Cars in GT6 that has PS4-Ready graphics.

  • Thread starter syntex123
  • 664 comments
  • 57,073 views
They will be semi premium on GT7 :lol: I think PD will aim for RUF CTR level on all standard from PS3 era.

But we shouldn't even have any standards in GT , people just got so used to it that they think it's acceptable , of course it's their opinion wich i respect , but it just makes the game look bad and unfinished. In GT3 they didn't keep GT1 and GT2 cars , so why do it now?
 
@JoaoSilva If the standards get RUF CTR level of quality + having fully modeled interior, then that should be fine. + working lights (sidelights, dipped and full beam) and reverse lights.
 
But we shouldn't even have any standards in GT , people just got so used to it that they think it's acceptable , of course it's their opinion wich i respect , but it just makes the game look bad and unfinished. In GT3 they didn't keep GT1 and GT2 cars , so why do it now?

The best PD could do if wanted to keep old legacy cars ( standards ) is to upgrade them all to semi premium and add interior. PD may be able to squeeze them into Corvette C5 premium level ( one of the lowest quality premium in GT5/6 )

Do we think PD could do them all to premium in 3 years time ?
 
The best PD could do if wanted to keep old legacy cars ( standards ) is to upgrade them all to semi premium and add interior. PD may be able to squeeze them into Corvette C5 premium level ( on of the lowest quality premium in GT5/6 )

yeah that would be fine , and would save them a bit of time . It's not the greatest looking standard but it's better than a dozen pixels put together that PD dares to call a car.

maybe if they make the 50-70 more important standards.
 
The best PD could do if wanted to keep old legacy cars ( standards ) is to upgrade them all to semi premium and add interior. PD may be able to squeeze them into Corvette C5 premium level ( one of the lowest quality premium in GT5/6 )

Do we think PD could do them all to premium in 3 years time ?

In my experience modelling time is more closely linked to accuracy than fidelity. Making a low quality premium car (if quality = fidelity) doesn't necessarily take less time than making a high quality premium car. What takes time is making it accurate to the real car in terms of shapes and proportions.

I think 10 years is a more realistic time frame, because they can't let the entire car modelling team remake old standards. They're going to want to add new cars as well.
 
In my experience modelling time is more closely linked to accuracy than fidelity. Making a low quality premium car (if quality = fidelity) doesn't necessarily take less time than making a high quality premium car. What takes time is making it accurate to the real car in terms of shapes and proportions.

I think 10 years is a more realistic time frame, because they can't let the entire car modelling team remake old standards. They're going to want to add new cars as well.

10 years :eek:, PD needs ten times more modellers :P
 
@gtuned Agree , how can this be on a PS4 game?

10112506331951547.jpg
I think they updated that so it doesn't look as bad but some of standards look really good. I hope the meaning of standard cars will be premium like exterior with no interior if they do include standards in the next game.

pCars has around 70 IIRC , it's a different type of racing game too. GT will always have the most cars in comparison to those 2 games , DC might even not get a sequel , who knows.
GT5 Prologue had 74 cars and think it could compete quite well with DC and pCARS regarding car quantity and quality.

Anyone know if the gallery still exists somewhere for GT5P: Link

Will be interesting to see how good the models look back then.

858194-942026_20080307_009.jpg
 
Will be interesting to see how good the models look back then.

I think PD didn't update the GT5P models when they put them in GT5 , the Blitz Skyline for example has really bad textures.

Wich means you can see the models for yourself if you know the cars that were in GT5P.
 
GT5P was great imo. I would like a slimmed down GT without the unnessecary duplicates and slight variations, and more of a variation in cars themselves.

And the fact that the My Page screen was one of the best things in a GT game ever. That whole design was awesome. I loved it.
 
GT5P was great imo. I would like a slimmed down GT without the unnessecary duplicates and slight variations, and more of a variation in cars themselves.

And the fact that the My Page screen was one of the best things in a GT game ever. That whole design was awesome. I loved it.

The design was pretty in GT5P and GT5 but what we have in GT6 is more functional , a mix of both would be good.
 
It terms of poly count and some of the close detail work then yes some of the GT6 models are close to being PS4 ready.

However in terms of texture work (the brake disc on the Mini for example) work still needs to be done to show its ready in those terms.

Poly count will only take you so far, as a rough comparison as to the danger of falling into that trap, DriveClub cars have roughly half the polys of the best GT6 models, yet I know which I find better looking (and yes the lighting, etc also needs to be taken into account.


My concern (and its not the only one I have with PD) is that they will focus only on Poly count at the potential expense of other areas of the modelling.

