60fps (and 1080p to some extent) limit GT5

[Hardrocky]

This is the worst argument I have ever heard for anything. The higher the frame rate the better. I would think this is even more inportant in a racing game where at 200mph your vehicle is moving nearly 5ft every 1/60th of a second. Most people with LCD displays will never notice the difference because of the slow refresh. Come play a game on my old 22" NEC Pro CRT with the refresh set to 200hz and tell me it's not better than 30hz.
As far as yor brain struggling to fill in the gaps, do you think that would be better if the frames were 10ft apart at 200mph, or 5ft at 200mph?
If you want motion blur try Need for speed or the very old Motorhead. Motion blur is not a feature, it is a cheat for slow rendering, just like fog. Maybe they should add fog to GT5. I bet they could get a SOLID 60fps then.

 

[hanhamreds]

I’m, not going to get in an argument about what the human eye can and cannot see. What I will say is that GT5 at times looks decidedly choppy, I also find the sense of speed from the bumper view much better than the cockpit view.

 

[JBturbo]

Physics engine are mesured in hertz wich is 1 divide by the number of cycle of calculation, if your physic engine works at 200hz it means you can get a new information every 0.005 second. You want the higher possible framerate to enable the player to get the most of these informations, a feedback to what he is doing and eventually correct it. This is what defines the driving gameplay itself in a racing game. So yes it's kinda important..

As for looking on the right hand side in the window at 15mph, yea, but it's not racing..and you can do that in GT5 it will gets blurry itself, mostly because your display won't be able to follow the pace. No racing sim have motion blur, again it's an heresy, not Forza, not iracing, etc..

That's the basic for building a sim (that and framerate).

I didn't say that the physics engine aspect isn't important, but there's limits to how much physical calculation can be performed and as you point out the relation to frame rate isn't direct. I have no argument there.

However, there IS motion blur in Forza and Iracing - but it's your brain that creates it.

 

[snicker3s]

The average reaction time is 215 milliseconds 👍

'Computing' realistic blur barely takes any resources at all. It just joins a few pixels together (at a fidelity you wouldn't be able to identify even in a still).

Thats reaction time, this includes
-seeing/hearing something
-letting your brains process it
-sending commands to muscles
-muscles starting up(defeating inertia)...

We are only talking about the first two...

Realistic blur takes into account direction, distance...

things have to be blurred also (alpha/fade calculations wich are not entirely inexpensive)

 

[petalpusher6]

Hop on a Mclaren f1 on the Nurburing in GT5. Drive fast. I think you brain will be able to create it too.

 

[JBturbo]

This is the worst argument I have ever heard for anything. The higher the frame rate the better. I would think this is even more inportant in a racing game where at 200mph your vehicle is moving nearly 5ft every 1/60th of a second. Most people with LCD displays will never notice the difference because of the slow refresh. Come play a game on my old 22" NEC Pro CRT with the refresh set to 200hz and tell me it's not better than 30hz.
As far as yor brain struggling to fill in the gaps, do you think that would be better if the frames were 10ft apart at 200mph, or 5ft at 200mph?
If you want motion blur try Need for speed or the very old Motorhead. Motion blur is not a feature, it is a cheat for slow rendering, just like fog. Maybe they should add fog to GT5. I bet they could get a SOLID 60fps then.

This is the sort of misinformed post that really irritates me.

Let me capitalise this for emphasis.

MOTION BLUR IS NOT A CHEAT. IT IS WHAT HAPPENS IN REAL LIFE. WHETHER AT 30FPS, 60FPS or 10,000FPS IT DOESN'T MATTER. YOUR BRAIN CAN ONLY PROCESS INFORMATION AT CERTAIN SPEEDS AND FILLS IN THE REST OF THE GAPS.

FOr those struggling with this just think about real life and the side window analogy. You are look at truly infinite frame rates and your eyes still blur! So how the hell can you suggest 60fps is any better!?

 

[JBturbo]

Thats reaction time, this includes
-seeing/hearing something
-letting your brains process it
-sending commands to muscles
-muscles starting up(defeating inertia)...

We are only talking about the first two...

Realistic blur takes into account direction, distance...

things have to be blurred also (alpha/fade calculations wich are not entirely inexpensive)

Surely we are talking about all 4?

- You see the braking point and see your car approaching/getting on it
- Your brain processes the action required
- It sends the message to the muscles to act
- The muscles act

In regards to your second comment regarding the nature of blur calculations, in GT5 it would be an extraordinarily simple process. No level of accurate fidelity is required in this instance.

 

[JBturbo]

Hop on a Mclaren f1 on the Nurburing in GT5. Drive fast. I think you brain will be able to create it too.

