FM Vs GT - Discussion Thread (read the first post before you post)

[G.T.Ace]

Uh, no, it means you notice something is wrong, but you can't point your finger directly on it. Just like with almost all CG pictures, there are only a few (very expensive) productions where you cannot see a difference between graphics and real life, exactly because of those little flaws you think you don't see.

 

[Zer0]

The low poly models are very noticeable in replays and ingame when you are close to other cars in cockpit/bumper view: blacked interiors, simplified modeling, less details, half resolution liveries, etc..

...

In some cars the differences are more noticeable than others but overall the ingame cars lack the finesse of the photomode.

 

[stevetam]

How do you take a photo so the modelling is like that? I presume its gone through a capture card which makes pics 10x better than from FM.net

 

[t.o.]

The low poly models are very noticeable in replays and ingame when you are close to other cars in cokpit/bumper view: blacked interiors, simplified modeling, less details, half resolution liveries, etc..

I'm gonna have to be honest with you Zer0. I don't question your findings at all. Seems like you have extensively researched the shortcomings in this department. And I hope it's something that can be addressed. However, and this is truly just my opinion and my experience with the game, all of this really doesn't come into effect when you're in the heat of the race. I honestly don't notice any of this when I'm racing.

These are the things I noticed while driving each of these games for first time and a while.

Forza 3: The jaggies stood out to me. I knew they would and I wasn't surprised by it. Everything else I never noticed. The liveries looked spot on while I'm in-race as they do when I'm doing a photo. Whatever Turn10 did they did right because , I really feel that unless you're looking for something like that you're not going to notice it.

Race Pro: I immediately notice the graphically hit. Kinda hard not too but hey they never professed it to be the best graphical game to hit the market. The other thing I noticed right off the back is the game has trouble making the color "white" on the sides of vehicles. It's weird but the colors go metallic to flat to ... I don't know. Is it a big deal? Not really. I wasn't going into this game to be wow'ed by graphics. I was told it was all about the physics and the racing and they were right.

GT5: Everything was fine right up until I saw my first shadow. Now I was expecting to go outside get in my car ,drive around, come back upstairs get on the PS3 ,drive around, and not be able to tell the difference. Well that got crushed right away. The visuals were great but the shadow totally took me out of the immersion. Then you had the track lines , in-game mind you, that are sometimes not smooth as if the guy who paint the white lines was playing connect the dots. THEN the standards came into play and I didn't know what I was looking at. Look at one section of the screen and it looks great, move your eyes over here and it looks like 8-bit shadows , move your eye over here and you're pressing eject on your PS3 to make sure you don't have GT3 in there.

In otherwords the consistency and fidelity of the graphics is what makes the game. What's the use of having a car that looks like it came out of a photo running next to a car that looks like it came outta Sega Outrun only to run on a track that sometimes goes from GT5 to Pole Position.

Even with Race Pro graphics I was fine except for the "white" metallic issue really threw me for a loop and took me out immersion when I concentrated on it. But other than that the consistency was there.

This reminds me of NHL 2K5. Graphics were all over the place. The ice was beautiful. I mean it looked like an actual photo of an ice rink. But the players were all jagged to death and the color palette must have been about 256 colors next to the millions in the ice. It really stood out and just killed some of the enjoyment.

 

[Mr Fox]

Uh, no, it means you notice something is wrong, but you can't point your finger directly on it. Just like with almost all CG pictures, there are only a few (very expensive) productions where you cannot see a difference between graphics and real life, exactly because of those little flaws you think you don't see.

This is very similar to the "Uncanny valley" effect imo.

When we look at GT or FM the conscious mind is in-effect being tricked or fooled into believing what its presented as being real, whilst the subconscious picks up all the the errors and inconsistencies, this leads to a break in immersion for the player.

 

[t.o.]

This is very similar to the "Uncanny valley" effect imo.

When we look at GT or FM the conscious mind is in-effect being tricked or fooled into believing what its presented as being real, whilst the subconscious picks up all the the errors and inconsistencies, this leads to a break in immersion for the player.

In the case of GT and FM I don't think our conscious mind is being tricked into believing what it's presented as being real. It's clear , when in-game, that you're playing a game. Neither is at the fidelity to make you think it's real, at least for me it isn't. However it's the consistency of what's there that makes you feel you're part of the action and "immersed" in the game briefly suspending your knowledge that you're playing a game. Now if there are subtle inconsistencies that aren't blatant to the eye the suspension of this false reality can be held. If there are obvious and apparent inconsistencies it's more difficult to hold that suspension.

