Cars in GT6 that has PS4-Ready graphics.

[Scaff]

Hmmm, wether you nor me stated that what we wrote was our opinion only...

You don't need to stick 'in my opinion' in front of something to make it an option....

"I like the look of the Mk1 Escort"

....is a quite clearly opinion; just as putting 'In my opinion' in front of something doesn't always make it an opinion......

"In my opinion their are only two flavours of ice cream"

.....it quite clearly a statement of fact.

Btw, my opion disagrees with your disagreement, theres not much to criticise on those GT comparison pictures!

Then we have differing standards and expectations.

 

[Zer0]

A list of tools does mean that you simply drop them in place and your work is done, as such proving a list of tools alone doesn't actually support the claims you have made.

Not sure why you insist in a point that I have never made.

Again:

"Even the laziest developers are obliged to use more powerfull tools to bring by default much better graphics than they could obtain in the old PS3."

"My point is not that any developer can achieve the top graphics of DC with a "click" or a "pre-backed" tool."

Using a tool means to work with it, not pushing a magic button, but is much easier to create better things with better and more powerful tools than with primitive and more limited tools (PS4 SDK vs PS3 SDK). Agree or disagree? because that's the only "claim" that I want to make.

No, because until we see a PD developed car running on a PS4 we can't understand how well they will do. We can guess and make assumptions, but nothing more.

Use your logic imagination , at least you agree that the cars will look better in GT7, but how much better given the BIG hardware differences between PS3 and PS4?

For the record, what happened graphically from PS2 to PS3:

-640x448(480p, no AA) to 1440x1080(1080p, with AA) => Increase factor of x5.42
-5k polys/car (no cockpit) to 500k polys (modeled cockpit) => Increase factor of x100 (or beyond with the use of GT6 tessellation)
-6 cars on track to 16 cars on track => Increase factor of x2.6
-No weather and fixed time change to weather and 24h real-time time change with a dynamic rain effect in the interior view.
-No night racing to night racing with real time light headlamps, light-up cockpit and sky accurate stars
-No visual damage effects to real time damage effects
-Pre-backed static shadows to real-time self shadows over the car geometry and tracks
-Pre-backed static lighting to HDRI real time environment lighting
-2D plain textures to 3D looking textures
-Basic particle effects with no physics iteration to 3D volumetric particles affected by shadows, light and wind
-Basic car reflections to realistic real-time environment reflections
-Etc: tyremarks, interactive grass animation, better animated pits, use of very high resolution textures in selected tracks, more interactive objects on track, exotic new realistic paint materials (matte, chamaleon, etc), etc.

Vs the bads:
-Locked 60fps to not locked 60fps with some slowdowns and tearing in the more taxing 2D gameplay conditions.

Now think if a hardware many times more poweful and with x16 more ram will be enought to fill the small gaps they have in PS3 (many of them related to the lack of ram, 512MB in PS3 vs 8GB in PS4) and in what they would use the tons of free resources they will still have.

Oh and on balance I would have to disagree that GT6 looks more realistic than DC.

More realistic at times, please don't eat words that will end in misleadding acusations in the future. No problem. The fact that both games are being compared face to face, even running in such hardware disadvantage, said all to me. This post sums my view:

I wish to make a comment and complement on GT6's graphics…I've been racing more on DriveClub recently…And yes, the graphics are incredible; in particular the oft mentioned rain effects. No question graphically it's top notch…Though I do find the overall brightness, even at midday settings, a bit dull. Anyway, tonight decided to go back to GT6 for a bit of daily bonus boosting back to 200%, in case 1.16 drops soon, and was relieved (nay down right joyful) as to how good GT6 still looks…On its own and in comparison. I'm a PS4 owner since launch day and have become very used to PS4 graphics, so was slightly worried that returning to PS3 would be a major shock…Not at all. Did the London and Autumn Ring seasonals from a couple of weeks ago and the environmental lighting is vibrant and sharp and demonstrates again what a graphical tour-de-force GT6 is, on an old system. We all know 6's weaknesses but graphically is not far short of miraculous. We're really in for a treat if GT7 gets anywhere near close to exploiting the graphics potential of PS4. This time they'll have DriveClub and Project Cars as benchmarks, so there'll be no excuse for falling short. Here's hoping. I have certainly had my motivation renewed to keep driving and tuning on GT6 until GT7 finally appears.

