iPad 2: Rumor Roundup and Thoughts

Hmmmm... perhaps I should change this blog title to “There aint no such thing as a free Apple”. Seeing as I have done so many apple reviews. Oh well.

Anyway the rumor mill is churning away on the next generation iPad and here are the basics.

• SD card slot. Opinion seems pretty solid that this would be as a ‘photo import’ or similar function ONLY device and not a true memory expansion option. Given the gnarly nature of app authentication and licensing nightmares around itunes media purchases I unfortunately think that is a very real possibility. Here is hoping it will allow you to have some expanded shared document repository functions for license free media/photos and files. It would be a very nice change from the current device. Hooking up to itunes to transfer files for the apps that support it is very annoying. A possible big change in Mobile me could be another way of easing the blow of not completely opening up the compact flash slot for use.
• Cameras on the front and back is pretty much a given at this point. SDK diving has revealed there is a good chance the rear job will be a lowly 1mp job for Augmented reality and barcode scanning type applications. The front camera will be a crappy vga deal for face time ala iPhone 4. Crappy may be harsh... so I will give it a quality vga deal (ie smooth etc...). I personally could care less about the front facing camera but it being there looks like the move is finally on to real video phoning being common. The back camera being the 1mp deal seems annoying... just like it was on the Touch. The camera cost is pretty small for those tiny little things and they already have massive production numbers with the iPhone 4 or even the older sensor in the 3Gs for something with a much better quality image. Including more spec will make it more useful... trust the folks out there to find the uses and give them the easy capacity for the couple of bucks the extra mega pixels would cost.
• A usb port has been rumored but largely dismissed. I unfortunately think the tea leaves read that way as well. The device can’t run the USB host spec without seriously hamstringing the battery and Apple has shown no sign of offering alternatives to the Apple dock for interfacing physically with their devices. Also SD cards are a better solution for flash memory additions due to being housed internaly which is the only viable host function an iPad USB port could serve. In other words SD is the ‘USB’ option. Apple has never been coy at utilizing less than standard ports. USB host interface will still be available through the dock connector as it is now. Any full implementation of USB host would rely on a powered dock apparatus.
• Bumped CPU and Graphics processing to dual core jobs. Both will be welcome though it would seem the Graphics bump will be tied to the big momma rumor of the Retina display for iPad. Without it there would be little need for such a serious jump in pixel pushing power. This is par for the course stuff on a refresh but along with the also expected RAM bump this could allow for some better multitasking in a future iOS release (iOS 5 I’m looking at YOU).
• Mini Display Port. Hmmmm... this is also somewhat tied to the Retina display discussion below. Suffice it to say if Retina iPad happens then this makes sense to me. It wouldn’t be that much of a stretch for it to run the 27” apple monitor at native resolution at that point... and with readily available adapters (just 30$ a pop) it would actually have to drive LESS pixels on almost any other display currently out there. Translation... graphics would no longer be a sticking point on an iPad serving as the basis of your ‘desktop’ system... and mobile multi core processors are rapidly becoming powerful enough to be viable main use options. Hell, many folks today run on 720p resolution desktops... which the iPad can push out externally now. Having a dedicated port instead of relying on the dock connection based adapters means two things. One, they need it to push higher resolutions than they can through the dock connector without modifying it and breaking compatibility with the existing dock periphials (if it can work then don’t expect a separate display port). Two, Apple may seriously be considering a non-tethered life for iPad... ie that it is a primary computing device in and of itself rather than an adjunct device to a ‘base’ computer running iTunes. I think the hardware will be ahead of the software on that front. Think in terms of the delayed release of 4.2 for iPad vrs when it was released. iOS 5 and an iTunes Cloud could promote the iPad to primary device status in the eyes of Apple. To make that jump it will need to run accessories like displays, and iOS will probably have to deign to work with a mouse/trackpad.
• Retina Display. See below... this one is to big for even one of my ‘bullets’

