in almost 100% of grip/cornering abilities/braking/revs of the car. Also, they were all doing the same thing after the first pit-entry: they would speed up their pace drastically, go into overtakes aggressively, etc, in order to sub-consciously (I presume) compensate for time lost in the pits.

I did most of my testings on Suzuka Wet race, using the same car all the time - NSX GT500 LM Base Model. Since wet-sequence was always the same (rain starts falling in lap 2, ends in lap 8) I could run very consistent laps throughout my testings (which led to similar conclusions on Silverstone race). After the first 5 laps - before entering the pits - I had tyre-wear around 7(F)-6(R) and something below half tank depleted. After the race end (lap 10) I had 6(F)-5(R) tyres for the second stint with fuel around the same 10% difference more-less. So, I had to agree that difference is there and it exists, but it was not drastic as many were reporting and I would probably never realize it even exist if it was not reported.

So, I start to observe why is my experience a bit different and what could be the reasons for obvious difference in wear/depletion (and laptimes, which I will tackle soon).

First I discovered the aforementioned difference in tyre-wear when using ABS-off. I had pretty much balanced wear throughout the race, unlike other reports. I realized how the ABS is the main culprit for that, because of the default brake-balance that game have for ABS and which noone probably even bothers to adjust. As we are all aware, game uses default BB of 5-5 for all cars and it actually becomes a significant issue when running an race with tyre wear with ABS ON because of two problems:

1) default 5- balance is not the accurate balance for mass-shifting that corresponds with suspensions and individual characteristics of any vehicle - as I preach since GT5, the BB for every car should be adjusted accordingly and individually, either you use ABS or not (but it becomes a prerogative if ABS is not used), and
2) default 5-5 balance with ABS-on does not "override" the proper balance values and becomes a menace once the tyre-wear comes in picture because it actually wears the tyres - especially the rear ones - much more then it should

With my NSX I used 6-1 balance (one I usually use for Race compound for MR/FR vehicles below 1400kg of curb weight) and I had the above results in wear (7-6 after first pit, 6-5 when race ended).

*** for those unfamiliar with my personal "non-ABS crusade" for GT games it is worth noticing how "ABS" in Gran Turismo games IS NOT SIMULATING real-life ABS effect nor it has any connection with it. ABS in Gran Turismo is just a braking assist that not only prevents the brakes from locking (in totally artificial way compared to real-life ABS), but it also influences on traction and stability properties, despite player have other assists deactivated. BUt nevermind that now.

Second, I noticed how almost noone (of other replays I watched and reports I read on GTP) takes into account the very ancient property of tyres in GT series (since GT3), where fresh set of tyres is actually cold immediately when you get out of the pits. The actual first lap on fresh tyres becomes a crucial for their later "development" during the race, because damaging the tyres in cold-state have serious repercussions on their wear in later stages. Because they are cold, fresh tyres don't have strong lateral grip as heated tyres and you have to be careful not to take much lateral forcing into red-zone because they will wear unevenly and much faster later. The key "issue" here is how all races in GT start from the rolling-start and with tyres already "heated" for the race - so many players are used to drive on 100% of potential from the start, despite of the stint. However, it is very damaging to run cold tyres in the same way as pre-heated and I see a second reason for greater wear of tyres in the second stint because of that. But that issue couldn't affect the wear so significantly (either in my or others experiences), so there have to be some another thing on top of everything.

And third, as I sad before, I discovered how the difference in my fuel depletion is also not drastic as other reports, but how it definitely exist. As aforementioned, by observing other people replays I discovered I actually run races much more calmly and conservatively, without going into red areas of revs and with early shifting. I have to notion another race-related "issue" that appeared, and that is how after the pitting I run into much more traffic than in the first stint because of the position of the AI cars and their pit-sequences and I was getting into the slipstream more often, which also results with much higher revs and faster depletion.