This is exactly what I mean though - all the same your brain has to do it anyway, so what's the benefit of 60fps here?

If GT5 ran at 10,000fps the brain would blur it exactly the same, as there's only so much information it can process.

Edit: I apologise for the multiple posts, I am trying to have several discussions at the same time however!

 

[Saidur_Ali]

But this is not true.

For a start, physics engine calculations don't work on an FPS basis. If they did, then 30 calculations PER SECOND is vastly more than enough.

As for motion blur and visibility, there's this huge misunderstanding that higher FPS's are better!

Get in your car and go for a drive at 15mph. Fix your eyes at a spot out of your side window. Even at 15mph it will be incredibly blurred. This is in real life! With an unlimited FPS! At 15mph and infinite FPS your eyes will still blur. They just can't process that information.

So why is it that people go - 'oh but when you're travelling at 200mph you need 60fps for it to be smooth.' What? That makes no sense.

It wouldn't matter if GT5 had 10,000,000 fps. Your eyes still have to blur at any significant motion.

Essentially the developers had this choice;

1. Have 60fps and have the players brain blur as required
2. Have 30fps, and implement a 2 pixel (think about how big that is) motion blur instead.

The physics engine for a start works at a different frequency than the FPS. The 30FPS being vastly enough is laughable. If that was the case why does rFactor and Simbin titles run at 400Hz and not 30Hz which you say is more than enough. Forza 3 runs at 360Hz while the visuals run at 60FPS. This is needed to refresh the physics engine as quick as possible, if GT5 was running at 30Hz, it will be unplayable and unrealistic as it will be missing multiple calculations on many things happening to the car for example collisions, loss of grip and other stuff in real time. Believe it or not but grip levels change all the time in real life and much than 30 times a second.

Also for visuals, over 30FPS is a must for a racing sim. I don't know about you but in real life, you can see things smoothly and it not jerky. If you play for example Need For Speed Shift and F1 2010 on PS3 and then go play the same game on PC at 60FPS, it feels a completely different game to look at due to it being a lot smooth and less jerky. I guess if you think looking out of your car at 15MPh and things look blurry then the difference in frame rate won't affect you but I would be worried at such a low speed you can't focus on something outside your car window.

I guess your opinion is that people who make sims have a misunderstanding that 400Hz for games like rFactor or 800Hz for games like rFactor Pro used by F1 drivers in the Red Bull team have no reason to have the physics engine run at such a high rate when 30Hz is vastly enough according to you. In real life, you can feel your car losing grip and countersteer quickly due to Gforces and steering response, if you limit the speed you can countersteer in games, it will make it unplayable, around 400Hz is optimum for most racing sims hence why most aim for this amount.

Also visuals over 40FPS is required at the minimum, below that it becomes harder to see what the car is doing in terms of movement, and you have less time to react from visuals, but it also looks less natural at a lower FPS. Human eyes can notice a difference between 100FPS and even over 200FPS.

I don't understand how you can't notice the difference between 30FPS and 60FPS.

 

[CSLACR]

But if they did 30fps or 720p then all we hear ALL DAY LONG is "omg! FM3 is sooooo much better!".
they should've delayed features like 3d and using the eye altogether, imo.

But then, if not their biggest title promoting their newest features, what would?

 

[Mubble]

I agree that the frame rate needs to be 60fps.

But I doubt 720p would cause an issue. Most PS3 games are 720 and no-one makes an issue out of it.

I'd rather 720 and better textures and shadows.

 

[JBturbo]

The physics engine for a start works at a different frequency than the FPS. The 30FPS being vastly enough is laughable. If that was the case why does rFactor and Simbin titles run at 400Hz and not 30Hz which you say is more than enough. Forza 3 runs at 360Hz while the visuals run at 60FPS. This is needed to refresh the physics engine as quick as possible, if GT5 was running at 30Hz, it will be unplayable and unrealistic as it will be missing multiple calculations on many things happening to the car for example collisions, loss of grip and other stuff in real time. Believe it or not but grip levels change all the time in real life and much than 30 times a second.

My comments on physical calculation were poorly worded, but if you read a later post I do clarify that the relation to frame rate isn't direct. Instead of the comment 'even if it did run at 30 calculations per second that would be vastly more than enough' I actually meant even if it does run at 30FPS the calculations would remain at vastly more than enough. Apologies for the confusion.