Your the one that opened up the discussion in regard to graphics and compromises that have to be made in genres, don't moan about the direction an answer to a question you asked take.

I moan because I see that you often insist in going off-topic with the framerate when the discussion belongs to other graphic specs but your benchmark is a 30fps game... so it's a little odd.

Would you be more happy with the GT5 and GT6 graphics if they were 30 fps locked games?

In regard to a source, are you really being serious?

Yes I'm serious! the last time was 30fps, now you used 20fps and I have never seen a graphic proof of that, but I see that this time you have used the lowest of the lowest to justify it, that is GT5 at their launch with no updates and in 3D mode running in the most taxing conditions. 3D was an experimental resource-hungry mode that not even exists in GT6, the running internal resolution and framerate of that mode was more taxing than the GT5 1080p mode. I bet you never played the game in those conditions.

Let me link to the conversation in which you inferred that GT5/6 runs at a solid 60fps in the rain and sources were provide to show that was not the case? Sources for this have been provided to you numerous times times.
About rain / wet asphalt
About rain / wet asphalt
About rain / wet asphalt

And here's another source just for you:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-gran-turismo-5-tech-analysis?page=3

That's an absolutely false asumption in your part. I have never said anything about a locked or solid GT5 60fps framerate in the rain. Not sure why you insist in that, GT6 not even did exist at the time! and you only need to read your own links and search for any "solid" or "locked" word in between any quote with the "60fps" word from me. If to you "60fps" only can mean a locked framerate, don't mistake your opinion with others opinions. To me it means a mode that can draw 60 frames per second, even if the framerate is reduced depending of the graphical charge or can't always sustain a locked 60fps. I even posted a vid showing those little variances and the point of my reply was to show that the game could be played in the rain with a better framerate than you stated, as I said in my post: "the framerate was not as bad as that".

The non rain video in the same link was related to the previously said: "GT5 progress", to showcase the advances in framerate during the game updates because you always pointed and used as an absolute fact the same single old GT5 vid and the results were more than likely outdated at that time or at least not absolute and does vary depending of a lot of factors as is seen in the other performance test I posted with significant better result.

PD have produced nothing for the PS4 to date and while you may be happy top ignore the compromises made by them when they moved from the PS2 to the PS3 many are not.

compromises = the framerate again?

I'm more than aware of them and was full of confidence in an improvement all the way from GT right through to GT5P; that confidence was undone with GT5 and further more with GT6.

Don't infer that I don't know and understand the GT series or the development that have occurred across it.

So, what was you expecting technically and graphically in the future PS3 at the GT4 time? because the differences are night and day between generations, there is no other [racing] game that have evolved [graphically] as much as GT during these years between console generations, or is again the framerate?

 

[SavageEvil]

Wait, what is the evidence that many have that GT6 car models aren't ready for PS4? Going off the information that cars in GT5 have 500k, pretty sure that DriveClub is listed at 260k some cars may have above that and some below it. Wait what? DriveClub dev made a claim about having the most detailed cars used in a game, clearly correct since no way GT6 uses near that amount. Most of the evidence folks are going off of are based on the output of DC and GT, both on two pieces of tech with about 8 years set between them(were people expecting these two to look identical or PS3 to match PS4). What an absurd line of thought, how intriguing?!?

I'm sure this is the main idea of the thread, going off that information that GT's models use nearly twice the polys. I'm willing to wager a guess that PD had to cull that count in order to fit them in the game. So the RAW models are at 500k per car varying depending on car, PS3 can't display more than a few of these. A heavily detailed environment with all the visual eye candy that DriveClub cars have, SSR and other intensive effects would not even be feasible in GT on PS3 lets be real.