So, I highlighted three reasons: brake balance/ABS, tyre heat state usage and actual usage of the power (engine) related to fuel consumption. All of those could partially answer the reasoning for the change of depletion/wear among stints, but even together they couldn't make the difference so drastic.

But, there was another serious thing besides actual depletion/wear: the lap-times in second stint were always slower then in the first stint. No matter how hard you try, you simply can't drive times in the second stint close to those in the first. All factors above also could't influence that by themselves by no logic. But there had to be a logic for all that. So, what is the fourth factor - and IMO most important issue?

It is actual PP sub-calculation engine or, as I call it, "inability of game to determine the starting PP values for the cars in pre-pit and after-pit state". So, what the hell does that even mean?

By observing the times on Suzuka Wet race I noticed the strange pattern: When my first lap time (on pre-heated tyres) and full tank was 2:04/2:05, my 4th lap (prior to pit entry) was 2:01. But after I went out of pits, my first fast lap (6th lap) was 2:09 and my last lap would actually be around 2:05, 2:04 in the best occurrence. And then all puzzles begun to fit.

My personal belief is game simply can't override two different states when entering/exiting the pits:

>>A) first pit entry "state", where car weight is its default PP weight (one displayed in Dealership) + fuel weight and minus fuel used during the first stint, and
>>B) pit exit "state", AKA the moment when cars start to accept additional fuel in the pits and continuing the race with new tyres and "newly added" fuel

I believe that car in the "first state" have its Dealership weight with added weight of the fuel already INCLUDED in the overall weight - and that game ALWAYS uses that weight, with or without fuel depletion enabled, in the races as cars starting weight (in all game modes). What I am basically saying is that cars in game have additional weight of the fuel included all the time during race as their TRUE START WEIGHT VALUE. So, during the first stint, the depletion sub-mechanic is simply lowering the weight of the car accordingly to consumption form that "TSWV". For sake of the numbers, let's say that car have Dealership weight of 1200kg+200kg of fuel = TSWV of 1400 kg. After the first stint, I am entering the pits with 3/5 of the fuel consumed, so my car actually have approx. 1280 kg (>>A). Because of the lowered weight I managed to run faster laps as fuel depleted (and it was always lap #3 or sometimes #4 because of the combination of lower weight and fastest state of tyres and maybe some slipstreaming).

And then comes my "pit exit state" (>>B). I believe that game simply can't - does not have RAM on disposal for that for all cars in race - to calculate the new weight accordingly to state of depletion (1280 kg in my example). I presume game simply "reads" the first lap starting value in full (aforementioned "True Start Weight Value" of 1400 kg) and lumps extra fuel on that number as addition = resulting with car that have more weight than on the very start of the race. In my example-calculation, when exiting the pits after the first stint, car have all added fuel added on TSWV weight, so if I decided to go with 50 litres (100 kilograms of weight for example), instead of having 1380 kg when leaving pits, car actually have 1500 kg - 100 kg more than it had on the very start of the race.

When I put that idea into aforementioned 3 reasons for occurrence of increased tyre-wear/fuel depletion that are - in my opinion - simply result of way people actually drive the race, it became only logical explanation of the overall issue.

It can explain why is the actual fastest lap in the 2nd stint - the last lap of the race - almost the same as the first lap of the race = only in that moment car have the same weight (using the additional fuel added on TSWV value in the pits brings the weight down to initial TSWV value, but never close to weight car have when entering the pits for the first time)

It can explain why are my tyres more worn in the 2nd stint = during the second stint car is almost 10% heavier than in the 1st stint - due to fuel being added on the "TSWV" value - which results with more mass being pushed on suspensions and increases the wear (more weight-more wear)

So, to conclude, I think there are two groups of factors: individual (where combination of ABS and actual way the car is driven by the player influences difference in wear between stints) and the problem with calculation explained above, which is purely issue of the game.

All above is my subjective and personal belief.

I guess it could be corrected if PD would find a way to allocate RAM to keep the real-time weight-data (Dealership weight + remaining fuel) prior the fuel has been added in the pits, but I have no idea how actually RAM-taxing could that be.

