Main Official GTA V Vehicle Discussion Officialness

[suicidehummer]

Can't believe there are people that say V's damage system is a crock of sh*t, well, I can understand for frontal crashes. But under the right conditions, it can be very beautifully realistic

 

Smashed a Youga into a full size Jet

 

 

It's not too far compared to a real crash

 

 

You're kidding, right? Getting hit by a full size jet would tear a car into pieces. You're only proving that the damage modeling is indeed garbage.

 

IV was WAY better, end of story. People have just gotten used to V's lame damage modeling and forgotten how good IV really was.

 

Edited September 24, 2014 by suicidehummer

[Officer Ronson]

 

Not really, to me they're pretty much almost the same.

[Gnocchi Flip Flops]

I wish GTA would find a way to make their cars break in half from severe accidents such as a train hitting you whilst your up against a pole or an airliner running your over. It gets boring knowing that you car will only bend.

[R3W1ND]

you mean like carmageddon 2 ? for a 1997 game its so realistic.

[suicidehummer]

 

Not really, to me they're pretty much almost the same.

Really? Then you must know nothing about crash deformation. The picture you posted shows the difference quite clearly. That car looks like warped and melted plastic, nothing at all like a car made of metal. And in IV there was some semblance of a stronger inner structure and chassis. In V, when you finally manage to damage a car that much, it just twists up like it has no chassis at all underneath the bodywork.

 

Although I'm not surprised most people can't tell the difference, there is a definite difference.

[TheAdmiester]

 

Can't believe there are people that say V's damage system is a crock of sh*t, well, I can understand for frontal crashes. But under the right conditions, it can be very beautifully realistic

 

Smashed a Youga into a full size Jet

 

 

It's not too far compared to a real crash

 

 

You're kidding, right? Getting hit by a full size jet would tear a car into pieces. You're only proving that the damage modeling is indeed garbage.

 

IV was WAY better, end of story. People have just gotten used to V's lame damage modeling and forgotten how good IV really was.

 

 

 

That picture just demonstrates exactly why IV's damage was worse. The car becomes a spiky, lumpy mess after extreme damage, whereas V's cars just become more crushed.

 

Damaged cars look terrible in IV, in V they look relatively plausible. Now you can debate over whether the handling of IV was better than V, but V's damage is 100% objectively better.

[Gnocchi Flip Flops]

I'm starting to like the Jester:

 

 

 

 

Testing it out on the road felt like I was driving a prototype or something, being that the real NSX isn't out yet,

[Darth_Starkiller]

The Jester isn't tha bad. A few tweaks and it would be able to be considered beautiful.

By the way, those rims fit perfectly.

[Gnocchi Flip Flops]

The Jester isn't tha bad. A few tweaks and it would be able to be considered beautiful.

By the way, those rims fit perfectly.

Thanks! Yeah I love the wheels myself. Was going to pick some that were more modern but then I saw those.

[Delta India Echo]

I'm starting to like the Jester:

 

 

 

 

Testing it out on the road felt like I was driving a prototype or something, being that the real NSX isn't out yet,

The best thing is the Daylight LEDs.

 

Such a beautiful car.

[Gnocchi Flip Flops]

Yeah. Just like the Coquette, they stay on all day long. I just wish they were brighter in the daylight. You'll barely notice that they're on unless you drive under a dark tunnel or something like that.

 

But it gives the car a very stealthy appearance.

 

Edit: But yeah I actually like the Jester, I just wish it was named something else. I wish the Jester from SA would returm.

Edited September 27, 2014 by Sting4S

[suicidehummer]

 

You're kidding, right? Getting hit by a full size jet would tear a car into pieces. You're only proving that the damage modeling is indeed garbage.

 

 

 

 

IV was WAY better, end of story. People have just gotten used to V's lame damage modeling and forgotten how good IV really was.

 

 

 

That picture just demonstrates exactly why IV's damage was worse. The car becomes a spiky, lumpy mess after extreme damage, whereas V's cars just become more crushed.

 

Damaged cars look terrible in IV, in V they look relatively plausible. Now you can debate over whether the handling of IV was better than V, but V's damage is 100% objectively better.