Evolution had the "luck" of being first to out their game, that is the best part of this. We see what GT 7 will look like minus the 30 fps frame rate and absolutely delicious looking environments and sense of speed, lol.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Wait, what is the evidence that many have that GT6 car models aren't ready for PS4? Going off the information that cars in GT5 have 500k, pretty sure that DriveClub is listed at 260k some cars may have above that and some below it. Wait what? DriveClub dev made a claim about having the most detailed cars used in a game, clearly correct since no way GT6 uses near that amount. Most of the evidence folks are going off of are based on the output of DC and GT, both on two pieces of tech with about 8 years set between them(were people expecting these two to look identical or PS3 to match PS4). What an absurd line of thought, how intriguing?!?

I'm sure this is the main idea of the thread, going off that information that GT's models use nearly twice the polys. I'm willing to wager a guess that PD had to cull that count in order to fit them in the game. So the RAW models are at 500k per car varying depending on car, PS3 can't display more than a few of these. A heavily detailed environment with all the visual eye candy that DriveClub cars have, SSR and other intensive effects would not even be feasible in GT on PS3 lets be real.

Evolution had the "luck" of being first to out their game, that is the best part of this. We see what GT 7 will look like minus the 30 fps frame rate and absolutely delicious looking environments and sense of speed, lol.

Polygon count is overrated. I think too many people assume that more polygons=winner by default? You realize that the higher the polygon count in game, the lower everything else right? If DC is using 250k and can only achieve 30fps and 12 cars on track, do you think PD will just push a magic button and 500k and 60fps with 45 premium cars on track will pop out, with a similar quality look to DC?

 

[ron86]

Polygon count is overrated. I think too many people assume that more polygons=winner by default? You realize that the higher the polygon count in game, the lower everything else right? If DC is using 250k and can only achieve 30fps and 12 cars on track, do you think PD will just push a magic button and 500k and 60fps with 45 premium cars on track will pop out, with a similar quality look to DC?

An thats the point of tesselation, having car models with many many polygons which only show up when needed

 

[Scaff]

Not sure why you insist in a point that I have never made.

Again:

"Even the laziest developers are obliged to use more powerfull tools to bring by default much better graphics than they could obtain in the old PS3."

"My point is not that any developer can achieve the top graphics of DC with a "click" or a "pre-backed" tool."

Using a tool means to work with it, not pushing a magic button, but is much easier to create better things with better and more powerful tools than with primitive and more limited tools (PS4 SDK vs PS3 SDK). Agree or disagree? because that's the only "claim" that I want to make.

Lets try that again shall we....

"Even the laziest developers are obliged to use more powerfull tools to bring by default much better graphics than they could obtain in the old PS3."

.....now I know that English is not your first language, but the inference you are making with this is that the tools bring better graphics by default.

Use your logic imagination , at least you agree that the cars will look better in GT7, but how much better given the BIG hardware differences between PS3 and PS4?

We don't know, that's my point and given GT5 and GT6 I am cautious.

For the record, what happened graphically from PS2 to PS3:

-640x448(480p, no AA) to 1440x1080(1080p, with AA) => Increase factor of x5.42
-5k polys/car (no cockpit) to 500k polys (modeled cockpit) => Increase factor of x100 (or beyond with the use of GT6 tessellation)
-6 cars on track to 16 cars on track => Increase factor of x2.6
-No weather and fixed time change to weather and 24h real-time time change with a dynamic rain effect in the interior view.
-No night racing to night racing with real time light headlamps, light-up cockpit and sky accurate stars
-No visual damage effects to real time damage effects
-Pre-backed static shadows to real-time self shadows over the car geometry and tracks
-Pre-backed static lighting to HDRI real time environment lighting
-2D plain textures to 3D looking textures
-Basic particle effects with no physics iteration to 3D volumetric particles affected by shadows, light and wind
-Basic car reflections to realistic real-time environment reflections
-Etc: tyremarks, interactive grass animation, better animated pits, use of very high resolution textures in selected tracks, more interactive objects on track, exotic new realistic paint materials (matte, chamaleon, etc), etc.