The Retina Display for the iPad is rumored to consist of a whopping 2048x1536 resolution 10inch display. While not quite as pixel dense as its iPhone 4 sibling it is still 260ish DPI which is more than double current desktop monitor averages. Many seem to think this unlikely because it is hard or to expensive to make the display.. they would be wrong. Making a 10inch 260dpi display is technically easier than making a 320dpi 4 inch (iPhone 4). Manufacturers didn’t stop increasing pixel densities due to technical holdups in making them. They stopped because of numerous factors that caused desktop display resolutions to hit an HD resolution wall in the market. The question here isn’t how is Apple going to manage to produce a mobile device with this level of resolution... the question is why current desktops/laptops don’t have even higher resolutions/DPI. I bought a 15” laptop with a screen resolution of 1920x1200 more than 4 years ago. It was the absolute bleeding edge of semi portable laptop resolution at the time and it was about a year behind wide spread availability of that resolution on desktops. That marked the start of a stagnation of computer resolutions... largely because bigger screens were not really an option and increasing resolution without increasing physical dimensions means higher DPI which broke, and still breaks, the usability of a huge amount of desktop software and even the Operating Systems. A point driven home to me by some problems I had with that same laptop (its display had something like 140dpi). To my knowledge 1920x1200 is still the maximum resolution available for a laptop today and I don’t think computer monitor resolutions have EVER remained this static for this long since the birth if GUI based personal desktop. I saw several stories about 1 inch HD screens a couple of years ago (camcorder eye piece monitors). That is almost 2000 DPI. 300 DPI is NOT a problem. The graphics for 300 DPI are and Apple is in a position to make the transition to higher DPI levels for iOS devices and have already started with iPhone 4.

You may be asking what the big deal is with 300 DPI. The answer is as simple as comparing a printout of a sheet of text with the same text on your screen. Standard printout quality is 300 DPI. It has remained there despite the technical ability to produce thousands of DPI (used sometimes in high end graphics printing). Apple’s marketing for the Retina display is based on it. Its what you can easily distinguish at typical distances for using printouts. Smaller elements (higher DPI) would look the same. It represents the highest quality display level that will be unquestionably appreciated by the masses. Much higher and the only folks that can tell much (if any) difference are those with either super vision, or those who just always think more is better no matter what they can actually see/distinguish. Either is a niche market. 300dpi is the mass market display resolution maximum barring some means of improving average human vision.

The remaining questions are these. One, does Apple think increased DPI is a marketable feature that will distinguish their devices? Retina display is an Apple marketing term and is one of the leading features touted for the iPhone 4. Case closed, lets move on. I honestly wouldn’t be surprised to see a ‘retina display’ macbook/pro, imac etc... in the not to distant future.

Two, Can Apple afford to bootstrap a new production line for a massed produced screen that has currently only been demonstrated? Yes, they have one of the largest reserves of capital of any company and the money needed to do this does not represent a significant proportion of those reserves (say 2-5 billion out of hundreds in the bank). They even have current experience pushing super high volume of high DPI screens with the iPhone 4... scaling to a 10” screen is not a problem and with the current success of the iPad I think not much of a risk either. Next up, 30 inch screens? Now THAT would be a risk... for now.

Can Jobs and Co convince the board to take a multibillion dollar leap? Yes, the iMax, iPod, iPhone and iPad have proved that over and over again.

This leaves the final and critical question. Was Jobs/Apple confident enough to bankroll a completely new line like this for the brand new tablet market in time for an April ’11 release? iPad was enough of a gamble that by the time the returns were in and they knew for certain how big it was may have been to late for an April ’11 release of the next device with the new screen. In any case I have seen enough to firmly believe it is now just a question of iPad 2 or iPad 3 that comes with a ‘retina’ display.

My take? 15 months is forever in the tech world and from now that is the time it would take to get to an April ’12 device. 15 months ago the iPad didn’t exist and tablets where largely thought to be crazy. Now 17million iPads have been sold to the tune of Billions and dozens of competitors are racing tablet devices to market and corporate environments are sucking them up in almost unprecedented fashion. In 15 months time the iPad could be caught and slaughtered by cheaper super powered android units. It is time to double down for Apple and a 15 month delay for such a stand out feature may miss the boat in a market they created. So, I think the Retina display makes it this round. Possibly with a delayed release. An odd possibility, but not unprecedented for Apple, may be that this becomes a model difference (lower and higher resolution iPads). This is pretty similar to 3gs and iPhone 4s currently. This may also allow a bit higher (or stagnate) price point for the top tier devices while dropping the older generation device down to compete with all the ‘bandwagon’ competitors now rushing to the bottom.

