GTL 2 .......what would you like to see.

DurgeDriven

http://www.virtualr.net/gt-legends-sequel-works


IF ...........:p

1. gMotor obviously lol

Completely remove every single modern system and aid from the engine, physics, settings, menus and buttons.

Each sim would be closed to cars of the decade and mods would need 3PA approval.

2. A new sim released every 2 years covering a decade starting at the 50's through to the 70's

3. Daytona beach and road Course ( closed 1958) a track never reproduced.

US content:
1951 Hudson Hornet
1954 DeSoto FireDome
1955 Chevrolet Bel Air
1955 Chrysler 300
1956 Plymouth Fury
1958 Pontiac Bonneville
1959 Chevrolet Corvette


Be great to have a free roam city separate from locations.

MCO style with filling stations and drive-ins to meet, spontaneous street drag and fairground racing.

I just think of thunderstorm with vacuum windscreen wipers and no heating.................. hehehe
 
Last edited:
It would immediately be better because Starforce is no longer a thing.
 
hehehehe

very true :)

P.S.
I never liked all the left over aids and buttons in any gmotor title.

Starting from the 1950s you could just forget all that, what a huge difference to realism that would make.
 
Last edited:
I would like to see:

1- Eventual proof (art and concepts) it is happening within the next 8 months.
2- A game geared towards quality game modes - like different championships - and centered around an actual series, which we haven't had in 10 years.
3- Real cars with fictional names if necessary.
4- 1967-1971 GT cars like Ford GT, Porsche, Chaparral and Lola.
5- A selection of at least 11 tracks adequately made, with freaking crowd and lively atmosphere, banners, sponsors, whatever.
6- Whichever base they go, from ISI to Unreal engine, that for gods sake it looks/renders the graphics well so it's not unpleasant.
7- Good sounds.
8 - Marshals and crowds that look human, and a basic pitcrew.
9 - rFactor (1) slider setup.
 
Last edited:
GTL 2 .......what would you like to see.
Click to expand...

Well, after changing my undies :p

rF2 physics and features built under a dx12 (at least) graphics engine.
Fully cloned career progression (optional menu choice - as per the original GTL) that leads one through all of the car classes and track configurations.
Full modding support using the same packages system ISI introduced with rF2 - with the tools included in the game install.
In game paint shop - that I have not seen since that ancient game "Viper Racing" - I won't hold my breath on that one though.
 
All of the cars from GTL, Power and Glory, and HistorX. That would be a download worth waiting for.
 
In game historic racing encyclopedia, with cars, track, drivers and events.[emoji6]
 
Proper working clutch and non-synchronized transmission (1 - 2) if it is also in real car, heel/toe use to prevent gearbox damage and weight penalty or some other similar penalty to equalize H gearbox shifting guys with those who are shifting with stering wheel paddles in online races. This is all what I would like to see ... also in rFactor 2 one day.
 
Wow - 8 straight posts and not a single negative post. Either hell has frozen over or I am not on the rF2 forum like I think I am................

A new and improved GTL would be awesome..
 
RNelson said:
Wow - 8 straight posts and not a single negative post
Click to expand...



Wait until they announce engine ...........you will hear me bellow then. lool ;)




David Wright GTL expert and enthusiast hinted ISI work on something other then rF3.

I just cross my fingers and toes 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 :p


Do we even know how big Tiny Feet is ?

Hopefully it is niche which fits with ISI, each title could push the others sales.


What worries me if they are a larger company.
ie: the majority do not care about physics but rather content and eye candy.
 
DurgeDriven said:
the majority do not care about physics but rather content and eye candy.
Click to expand...

You are wrong, graphic performance not eye candy. I dare to claim that he IS focused more on graphic performance from the beginning sales numbers to rF2 would tell a different story then it is today.
 
WhiteShadow said:
You are wrong, graphic performance not eye candy. I dare to claim that he IS focused more on graphic performance from the beginning sales numbers to rF2 would tell a different story then it is today.
Click to expand...

So more drive AC and pCars because of graphic performance ?
 
VR support, for me, is mandatory. Will never spend another penny on a racing sim that doesn't have this feature out of the box.

Otherwise, very excited. Classic racing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modern racing.

rhamm said:
It would immediately be better because Starforce is no longer a thing.
Click to expand...

Denuvo is a pretty worthy successor (if we're talking about trash that penalizes people for actually buying their games).
 
Very much interested, but I will contain my excitement until I've played it.

I would like to see a solid physics engine, ISIMotor or not, and an interesting career mode, much like the original GTL had. A bit of polished graphics are nothing to sneeze at, also I would hope for laser scanned tracks. I like those a lot. It is also (of course) always a matter of content provided - I'm not interested in a Sim if there is not enough content that interests me.

The original GTL did almost all of those things very well. I'm still playing it from time to time now.
 
hexagramme said:
I would certainly not hope that we're supposed to race historic race cars on modern circuits.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'd hope there were zero modern layouts. A game built around classic cars needs to have classic layouts for its tracks.
 
I will quote my post from RD, because I have a feeling, a lot of people really do not understand the idea of GTL.