Also for visuals, over 30FPS is a must for a racing sim. I don't know about you but in real life, you can see things smoothly and it not jerky. If you play for example Need For Speed Shift and F1 2010 on PS3 and then go play the same game on PC at 60FPS, it feels a completely different game to look at due to it being a lot smooth and less jerky. I guess if you think looking out of your car at 15MPh and things look blurry then the difference in frame rate won't affect you but I would be worried at such a low speed you can't focus on something outside your car window.

I don't mean focussing on a single object outside of the window and following it as you move, I mean holding your gaze in a specific spot as things go by.

I guess your opinion is that people who make sims have a misunderstanding that 400Hz for games like rFactor or 800Hz for games like rFactor Pro used by F1 drivers in the Red Bull team have no reason to have the physics engine run at such a high rate when 30Hz is vastly enough according to you. In real life, you can feel your car losing grip and countersteer quickly due to Gforces and steering response, if you limit the speed you can countersteer in games, it will make it unplayable, around 400Hz is optimum for most racing sims hence why most aim for this amount.

See previous comment. I'm not debating the nature of physics calculation. In fact I agree with you.

Also visuals over 40FPS is required at the minimum, below that it becomes harder to see what the car is doing in terms of movement, and you have less time to react from visuals, but it also looks less natural at a lower FPS. Human eyes can notice a difference between 100FPS and even over 200FPS.

Certainly not at movement they can't. Statically perhaps (and rarely) but not in movement.

I don't understand how you can't notice the difference between 30FPS and 60FPS.

30fps implemented properly is just as smooth. The implementation does need to be more accurate however.

 

[petalpusher6]

You realize you demonstrate yourself that higher framerate is better to recreate naturally this type of effect? How the hell something closer to the pace of the human eye can be worse than half of it?..And as saidur ali pointed it too, the higher framerate target is mostly related to the on screen transcription of the physic engine. You absolutely need that in these kind of games.

And please show me where you see any kind of motion blur in Forza, iracing or anything different from GT (wich is in fact, thank god, no artificial motion blur in all case) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNnoVW6A5XM

 

[JBturbo]

You realize you demonstrate yourself that higher framerate is better to recreate naturally this type of effect? How the hell something closer to the pace of the human eye can be worse than half of it?..

And please show me where you see any kind of motion blur in Forza, or anything different from GT (wich is in fact no motion blur in both case) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNnoVW6A5XM

Yes it's better to recreate it naturally, but that doesn't mean anything. You see what you see, it doesn't matter if it's natural or artificial.

And as for your video, you still obviously don't understand what I mean by motion blur. There is tons of it in the videos, but you aren't identifying it because your eyes are just doing it.

Are you telling me that if you focus in one point in space out of the side windows you can make everything out with perfect clarity? As if it were a photograph of the real thing?

I can't demonstrate it with a screenshot or photo because that's the one area where motion blur would be noticeable. The benefit (as the name suggests) is in motion.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

My comments on physical calculation were poorly worded, but if you read a later post I do clarify that the relation to frame rate isn't direct. Instead of the comment 'even if it did run at 30 calculations per second that would be vastly more than enough' I actually meant even if it does run at 30FPS the calculations would remain at vastly more than enough. Apologies for the confusion.



I don't mean focussing on a single object outside of the window and following it as you move, I mean holding your gaze in a specific spot as things go by.



See previous comment. I'm not debating the nature of physics calculation. In fact I agree with you.



Certainly not at movement they can't. Statically perhaps (and rarely) but not in movement.



30fps implemented properly is just as smooth. The implementation does need to be more accurate however.

I also meant looking at things going by the window. For me, going at 70MPH things don't look blurry, but at probably 160MPH+ it will look blurry. I don't get why for you looking outside at 15MPHh is blurry. The main time I look outside the window while travelling is on a train and I believe they go around about 60MPH and things don't look blurry then. Here is a article below that might be of interest to you.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article596580.ece

I think you are not understanding why 30FPS can look smooth, it is due to motion blur, at 60FPS, they don't use motion blur to make it look smooth like in real life you won't make your eyes blur by having something close in front of your eyes and then focusing on something far away while driving to make driving looking ahead look smooth. Why do things unnatural in-game than in real life? 60FPS helps improving focusing on braking points, driving cleanly and passing opponents with more precision.

 

[JBturbo]

I did a screenshot anyway. Make sure you read the accompanying text;

The top is standard. The bottom is with 3 pixels of motion blur applied on the left side window.

Now IN A SCREENSHOT this is of course noticeable. But in motion, in the game, you would not be able to tell the difference between the two. This is because in the first instance your eyes would have done the blurring for you. In the bottom it's already done.

But please don't say 'I can see it in the screenshot so I could see it whilst driving, this is just not true. You WOULD see if it you paused the game and then looked. But then I actually like my driving games to involve movement.