If nothing else I hope this breaks the dam on display DPI being stuck around 100. 300dpi print quality screens are LONG over due. My seriously long range prediction (at least in tech terms) at this point is that iOS 5 and OS XI seriously change how graphics work so that instead of pixels, graphics are based around DPI leading to much easier scaling of various software across different devices with various screen technologies.... it might even be that iOS 5 and OS XI are one and the same literally rather than just very close siblings like 4 and X. If iPad 2 ships with a mini Display port I view it as a sign of this being a real possibility. This also has implications for the iPhone if it continues to match or even exceed iPad specs on the processing side (iPhone 4 currently outstrips iPad in pretty much every way). As that would mean anything an iPad could do... an iPhone could do as well. Food for thought.

Wikileaks: Good Job or Reckless Endangerment?

A government, just like individuals, has the right to secrets.

Who will watch the watchers?

These two statements represent a kind of immovable object vs irresistible force situation when they collide in the real world as they have with the whole issue of wikileaks. While governments have the right to maintain a certain level of secrecy in the interest of the nation, they do not have the right to abuse that privilege. The question then is exactly how one makes sure they cannot abuse this power. Julian Assange is the latest in a long line of people who have struggled with this issue when having the power to reveal information provided to them which the government desires to keep secret and yet which they feel reveals abuses of the system. Some have dealt with this struggle well (Watergate, The Pentagon Papers) and some have done so not so well (Los Alamos papers).

To those who peer into the annals of history with rose tinted glasses absent, who go poking around in the darker regions of murky dealings between nations... it is no revelation that the business of international politics and wars is at its heart a rather sordid affair. In this sense the wikileaks documents and all such similar revelations in the past are nothing new. Nothing surprising. Nothing those in the know get to terribly riled up about. You see its not the content of the revelations that is the problem. It is the nature of them. It is the dirty mean common imperfection of it all and the bright light that is illuminating this fact which is so dangerous. This focus on these rough edges and the clear exposure to the common man and the unsurprising reaction of indignity is what they are upset about. Herds are normally passive and happily serve as food for the Shepherds. But occasionally they are spooked and they stampede. Wikileaks is the kind of thing that can spook the sheeple herd. And it is very much something to be frightened of. When sheeple stampede you get things like the French revolution, Russian revolution, and yes even the American revolution. You get the Reformation. The Fall of Rome. In short... bad things though in some cases bad things that lead to better things.

Civilization as we know it is based in no small part on some pretty big whoppers that rely on a communal state of ignorance to remain stable. Paper is valuable (money), The People are in charge of their government (particular to democracies), and governments are the expression of ideals.

The idea that paper is valuable is a useful fancy. It establishes the basis of motivation in our society... and collectively if we all believe that it is valuable then low and behold... it IS valuable. But only because we all agree to this common ludicrous assertion. Because we are incapable of coming up with a better means of exchange of value we insert this value less construct to represent real value for purposes of exchange. I bring this up because it is one many people can sort of grasp... they get it to some extent.

The People are in charge. This one is a bit more difficult. We have elections and we believe them to be fair. The thing is that belief is more important than the reality. As long as we believe that we are in charge of putting people in power and taking them out of power we as a whole accept their actions as being an extension of our will. The second we as a whole cease to believe in that then it doesn’t matter how legitimate the election is... anarchy will ensue. It is on this basis we allow our government secrecy. We allow it because we trust them. To not trust them is to be at war with them. To understand this issue is to understand the likes of independence nutz the likes of which produced Timothy McVeigh. The reason we see those groups as nutz instead of as heros is because we do not share their lack of faith in the democratic processes of our government.

We hold the government to uphold our collective ideals of our nation. We hold it to a higher standard than we do ourselves. No different from the previous thought that monarchs were the divine agents of a higher power. We hold our leaders to be above the flaws of mankind in order that we trust their judgement.

Why do we believe in these things? Because they beat the everliving crap out of the alternatives. Exchanging slips of paper or little bits of metal beats the crap out of direct bartering of goods and services. Believing we elect our government and having a chance it is real beats rule by right of birth or might of sword/gun. Placing faith in those we empower to represent us to the world to do so better than we might expect ourselves to justifies our faith in entrusting them with the power (yes that makes for a vicious cycle).