"Maybe I am wrong, but a lot of guys here don˙t understand what GTL really represents. The game is not like GPL with historic cars and historic tracks from ages ago, it puts us into modern racing category of classic cars and they are needed to be driven on modern tracks. So old cars on new tracks and I am sure, GTL2 will do the same :D"

http://www.hscc.org.uk/championships

 
Last edited:
I agree with the post above - I'm guessing many are not familiar with GT Legends :)

GT Legends was based on the 2005 FIA Historic racing championship which of course raced on modern circuits. Since the new title is a sequel to GT Legends there is a good possibility it will also simulate current historic racing, though sadly the FIA Championship is no more. If it does then naturally it will include modern tracks.

Historic racing has been growing in popularity at least here in the UK. Around 100,000 attend the Silverstone Classic event and the Goodwood Revival.
 
Last edited:
Not sure what to expect. I guess nothing untill it is released or more details are known. :cool:


Tiny Feet Studios
5. August 2014 ·
"We are currently looking for UE4 developers! Please get in touch if you are interested, or knows somebody that might be."

facebook.com/tinyfeetstudios


EDIT: Looking at the date might aswell be for a past project.
 
Hillman Imps, Cortinas, Minis on Cadwell. Sim heaven. Although after paying into various early access schemes, pcars, ac and paymods, with none of them delivering what they promised, I'll probably sit this development out until I'm sure the sim fits my requirements. I really hope it succeeds and I also hope it uses the isi engine.
 
I understand what GT Legends was. But I'm going to be honest, to me that reasoning always seemed like a justification to re-use assets. If you have to redo all your assets anyway, and there's not financial gain to re-using modern tracks, why not go with historic tracks? Guess I'm not a very sentimental person. It holds no soft spot that this is the way it was done with the first game (for unsaid reason above). It'll be a no-brainer purchase for me if it has classic tracks. If not, I feel I've got enough classic cars in my "garage" with the current sims. I'm just missing more high quality classic tracks. That's what'll sell me or not.
 
PaulG said:
If you have to redo all your assets anyway, and there's not financial gain to re-using modern tracks, why not go with historic tracks?
Click to expand...

I wonder how many people who are asking GTL 2 to take the same approach as GPL and give us the teams, cars, drivers and tracks from the 60s have actually looked at the championships back then. For example, the 1965 World GT championship took place over 17 locations including 4 hill-climbs, Spa, Le Mans, the Nurburgring and the Targa Florio. Great tracks no doubt but no developer could afford to produce them all or produce them in a sensible time-scale.

I also wonder if an ISI track maker could comment on the work required to produce a historic track compared to a current track. You would think that the CAD package or laser scan available for modern tracks coupled with the relative ease of being able to take photos of the real thing for textures etc would make it easier to produce a current track. I suppose it depends on how different the current track is from its historical counterpart. In the UK, the current Oulton Park and Brands Hatch are not too far removed from their historic counterparts and of course Goodwood is largely untouched. In GTL, Donington Park, Dijon, Anderstorp and Mondello Park are close to their 70s counterparts.
 
The answer is easy....

Updates/overhaul/changes/evolution etc. of the core physics engine. Not as in just using a later version of an ISI engine (eg. SCE), or using the RF2 engine, but updating of the core physics engine source-code (including, but not limited to, the tyre model) from the devs themselves or outside sources so we're literally not just playing another "mod" (AKA SCE) which, in the end, is still the same 'ol because of using the exact same core physics coding (I know Rieza now have the full license allowing them to modify pMotor and tyre engine, I was just using a quick example).

That's the only way to evolve games in my opinion - source code changes/updates/overhaul, or a new different core altogether, rather than having the underline coding stay the same. It's easy to tell which physics engine is being driven/played on regardless of how great or terrible the game/mod is, regardless what physics engine it's being run on (Assetto Corsa, rFactor 2, rFactor 1, etc.). Same core engine = same 'ol.
 
I read that the developer is looking to use the Unreal Engine 4 ala KartSim based off a LinkedIn profile. Has anyone read anthing concrete about this?
 
My reason for wanting gmotor is deeper then physics. :rolleyes:



I want talented historic modders to take up gmotor modding and conversions ! ( better late then never :) )


Then overtime more of them would also do work on rFactor2 and rFactor3 ( whatever it is called ) , etc. etc.


Simple logic, break that Asssetto Corsa umbilical cord. lol p
 
Last edited:
Travis said:
I read that the developer is looking to use the Unreal Engine 4 ala KartSim based off a LinkedIn profile. Has anyone read anthing concrete about this?
Click to expand...

I have no reason to doubt Zach's words about the driving capabilities, so it would be nice to see GTL 2 on that.
 
Guimengo said:
I have no reason to doubt Zach's words about the driving capabilities, so it would be nice to see GTL 2 on that.
Click to expand...

KartSim doesn't use anything physics related from the unreal engine. From wht I understand, the Unreal Engine part is just like a dress on top of another core physics system underneath.