Sorry did you not get the PS2 GT games which had wet tracks and night? Odd I thought everyone got those? A such its an evolution not a revolution.

Here's the fun thing with your (already inaccurate) list, I've not said that GT didn't do any of those things, I've said that I wasn't happy with the compromises that bringing some of these brought.

Oh and visual damage, seriously you want to list that.

Vs the bads:
-Locked 60fps to not locked 60fps with some slowdowns and tearing in the more taxing 2D gameplay conditions.

Now aside from the fundamental importance of a locked framerate in a racing title seemingly being lost on you, you missed out the use of PS2 assets, blocky shadows, blocky smoke effects (in GT5), etc.

Now think if a hardware many times more poweful and with x16 more ram will be enought to fill the small gaps they have in PS3 (many of them related to the lack of ram, 512MB in PS3 vs 8GB in PS4) and in what they would use the tons of free resources they will still have.

Which oddly enough are similar to the claims made by PD at the start of the PS3 generation, hence the reason I'm cautious.

More realistic at times, please don't eat words that will end in misleadding acusations in the future. No problem. The fact that both games are being compared face to face, even running in such hardware disadvantage, said all to me.

I'm not being misleading. I think (as in an opinion just to make it clear for you) that DC is a more realistic looking title.

I moan because I see that you often insist in going off-topic with the framerate when the discussion belongs to other graphic specs but your benchmark is a 30fps game... so it's a little odd.

Once again you opened it up to 'graphics' as a whole rather that just the models, so you have no place to complain.

And my benchmark is a locked framerate. I have no issue with 30fps in an arcade racer, it works just fine for that, but a sim?

Would you be more happy with the GT5 and GT6 graphics if they were 30 fps locked games?

No I would rather than dropped the resolution, used lower poly cars and made other compromises to hit a locked 60fps rate, a point I have actually made in other threads (particularity between GT5 and GT6).

Yes I'm serious! the last time was 30fps, now you used 20fps and I have never seen a graphic proof of that, but I see that this time you have used the lowest of the lowest to justify it, that is GT5 at their launch with no updates and in 3D mode running in the most taxing conditions. 3D was an experimental resource-hungry mode that not even exists in GT6, the running internal resolution and framerate of that mode was more taxing than the GT5 1080p mode. I bet you never played the game in those conditions.

First you would have lost your money.

Now:

Source:http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-gran-turismo-5-tech-analysis?page=3

That's 24fps without the cockpit view in 1080p, 26fps in 720p and 16fps in 3D.

I also not that you take issue with 20fps being cited in 3D as being unfair (yet proven to occur) and yet the 120fps claim gets no comment from you, despite being from the same 'unfair' mode and never actually being proven. I acknowledge both, why do you cherry pick?

That's an absolutely false asumption in your part. I have never said anything about a locked or solid GT5 60fps framerate in the rain. Not sure why you insist in that, GT6 not even did exist at the time! and you only need to read your own links and search for any "solid" or "locked" word in between any quote with the "60fps" word from me. If to you "60fps" only can mean a locked framerate, don't mistake your opinion with others opinions. To me it means a mode that can draw 60 frames per second, even if the framerate is reduced depending of the graphical charge or can't always sustain a locked 60fps. I even posted a vid showing those little variances and the point of my reply was to show that the game could be played in the rain with a better framerate than you stated, as I said in my post: "the framerate was not as bad as that".

The non rain video in the same link was related to the previously said: "GT5 progress", to showcase the advances in framerate during the game updates because you always pointed and used as an absolute fact the same single old GT5 vid and the results were more than likely outdated at that time or at least not absolute and does vary depending of a lot of factors as is seen in the other performance test I posted with significant better result.