Sorry for the lengthy read, I did my best to try to explain my theory.

Golf clap. Amazing.
 

Dzidza1978

Member
Oct 2, 2010
311
0
620
An interesting read Amar. I can wholeheartedly believe that there is a weight calculation error and follow your reasoning based on the evidence you present, however, I am not prepared to put it down to RAM limitations.

Bolded is closer to the truth then RAM limitation
 

amar212

Member
Jul 13, 2007
6,383
0
920
www.gtsurgeons.com
Bolded is closer to the truth then RAM limitation

There has to be a reason why the issue is happening, if my reasoning is correct - and "error" is not an expalantion, because if it was simply an "error" in real-time formula, that 3 lines of code would get corrected in the first update. But they are not. And I tried to understand why.

All I can think of is RAM allocation, because engine itself can do a real-time calculations for everything else in the background: tyre wear for all cars, fuel depletion, AI routines, pit routines, weather routines, skidmarks..

But this actual thing - determination of actual weight on the pit-entry, followed by weight change during refueling and weight after refueling - is the only real-time variable in the whole "race procedure" that gets changed in the mid-time with actual 2 variables that needs to be inter-dependant and that have no FINITE value (word "finite" is the key to understand my point):

A) weight of the car on the moment of the pit-entry (Dealership weight + weight of remaining fuel) and,
B) weight of the car after the fuel is added (Dealership weight + weight of remaining fuel + weight of the added fuel)

Both variables are "infinite" - they can be whatever value possible, simply because you can use as much fuel as you like prior to entry to the pits and you can refil the tanke with any value you like.

On contrary, when changing the tyres, there is actualy only 1 "infinite" value:
A) the level of wear when car gets to pits

Once the tyres are changed, they are back to "finite" value, as "Brand new" - and game "knows" where to "start" - B is FINITE (same as repairing the damage for instance, where the repaired damage is always a finite value).

With fuel, both A and B are "infinite" value and game has to "determine" where to "start" once the B variable (refueling on top of the existing weight and remaining fuel) "begins". My presumption is how the game actually simple uses the only FINITE value it can have, and that is the weight value for the very start of the race - which I call "TRUE START WEIGHT VALUE" in my first post.

And that is why I think it is RAM issue, because there is not other explanation. In order to get proper weight-change for all 16 cars in the field once they pit, the game would have to calculate 2 "infinite" values all the time for all 16 cars and track them accordingly and act accordingly once the new fuel is added. And somehow I think it is not really that simple to execute with all other real-time things going on in the race:

16 cars on track with scalable physics engine (up to 360Hz fro players car) and full-presence (no CPU "shadowing") with 15+1 vehicle AI, real-time HDR, real-time effects of flames and brakes, real-time particle effects (including progressive dirt accumulation on vehicles), real-time smoke, daytime/weather engine with full-HDR properties, real-time ambiance lighting with lens-flaring for both vehicles and surroundings, animated rain with physics properties, animated drivers, movable objects in cockpits, progressively animated vehicles (aerodynamic parts, suspensions and visible chasis damage, wipers and aerodynamically influenced parts such as antennas, visible progressive dirt accumulation/removal on tyres), on-tracks physics (side-track objects with own physical properties, real-time wind simulation, real-time skid marks..), pit-crew AI, real-time vehicle properties (tyre and fuel), real-time track properties that influence vehicles and weather-engine (temperature, air humidity, track temperature, surface humidity..), real-time weather properties with own sub-engine (rain changes into light snow for instance on SSR7 track or clear weather changes to light snow and to blizzard on Chamonix..), ambiance effects (fireworks, etc.), real-time background saving of all race-data, parallel sub-engine for FFB HID devices, etc.

Notice that game engine HAS TO HAVE ALL ABOVE built as the lowest common denominator to execute in real-time for races. I somehow think that one "wild" variable - such as the fuel one I've described - becomes RAM problematic because it is the only of all above that have two "infinite" states during its "revolving".

