GTPNewsWire
Contributing Writer
- 21,598
- GTPHQ
This is the discussion thread for a recent post on GTPlanet:
This article was published by Andrew Evans (@Famine) on February 17th, 2020 in the Gran Turismo 7 category.
Gran Turismo's Future: "4K Resolution is Enough", But 240fps is the Target
- Thread starter GTPNewsWire
- 173 comments
- 23,536 views
- 86,802
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
- 1,748
- vspectra06
- vspectra06
Smart choice. Stuff like 8k res is such a massive waste of hardware power and would have a barely noticeable improvement over most consumer-sized home 4k TVs. But anyone who's played at 120+ fps on high end PCs will know it's a game changer for fast paced games like racers and first person shooters. Playstation CEO also confirmed 4k at 120fps as a talking point for PS5.
Also, Kaz talked about this in the round table that sounds like possibly the return of dynamic time of day and weather with dynamic track surfaces for GT7?
Also, Kaz talked about this in the round table that sounds like possibly the return of dynamic time of day and weather with dynamic track surfaces for GT7?
Q: As somebody who has driven the Nurburgring in real life, where does a simulation help you and where do wish it could help you more?
Kaz: The actual content of driving and the skills involved is already now the same in GT as they are in real life. If you’re able to drive well in the game, you’re able to drive well on an actual race track. That said, real life is a little bit more complex than a video game. For example with Nurburgring, any time you go there the track conditions are going to be different. You’ll have to adjust and adapt for this every time you visit it.
When you consider the skill you need to drive a car very fast is something you can gain in the game, but there’s a lot of risk involved in driving a car on a race track like that. When you consider that, training in GT is a lot more effective and safer.
For the parts of the experience that are still lacking, with the surface conditions being different every time – and how you feel those change through your tyres – I think that’s something we need to work on to make it more realistic in the game.
When you consider the skill you need to drive a car very fast is something you can gain in the game, but there’s a lot of risk involved in driving a car on a race track like that. When you consider that, training in GT is a lot more effective and safer.
For the parts of the experience that are still lacking, with the surface conditions being different every time – and how you feel those change through your tyres – I think that’s something we need to work on to make it more realistic in the game.
- 2,193
- United Kingdom
- breeminator
- breeminator
I agree with him that 4k is "enough" for now, but to produce a good 4k image you need to render at 8k then downsample. I've been playing FH4 on a PC and trying out all the different combinations for graphical quality. My screen is 1080p, and I've found that rendering at 4k with 4x MSAA then downsampling is far superior to 1080p with 8x MSAA. I can get about 90fps with the graphics set to High 4k 4x MSAA. It looks even better at 4k 8x MSAA then downsampled, the image becomes nigh on perfect, but then I only get about 60fps. Or I can get about 130fps at 1080p 8x MSAA, but I'd rather drop to 90fps and have the better quality from rendering at 4k then downsampling.
So to produce a really nice image at 4k 240fps, you'd ideally render at 8k with 8x MSAA then downsample. My 5700 XT can do that at 4k 60fps, so you'd need about 16x the power of a 5700 XT do it at 8k 240fps, so about 11x the power of a £1k 2080 Ti, i.e. I'd be surprised if a PS5 could get close to doing that.
So to produce a really nice image at 4k 240fps, you'd ideally render at 8k with 8x MSAA then downsample. My 5700 XT can do that at 4k 60fps, so you'd need about 16x the power of a 5700 XT do it at 8k 240fps, so about 11x the power of a £1k 2080 Ti, i.e. I'd be surprised if a PS5 could get close to doing that.
- 1,269
- Iceland
- Guffaluff
Smart choice. Stuff like 8k res is such a massive waste of hardware power and would have a barely noticeable improvement over most consumer-sized home 4k TVs. But anyone who's played at 120+ fps on high end PCs will know it's a game changer for fast paced games like racers and first person shooters. Playstation CEO also confirmed 4k at 120fps as a talking point for PS5.