I will let others read the thread and draw there own conclusions, all I know is that its (to me) another example you you making a claim you can't substantiate and then disappearing from the thread.

So, what was you expecting technically and graphically in the future PS3 at the GT4 time? because the differences are night and day between generations, there is no other [racing] game that have evolved [graphically] as much as GT during these years between console generations, or is again the framerate?

Once again for the cheap seat, as you seem incapable of understanding that what you are happy with doesn't make everyone else happy.

I was expecting an improvement in the graphics between the PS2 and PS3 eras with a locked 60fps and no tearing, it may seem like a minor thing for you, but it doesn't matter how many polys you are pushing and how many shiny things you try and put in place, if you have a frame rate that jumps from the 20's to 60 around a single track and tears at the same time its simply not good enough for a sim for me.

 

[ron86]

In times where about 75 percent of all ps4 games are indie games with gameboy graphics i guess we can consider the standard cars ps4 worthy!

I personally think PD will upgrade all standard cars to semi premium quality with a cockpit view like the vgt cars have where everything is blacked out but the outside of the car is visible!

 

[trustjab]

Isnt there pics of Kaz and team with gt6 on pc's? Im sure PD were one of the first developers with access to what the ps4 has on offer. So if they do car modelling with computers, they should be able to use that data with the ps4. And if the ps4 is that much better than ps3, I would hope that data is transferable in a higher detail with the upgrade from ps3-ps4. I have no clue how this all works, so don't lynch me.

 

[Nooboogering]

"I doubt that we'll be throwing away the standard cars," said Yamauchi. "Each car has its own fans. So I think we'll hang on to the archive. In the meanwhile, some of those cars we may be able to make into Premium cars as they become available - but basically we're more focussed on increasing the number of premium cars."

Do these words in bold clarify as confirmation of Polyphony's direction with standard cars? He looks as if he's doubting and thinking that maybe that might happen. Sure doesn't sound like a promise (lol).

 

[Johnnypenso]

An thats the point of tesselation, having car models with many many polygons which only show up when needed

You realize that other games reduce polygons on distant cars as well to conserve resources, just with a simpler solution? A car 500 feet down the track doesn't use it's full polygon count in any game.

 

[Eager Snake]

"Off topic": Is it just me or this thread has, agaaaaaaaaaaaaaain, like always, became a very educated to GTPlanet standars, VS between users (even worse, with a moderator)?

Now, going back to the thread, I play the game in 3D, I played GT5 less than GT6 in that mode but GT6 seems much more stable in every possible way. Does it have any slowdowns? I didn't really notice.
The quality of the car is hit in every angle, but they look ok. The overall sensation is incredible... I know that nobody cares about 3D, all my comments about it doesn't seem to exist hahaha, but I'd love to have the option in GT7.

 

[Scaff]

"Off topic": Is it just me or this thread has, agaaaaaaaaaaaaaain, like always, became a very educated to GTPlanet standars, VS between users (even worse, with a moderator)?

Now, going back to the thread, I play the game in 3D, I played GT5 less than GT6 in that mode but GT6 seems much more stable in every possible way. Does it have any slowdowns? I didn't really notice.
The quality of the car is hit in every angle, but they look ok. The overall sensation is incredible... I know that nobody cares about 3D, all my comments about it doesn't seem to exist hahaha, but I'd love to have the option in GT7.

So you complain about off-topic posts (which also contained on topic discussions - i.e. about the car models) by making an off-topic post about 3D, slowdown and stability?

 

[Eager Snake]

Hahahaha, ok...
Nop, I mentioned that because you guys mentioned the stability of the game. I was trying to give my two cents... on an off topic comment hahaha, so I guess you're right in a way.

 

[ron86]

You realize that other games reduce polygons on distant cars as well to conserve resources, just with a simpler solution? A car 500 feet down the track doesn't use it's full polygon count in any game.

