Cars in GT6 that has PS4-Ready graphics.

[Johnnypenso]

If someone here can say with a straight-face that doing an all premium race in GT6 on the Red Bull Ring is 'buttery smooth' then I've heard absolutely everything that I could possibly imagine.

He or she will be along shortly...this is to get your prepped:

 

[syntex123]

It might not be buttery smooth, but wait until you do the photomode. No standards to ruin your photos.

 

[TheProRacer]

I saw this in a documentary a while ago.

Gran Turismo: 900 polygons
Gran Turismo 2: 2,200 polygons
Gran Turismo 3: 25,000 polygons
Gran Turismo 4: 60,000 polygons
Gran Turismo 5: 300,000 polygons
Gran Turismo 6: 550,000 polygons

 

[Brend]

Accidental post.

 

[syntex123]

I saw this in a documentary a while ago.

Gran Turismo: 900 polygons
Gran Turismo 2: 2,200 polygons
Gran Turismo 3: 25,000 polygons
Gran Turismo 4: 60,000 polygons
Gran Turismo 5: 300,000 polygons
Gran Turismo 6: 550,000 polygons

That kinda makes you wonder about GT7, how much increase in polygon count will PD achieve on PS4? Hehe

 

[TheProRacer]

That kinda makes you wonder about GT7, how much increase in polygon count will PD achieve on PS4? Hehe

Hopefully 750,000 + Adaptive Tessellation.

 

[syntex123]

@TheProRacer sounds about right.

 

[syntex123]

Changed thread title. Edited OP.

 

[HarVee]

I saw this in a documentary a while ago.

Gran Turismo 3: 25,000 polygons
Gran Turismo 4: 60,000 polygons

There is no way in the world that the cars in GT3 and 4 have anywhere near that amount of polygons. Try halving that amount.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I saw this in a documentary a while ago.

Gran Turismo: 900 polygons
Gran Turismo 2: 2,200 polygons
Gran Turismo 3: 25,000 polygons
Gran Turismo 4: 60,000 polygons
Gran Turismo 5: 300,000 polygons
Gran Turismo 6: 550,000 polygons

In photomode yes, not on the track. And once you get that high in polygons, there are little to no gains to be had in modeling cars unless up extremely close. The leap from 10k > 100K is huge. The leap from 100k to 500k while still visible, demand huge resources to render in game, especially with dozens of them on the track, while providing very little if any noticable visual improvement while in game. IMO the gains are made in modeling the details, like engine bays, back seats, trunks, undercarriage etc. I'd rather see effort put into modeling complete cars, than adding useless surface polygons that have zero impact on gameplay, and a huge impact on resource requirements.

At some point you have to decide if looking at your cars under a microscope is more important than having a grid of 45 or 50 cars on track for a standing start is. A simplified analogy for illustration purposes obviously, there is more to it than that.

 

[Ameer67]

Gran Turismo 5: 300,000 polygons
Gran Turismo 6: 550,000 polygons

How is there a 150,000 polygon jump between these two even though they are on the same console? And where did you get your numbers from?

 

[syntex123]

In photomode yes, not on the track. And once you get that high in polygons, there are little to no gains to be had in modeling cars unless up extremely close. The leap from 10k > 100K is huge. The leap from 100k to 500k while still visible, demand huge resources to render in game, especially with dozens of them on the track, while providing very little if any noticable visual improvement while in game. IMO the gains are made in modeling the details, like engine bays, back seats, trunks, undercarriage etc. I'd rather see effort put into modeling complete cars, than adding useless surface polygons that have zero impact on gameplay, and a huge impact on resource requirements.

At some point you have to decide if looking at your cars under a microscope is more important than having a grid of 45 or 50 cars on track for a standing start is. A simplified analogy for illustration purposes obviously, there is more to it than that.

That would be pretty neat. that way we can get more "damage" too, where trunks and hoods can open. I know some cars have opening doors and trunks when smashed, but never the hood.

EDIT: It would be neat to be able to open doors, trunks and hood too. Great for pictures. à la NFS Underground 2

How is there a 150,000 polygon jump between these two even though they are on the same console? And where did you get your numbers from?

Adaptive tessellation?

 

[Nexus]

I saw this in a documentary a while ago.

Gran Turismo: 900 polygons
Gran Turismo 2: 2,200 polygons
Gran Turismo 3: 25,000 polygons
Gran Turismo 4: 60,000 polygons
Gran Turismo 5: 300,000 polygons
Gran Turismo 6: 550,000 polygons

GT5 has 500K polygons.

 

[Pseudopod]

Hopefully 750,000 + Adaptive Tessellation.

Hopefully just 550-600k + adaptive tesselation, then spend the rest of the console's resources on higher framerates, better environmental effect and more cars per race.

There is a point where we get seriously diminished returns from simply increasing the poly count, especially for non-organic things like cars. I think there's more realism to gain by using the available power on better weather effects and other things like that.