However, I might be absolutely wrong.
 

ruttyboy

Member
Aug 31, 2010
2,070
0
0
And that is why I think it is RAM issue, because there is not other explanation.

There is another possibility though. It is not impossible that PD either haven't heard about the bug, don't believe it, or have no interest in fixing it immediately.

And I think you are mis-understanding memory allocation. What you describe uses two values, these two values will basically take the same amount of memory no matter the actual value of them.

No matter how many other systems are also in the memory, they would not change the constant memory requirement to hold the two values in question.

The reasonable explanation is that it's a simple calculation error and they are using the wrong variable at the wrong time.
 

gutterboy44

Member
Oct 7, 2008
7,984
0
0
Ithaca, NY
twitter.com
Interesting stuff there Amar. Good work on testing all the variables and what not. If only PD were as passionate as you are about GT6.

I think Ruttyboy's explanation makes the most sense to me based on the current state of GT6 and lack of attention it seems to be getting. It is only going to be a few bits and bytes to track weight on the entire field of cars. You would obviously set a range for the variable, you wouldn't have 89.655357889 liters of fuel remaining, just have whole numbers only and you multiply it by the set value of of much a liter or arbitrary unit of gas weighs. The fuel consumption model is probably far more basic then you are giving them credit for. The cars already handle dynamic PP changes in the race via the engines breaking in. Adding another variable to modify the already changing PP doesn't seem like it would break the RAM bank, especially with AI cars as they seem to be able to violate several of the physics constraints placed on the players car.
 

Dzidza1978

Member
Oct 2, 2010
311
0
620
There is another possibility though. It is not impossible that PD either haven't heard about the bug, don't believe it, or have no interest in fixing it immediately.

@Amar: I still believe it's an error in calculation, and on priority level it's not that important, or PD doesn't know about it.

This is your answer why it's not RAM: "I presume game simply "reads" the first lap starting value in full (aforementioned "True Start Weight Value" of 1400 kg) and lumps extra fuel on that number as addition = resulting with car that have more weight than on the very start of the race."
And if above, as you said, is happening, then the calculation is just taking wrong property,
first lap (before pit) --> A1(initial car weight property)=B(Deal. weight)+C(full tank)-D(fuel used)
after pitting --> A2=B(Deal. weight)+C(full tank)+E(fuel added)
or A2=A1(initial car weight property)+E(fuel added)

of course, if this is how PD is calculating car weight.

And personally, I don't think that AI is having calculations about either tyrewear, nor fuel (this goes with proofs that AI is considerably slowing down if you are behind, or accelerates if you're in front, but i haven't viewed replays, nor do I know whether you can actually choose AI car (in replay) to see it's tyrewear or fuel state). Correct me if I'm wrong :)
 

seattle6418

Member
Nov 21, 2006
4,131
0
0
38
brazil
The problem with the memory theory is that GT4 on PS2 was able to do all these calculations with a paultry 8mb RAM. It only had to do it for six cars, but it did calculate everything right, from tires heating to fuel burning and effecting the performance of the car.

Worst case scenario they could port this system for GT6, but it´s hardly a stress on the whole system.

It is a bug, wrong code, that´s a safe bet. I´m yet to try endurance races on GT6, so i´m curious to see how it plays out.

I suspect we will only get something resembling a patch near GT Academy 2014.
 

Djie

Neo Member
Dec 28, 2009
48
0
0
www.gthq.nl
I have no idea, I haven't personally experienced any of both?

I can confirm the Front / Rear tyre wear reverse, have done several 24 laps races with tyre/fuel wear on fast and found exact this problem and the other problems previously stated. Didn't notice the difference in top speed.
 

MGR

Member
Mar 25, 2009
556
0
0
There has to be a reason why the issue is happening, if my reasoning is correct - and "error" is not an expalantion, because if it was simply an "error" in real-time formula, that 3 lines of code would get corrected in the first update. But they are not. And I tried to understand why.