You where the one writing that -->

Polygon count is overrated. I think too many people assume that more polygons=winner by default? You realize that the higher the polygon count in game, the lower everything else right? If DC is using 250k and can only achieve 30fps and 12 cars on track, do you think PD will just push a magic button and 500k and 60fps with 45 premium cars on track will pop out, with a similar quality look to DC?

Which means cars with more polygons doesnt mean lowered details elsewhere due to LOD or tesselation!

You don't need to stick 'in my opinion' in front of something to make it an option....

"I like the look of the Mk1 Escort"

....is a quite clearly opinion; just as putting 'In my opinion' in front of something doesn't always make it an opinion......

"In my opinion their are only two flavours of ice cream"

.....it quite clearly a statement of fact.


Then we have differing standards and expectations.

But that what you wrote about the GT6 pictures doesnt sound like its meant to be your opinion only -->

...
Yep and it illustrates the current issues well, accurate to a fault in terms of the poly and detail, yet it still looks overly clean and sterile.

 

[Scaff]

But that what you wrote about the GT6 pictures doesnt sound like its meant to be your opinion only -->

So despite me making clear twice that its my opinion you're able to read my mind and tell me I'm wrong (about my own thought process).

OK! It's my opinion!

You queried it once and I clarified it for you; I've now told you three times its my opinion (despite it being worded as an opinion), is that enough or would you like me to add it to my signature as well?

 

[Tornado]

Which means cars with more polygons doesnt mean lowered details elsewhere due to LOD or tesselation!

In the context of the discussion between Johnnypenso and SavageEvil, yes it does. Things don't become contradictions just because you're not actually following the conversation.

 

[ron86]

Just watched a new gameplay video of the PS4 version of PCars and its......hmm.....everything but beatiful for being on a next gen console!!



Take a look at 14:19 for an horrible cockpit view and at 02:20 for some strange collision physics - i dont think it will be hard for GT7 to look better since GT6 almost already looks better than this..

In the context of the discussion between Johnnypenso and SavageEvil, yes it does. Things don't become contradictions just because you're not actually following the conversation.

I'm sorry but i dont see that context here you are talking about.

 

[Eager Snake]

i dont think it will be hard for GT7 to look better since GT6 almost already looks better than this.

Many people will probably burn you for that comment, but I support your opinion. It's actually my opinion since my first contact with Project CARS. Even after so, so, sooooo many updates and builds, I still see the same, kind of old graphic engine running with some pretty effects here and there, but they are not a bit convincing. At least for me of course.
I remember reading plenty of comments in sites like Gamersyde about the "outstanding quality" of the intro of the game, and the massive difference in gameplay.
It's not a bad looking game, at all, but I think that saying it's the most photorealistic sim out there like many people did is out of proportion.
The drops of water for example in the windshield are ridiculous....

I don't know, there is something with the premium models of GT. It's like... they seem solid (jokes about crashes aside hahaha), tangible.

 

[dimassa19]

Just watched a new gameplay video of the PS4 version of PCars and its......hmm.....everything but beatiful for being on a next gen console!!

The cockpit view at night is not "next gen"

 

[TayeezSA]

I'm gonna hold my judgement on the P.Cars graphics until I see the finished and klaar product.

I can see that it needs some tweaks still.

I'm very certain that GT7 will have the GT6 graphics wound up to ultra. PD held back on the PS3 in my opinion what with Kaz stating that things will run 'naturally' on the PS4.

Heck, maybe even the premium models too have been held back.

I just have that feeling

 

[Coiler]

I'm gonna hold my judgement on the P.Cars graphics until I see the finished and klaar product.

I can see that it needs some tweaks still.

I'm very certain that GT7 will have the GT6 graphics wound up to ultra. PD held back on the PS3 in my opinion what with Kaz stating that things will run 'naturally' on the PS4.

Heck, maybe even the premium models too have been held back.

I just have that feeling

I just expect the graphical level of Drive Club in 60fps.