 

 

 

A "spiky, lumpy mess", gee, you mean exactly what a car would look like after being crumpled up? How anyone with eyes can claim that melted plastic toy cop car above is more realistic is beyond me... Do you not understand the basic elastic properties of metal?

 

 

Just like the handling physics discussion, apparently most people go through life without noticing the difference between games and reality.

 

Edited September 27, 2014 by suicidehummer

[TheAdmiester]

The "melted" car in the GTA 5 picture was clearly hit by a plane. You claimed that it deformed as if there was no chassis underneath, but gee, I dunno, I think being hit by a gigantic plane at takeoff speeds would do that. Considering what it was hit by, having it be a twisted and squished mass of wreckage is entirely plausible, although it's missing the smashed particles and little bits that fall off to make it look detailed enough.

 

There's a HUGE difference between what you posted and what GTA 4's damage looks like:

Look how unrealistically distorted, jagged, polygonal and "underdetailed", for lack of a better word, the front of the Comet is.

 

Also, having raised parts and damage cut off by perfectly intact parts of the car (generally in the middle like below):

 

Such a clean cutoff would never happen in real life, and neither would a polygonal, triangular lumps you see all along a GTA 4 car after heavy damage, stop fooling yourself and others. Neither game is accurate to real life by any stretch of the imagination but GTA 5 is closer. Real cars get sharp and sometimes spiky, GTA 4's turn into a lumpy, almost moldy mass.

Edited September 27, 2014 by TheAdmiester

[Gnocchi Flip Flops]

Both IV and V have their issues. Both of you either need to end this argument or take it to PM.

[woggleman]

Why do I get the feeling Sting is starting to come around to V? I agree that both games have their flaws and strengths. I enjoy both of them and ideally the next GTA will meet somewhere in the middle. One thing I do like about the damage in V is if you hit a car with a hammer it will show the indentation of the hammer. The damage shows where you hit it.

Edited September 27, 2014 by woggleman

[suicidehummer]

Actually I absolutely agree that IV could have used improvement. It always got on my nerves how damage would end on a perfect line sometimes. And of course V has added parts being detached, but it's worse in every other way. The damage is never appropriate for the type of object you hit, never mind the force is massively screwed up. It's kind of hard to put my finger on (partly because I don't play much anymore) but It drove me nuts every time I got in a crash and the damage was just wrong on so many levels. Half the time, a dent would appear a foot away from where it should have been. Just ridiculous. I stopped caring about crashing at all because the cars are tanks. Whereas in IV I would love to inspect the damage my car built up after some hard driving.

 

Oh, and I hate how the slightest bump into a guardrail pushes my wheel in, but I can hit a tree at 45 and somehow get a scratch on the hood.

[Gnocchi Flip Flops]

I do genuinely laugh at the people who say that V's damage modeling is perfect and better than IV in every way. In IV it did feel a bit balanced. Bumping into a car made a reasonable dent, harsh crashes totaled your car. But in V you can't get a small dent to save your life hitting signs and tapping cars only makes scratches. But you can hit a car at 45 mph and it is totaled. Yet you can speed down a freeway at 175 mph, hit a guard rail, and only have the front of your car slightly pushed in.

[Darth_Starkiller]

There's one thing, though, that we can all agree V f*cked up: scratches. In IV, all of them had the appropriate size and location. In V, they don't appear exactly where you hit something, they are msotly much bigger than they should be, the textures are disgusting, and they end abruptly. Also, it's much harder to get blood in your car (and blood in V looks like sh*t, too).

Edited September 28, 2014 by Darth_Starkiller

[Gnocchi Flip Flops]

 

I decided to try this thing out and I was pleasantly surprised. I mean I still think it looks hideous in the front, but the rear end actually looks good, like a real Cadillac. And when I took it on the highway, it felt real smooth and lax. I gave it a power boost and it still felt lax. I like cruising in it. I just wish they'd make a new Presidente with the same rear end but with a CTS side profile and an ATS front end.

[Delta India Echo]

There's one thing, though, that we can all agree V f*cked up: scratches. In IV, all of them had the appropriate size and location. In V, they don't appear exactly where you hit something, they are msotly much bigger than they should be, the textures are disgusting, and they end abruptly. Also, it's much harder to get blood in your car (and blood in V looks like sh*t, too).