The alternative as far as we know at this point is chaos. A regression to worse means and times. To accept the imperfections is to invite regression. To challenge the realities of these things is to risk regression. We balance upon a knifes blade with a long fall to either side and a greater uncertainty should we try something completely new. It is little wonder we ultimately display such patience with the imperfections of our little world. Wikileaks, and those sites/news outlets like them, play the role of agitator. They hold up these imperfections for close examination and they do their damnedest to knock us off that knifes edge of stability. Not for the purpose of throwing us all into chaos... but in order to help us improve. But change is dangerous, especially to those in power that have a vested interest in keeping things the same, and like clockwork those in power that have had this light of inspection cast on their dark underbelly react instinctively to protect themselves. When the revelations are damaging enough and it attracts enough sheeple to take up pitchforks and have a mind to ‘storm the castle’ in reaction then governments either fall or change enough to pacify the mob. While most consider outright revolution an impossibility in modern “1st world’ democracies it is very important to remember our history. The nice thing about our government and the lack of public memory means the ability to adjust to this new reality peacefully is possible and has happened in the past. However, for that to happen our elected officials MUST adapt. Every major political system of the past has always faced an intractable problem for which it had no answer that led to its demise. It would be silly to presume that modern democracies have no such critical failure point.

I do not think wikileaks is in and of itself strong enough to destabilize things to a great degree and as it exists now it is not that intractable problem, at least not yet. Wikileaks and sites like it are something we had best get used to so in my opinion the problem isn’t really if they are doing a good thing or being reckless... I think they are inevitable so we would best spend our time adapting to the reality of such information generally being available. To try and stop it would be just as silly as attempting to not allow the bible to be printed once the printing press was invented, and as wrong as censoring journalists... a core fundamental freedom we founded our nation on.

Grand Tourismo 5 Review: 6 Years in the making.... 6 years to complete?

I was always a fan of racing games growing up. However it wasn’t until I bought Grand Tourismo 3 on the PS 2 that I turned into an addict. Grand Tourismo is like that. The funny thing is that most games with this painstaking level of detail and difficulty are rarely widely popular. GT is one of the PlayStation lineup All Stars and each release has been pretty notable. That said the coming of GT 5 was viewed as pretty special from the start. It was delayed form release on the PS 2 because of the promise of the PS 3 horse power. And everyone salivated over what an HD quality version of GT would bring. Little did we know it would be 5 long years before the two would actually meet in a full GT 5 release. So its out... and the review storm is on. I am not going to try and get into every single little detail. But here is the take from one serious hard core addicted GT fan who is around a 3rd of the way through the new release by percentage.... perhaps 5% through in reality.

(plus minus ratings in comparison to the series as a whole)

Driving: +

The core of GT has always been your connection with your car and the track. It is better than ever and better than anything else I have played on PS 3 including Shift and the new F1 2010 game... both of which are pretty damn good driving games. No matter how negative the review I have yet to find one that doesn’t tip its hat to this critical core element and admit it still does not have a real peer in what else is available on a console. The only thing I have heard listed as perhaps on par or even exceeding it is the PC sim iRacer.

Cars: +

Premium cars are awesome. Standard cars are basically GT 4 cars with the updated driving model. While the models have been upped somewhat to PS 3 and do look considerably better than GT 4... they pale in comparison to the premium cars and the track environments. It is noticeable enough I often register if I am driving past a standard or premium car even while in the midst of a white knuckle tire squealing corner. Mostly I don’t care, more choice beats to little choice as long as the driving dynamics remain true. However, the lack of a cockpit view in standard leaves me a bit cold as that is my preferred vantage point. Granted, considering how much time I have spent whizzing around in bumper cam mode I get over it pretty quick and I still occasionally resort to it even in a premium car... particularly right hand drive models on difficult tracks/races. Hopefully Kaz and crew make good on their promise of continuing to upgrade cars to premium status with patches etc...

Tracks: +

There are more tracks than ever. Some old friends, some new creations, some new real locations and some MIA. I really hoped Infineon would remain after its appearance in GT 4 and it is the only real MIA that bugs me personally. The new graphical treatment of the pavement is stellar. Dirt/Snow and Wet all leave a bit to be desired in terms of ultimate perfection in each, but are all done very well. Weather is unfortunately not an option on every track and so far it seems there is no real dynamic component to the weather... ie its either raining and wet or sunny and dry, no range from full dry to torrential downpour.