As for pCars I play it on a mid range PC and its not that diferent to GT6 (runing on an 8+ year old hardware),
yes it has a nice rain efects and some more, but they are not even close to those from DC.

 

[Pseudopod]

You realize that other games reduce polygons on distant cars as well to conserve resources, just with a simpler solution? A car 500 feet down the track doesn't use it's full polygon count in any game.

Yes. This is actually not a very new thing. Even without tesselation, games commonly reduce the "Level of Detail" of distant objects. Tesselation is more about interpolating polygons in between what's actually modeled, not reducing poly count, although I guess tesselation can also be used to reduce the LoD more gradually, so that we don't get "LoD-pops".

I imagine the full poly model of any (premium) car in GT5 or 6 are only really loaded when you've paused a replay and started the photo mode, or when using photo travel. Poly count has very diminishing returns, especially on non-organic things like cars. This is why I don't really want a higher poly count in GT7. It'll just increase development time even more, and make it harder to hit stable 60fps framerates. Put the resources saved on polygons into better lighting and atmospheric (including weather) effects instead.

 

[Scaff]

Just watched a new gameplay video of the PS4 version of PCars and its......hmm.....everything but beatiful for being on a next gen console!!


Take a look at 14:19 for an horrible cockpit view and at 02:20 for some strange collision physics - i dont think it will be hard for GT7 to look better since GT6 almost already looks better than this..

Without knowing what build that has been taken from its hard to know, but PS4 is currently targeted as having graphics around the same level as the PC build on high.

However for PCars they have been quite clearly focused on the physics and a locked 60fps frame-rate at the expense of graphics. Which is a compromise that is more in line with what I am looking for, for those who prefer a the opposite PCars is probably not for you. In regard to the collision at 2:20 its is odd, particularly in regard to the guardrail, however the collisions around the 15:00 mark are much better. It is however worth considering that we have never seen the kind of openness in terms of showing development content from PD, as such we have no real point of reference as to what GT looked or acted like at various points of its development.

Now back on topic with regard to a comparison to give an idea of what point GT is in terms of what a car looks like 'in-game' when compared with DC. Please not this is not a dig at GT's premium models (they are almost without exception excellent), but rather because a lot of the GT shots shown 'close up' have been from Photomode and I wanted to compare (for myself) what they both looked like 'in-game'.

The car's used are both VW's, mainly because the VW logo on the wheel centre is nice and reflective, the track for DC is Japan set to clear weather and in quick race. In GT its the High Speed Ring in the Clubman cup.

DC:

GT6:

Now as I say this is not a dig at GT as they are on different platforms and while Photomode does allow for some stunning images and level of detail, the above I hope gives an idea of the kind of degree of change that PD need to make to match DC 'in-game'.

 

[Pseudopod]

Not the same rims, so it's harder to tell the actual differences. From what I can see, the biggest difference is in higher res reflections and better lighting, something you can fix without changing the 3d model.

There are some noticable poly-angles, but that's probably something that they can fix with tesselation. I have no idea how much work it is to make tesselation work with models that weren't made with it in mind, though.

DC undoubtly looks better, but I think it's unrealistic to match DC in detail level when you're going to include over 10 times as many cars, and also run the game at twice the framerate.

 

[Scaff]

If I had picked the same wheels the GT6 car would have been a standard and that would certainly have been unfair.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Not the same rims, so it's harder to tell the actual differences. From what I can see, the biggest difference is in higher res reflections and better lighting, something you can fix without changing the 3d model.

There are some noticable poly-angles, but that's probably something that they can fix with tesselation. I have no idea how much work it is to make tesselation work with models that weren't made with it in mind, though.

DC undoubtly looks better, but I think it's unrealistic to match DC in detail level when you're going to include over 10 times as many cars, and also run the game at twice the framerate.

