How a car is scanned for Gran Turismo HD

Don't car manufacturers design cars on computers by now? Why can't game designers use the actual car design that the car manufacturers create? If I were Ford, GM, Chrysler, Honda, Toyota, or whatever I would do simple things like this for the sake of the cheap advertising.

Thats awesome. I love all that dedicated high-tech nerdy stuff. It really shows u one way the future of gaming can go. Now if they can just get 32 car races, with tip top A.I, and it could be the best driving game yet!!

"2. Don't car manufacturers design cars on computers by now?"

1960 Chevrolet Corvette :)

Steve they probably do the scanning themselves to maintain the same quality on each car as well as to not waste time cleaning up models.

"Don't car manufacturers design cars on computers by now?"

I heard there are computers that are programmed to design given a few specs to work with. Computers that design stuff like AIRPLANES. 0_0

Anyways I wonder how long it would take to model it versus scanning it in?

"Why can't game designers use the actual car design that the car manufacturers create?"

A lot of games already do. However, I'd make original models for the sake of being able to destroy them on-screen :D (Gran Turismo doesn't allow that).

I actualy model, and NC program parts for cars / planes. (NC Programing is programing a machine to actualy cut the part from raw billet metal)

and the amount of detail that goes in to each and every part is staggering, there is a single model for each and every part, just imagine getting ahold of all of then, then sticking them together in the rite place, and the fact that the software that was used to make the model (we use Delcam Power Shape) may not export to anything even remotely usefull to the game designers.

Yeahhh..

Funny that the PS3 can't seem to render damage models.

Can you even change the color of your car in Gran Turismo yet?

The game is always the fucking same, and it takes them like 7,000 years for each release. Same fucking courses, cars, physics, everything.

Fuck this game.

@ 8

It doesn't make any sense to say "the PS3 can't render damage models", period. Plenty of games on every platform can do it. It's rendering, not magic. (I was playing Full Auto (demo) on PS3 last night and it rendered more damage that I could shake a stick at.

I thing there are better racers than GT, but not better racing sims. Honestly, I don't like GT, because I don't like racing sims, but get your head out of your ass.

~Hiro

Keef, any decent software modelling sytem should be able to output a shell in IGES, SAT or STEP format, and any decent software modelling system should be able to open it.

In any case, the system used for scanning is hardly very special, has been around for ages. There's also a similar system that uses specially taken photographs from several angles (they don't have to be specific angles, just seeing every single part of the car) with special filters. I think I remember Alone in the Dark 4 using a similar system to the lasers one for scanning clay designs of monsters.

It's quite a bit more faster (not to mention accurate) to scan it this way than to model it.

@ Alex

You sir are the real true definition of a fanboy...

Sadly the ones like you seem to infest the internet these days...

@10 Thanks for the info, I was not sure if they were totaly differant.

The software we use exports to Iges, SAT, STEP and meny others.

Would be interesting how the Models look rite after the scan.

You sound a bit arrogant, nevertheless you have a point.

What the GT series has been doing is gradually increasing the overall quality of the game: better physics, graphics, gameplay and more cars.

I was a gamer and got into cars because of Gran Turismo...now I love cars more than gaming and I can say that the game needs to step it up.

In my humble opinion the first Gran Turismo revolutionized console driving games. There was nothing as realistic and versatile at the time. Talking about actual cars that many had never heard of before: realistic modifications, an impressive physics engine (weight transfer, power:weight ratio, damping, camber, toe and so forth.

What they need to do now is allow for more customizability of the cars. If I put on a Greddy type RS bov...I want to hear that bov. If I vent that bov to the atmosphere there should be a temporary rich condition when I shift and a puff of black smoke. Users should be able to tune their AFRs and if they push the ARFs and timing too far---> damage their engine.

Actual parts: Motec Engine Management with the actual interface to tune and datalog the car. How about reflashing your ecu with the numerous open source xml based programs out there for sport compact cars.