Modifications and Tuning: -

This is perhaps where Grand Tourismo is sitting on its laurels a bit. For a long time there just were zero options for tweaking your cars mechanical setup to any significant extent in the car racing genre except for GT games. Forza, Shift and even the F1 and some of the NASCAR games have largely lifted this aspect from the GT series and implemented it. In some cases (shift and forza) they have done so pretty well. GT still stays on top but mostly because what tuning you can do has a much better translated impact to your driving experience than what any one else has managed. The actual interface for tuning and making modifications on the other hand is pretty bad... and there are now some glaring omissions. The tuning options have gradually been nerfed into a much more approachable format. The problem is they now appeal to neither extreme. You still have novices complaining that they don’t understand and you have long term series veterans tearing their hair out because they can’t tweak their cars to the same extent they have come to expect from the series. None of this has to do with exterior graphic modification mind you. I am talking about nuts and bolts configuration settings of the cars various systems. My current experience in GT 5 with tuning has left me a bit frustrated. Two key elements are either not available or not available yet. Brake upgrades and being able to monkey with individual gear ratios and final drive gearing. Being able to stop later and maximize getting your power to the ground via drive line gearing have been two MAJOR aspects of learning to go fast with a car in GT. I list the gearing as a medium problem since you can still do a kind of auto adjustment with the top speed setting. Not great but it is better than being stuck with a set gearing. I also cut it some slack because it either unlocks at higher levels or they forgot to enable the dialog for some reason and can easily fix it with a patch. The lack of Brake upgrades is a serious oversight in anything purporting to be the ‘real driving sim’.

All that being said the mod and tuning is still pretty in depth. Suspension is thankfully just as configurable as ever. Would be nice if they would expand tire/wheel to a full performance issue... ie side wall size, tire PSI etc... It does seem they included wheel weight in the equation this time around but there seems to be no way to figure out what the various rims weigh other than by taking note of your total weight before and after installing them.

Core evaluation:

So you have a crap load of accurately modeled cars to modify and race around numerous tracks. That in and of itself is the absolute core of Grand Tourismo and on these counts it delivers and it delivers well. If you like Tourismo games in the past you will have a familiar experience adapting to the new version where old reliable features you loved have been altered or gone completely. After a while you will likely come to appreciate the trade off decisions and happily get back to racing your favorite new races or shaving hundredths of a second off time trail lap times and enjoying some new variations like weather and night driving with headlights.

In the end that is the Bottom line evaluation of GT 5. It does what it has always done and with a few exceptions in the mod/tuning department it does it better than it ever has. The scale of the game is huge. Unfortunately, unlike in the past, I think PD hit a quantity over quality problem with GT 5 and that is where its problems show up.

So what is all the fuss about:

Probably 99% of the flak bouncing around the internet about GT 5 at the moment can be traced to two things that are linked at the hip. It is over baked and over hyped. IT is over hyped because they over baked it, and over baked because they over hyped it. The popularity of GT 5 is such that it is considered a console buying decision. IE there are people that buy a play station JUST for grand tourismo games because it is exclusive to play station and they like what GT does that much. Whether you understand how a game can push someone to buying 400-1000 dollars of gear or not it is a very true state of affairs. As such anticipation of the new release of the game constantly builds and GT 5 spent a very long time in the pipeline. Much longer and it might have started drawing comparisons to the Duke Nukem sequal that is now pushing 15+ years on the ‘its coming’ front. As such the known capability of the PS 3 hardware, the proven track record of polyphony digital to get more out of playstation consoles than just about anyone else, and the amount of time they were taking to do it all combined for a ridiculous amount of hype. To much hype is the majority of the problem. The only real fuel for the fire now that reality has quenched the hype are the over baked elements of the game that really show up as discordant notes in the non-core elements that give it such a huge scale.

What do I mean by over baked? In software development, when you continually work on something and start going through major revisions you encounter some very odd states of affairs. It is very easy on large projects for various elements to get out of sync and reach various levels of completion. As a result if it is not carefully managed you get over baked software (at least that is what I call it) and it is an odd conglomeration of finished, polished, burnt and uncooked elements. GT 5 apparently went through numerous design changes and as they did they continued to carry over bits and add new goals. The driving model, their bread and butter is really the only thing that seems to have gotten better throughout the whole process (The teaser HD download, Prologue and GT academy showed a clear progression) but some other elements kept causing problems. The decision to do premium or HD quality cars meant they hit a real wall in development time. Keeping to standard car detail level with only a mild update would have left them well behind the pack in the graphics department. No matter how quality the guts are, console games live and die by how they look and even GT is not immune to that. Damage and Weather were long term wish list items from GT fans and its creators alike. There is a track generator, TV content, Major licensed content firsts (Top Gear, NASCAR, Red Bull, Ferrari, Lamborgini etc...). All combined it was probably to much to accomplish with a game that has the scope of GT to their previous high standards. And it shows. Implementation of weather and damage are not what anyone really expected. The Top Gear and NASCAR elements have a ‘tacked on’ feeling and missed some obvious options. Even though the new stuff is by and large ‘good’, they are often not ‘great’, and most telling there are a couple that are definitely under par when compared to the competition. This is not what is expected from Polyphony digital. Its kind of like one of the recent golf seasons where Tiger Woods won the most tournaments, made the most money but every one said he had an ‘off year’ because he didn’t win a Major or two.