 

[JBturbo]

I also meant looking at things going by the window. For me, going at 70MPH things don't look blurry, but at probably 160MPH+ it will look blurry. I don't get why for you looking outside at 15MPHh is blurry. The main time I look outside the window while travelling is on a train and I believe they go around about 60MPH and things don't look blurry then. Here is a article below that might be of interest to you.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/driving/jeremy_clarkson/article596580.ece

I think you are not understanding why 30FPS can look smooth, it is due to motion blur, at 60FPS, they don't use motion blur to make it look smooth like in real life you won't make your eyes blur by having something close in front of your eyes and then focusing on something far away while driving to make driving looking ahead look smooth. Why do things unnatural in-game than in real life? 60FPS helps improving focusing on braking points, driving cleanly and passing opponents with more precision.

We're talking about different things. If you are doing what I'm doing (the looking out of the side window at 15mph at a fixed point in space) and there isn't some degree of motion blur then you're a freak of nature and go against every single study related to the eyes every performed.

I don't mean looking in the distance, of course that isn't going to be blurry.

 

[MowTin]

In a console game you cannot adjust the visual settings to your PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

1. In a PC game I would never turn down resolution below my native display. That would be a last resort.

2. If I had performance problem shadows would be one of the first things I would turn down. Who sits around staring at shadows?

3. 30 fps is not a good frame rate for a PC game nor should it be for a console game. Yes, you can perceive a lack of smoothness. Also keep in mind that frame rate is never steady through every part of a game. 30 fps would be the AVERAGE frame rate. At some points it might dip to 15 fps.

Overall GT5 is the best looking racing game on any console. If that's not good enough for you just move on to PC gaming. iRacing and Shift look great when the graphics are cranked up on a powerful PC.

Again, this shodow issue is just your personal image settings preference. There are those who agree with you and would rather better shadows and sacrifices made elsewhere. But there are those like me who feel that shadows are the first thing that should be sacrificed.

It's a racing game. If you're staring at shadows you're driving too slow

 

[Saidur_Ali]

We're talking about different things. If you are doing what I'm doing (the looking out of the side window at 15mph at a fixed point in space) and there isn't some degree of motion blur then you're a freak of nature and go against every single study related to the eyes every performed.

I don't mean looking in the distance, of course that isn't going to be blurry.

I think you are missing the point completely. There is a reason why developers such as PD and T10 sacrifice a lot of visual quality to make the game run at 60FPS. Luckily this won't be a sacrifice next-gen as the hardware will make most game developers use 60FPS as a minimum. It also is the refresh rate limit for most screens. This is make it appear natural and realistic, not blur out the visuals by software. At the end of the day, when you look at things in real life, you mention for you things become harder to make out at 15MPH. However what if in real life you smeared your windows and then tried to look out your window. Why do this in game when that is not the case in real life. Let your eyes blur the object you are trying to see, not artificially do it. We wouldn't want our windows blurred out in real life, why do it in-game? Why would you want artifical smoothness in virtuality when in reality you don't. There is also a reason why some TVs are 100Hz, 120Hz and 240Hz, not only due to 3D TV compatability but also due to make TV programs look smoother by adding more frames.

Human eyes can notice FPS over 200FPS according to studies, your theory of 30FPS being enough for ours eyes to distinguish between is only an old myth.

 

[chromatic9]

60FPS is a must

Thankfully PD/T10 and the rest of game devs, world of PC gamers for the last 20 years gamers notice the difference easily and won't be swayed by threads and myths like this.

1080p I agree or in GT5's case 1280X1080, is too demanding for the consoles.

 

[petalpusher6]

i think the 24,30 fps "best capability" of the human eye, is the most laughable internet urban legend ever.
For some reasons, every once in a while it's back from nowhere. It's annoying.

 

[Griffith500]

It's funny seeing these arguments crop up from time to time. I remember the outrage when the 60 fps patch was released for GPL. Many people said they couldn't see any difference, but I could lap faster and more consistently afterwards, and it paved the way for faster force feedback which did the same thing all over again.

1/30th of a second is 33.3 milliseconds.
1/60th of a second is 16.6 milliseconds.

The difference is 16.7 milliseconds.

The average reaction time is 215 milliseconds 👍

'Computing' realistic blur barely takes any resources at all. It just joins a few pixels together (at a fidelity you wouldn't be able to identify even in a still).

Reaction times are dependent on how much you're "expecting" or anticipating something, so you can see that the more information you have, the better you can anticipate the event. Real drivers don't miss their braking points by 215 milliseconds, do they?