Let's take GT5 and say all the problems in that game were gone. You'd be held in a state of belief once you got into the action as long as everything stayed consistent. It would be great. Now if you're making a daring pass and all of a sudden the car in your rear view makes a move pass you only to turn into a wire-mesh model it would kill the whole immersion factor.

 

[Hotspitta]

The low poly models are very noticeable in replays and ingame when you are close to other cars in cockpit/bumper view: blacked interiors, simplified modeling, less details, half resolution liveries, etc..

Imo it isn't noticable ingame. Example if you get close behind a car with the bumpercam you can clearly see lots of detail in the rear of the ai car.
The damage video still beats Gt's damage model by a mile and thats not only talking visual damage.

How do you take a photo so the modelling is like that? I presume its gone through a capture card which makes pics 10x better than from FM.net

You press start go to photomode and press X there you can adjust the camera settings and find your killer spot. Here's a few nice ones

 

[VXR]

I assume they meant how did they upload it without getting the killjoy compression from uploading to FM.net - personally I live with it and upload to flickr which seems to work magic.

 

[t.o.]

Yeah flicr is better ....

Same with photobucket

 

[Luminis]

I just wanted to point out that I find it kinda strange that FM3 gets a lot of flack for the sacrifices T10 made in order to keep the framerate up, while, at the same time, the sacrifices GT5 made seem to be perfectly fine to some people.

Granted, GT5 didn't do it by swapping the models, but, really, I don't get why that would warrant more criticism than stuff that is much, much more noticible during gameplay, photomode and replays.

 

[Daverytimes]

I just wanted to point out that I find it kinda strange that FM3 gets a lot of flack for the sacrifices T10 made in order to keep the framerate up, while, at the same time, the sacrifices GT5 made seem to be perfectly fine to some people.

Granted, GT5 didn't do it by swapping the models, but, really, I don't get why that would warrant more criticism than stuff that is much, much more noticible during gameplay, photomode and replays.

If you have been in these forums for the last six to seven months you will notice that a lot of people are not happy with any shortcomings PD has made (If any) to achieve a solid frame-rate (Which is not even solid).



DAVE

 

[Luminis]

If you have been in these forums for the last six to seven months you will notice that a lot of people are not happy with any shortcomings PD has made (If any) to achieve a solid frame-rate (Which is not even solid).



DAVE

That's why I said 'some people'. I know PD has been criticised by a lot of the members around here and I wouldn't claim otherwise. All I'm saying is, some people seem to be fine with what PD did while happily criticising T10 for what is a very similar thing to do.

 

[stevetam]

flickr looks better because they apply sharpening to your photo. It draws out richer colours and sharper shapes than other photo viewers. Half wizardry half black magic /jks. It can draw away from the compression.

I know about photomode. What kind of person plays forza but doesn't know about photomode? Of course I know you get more detailed models in photomode! I was wondering how that person got the super clear shot of the M5.

 

[Luminis]

Two possibilities: Either they reworked the way pictures are uploaded to FM.net, implemented another way to get the pictures to your PC (USB would be nice ).
Or they just used a video capture card to get the pictures of the M5 from FM4.

 

[Sele1981]

If you have been in these forums for the last six to seven months you will notice that a lot of people are not happy with any shortcomings PD has made (If any) to achieve a solid frame-rate (Which is not even solid).
DAVE

I never can understand this, I never had any framerate drops since the release of GT5... Seems like my Fat lady does a great work...

 

[Luminis]

Well... I did experience frame rate drops with GT5, but what annoyed me a lot more was the constant screen tearing

 

[drivatar]

I never can understand this, I never had any framerate drops since the release of GT5...

I think it's hard to not see the performance problems of GT5.


This and some more videos: http://blog.livedoor.jp/ps360/archives/51645053.html


FM2/3 run at very stable 60fps with v-sync 👍.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

I think it's hard to not see the performance problems of GT5.


This and some more videos: http://blog.livedoor.jp/ps360/archives/51645053.html


FM2/3 run at very stable 60fps with v-sync 👍.

Of course rain will have the worst frame rate. A lot of console racing games are running around 30 fps which is probably why some are not "seeing" Gt5 performance problems.
P.S we need to compare between Forza3 in the rain vs Gt5 .... Oh that's right Forza 3 didn't have rain,dirt or snow.

 

[Spagetti69]

Of course rain will have the worst frame rate. A lot of console racing games are running around 30 fps which is probably why some are not "seeing" Gt5 performance problems.
P.S we need to compare between Forza3 in the rain vs Gt5 .... Oh that's right Forza 3 didn't have rain,dirt or snow.