A case of ignorance breeding competence. I doubt they even realise this bug exists.

RAM specs have abso-freaking-lutely nothing to do with this issue. The machines was released over 7 years ago and the RAM is the same now as it was then. This is sloppy coding pure and simple.

If they took their head out of their own ass for 5 minutes and tried to absorb at least some of the feedback available on GT community forums they'd recognise these stupid bugs and have them solved almost immediately. Seems unless it's front page news on GT Planet and then picked up by other news outlets it's perpetually ignored.

Some might remember this thread on GT Planet:

GT5's Game-Breaking Online Flaw

This issue was present more than 12 months after release and nothing was done until I started and continuously maintained that thread (with a more sensationalist title until a mod edit). Took more than two weeks of testing and evidence gathering (and shooting down GT apologists) before GT Planet mods posted the flaw on the front news page.

Complex GT5 Bug Causes Problems for Online Racers

Problem fixed in the following patch 3 weeks later.

How freaking hard is it for just one PD staff member collate info from sources such as GT Planet?
 

seattle6418

Member
Nov 21, 2006
4,131
0
0
38
brazil
A case of ignorance breeding competence. I doubt they even realise this bug exists.

RAM specs have abso-freaking-lutely nothing to do with this issue. The machines was released over 7 years ago and the RAM is the same now as it was then. This is sloppy coding pure and simple.

If they took their head out of their own ass for 5 minutes and tried to absorb at least some of the feedback available on GT community forums they'd recognise these stupid bugs and have them solved almost immediately. Seems unless it's front page news on GT Planet and then picked up by other news outlets it's perpetually ignored.

Some might remember this thread on GT Planet:

GT5's Game-Breaking Online Flaw

This issue was present more than 12 months after release and nothing was done until I started and continuously maintained that thread (with a more sensationalist title until a mod edit). Took more than two weeks of testing and evidence gathering (and shooting down GT apologists) before GT Planet mods posted the flaw on the front news page.

Complex GT5 Bug Causes Problems for Online Racers

Problem fixed in the following patch 3 weeks later.

How freaking hard is it for just one PD staff member collate info from sources such as GT Planet?

They just don´t care about that right now. Only way they lose their permission to do whatever they want is with bad sales. If GT6 keeps flopping and GT7 flops even more in 2016 or so we might see Sony trying to interfere with the series.

When you sell 10+ million copies is hard for someone to come at then and say "you´re doing things wrong". GT6 flopping might be a blessing in disguise if we expect something out of the series in the future.

I´ve already gave up on GT6 and i´m just trying to finish carrear mode just because... i don´t even know why. Yesterday i was doing some shifter kart and Nascar races and the game managed to irritate me more than GT1 through GT4 ever did. Go karts handle like shit and nothing like real life and on Nascar races the AI makes you want to break the controller in half.
 

amar212

Member
Jul 13, 2007
6,383
0
920
www.gtsurgeons.com
I wish I have patience to do what VBR did on GTPlanet with all things I find problematic/missing/etc.

I wanted to make a "GT Manifest" or something a year ago, but I really didn't have nor time nor patience.

However, with every week something is building inside me because it is so sad to watch such astonishing foundation with such basic house built upon it.

Read the VBR's post I linked above.
 

paskowitz

Member
Jul 31, 2009
5,777
0
0
Philadelphia PA, USA
I wish I have patience to do what VBR did on GTPlanet with all things I find problematic/missing/etc.

I wanted to make a "GT Manifest" or something a year ago, but I really didn't have nor time nor patience.

However, with every week something is building inside me because it is so sad to watch such astonishing foundation with such basic house built upon it.

Read the VBR's post I linked above.

VBR's post is spot on. The lack of choice is even crazier if you consider how much content GT has.
 
Apr 15, 2005
8,847
0
0
we ever gonna get that gps course creator thing?

or even b spec?