Also, Kaz talked about this in the round table that sounds like possibly the return of dynamic time of day and weather with dynamic track surfaces for GT7?
Q: As somebody who has driven the Nurburgring in real life, where does a simulation help you and where do wish it could help you more?
Kaz: The actual content of driving and the skills involved is already now the same in GT as they are in real life. If you’re able to drive well in the game, you’re able to drive well on an actual race track. That said, real life is a little bit more complex than a video game. For example with Nurburgring, any time you go there the track conditions are going to be different. You’ll have to adjust and adapt for this every time you visit it.
When you consider the skill you need to drive a car very fast is something you can gain in the game, but there’s a lot of risk involved in driving a car on a race track like that. When you consider that, training in GT is a lot more effective and safer.
For the parts of the experience that are still lacking, with the surface conditions being different every time – and how you feel those change through your tyres – I think that’s something we need to work on to make it more realistic in the game.
There was a mention in some previous GTPlanet article, that PD actually has data on different levels of grip between tracks. It's not used in GTS, but might suggest that it will be used in the next-gen GT game.
@Famine can probably pinpoint the article?
DesertPenguin
(Banned)
- 10,691
- Long Island, New York
- DesertPenguin_
4K is more than enough. The human eye can't see more than 60 fps 1080i so there's really no reason for anything better. Sure, some people have very sensitive eyes but they're the exception. For most people 60fps 1080i is already good enough. I'll never understand the craze with 4K and 8K, etc. I've even heard talk of 16K already. Why?
- 6,650
- Hanover/Germany
- alexpkas
Also CPU time, because physics would be calculated in a higher frame rate I reckon. You must admit, that it is very unlikely for PD to raise the framerate to 240fps, and leave the physics engine at 60, and/or not raise the refresh rate of the physics engine too. The poster made a point saying he would like the ressources rather spend on A.I. and other things, instead of 240 fps. He has the right to do so, as far as I understand it, as this is supposed to be some kind of...discussion and opinion sharing? Also, it is more and more common to calculate A.I. on the GPU, which gives the posters point "more weight".
- 1,336
- New York
No...no it doesn’t. Dow sampling is far from a “required” feature for graphical fidelity.
@Alex p. was likely referring to physics calculations since those are usually done on the CPU, but yeah graphical fidelity will be all GPU
- 939
- Zürich
Honestly I think 240 FPS would be overkill for flat gaming, even for VR it would be very much a nice to have, but not essential.
While I agree with the reasoning that Kaz has, there are other factors in the chain that would need to be addressed before even 120FPS would be truly useful.
The biggest issue really is that most people are going to plug their console into a TV, and a lot of these have a hellish lag. It's all very well for a TV to deliver 240FPS, but the TV has a lag of 100ms then you'll be around 24 frames behind the action
Now a lot of modern TVs do have a game mode which in many cases will bring that lag down to around 10ms, but at 240fps you've still got a delay of 2.4 frames.
And I'm only talking about 1080p here. 4K is worse again.
While I agree with the reasoning that Kaz has, there are other factors in the chain that would need to be addressed before even 120FPS would be truly useful.
The biggest issue really is that most people are going to plug their console into a TV, and a lot of these have a hellish lag. It's all very well for a TV to deliver 240FPS, but the TV has a lag of 100ms then you'll be around 24 frames behind the action
Now a lot of modern TVs do have a game mode which in many cases will bring that lag down to around 10ms, but at 240fps you've still got a delay of 2.4 frames.
And I'm only talking about 1080p here. 4K is worse again.
- 1,874
- United States
I agree that for tv viewing 1080 at normal watching ranges is more than sufficient. I can see where a 4k display above a certain size being used in close proximity viewing range like for a computer or gaming monitor has a use as the pixel sizes are much smaller on the 4k display than the 1080 display so the picture will be much clearer.