If I have a Ferrari I can really only get it tuned by a few select companies such as Koenig, Mercedes--> Lorinser, Brabus etc

Real Aerodynamic Kits---Top Secret GT300 for the Supra, Veilside, Chargespeed and so forth....there's so much out there.

If they do that...they'll set GT HD apart from any other game out there.

"It doesn't make any sense to say "the PS3 can't render damage models", period."

I don't doubt it can, because practically any console at this point can. But licensing issues with real car companies in GT and such prevents damaging the models in any way.

Hence my 'I'd rather provide my own models' statement.

You could even use MotorStorm as an example.

Mario, as a guy who just spent the past four working days modifying models and addings LODs to models built in one 3D program to the other, I can honestly say you're over simplifying things.

All the parts and data that goes into a master file is nice and all, but more times than not, the exterior or anything utilizing curves prefers the NURBs method. But even if they were poly, you're talking a HUGE amount of triangles that all need to be reduced and procedural reduction tends to leave assymetric results as well as no real acknowledgement over what a 3D engine needs.

Likewise, you assume all modelers in the world have a set way of doing things. From my experience, most modelers have a unique footprint or way of doing things. Without even looking at where the model came from, I can usually tell which one of my coworkers did something. So having the data being in a universal format (if such a thing even exists... hell, I know 3D programs that choke on OBJ), like receiving it from whatever motor company, there's still a matter of overcoming the hurdles of the individual modelers footprints (one of the main reasons why I wish Turbosquid had a preview system... there are some really halfassed modelers on there).

They scan their cars? I thought they just stole them from PGR3! ;)

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/01/25/sony-site-confuses-gt-hd-with-pgr3/

"But licensing issues with real car companies in GT and such prevents damaging the models in any way."

Then how would you explain the damage in Forza and Forza 2?

@ The Master

That's how it is with Gran Turismo, that's why I 'failed' to mention other titles. But that's how it CAN be with licensed products and such.

Like if (hypothetically) Activision wanted to make a 'battle-damaged' Spider-man model for Spider-man 3 and Columbia wouldn't let them depict Spider-man that way.

It sounds odd, but that's what crashing a car and not seeing damage is anyways.

@ The Master

That's how it COULD be with licensed products, not all. That's why I didn't mention other titles. I know it for a fact with Gran Turismo, however.

With the amount of licenses that GT is carrying, some would let them and some would not, but they let go of it altogether so that everything's the same (which I would do as well if dealing with X amount of licenses for one game).

Not that it really bothers me or anything, but it's an obstacle with some licensed designs. Obviously there are licensees that will allow devs to do whatever, but not in every case.

"I don't doubt it can, because practically any console at this point can. But licensing issues with real car companies in GT and such prevents damaging the models in any way."

You actually bought that PR crap from Sony? As mentioned Forza has real-time damage, as does PGR. Licensing is not the reason for the lack of damage - it is contempt and laziness.


As for the series - GT need to improve all around for me to consider it over Forza at this point. They need to get rid of the linear AI, they need to include damage, and they need online play.

If they do not have that, I will pass on them. I hate being sold re-hashed games with prettier graphics. I gave up on Madden for that same reason.

Eh, those last two posts repeat the thoughts because I though my first post glitched and had to rewrite it. Sorry.

"You actually bought that PR crap from Sony?"

Well, seeing as I'm a Nintendo fanboy, I thought it had a fair argument on Sony's part. I'd believe contractual obligations over developer laziness, especially from GT's team because it seems like they put so much detail into everything else.

*shrugs*

I thought they used LOGO to make the cars. Here is the code for a Scion xB below:

FORWARD 100
LEFT 90
FORWARD 100
LEFT 90
FORWARD 100
LEFT 90
FORWARD 100
LEFT 90

NintendoFanbot... Sorry, but you give Sony too much credit on this one. The "licensing" issue is pure Marketing/PR crap.

Can they scan in rumble?

"Not sharks with lasers"

Correction: sharks with *frickin'* lasers.

Sure, GT might be "rehashing" a proven formula. But still, this next GT will be much, much better looking and a bit better playing than all the rest. It will also have some of the newest cars. Basically, the game will be good.