However if they can get the textures, lighting, reflections, etc to the DC level or above with a higher poly count then they will produce a stunning looking title.

So in answer to the question does GT6 have PS4 ready graphics? No it doesn't. Does it have the building blocks in place for PS4 ready graphics? Quite possibly.

Actually, I think it is very likely that the premium cars in-game were created for the PlayStation 4 in mind. For instance, according to Polyphony a premium car takes about six months to create. Let's be honest, even with licensing and the obsessive detail of each car taken into account, there must be something behind-the-scenes the public doesn't know that explains why it took half a year to make create each car.

Secondly, features like HDR/Dynamic Lighting and Adaptive Tessellation is something that is extremely rare in games of the seventh generation of consoles (2005-2012). This indicates that Polyphony Digital must have jammed as much new technology as they can on almost decade-old hardware.

Thirdly, this could explain the wild inconsistency of graphics, sound, and performance. "Why do the trees in game look more like construction paper cutouts than in a typical episode of South Park?" "Why do the spectators look like they were ran over by a bulldozer?" "Why does my Ferrari FXX sound like a lawnmower?" and "What the hell is happening to my goddamn screen!?" The answer to all these questions? It's simply that Polyphony sacrificed good environmental detail and sound effects for ridiculous poly counts on premium cars and realistic lighting. You could even tell by the sound your PlayStation 3 makes that the game is pushing the poor console to the limit.

Lastly, I think we both know about Polyphony Digital's extremely odd developer decisions from time to time, so I guess I don't have to elaborate on that too much. If they can port in cars from Gran Turismo 4 (and possibly even the 3rd iteration) to Gran Turismo 5 and 6 without shame, then I don't think they will hesitate when they want to port in cars that have detailed interiors and exteriors that could have it's textures updated.
 
Boy I'm beginning to think folks love arguing more than anything else. GT5 cars and courses built for PS3 are all PS4 ready. Why, because PD went overboard as they claimed and took thousands of photos per and PS3 detail has a limit that it can show so you will see some definite not so smooth renderings. Just because those are present is no way telling of the actual detail of the full model PD stores, everything is supersampled. Stop throwing the word Adaptive Tessellation around like it's a hot potato, adaptive tessellation on the fly breaks polys into smaller polys viewed at a distance in order to retain the shape at any distance. In other words it's supposed to remove that jarring LOD swap, it's doesn't magically do anything other than work with the data it already has. Maximum poly resolution and minimum resolution is what it works with and it runs in between in order to keep things looking good at any distance. PS3 isn't very solid at it considering it's GPU is garbage, I'm amazed that PD even tries such absurd techniques on that antiquated piece of tech.
Lots of folks in here only talk about things from one point of view but fail to ever see or hear about strides these ladies and gents are making in GT at all. Most fail to even notice that few of the newer cars run on an artificial renderer for engine sounds called AES, Griffith500 knows more about it, those Redbulls, Senna's cars, Subaru and the Mini VGT all use it.
Don't look at the output on PS3 and think that the models aren't PS4 ready, how absurd is the thinking that PD built the models only to PS3 spec and then have to go rebuild everything to PS4 levels all over again? Does that make sense? The only time PD has done something absolutely crazy was bringing Standards to GT5, yet folks go off on some tangent as if PD always does these things. It's appalling reading such ludicrous statements. Face it Standards are in GT7, either pass it by or get it, you don't make the decisions regarding the final content in the game. Deal with it, grown up problems(game designers have to deal with public complaints all the time, still it's their vision, I don't even see the point of complaining since you were told ahead of time, but you know some people just can't...let go).
One of the reasons GT5 took so long was they were building these ludicrously detailed models, although the lighting in GT leaves a lot to be desired you can see that there is some painstaking attention paid to getting pretty much everything there. Where things aren't readily seen their visual fidelity is reduced to lower the impact on the engine running the game, are we not gamers who at least have a clue?

DC has splendid visuals, I enjoy that game in spurts. It's fun with club mates but it's driving model is a mix of simulation with some sort of FRS always on. Each car has a drift rating(immediate realization this is induced) which turns the rather incredible sense of speed on it's head. It's rather hard to drift a car how you would expect to induce a drift and even when you go beyond the point of no return you'd probably never spin out(I haven't done that once and I am about 4 series from the end of the main part of the game. It's a locked 30 fps edge of your seat affair in that game and it's weather system is absolutely phenomenal. It's the extra power and fidelity obtained by newer hardware at work. The sense of speed in DC is head and shoulders above anything I've played, even the slowest cars in the game you get that "I'm going fast vibe".