I didn't say that the physics engine aspect isn't important, but there's limits to how much physical calculation can be performed and as you point out the relation to frame rate isn't direct. I have no argument there.

However, there IS motion blur in Forza and Iracing - but it's your brain that creates it.

Then it's not motion blur in the game, is it?

This is the sort of misinformed post that really irritates me.

Let me capitalise this for emphasis.

MOTION BLUR IS NOT A CHEAT. IT IS WHAT HAPPENS IN REAL LIFE. WHETHER AT 30FPS, 60FPS or 10,000FPS IT DOESN'T MATTER. YOUR BRAIN CAN ONLY PROCESS INFORMATION AT CERTAIN SPEEDS AND FILLS IN THE REST OF THE GAPS.

FOr those struggling with this just think about real life and the side window analogy. You are look at truly infinite frame rates and your eyes still blur! So how the hell can you suggest 60fps is any better!?

Your brain has to fill in bigger gaps at lower frame rates. It is better that it gets as much information as it can process, not to have to make at least half of it up! It takes me a while, but I can re-adjust to 30 fps and it will seem totally smooth (even without "motion blur"), but I prefer racing at 60 fps (at the very least) for the fluidity (different to smoothness) that it offers, and hence the better connection to the car and everything else around. The biggest problem with racing simulators is that, generally, you're missing the butt-o-meter input, so you are relying solely on your eyes to interpret closing speeds, slip angles, yaw etc. I'd rather get this information at (or above!) the peak rate my brain can manage, rather than be fed a slideshow at a quarter of that rate! In most situations, I'm running at around 120 Hz; I can do better if I'm "on edge". So, even 60 fps is a compromise.

 

[MadduckUK]

60FPS is a must

Thankfully PD/T10 and the rest of game devs, world of PC gamers for the last 20 years gamers notice the difference easily and won't be swayed by threads and myths like this.

yup 👍

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Under no circumstance should they lower the FPS below 60...but I agree that 1080p isn't very necessary.

GT5 at 30fps (courtesy of automatic youtube FPS reduction)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPWTDRip4gM

GT5 at 60fps
http://www.gamersyde.com/stream_gran_turismo_5_tgs_rain_gameplay_dark_-17179_en.html

Bring them up side-by-side and tell me there isn't a MASSIVE difference.

 

[Rocket Punch]

Thanks OP for inventing a NEW complain about the game. 👍

Here is mine. GT5 should be FREE, anyone want to sign my petition????

 

[petalpusher6]

it's a matter of choice, gt5 could have been in real 1920x1080p, but with no AA at all (maybe a little temporal one, msaa/qaa no way) It's a choice and a trade off, they had to do, considering the PS3 is not a magic system with inifinite power (a matter of bandwith in fact).
Anyway the game renders in 720p too (with 4xMSAA) if you choose it in the xmb, the 1080p mode (1280x1080 in fact) just runs with less AA (2x). It should be pretty equal in term of computational power for both of the modes (720p just a little more stable i think)

Resolution in that type of game is still a plus, gives you definition, better visibility at far, better shader sampling, better filtering pattern and you need less AA in higher resolution. 2d elements, alpha coverage remains a problem though regardless of the resolution, so the trade off is fair in the end.

 

[novcze]

Hi there,

Having experienced loads of the graphical 'nuances' that GT5 has to offer, it absolutely stuns me that designers continue to adhere to 60fps. It is completely unnecessary and for all intents and purposes completely pointless in a game such as GT5.

How can you say that? 60fps is very important in every racing game, not just in GT5.

 

[BobElHat]

If you don't move your eyes the yes, you get motion blur, but humans don't view the world like that. We do actually move our eyes and track things, which makes the thing we're tracking sharp, even if they're moving fast. The game would have to know what I was tracking with my eyes in order to know what to blur and what not to blur. That rapidly approaching 150m board I use to judge my braking point might be blurry if I'm looking straight down the track, but if my eyes are tracking it it should be crystal clear even as it flashes past at 160mph. We don't have the technology to track eye movement that well on the PS3, so the motion blur idea is a complete non-starter.

 

[chromatic9]

Unless you play it on a 70 inch display and sit 20cm from the screen you'd never notice the difference in game.

Full benefit from 1080p is about 5-6 feet on a 40inch screen.

Even at 1280x1080 which GT5 is, I can see the difference. I set the PS3 to output 720p for capturing on my PC, and sometimes leave it set to 720P accidentally when going to play properly and see the difference, not just in menus (which are 1920x1080), but game play to.

 

[gengis92]

I prefer 60 fps over the shadows. Is a racing game