As for using car manufacturer's models of cars to produce the models for the game design. It is much easier to just scan them all such that the output of the scan is in the format, level of detail, etc. that you want. They will all be the same that way. Trying to get models from different manufacturers would be an absolute mess. Some will have ProE, Solidworks, AutoCad, and a half a dozen others. An absolute mess it would be.

"But still, this next GT will be much, much better looking and a bit better playing than all the rest."

Opinion... but wrong. It may have more cars than Forza, but playability and graphics have been better on the Forza franchise.

Not saying that GT will not be better, but they are behind currently.

@24:

HAHAHA... In my book that was the best Joystiq comment ever. Now I have to recover from the flashback to my university days.

Speaking of tired, worn-out game titles: How many lasers and knobby dorks does it take to scan John Madden's fat ass?

@24

LOL My 4th Grade Computer teacher always said that logo was the future. Wasn't the cursor a little fucking turtle?

"NintendoFanbot... Sorry, but you give Sony too much credit on this one. The "licensing" issue is pure Marketing/PR crap. "

Wow, you're in the games industry? Because your severe lack of knowledge on this one certainly betrays your convinctions.

Okay, chickenhopper, here is how it works. How do I know? Well, let's just say I'm in the games industry and went to classes with several people now working in some of the biggest studios in the world. I hear about all the fun stuff and even get to see it firsthand. It's time to break down your perceptions, little man.

When you license something, it has to go through a rigorous checking in process to make sure their product is not portrayed in a negative or unfavorable light. This could be a logo (which with some licensing dictates it can never be covered with dirt, crime, or weathering, which means the logo placement always stands out in the environment), a character, and even a car.

Now, not only do you have to shell out the cash to use this license, but you have to pay variable amounts. Like, for instance, having just plain Ford cars would set you back so much, but if you want the player to be able to mod those cars, well, even more money. And Damage? Likewise, adding damage to the licensed item costs even more money. That is, if the option is even available.

The first company to break down these walls, well, it was a Licensed NASCAR game. Since then, more and more companies have been removing the strict "no damage" clause on their license. But not all are there yet. In fact, many of the more exotics are holding out. Hell, did you know Harley Davidson will not allow wrecks in their licensed games? As in, at all. Collisions have to bounce, which explains the arcade game. Other companies are open to pretty much anything, after all, it's your money. While others still don't want dirt to collect or paint to scrape.

Now, having said that, it's difficult to tell what companies still have the "no damage" clause in their licenses and the GT creator has constantly said, until a feature can be implimented to all the vehicles, it will not be considered.

So there, some facts to spread on your shitbread. Be sure to brush your teeth afterwards, RoroCo.

sheppy, you're right... but none of that has really much bearing on how it's not particularly impossible to port stuff from one system to the other.

I'm oversimplifying things because I'm not assuming I'm going to be read with people highly knowledgeable on the subject - it's a gaming comments section. So I pretty much just mention the most common denominator. What percentage of the people here know what you mean by "NURBS" and basially everything behing that term here?

I'm not writing a paper on how to handle engineering design files when using them for game design... just making a point that, if you wish, you always have a (good or mediocre) way of doing so.

Your "designer footprint" comments are quite right, and I completely agree with you on that point. However, that's not really a problem with transfers and whatnot, it's a problem with human communication and skill, and should be resolved accordingly. It shouldn't really be something that makes a transfer impossible... and if it is, then a certain motor company (or a certain game design studio) needs to hire a new modeler ASAP.

Heh, true that. Of course, I came down from a "client" last night, well, I turned the job down, you couldn't understand why a "Matrix style" sequence for a 30 second commercial for a local furniture store couldn't be done for $500 with it being all CG, so I guess I'm still on the whole "you're oversimplifying things" mode.