Off Topic

Realistically models boasting the Mini VGT level of fidelity should be what fill GT's grid at max for racing, I don't really see a point in going overboard and reducing car count on the grid. It's needs to be increased to at least 40, AI needs to not be given too human an element of being fearful, the game already showcases that the AI can drive anything, piloting those Redbull cars effortlessly shows that clearly. What I really am aching for is atmosphere, all these driving game and none of them even remotely look like the track does during a venue, it's always boring and lifeless. Regardless of what people think, GT7 is going to have a clearer direction that GT5 or GT6. Ground work has been laid out, they have over 500 highly detailed cars possibly one too many courses, a dynamic weather/day/night shift system, completely redone car audio sound system/creator(see Griffith500 about this, it's awesome trust me) fluid dynamics system for aero(it's limited in GT6 and missing the Bernouilli effect for street spec cars and NASCAR) a course creator(possibly with GPS mapping, that last part is going to need to use real high resolution images if it's pulling from Google Earth all sorts of trademark and permissions stuff need to be dealt with). Kaz has said something a few years into GT5 development, their goal was to simulate everything. Now look at GT6 and see how many things are simulated, and recognize that things are much more than they seem. It's a whole but everything has to balance out, I'm still wondering how they got that PS3 to not breakdown running this game. Let's hope that we get all our modes back including the testing and it's intuitively added so you can do it in any mode. GT6 was built to be modular so parts can be added on like a plug in so to speak. I have great expectations of GT7, cars' looks aren't even on the radar for me AES, course creator, comprehensive aerodynamics(including Bernouilli effect at speed would make for exciting NASCAR racing and realistic positioning of wings or spoilers), better tire physics matched to more robust suspension system and a tuning system that is deeper and on par with the first 2 GT games. Those LM car models need to go back to being race mods and we need more of them, real engine swaps(limited to manufacturer stuff since this is how PD does all tuning anyway, can't see them changing that). They need someone at PD going through the finer details of which cars support adjustable parts stock, getting things right down to a level that matches the detail on each car. I'm rambling but I am a dreamer and I play a lot of driving games, each has it's own points that make it unique. Just enjoy my massive GT car list and miss cars that we'll never see again, Vector, Venturi where art thou?
 
PD must regret creating this "premium or standard" dilemma since GT5 came out.

Considering Kaz didn't hide it and said it out right that they are in GT7, leans to him tell you all to get over it or do whatever else you want. About time to, there is a point where pandering to the masses means diluting your vision...it's not your vision anymore if everyone else whim is catered to. Find a game that is built like that, the best selling games are actually someone else vision and it isn't diluted by the masses leanings. Enjoy it for what it is, not what you thought it would be. I find life more enjoyable this way, since nothing in life is owed to any of us in any way shape or form.
 
As many have said before, there are plenty of things that are READY for PS4...
Just to be clear, each premium car in GT5, and I suppose GT6, has 200.000 polys. If you compare that to, say, Driveclub, you find out that DC has 260.000 per car.
Now, remembering the old PS2 times, each car had 4000 polys when you had 20000 in Midnight Club (or at least that was what they said).
If you look even now those two games, GT3 or GT4 looks absolutely better. Why? I think it's because their modelling team and the different processes they use.
And, by the way, I can't believe how there is people who still thinks that Sony is the one to blame... really guys? PD is the biggest winner here, they are part of their first party studios and even Kaz is a member in the directive line of Sony CEI.
They have no restrictions, their problem is that they're not as communicate as they should be about the state of the game, and some of their decisions are strange.
I'm going to look for the piece of news, but I'm almost sure that Kaz said they were working on car models that were ready for PS4 (in the GT5 era).
 
I do recall Kaz saying at one point that they model the cars to be "future proof".

Edit: quick Google search turned up a GTP news article talking about GT5, but I'm sure it still stands for GT6.
 
Considering Kaz didn't hide it and said it out right that they are in GT7, leans to him tell you all to get over it or do whatever else you want. About time to, there is a point where pandering to the masses means diluting your vision...it's not your vision anymore if everyone else whim is catered to. Find a game that is built like that, the best selling games are actually someone else vision and it isn't diluted by the masses leanings. Enjoy it for what it is, not what you thought it would be. I find life more enjoyable this way, since nothing in life is owed to any of us in any way shape or form.

You are correct about Kaz stating it loud and clear that standards are here to stay. But my point is if the car segregation did not start in the first place we would not have to deal with this.

PD has (or had choices).
A) Keep standards and premiums but have a quality issue. (Like what we have now.)
B) Keep only the premiums resulting in a decrease of car count and work on making standards into premiums via updates.
C) Any other idea they could think of.

Can't please everyone, unfortunately.
 