Car count is every developers choice. Some devs will choose less cars but more attention to detail and more accuracy in the modeling and physics, other will take a different path. Doesn't mean we can't compare the two on an equal footing. As long as we are all well aware of the tradeoffs we can all make informed decisions as to where to invest our gaming time.

 

[daus26]

Strictly visuals, I think we can safely exclude project cars in this discussion. It's pretty clear to me how and why they can achieve 1080/60fps in the game where no other racing games have with night and weather in play. They got themselves their own market, since they're probably the only sim worthwhile for those that don't care much for visuals. Unless GT will look that bad, GT/Forza is still a class of its own.

 

[ron86]

Car count is every developers choice. Some devs will choose less cars but more attention to detail and more accuracy in the modeling and physics, other will take a different path. Doesn't mean we can't compare the two on an equal footing. As long as we are all well aware of the tradeoffs we can all make informed decisions as to where to invest our gaming time.

...and PD goes with more cars + attention to detail and accuracy...

 

[gtracedriver1]

Lets try that again shall we....

"Even the laziest developers are obliged to use more powerfull tools to bring by default much better graphics than they could obtain in the old PS3."

.....now I know that English is not your first language, but the inference you are making with this is that the tools bring better graphics by default.



We don't know, that's my point and given GT5 and GT6 I am cautious.




Sorry did you not get the PS2 GT games which had wet tracks and night? Odd I thought everyone got those? A such its an evolution not a revolution.

Here's the fun thing with your (already inaccurate) list, I've not said that GT didn't do any of those things, I've said that I wasn't happy with the compromises that bringing some of these brought.

Oh and visual damage, seriously you want to list that.



Now aside from the fundamental importance of a locked framerate in a racing title seemingly being lost on you, you missed out the use of PS2 assets, blocky shadows, blocky smoke effects (in GT5), etc.



Which oddly enough are similar to the claims made by PD at the start of the PS3 generation, hence the reason I'm cautious.



I'm not being misleading. I think (as in an opinion just to make it clear for you) that DC is a more realistic looking title.



Once again you opened it up to 'graphics' as a whole rather that just the models, so you have no place to complain.

And my benchmark is a locked framerate. I have no issue with 30fps in an arcade racer, it works just fine for that, but a sim?



No I would rather than dropped the resolution, used lower poly cars and made other compromises to hit a locked 60fps rate, a point I have actually made in other threads (particularity between GT5 and GT6).



First you would have lost your money.

Now:

View attachment 327271

Source:http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-gran-turismo-5-tech-analysis?page=3

That's 24fps without the cockpit view in 1080p, 26fps in 720p and 16fps in 3D.

I also not that you take issue with 20fps being cited in 3D as being unfair (yet proven to occur) and yet the 120fps claim gets no comment from you, despite being from the same 'unfair' mode and never actually being proven. I acknowledge both, why do you cherry pick?



I will let others read the thread and draw there own conclusions, all I know is that its (to me) another example you you making a claim you can't substantiate and then disappearing from the thread.



Once again for the cheap seat, as you seem incapable of understanding that what you are happy with doesn't make everyone else happy.

I was expecting an improvement in the graphics between the PS2 and PS3 eras with a locked 60fps and no tearing, it may seem like a minor thing for you, but it doesn't matter how many polys you are pushing and how many shiny things you try and put in place, if you have a frame rate that jumps from the 20's to 60 around a single track and tears at the same time its simply not good enough for a sim for me.

Wow ... you are talking about performance and the game you were comparing few pages back runs at 30fps. Moreover there is barely 1% of game that goes less than 50fps. GT5P, GT5 and some instance of GT6 where there are lots of cars jam packed with weather or particular section of track

Looking at their first PS3 game. They were in a league of their own and remember PS3 has a gimped GPU. PD are proficient in gfx and getting best out of a console

 

[Johnnypenso]

...and PD goes with more cars + attention to detail and accuracy...

More cars, yes. On the second part, 800 standards, vacuum cleaner engine sounds, broken camber, ride height and general tuning, aero and more, say hello.