And I never said a modeler footprint makes a transfer impossible, but for some programs to fully utilize the asset, certain things can get in the way. Like we recently bought a bunch of cars from Turbosquid (we needed cheap and moddable) and the cars were constructed in Lightwave, adding basic 3D to the ortho cutout and appending polygons between the two sides. Suffice it to say, before these were usable, massive changes needed to be done and it's debatable on whther or not the time saved was worth the cost of the models. Especially considering most of the polygons were not a solid mesh so before we could even edit in Maya, we had to complete these models...

Modeler Footprints... they can sometimes be a good thing or a very, very tragic thing.

First, the CAD models manufacturers create are for a different purpose; they are far more detailed and are designed for real car parts fitting together in real world physical situations (for instance, the hinges need to hold up when the door is slammed or the hood is shut, the holes in the sheet metal for the door handles, etc...) A model for a video game does not need that - so using manufacturer's models would only lead to more conversion work than seen here. The scanning is only a starting point, the Polyphony modelers likely have a lot more to do. They've been making GT for a while, with so much work invovlved, I trust that they would pick the most efficient way to do all of this.

Next, since we are moving to HD, every game series gets a "first-HD-version" hall pass, as it's the first in it's family to be on the new console in a higher resolution. Madden, Halo3, Burnout, Gran Tourismo, Forza2... All could be considered rehashes EXCEPT that they will be widescreen and HD now. If the cycle for repetition starts up again, well... Then I'll get annoyed with the rehashes. But I'm not mad at HD versions of games I like. Not the first time anyway.

It's hilarious how a snippet on how cool it is to see real cars transformed into wireframe models can quickly turn into "Meh, GT sux. Forza rulez!"

I have a love/hate relationship with GT myself, but there's no denying that the devs on GT are dedicated SOBs who can hardly be called "lazy".

Sheppy... You a man of much intellect - unfortunately your words give you no credibility and your manners are akin to a baboon.

But all that aside - Answer me this:

Other developers have included damage to known brands of cars - the same cars in GT. So the "damage" licenses are available to game developers and they are available for a low enough cost to ensure a profit (will lesser selling titles mind you). So why would Sony not buy these licenses in order to compete with the rest of the developers out there?

Assuming they do have a "No damage" clause in there contract, what car company would not want to re-write this contract to collect more revenue from this partnership? That is lost money to them.

I stand by statement of Sony being complacent in this matter. Just like EA does with their sports franchises, they know there product will sell regardless of innovation. Thus, they don't even bother. Damage would increase their costs in licensing and developing, but if they do not catch up, then they will lose sales as well.


BTW - You can continue to tout your unable-to-prove credentials and continue calling me a chickenhopper all you want... But it does not help you cause in this argument.

"Sheppy... You a man of much intellect - unfortunately your words give you no credibility and your manners are akin to a baboon. "
Wait, this is the internet, right? I didn't take a wrong turn and fall into that swirling vortex of ego circling jerking called MySpace, did I? Mannerism is for real life or people of importance. Fortunately, neither can be found here on Joystiq... ;p

"But all that aside - Answer me this:

Other developers have included damage to known brands of cars - the same cars in GT. So the "damage" licenses are available to game developers and they are available for a low enough cost to ensure a profit (will lesser selling titles mind you). So why would Sony not buy these licenses in order to compete with the rest of the developers out there?"

I'm not really a fan of car sims so the entertainment value to me is akin to Golf Channel or daytime television. So I'm a tad out of the circle in comparing car lists and such. But sure, let's start there. What cars are on both lists? I mean, certainly if Harley Davidson won't allow their motorcycles to wreck, it's not unheard of to have a company manufacturing a $1.4 Million dollar car saying "You cannot scratch this car when in game." But as I said, I have no clue on the differences between them.

"Assuming they do have a "No damage" clause in there contract, what car company would not want to re-write this contract to collect more revenue from this partnership? That is lost money to them."
To a company that cannot manufacture more than a couple thousand of an elite car per year, you got to go pretty fucking above the cost of the original license to make a snob ditch their supposed integrity.