Otherwise for the average consumer and especially as one gets older and their eyesight is not as sharp as when they were younger the higher resolutions are more marketing hype and will not in most cases will the differences be seen even if and when the time comes that content is actually produced and common in those resolutions.
zzz_pt
Premium
- 8,188
- Porto living in Hamburg
- zzz_pt
For VR, the higher the resolution the better though, since you're inside the world being rendered, and being able to see and read objects and texts virtually as far as you can in the real world, would be massive. The thing is, in VR, you not only have to render at 8K 240fps once, but twice, one for each eye, which makes it very very very tough and expensive to accomplish, let alone on a mass market console.
Last edited:
- 1,748
- vspectra06
- vspectra06
An educated guess, or do you know some info that we don't know?
With ray-trace effects I have doubts they'll hit 120fps at 4k. A 2080 TI currently struggles to hit 60fps at 1440p with just ray-traced reflections in Battlefield 5. So I wonder how PD will balance everything.
Really hoping we'll get dynamic time of day back at least for GT7. It's still astonishing in GT5/6
- 17,842
- Florida
- GranTurismo0517
- RandomCarGuy17
and I am fine with that, I really don't care about resolution anymore. I would've been contempt if they stopped at 1080p, focusing on frame rate is a better idea imo.
Part of me also hopes this means PD might stop trying to improve the visuals on their car models now and just focus on adding new cars. I love the beauty in what they do, but I am sick of having to start over whenever a new graphical leap happens. Having to wait years to drive cars from the previous generation plus new ones.
Part of me also hopes this means PD might stop trying to improve the visuals on their car models now and just focus on adding new cars. I love the beauty in what they do, but I am sick of having to start over whenever a new graphical leap happens. Having to wait years to drive cars from the previous generation plus new ones.
- 1,874
- United States
Same goes with current high quality non screen door effect VR rendering is that maintaining stable frame rates with high quality graphics is taxing computer systems with 1200.00 2080ti gpu's and 9900k 500.00 dollar U.S.dollar cpu computer systems but yet for some reason so many think a 500.00 u.s.d new PS5 console is going to magically be able to do all these things
I’m fine with GTS image quality as it is. On PC I can’t see a difference between 60 FPS synced and higher frame rates. Available GPU capacity could be used for dynamic weather and time of day imo.
if they have some CPU capacity available they should really look into improving the physics model and AI (and AI physics model, as it probably even less detailed).
I don’t see how an improved penalty system would impact either GPU or CPU.
For me the difference between new PC sims and GTS is:
1) GTS has a proper online system at reasonable prices (PS Plus subscription)
2) PC Sims (eg ACC, RRRE,...) have far more detailed physics
3) PC Sims have dynamic time and weather (again ACC, since it is the most recent one)
if GTS works on there strong points and develops the weak points, there’s hardly any reason to play another sim.
if they have some CPU capacity available they should really look into improving the physics model and AI (and AI physics model, as it probably even less detailed).
I don’t see how an improved penalty system would impact either GPU or CPU.
For me the difference between new PC sims and GTS is:
1) GTS has a proper online system at reasonable prices (PS Plus subscription)
2) PC Sims (eg ACC, RRRE,...) have far more detailed physics
3) PC Sims have dynamic time and weather (again ACC, since it is the most recent one)
if GTS works on there strong points and develops the weak points, there’s hardly any reason to play another sim.
8k is not really a thing in terms of mainstream content. Whether it be games, movies or TV. However a quality 8k screen can upscale 4K content for a slightly better picture.
Next-gen the focus will be higher resolution assets, textures and effects. Giving a more filmic/TV type image.
Next-gen the focus will be higher resolution assets, textures and effects. Giving a more filmic/TV type image.
- 9,054
- Murica
- BasedAckbar
I for one welcome our 240 FPS PD overlords.
240fps will let you investigate in super slo mo how the penalty system screwed your over.
Similar threads