LOL

GPS functionality, the 20km x 20km playground and ability to edit existing tracks will all do a disappearing act. Spec II (which we'll get in Dec) will come with GT5's Course Maker with new location themes, track creation will still be limited to circuits only.


B-Spec is just a waste of development time.
 

Mascot

Member
Aug 9, 2009
13,182
4
940
UK
Can someone please send me a PM when this game is fixed and worthy of the GT name? I desperately want to play it but not in its current state.
 

Solal

Member
Dec 19, 2009
927
0
740
@amar212

Do you have any idea what's going on at PD? I mean: this is seriously getting on fans' nerves... and still absolutely no communication whatsoever.

I am not even talking about the state GT6 is in (you guess what I think), but it seems like PD is damaging its brand with this unbelievable level of miscommunication.

Are they THAT unaware of how to deal with all this?
 

gutterboy44

Member
Oct 7, 2008
7,984
0
0
Ithaca, NY
twitter.com
I wish I have patience to do what VBR did on GTPlanet with all things I find problematic/missing/etc.

I wanted to make a "GT Manifest" or something a year ago, but I really didn't have nor time nor patience.

However, with every week something is building inside me because it is so sad to watch such astonishing foundation with such basic house built upon it.

Read the VBR's post I linked above.

I have wanted to do the same since GT5. What bothers me is we don't see any such thing from PD. The closest we have got is the now infamous powerpoint slide pre-GT5 that had all the bullet points, many of which still have never seen the light of day. I would kill for a candid look behind the curtain at PD. I can only imagine things are far more fucked up than we speculate.
 

ruttyboy

Member
Aug 31, 2010
2,070
0
0
I have wanted to do the same since GT5. What bothers me is we don't see any such thing from PD. The closest we have got is the now infamous powerpoint slide pre-GT5 that had all the bullet points, many of which still have never seen the light of day. I would kill for a candid look behind the curtain at PD. I can only imagine things are far more fucked up than we speculate.

I get the impression that Kaz is actually present in the studio less and less, and as we are led to believe that he is a bit of an auteur, it may be that progress is often halted awaiting his input on things.
 

sCHOCOLATE

Member
Nov 10, 2007
222
37
1,100
Canada's Capital
Can someone please send me a PM when this game is fixed and worthy of the GT name? I desperately want to play it but not in its current state.

Mascot, I bought a new PS3 last Xmas just to be able to try GT6. This has been my first hands-on experience with a GT game. Three months later, I can applaud PD for certain aspects of the game, but I'm appalled by a great many others.

Sound effects tops my list. Padding the roster with identical JPN/EUR spec and US spec vehicles. The Standard versus Premium model discrepancy. Laughably inconsistent lap timing. And everything else the long-standing GAF GT enthusiasts have identified. I'm amazed to see that the GT and FM series are both plagued by the same kinds of issues. Not limitations of hardware or outdated software libraries, but rather poorly appropriated development resources, a lack of innovation and a broken commitment to quality.

Project Cars and Assetto Corsa may just be the thing to shake up the establishment.
 

ruttyboy

Member
Aug 31, 2010
2,070
0
0
I feel like such an idiot. I spent ages trying to do the Clio Special Event and could only get to 55.1 (Gold is 55.0).

Usually my upgrade path for cars is weight reduction over all else, but as NA Tuning Stage 2 brought the car exactly to the PP limit I went with that. I thought I'd give my usual tune of weight loss a go and I was immediately tenths faster, ended up with a 54.6...

Let this be a lesson to all, less weight > power!
 

sCHOCOLATE

Member
Nov 10, 2007
222
37
1,100
Canada's Capital
Inconsistent lap timing? I missed this one?

Perhaps I'm not describing it correctly or it's a known and accepted occurence.

For the single-player events I've experienced thus far, the on-screen clock stops once when my car crosses the finish line, but then adds a fraction of time to the actual result. This has made me scratch my head for more than one challenge event.

If I see the clock stop when my car crosses the line, I expect that time to be registered as final.

Am I misinterpreting the fraction of time added?