"I stand by statement of Sony being complacent in this matter. Just like EA does with their sports franchises, they know there product will sell regardless of innovation. Thus, they don't even bother. Damage would increase their costs in licensing and developing, but if they do not catch up, then they will lose sales as well."
But here is the dealio, what do we know about GT5, seriously? You can count the informational leaks on one hand. These games you mention "well why can they do it but not Sony?" Yeah, they came AFTER GT4. Obviously things change, companies become more open. And I know for a FACT cars were cut from both games you mentioned just because the manufacturers would not allow them to damage the cars. This was talked about, actually, at the last GDC.

All we know about GT5 is that it's currently in development and, thanks to people bitching at Sony over Microtransactions (yet they'll gladly take it in the pooper with a smile from Microsoft) finally canned GTHD with was going to replace the typical tradition of a "prologue" edition game release on GT5. We know the environments are realtime, the cars look hot, the drivers look great, and... this is how they capture initial shape data... that's it!

We don't know whether or not GT5 will or will not do car damage so let's quit this "They have to catch up with X because they're lazy" on a game that is still, by far, shrouded in Mystery.

"BTW - You can continue to tout your unable-to-prove credentials and continue calling me a chickenhopper all you want... But it does not help you cause in this argument."
You don't like Chickenhopper? It's a fun, festive insult. It's even PG-13. Children get one mental image, adults get another, both inside a smirk or a giggle. You'll use it later, I know. But how about Eggshover? ;p

Alright eggshover... ;)

Forza Car List: http://tinyurl.com/b7g33
GT4 Car List: http://tinyurl.com/2gjwbo

As you can see, many of the cars are similar, but Forza also has the premier car and exotics you mentioned (ie, Ferrari, Porsche, Bently, Vauxhaul, etc.). All of Forza's cars show damage.


Now you are right that we do not know whether or not GT5 will have damage modeling. My point was that if it does not, then it will be VERY disappointing.

Not only that, but they will need to get rid of the strait line AI and the lack of online play. Again.. who knows what their plans are for these.

AI always seems weak to me in every game I play, though. So I can't exactly point at Sony without wagging the finger at all. Online is confirmed though. GTHD's release was meant to not only give previews of GT5 but also to test their online portion for GT5.

Once again, people complained too much so GTHD got completely shitcanned.

That entire fiasco was hilarious to me. People were complaining about a game that would be initially free but practically empty, like a demo. But instead of buying a full game later, and addons, later, this would just sell you the addons you wanted. Everyone started complaining about the price, the most hilarious one being the site that added up all the GT4 cars. Seriously, who plays all the cars they collect. I have three friends that play these games and they only buy those cars to get the percentage points. Previews of GT5, online racing, buy only the content you want and still end up on the cheap, and this was somehow evil.

ill trooper. Not every game gets a hd widescreen conversion. Forza one was 480i (technically hi def) and widescreen.

Forza 2 is internally rendered at 1280x720 @ 60 fps, and output at whatever resolution you want (the scaler). It has over 70 new cars, a redesigned physics engine, more upgrades, improved online play, better painting/decal editing, remade a.i., new tracks, more damage, supports force feedback. Those are just the things we know about it. It is not a simple hd conversion.

Eat a dick,it was my name first.

Wow what a kerfuffle.

I worked on GT 1 and 2 - I was responsible for the games launch in Europe. When GT 1 was made the whole full car scanning thing was not possible at the time (1996) or at least not for the purposes of that game's development. Also, of course all games consoles can render damage - it's just another model - sure there will be more polys but it does feature in many games. The original issue with GT was that the cars looked and felt so real that the manufacturers felt smashing their cars up was not a good thing for their marketing. Given we needed all the cars we could get we chose not to pursue it. I think it all started wth Honda and as they were a key early partner we decided to respect their wishes.

However, now it is 2007 and many other games feature damage so my guess is that it is now being revisited in the interests of true 'simulation' which was always the key to GT. My personal view is that if the cars' costs were balanced correctly and the repair of damage also reflected real-world pricing then you would try not to kill your most expensive cars - this would give Ferrari more value than say a Renault and would further the realism of the simulation. You would also be making more realistic buying decisions in-game, which I would dig.