Then again, there must be connections between the physics engine and the graphics engine so I don't think it's as simple as I worded it above. Maybe the fact he's using the Unreal Engine now does indeed affect/change some things from the physics' point of view? Hmmm, I'd really like to ask Zach.
 
Spinelli said:
KartSim doesn't use anything physics related from the unreal engine. From wht I understand, the Unreal Engine part is just like a dress on top of another core physics system underneath.

Then again, there must be connections between the physics engine and the graphics engine so I don't think it's as simple as I worded it above. Maybe the fact he's using the Unreal Engine now does indeed affect/change some things from the physics' point of view? Hmmm, I'd really like to ask Zach.
Click to expand...


Unless any of these other engines have " Car Tuning and parts that work mechanically and aerodynamically " ..............it will be lame.

Tuning and parts is a BiG part of ISI engines.

Personal opinion and do not take lame as lame. lol


It is like I said AC cars " you drove one you drove them all"

Not meant to be taken literally..........it is a figure of speech. :rolleyes:
 
Being an Aussie of 58 years, some of the older and unused aussie tracks like Adelaide International Raceway, Warwick Farm, Amaroo, Lakeside, Baskerville, Calder Park and the main one, the original Sandown.
As for cars, Porsche 917-30, Audi 90 IMSA, Ferrari 330 P4, GT40, D Type Jag, M8 McLaren and other Can Am cars, Full set of F5000 cars of the Lola T400 era, 16 cylinder BRM F1 car, Cooper Climax 1961 Brabham car , 1983 Mustang GTP and a Full CART car series.
Just because its GTL, doesn't mean that it has to be all Cortinas and Minis lol.

I know these tracks are out there but not really up to RF2 standard and I'm not a modder lol.
 
Spinelli said:
KartSim doesn't use anything physics related from the unreal engine. From wht I understand, the Unreal Engine part is just like a dress on top of another core physics system underneath.

Then again, there must be connections between the physics engine and the graphics engine so I don't think it's as simple as I worded it above. Maybe the fact he's using the Unreal Engine now does indeed affect/change some things from the physics' point of view? Hmmm, I'd really like to ask Zach.
Click to expand...

Maybe there's Havok somewhere. Anyway, what would talking about it tell you?
 
Last edited:
gmotor, gmotor, gmotor lool

It is the only thing give any semblance to real physics chassis and tyres and has the best FFB. Come on guys !!! We talking Historic cars

If GTL was AC 1/2 the cars would drive the same.


I bet there are some of you think this new NFS will be better physics too...........

dream on lol :)
 
Guimengo said:
Maybe there's Havok somewhere. Anyway, what would talking about it tell you?
Click to expand...
Well it would be really cool to know if it's honestly as simple as that. If changing graphics engine (and possibly other parts of the source code) lterally makes not even 0.0001% of a difference to physics.

Back to GTL. GTL was the sim I spent most time playing in my life. It's the only game I played so much offline thanks to having to work your way up to faster cars and biggers tracks. The career mode was simple but very, very effective. What a fantastic game. The only thing that ruined it for me and caused me to move on was when i finally got triple screens - it's the same reason I barely touch R3E and PCars. I'm going reinstall GTL next week, get a 350 - 380 mm rim for my OSW, and start Career mode from the very beginning :)
 
Spinelli said:
Well it would be really cool to know if it's honestly as simple as that. If changing graphics engine (and possibly other parts of the source code) lterally makes not even 0.0001% of a difference to physics.
Click to expand...

In theory you can do this. rF2 engine runs one physics thread and one graphics thread. Neither are connected to each other so what you feel for example in FFB is not dependent on some delay in graphics computation, as it should be. I think R3E and pCars have also done this, from what I've read both use some old pMotor code for physics, but have built their own graphics engine above that.
 
stonec said:
In theory you can do this. rF2 engine runs one physics thread and one graphics thread. Neither are connected to each other so what you feel for example in FFB is not dependent on some delay in graphics computation, as it should be. I think R3E and pCars have also done this, from what I've read both use some old pMotor code for physics, but have built their own graphics engine above that.
Click to expand...
Yes but I don't think R3E or PC can be used as an example because they are allowed to change physics too so who knows what may have changed or not changed. Not only that, but did R3E literally delete every line of source code of the ISI graphics engine and "cut and paste" an entirely different gfx engine in? Or did they modify the source code of the graphics engine into what they have now?Also, there needs to be all sorts of connections between the physics and graphics since they are connected to a certain extent. What if you wrote some parts of code that the new graphics engine doesn't understand? Or maybe it makes things freak out? I bet you there had to be quite a bit of modifications to coding when Zach decided to change graphics engine.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong. I just find the subject in general quite interesting and would love to maybe one day talk to a source-code programmer - the guys who really deal with all the nitty-gritty of core-programming (for eg. the guys at ISI who actually work on the pure source code of physics buried in the EXE file that none of us can ever see rather than the guys/modders who create cars/content, well unless they're the same guys but you know what I mean :) ).

If I find some cool links regarding all this, I'll shoot you a PM (so as to stay on topic in here) :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top