It is important to keep some perspective. There are more competitors and dedicated specialist titles in the car racing segment than ever before that have intention to be ‘realistic’ or at least more than just an arcade racer. Where GT rally driving was once the only game in town, there are now multiple dedicated titles to it that, unsurprisingly, are better in their tight focus. F1 2010 has an insane weather system that blows GT5 off the track because weather is so crucial to realistic F1 race strategy. We may never see another GT game that dominates its peers the way the old releases did. But that doesn’t mean the new release is bad or worse than previous versions by any stretch of the imagination. What you get in GT 5 would still take buying several other titles to try and replicate with alternatives... and you would still probably want GT as there are elements it is still best at.

Here is hoping that for GT 6 they refrain from trying to incorporate to many ‘new’ elements and finish the ones introduced here. A full stable of premium cars, a working dynamic weather system, more realistic damage, and expanded tuning back to the days of yore would make a very nice next release... or ultimate state of GT 5 after numerous patches that seem to be on the way.

What would I change?

Top Gear would be a MUCH larger section. Ford Transit Van around Nurburgring trying to beat Sabine Schmidts Time from the show. Diesel Jag to try and beat Clarksons. EVO and STI race around the Top Gear Test Track. BMW M3, Audi S4, Merc AMG race. Hot Hatch Race. Reasonable Priced Car Power lap leader board. Stig Challenges. Veyron Challenge. I mean there are so many options to pull from over the history of the show it is incredible that all we got were two really annoying slow runs in old VW’s and a Lotus race on ice skates (comfort hard tires).

Practice would allow you to choose a field of cars of your choosing for a race. Practice would also enable you to choose for fuel/tire wear during the session. Very annoying that you can’t groove a endurance setup anywhere but the actual endurance race.

Better balancing of the field on multi type races. The old ringer problem is back in force and it seems like every race or champion ship is really a competition against a single stand out car in the field and you have no idea how out of whack it will be. Often leads you to having WAY to much car or having no chance at all.

All convertibles would be top down or there would at least be a solid indication of if it will be up or down when driving it on the purchase screen.

B-Spec would be a bit more engaging. The generic slow down, stay put, speed up and overtake missives are not very engaging. It would be nice if you could develop a race plan for your driver and watch the telemetry and relay instructions like brake later into turn 6, earlier into turn 3 etc... This could be a pretty cool way to engage non driving gamers. As is it is kind of like watching paint dry... though fun to watch the race if it has some cool cars.

Online Time Trails would not be for single lap wonders... they would be for 5-10 lap totals and Damage would be ON. Disqualification for running all wheels off track would be much stricter.

Better Driver AI. Shift had pretty good AI... it was nasty and dirty but you got a real sense that the computer cars were aware of you. Often times GT computer drivers act like moving pylons on a pre-ordained line that could care less if you were there first. F1 2010 probably has the best AI I have seen in a racing game.... probably because the drivers act like they have some sense of self preservation (crashes can end the race in that game).

Menu’s would be super streamlined and far more logical to navigate... the damn things look like they were meant for a mouse. There is often no logical method of getting your cursor around the numerous selections. There are LOAD times between menu screens and you have to jump menu screens ALOT.

Garage is available from more places.. hooray... but you still can’t buy a car from the list of allowed cars for given races. This means numerous screens out of A or B Spec, back to GT home then into the dealerships, the dealer , the car, the get in the car back to GT home back out in the A or B spec.... its tired. Its old and it should go. Also your garage should allow for all your modifications/buying/oil changes etc... It is really annoying when you have like 5 new cars to have to go to the garage to ‘get in’ then go change the oil then go back to the garage, get in the next etc... etc... etc...

Oh I could go on and on. Suffice it to say I like the game enough to nitpick it to death with things that could be better. Bottom line is I play it to often and probably will continue to do so for a while to come.