 

[Aphelion]

Because utilizing pixelated textures and 3D models from a decade ago totally equates to style.

But man, if GT6 had absolutely none of these cars it would still have a pretty impressive car list, so i fail to see the problem with them. They are just there so that they aren't removing some fans favorite car or something.

 

[Aphelion]

I saw this in a documentary a while ago.

Gran Turismo: 900 polygons
Gran Turismo 2: 2,200 polygons
Gran Turismo 3: 25,000 polygons
Gran Turismo 4: 60,000 polygons
Gran Turismo 5: 300,000 polygons
Gran Turismo 6: 550,000 polygons

Not even close. I am guessing you just tried to think from memory?
1+2: 300
3+4: 4000
5: 500'000
6: 550'000, with a maximum of more with adoptive tessellation.

 

[Pseudopod]

But man, if GT6 had absolutely none of these cars it would still have a pretty impressive car list, so i fail to see the problem with them. They are just there so that they aren't removing some fans favorite car or something.

It leads to an inconsistent game. Many people dislike this, especially when they've just shelled out a ton of money for a new console that is supposed to have much better graphics.

Even if you don't use the old cars, it's not like they don't affect the game. The developers still need to spend time on ensuring that all the old cars operate perfectly with the new game's physics engine, and make sure that some of them don't end up with a much greater performance than they should have, when compared to other cars and real life, and ensure that all the tuning options available to them don't result in crazy stuff.

 

[Aphelion]

It leads to an inconsistent game. Many people dislike this, especially when they've just shelled out a ton of money for a new console that is supposed to have much better graphics.

Even if you don't use the old cars, it's not like they don't affect the game. The developers still need to spend time on ensuring that all the old cars operate perfectly with the new game's physics engine, and make sure that some of them don't end up with a much greater performance than they should have, when compared to other cars and real life.

Sure, it affects the way the game was created, but that's also probably why they don't want to scrap them; they have already spent time making them. And they would have implemented them before they knew how people would react.

 

[Pseudopod]

They've already spent time creating them, this is true. They also spent time creating GT1 and 2 cars, but they dropped those as well. I'm sure Blizzard spent a lot of time making starcraft 1 assets too, but I don't see any of those assets in starcraft 2 (poor example, but I couldn't recall who made CoD right now).

This is kind of the way things are in video game development. Old assets need to be replaced with new, higher quality assets.

I can forgive assets from one generation down, especially now that one gen down still means interiors for most cars, but two? That's not good enough in my opinion.

 

[Aphelion]

They've already spent time creating them, this is true. They also spent time creating GT1 and 2 cars, but they dropped those as well. I'm sure Blizzard spent a lot of time making starcraft 1 assets too, but I don't see any of those assets in starcraft 2 (poor example, but I couldn't recall who made CoD right now).

This is kind of the way things are in video game development. Old assets need to be replaced with new, higher quality assets.

I can forgive assets from one generation down, especially now that one gen down still means interiors for most cars, but two? That's not good enough in my opinion.

I don't think the GT7 standards will be from GT5PSP or GT4 or anything, they will be from GT6.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I don't think the GT7 standards will be from GT5PSP or GT4 or anything, they will be from GT6.

Most of the GT6 standards are still GT4 quality. And IMO any car without an interior doesn't belong in a simulation.

 

[Aphelion]

Most of the GT7 standards are still GT4 quality. And IMO any car without an interior doesn't belong in a simulation.

No-one actually said that directly did they?

 

[syntex123]

@Chameleon9000 And if the GTPSP and GT4 standards come once again, I hope they'll be on the same level as the updated GT6 "semi premium" ones.

 

[Johnnypenso]

No-one actually said that directly did they?

Typo...should have said, "Most of the GT6 standards are still GT4 quality". Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Aphelion]

Typo...should have said, "Most of the GT6 standards are still GT4 quality". Sorry for the confusion.

Oh OK yeah that makes more sense.

 

[syntex123]

No harm done @Johnnypenso. We'll see what happens in GT7. I sure hope the most popular standards gets semi premium treatment. And then all the semi premiums will receive interior. Then everyone should be happy about that "problem".

 

[Johnnypenso]

No harm done @Johnnypenso. We'll see what happens in GT7. I sure hope the most popular standards gets semi premium treatment. And then all the semi premiums will receive interior. Then everyone should be happy about that "problem".

Wishful thinking but there's no rule against that as far as I know.

 

[TheProRacer]

I'm sorry, it was more like this:

1. 300
2. 800
3. 3,500
4. 5,000
5. 180,000
6. 200,000

I don't know what I was thinking.

 

[syntex123]

Only one car I wish to get semi premium if not full premium treatment. But I'm prepared for the worst.

 

[Ameer67]

I'm sorry, it was more like this:

1. 300
2. 800
3. 3,500
4. 5,000
5. 180,000
6. 200,000

I don't know what I was thinking.

Now you're just pulling numbers out of the sky. Give us a source and maybe I'll believe you.