Just a Nascar hoodpin.
While DC has no NASCAR, here are a couple of hood/bonnet clips for comparison.

DRIVECLUB™_20150303225100.jpg
DRIVECLUB™_20150303225512.jpg


Clearly as I mentioned before PD have the poly count in this area, its what else they do that will make the difference. I came across the following when doing a bit of digging on DC (actually looking for hood-pin images so I woudln't have to bother to be honest)....

http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2014/06/05/51-driveclub-details-might-just-blow-mind/

...the bit that that is of interest in regard to car models is:


  1. The cars
  2. A typical DRIVECLUB car is made up of 260,000 polygons. The staggeringly detailed cars you see in promo videos are the same models you drive in the game – they’re not pre-rendered CG versions.
  3. Each car takes approximately seven months to create - from initial licensing, reference collation, CAD data processing, asset production, physics modelling, through to the final car in-game.
  4. Evolution snapped in excess of 1,000 photos of the interior and exterior of every car as part of the reference gathering.
  5. Pagani employ seamstresses to accurately match up the symmetrical carbon weave on the cars bodywork, and even add the ‘Pagani’ name to their small screw heads. These nuances are accurately reproduced in-game.
  6. The same 3D CAD (Computer Aided Design) engineering data that the manufacturer uses to factory produce each vehicle has been used by the development team to create each car.
  7. More than 500 different material types are available to designers to apply to the vehicles.
  8. The cars have realistic layered paint materials – base metal or carbon layer, primer coat, base colour coat, two metallic paint coats, clear top coat, etc. – which can all be stripped away individually as part of the damage system.
  9. A full shader-driven procedural system is used to simulate car damage. Multiple layers of scratches appear in the most exposed areas and edges, revealing undercoat and bare metal or carbon. A parallax mapped dent layer provides minor crumpling, and a physics driven vertex deformation system is used for severe damage.
  10. As you race, dirt and dust gradually builds up on the car, subtly altering its appearance.
  11. Screen space reflections (SSR) are being used together with real time dynamic light probes to render vehicle lighting and reflections more accurately, as opposed to using outdated pre-baked cubes.
  12. The car dashboard reflects onto the windscreen in bright light; and the car exterior reflects onto carbon interior panels.
  13. Anisotropic lighting is used to simulate the effect of each individual thread in carbon fibre weave. The pattern of the carbon alters realistically with the lighting angle and surface curvature.
  14. Headlights are modelled using multiple layers of reflectors and lensesthat realistically reflect and refract the bulbs shining beneath.
  15. Rainbow specular highlight effects can be seen in headlight lensesbecause thin film interference is utilised.
  16. Animated active aero flaps are rigged up accurately and coupled with the physics system to operate exactly as they would in real life. The Pagani Huayra is one of the best examples of this.
  17. Conversion of kinetic energy to heat is physically modelled to accurately render the temperature and glow colour of brake discs.
  18. The speedometer displays have been accurately reproduced for every car in terms of visuals, technical display output and behaviour (again, all hooked up to the in-game physics).
Now in fairness to PD a number of these they are already doing, but certain ones are (as far as I am aware) areas that PD have to adopt to ensure that Poly-count doesn't become the only target.

One in particular that in my opinion makes a huge difference is the paint, as DC's models have a real feel of depth to the paint finish that is quite unlike anything I have seen (outside of real paint) before.
 
  1. Each car takes approximately seven months to create - from initial licensing, reference collation, CAD data processing, asset production, physics modelling, through to the final car in-game.
Now in fairness to PD a number of these they are already doing, but certain ones are (as far as I am aware) areas that PD have to adopt to ensure that Poly-count doesn't become the only target.

One in particular that in my opinion makes a huge difference is the paint, as DC's models have a real feel of depth to the paint finish that is quite unlike anything I have seen (outside of real paint) before.

I was thinking in that particular post in the PSBlog. They take almost the same amount of time to create the cars. That's something....
And yes Scaff, the paint thing is outstanding. They will use probably the same techniques and even better ones.
It's a common thing inside Sony's first party studios.
 
Considering Kaz didn't hide it and said it out right that they are in GT7, leans to him tell you all to get over it or do whatever else you want. About time to, there is a point where pandering to the masses means diluting your vision...it's not your vision anymore if everyone else whim is catered to. Find a game that is built like that, the best selling games are actually someone else vision and it isn't diluted by the masses leanings. Enjoy it for what it is, not what you thought it would be. I find life more enjoyable this way, since nothing in life is owed to any of us in any way shape or form.
Project Cars. Community Assisted Racing Simulator. You did ask for an example.
 
Back