Yep, sprites are disgusting sh*t in this game.

[Darth_Starkiller]

 

I decided to try this thing out and I was pleasantly surprised. I mean I still think it looks hideous in the front, but the rear end actually looks good, like a real Cadillac. And when I took it on the highway, it felt real smooth and lax. I gave it a power boost and it still felt lax. I like cruising in it. I just wish they'd make a new Presidente with the same rear end but with a CTS side profile and an ATS front end.

The front end of the Alpha could easily be fixed, but it's R* we're talking about. It would actually look good if they made the hood gradually lower like in, basically, every modern sedan ever done. And make the headlight quadrilateral (but not necessarily square), have less sides on the grille (and other grilles options on LSC, one without division, one like the Presidente and the classic Cadillac grille with squares).

Edited October 2, 2014 by Darth_Starkiller

[R3W1ND]

from what I see Alpha had some influence from Quattroporte. Sadly, you are true about that front issue

[Gnocchi Flip Flops]

 

My oh my this thing is still sexy as hell. If only they could do a convertible of it.

[PowerKracker]

Another GTA 2 car! Well, it takes time for trends to come back and GTA 2 hit the spot.

But I'm so disappointed with one aspect of this update in that the new Lampadati car looks nice, and two old bikes coming back are neat as well, but there's one catch - no visual mods whatsoever. Strange since most vehicles added so far have tons of mods to choose from. Well, I guess I like sports cars with minimal visual mods (I'm like the only one to have no side skirts on my Coquette), but they could have given the bikes mods from their variations in TLaD.

Edited October 2, 2014 by AlfredNTheFettuc

[Gnocchi Flip Flops]

I also love sports cars with minimal visual mods too. I'll probably just change the color, tint, and wheels on the Furore GT. No bike mods does bug me, but no mods for the Furore doesn't. Some people were expecting kits. Who would put a kit on a Maserati?

 

Also, quite a few dorks are dissing the car because it doesn't perform like a super car. Why would you expect super car performance from a grand tourer? Maserati's aren't even known for being fast.

 

But anyway, I'm going to sell my Coquette Classic for one.

[Delta India Echo]

Gave in and bought a Furore & fully maxed it out.

 

 

It's truly good looking, I love the headlights.

[Gnocchi Flip Flops]

I love the Comet interior they gave it. It's something different for a change.

Edited October 2, 2014 by Sting4S

[Darth_Starkiller]

I don't know what to think of the Furore. It doesn't look that bad, but I don't think it looks good either. I think that making it a bit longer would help, specially with the tail. Definitely not as good as the real car (which is nice, but not gorgeous either). Feels too much like a mix of the Carbonizzare and the Stinger GT IMO. Well, at least both the car and the bikes sound really nice.

Edited October 3, 2014 by Darth_Starkiller

[Gnocchi Flip Flops]

I don't know what to think of the Furore. It doesn't look that bad, but I don't think it looks good either. I think that making it a bit longer would help, specially with the tail. Definitely not as good as the real car (which is nice, but not gorgeous either). Feels too much like a mix of the Carbonizzare and the Stinger GT IMO. Well, at least both the car and the bikes sound really nice.

I disagree about the real GranTurismo not being a gorgeous car. It really is gorgeous, especially in person in it's 2013 Sport trim. But yeah the Furore needs to be longer and those stupid haunches need to be lowered because they look awkward, just like they do on both the Coquette and the Stinger. Haunches are almost always great but somehow, someway Rockstar has managed to f*ck them up like they do everything else it seems.

[Darth_Starkiller]

No, the GranTurismo is gorgeous, I agree. However, the Furore looks more like the Maserati Alfieri concept, as evidenced by the aggressive lines, the overall shape and specially the rear. The front has some GranTurismo to it, but they made the lines too straight for the resemblance to be really seen (also, those headlights which I have no idea where they came from). Well, unfortunately, there goes one more car to the "change to a real model on PC" list. I hate having real car/brands in GTA, but R* leaves me no choice.

Edited October 3, 2014 by Darth_Starkiller