Which comes back to priority.

Forza felt screen rate was priority. GT wanted rain. Simple.

Edit just to add. I get it on the Tokyo track too strangely. Might be my ageing system.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Which comes back to priority.

Forza felt screen rate was priority. GT wanted rain. Simple.

Edit just to add. I get it on the Tokyo track too strangely. Might be my ageing system.

This is why I love the PC. You have choices between performance vs quality. I don't mind losing a few frame rate for stuff like triple screen, rain and snow effects,etc

 

[Hotspitta]

Of course rain will have the worst frame rate. A lot of console racing games are running around 30 fps which is probably why some are not "seeing" Gt5 performance problems.
P.S we need to compare between Forza3 in the rain vs Gt5 .... Oh that's right Forza 3 didn't have rain,dirt or snow.

Dude i had tearing at the normal tracks as well. including a lot on the Madrid and rome tracks when exiting and appoaching corners.

 

[Luminis]

I don't mind losing a few frame rate for stuff like triple screen, rain and snow effects,etc

And that's preference. I'd rather have a smooth 60FPS and V-Sync over weather effects and stuff, as it enables me to enjoy what's in the game more, instead of spoiling the joy I get out of those effects with performance problems.
I think GT5 basically did that everywhere, not just with the graphics. Standard cars, customization, you get the idea.

Dude i had tearing at the normal tracks as well. including a lot on the Madrid and rome tracks when exiting and appoaching corners.

Yeah, me too. The frame rate drops didn't occur that often, but the tearing happened pretty often, no matter on which track.

 

[yawzway]

Of course rain will have the worst frame rate. A lot of console racing games are running around 30 fps which is probably why some are not "seeing" Gt5 performance problems.
P.S we need to compare between Forza3 in the rain vs Gt5 .... Oh that's right Forza 3 didn't have rain,dirt or snow.

And the fact is, more people will talk about GT5's tearing and frame rate issues, rather than Forza 3 omitting rain, dirt and snow.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

And the fact is, more people will talk about GT5's tearing and frame rate issues, rather than Forza 3 omitting rain, dirt and snow.

There were quite a few people admitted they never noticed the tearing until people started to complain about it. (it was revela from those video test.) Screen tearing has been common for a long time just like jagged edges. After a while I notice both less since my mind will filters them out... that is unless you focus on them.

 

[Luminis]

There were quite a few people admitted they never noticed the tearing until people started to complain about it.

Really? I mean, I can understand no noticing the frame rate drops, it's not that hard to overlook.
But I can't believe someone didn't notice the screen tearing. Unless, of course, that person doesn't want to notice it.

Even the model swap in FM3 is easier to miss than that.

 

[Zoom!Zoom!]

Really? I mean, I can understand no noticing the frame rate drops, it's not that hard to overlook.
But I can't believe someone didn't notice the screen tearing. Unless, of course, that person doesn't want to notice it.

Even the model swap in FM3 is easier to miss than that.

Some people gets sea sick and some don't. Science has recently discovered that our eyes does some "photoshop" the image before sending it to our brains. It's the same when it comes to our ears.

 

[Luminis]

Some people gets sea sick and some don't. Science has recently discovered that our eyes does some "photoshop" the image before sending it to our brains. It's the same when it comes to our ears.

I still highly doubt that that's anywhere near the difference between people becoming sea sick, or not.

Then again, maybe It's just me being super sensitive to the screen tearing and frame rate drops and generally everything in terms of graphics
Considering that I'm nearly blind without my glasses makes that a bit of an absurd thought, but, whatever...

 

[dzidza]

Which comes back to priority.

Forza felt screen rate was priority. GT wanted rain. Simple.

Edit just to add. I get it on the Tokyo track too strangely. Might be my ageing system.

Gt didn't wanted rain, but fans inssisted weather. And GT is running 1,5x times bigger resolution. To much stuff was asked for GT5 by the fans and I personaly think also Sony screwed up also by revealing things that was supposed to be in GT6 but were then rushed into GT5.

 

[Spagetti69]

I never new it was the fans decision.

As I remember it getting any concrete info out of PD regarding GT5 was like getting blood out of a stone.

Still is in some regards.

Anyway good to know.

 

[cuco33]

Don't know about you guys but I saw it that the fans wanted online far more before rain and day to night transition. There was even a GT4 beta for online and the fans rejoiced when GT5P brought online. The first time I heard fans really wanting weather and day to night transition was if other racers offered it (like PGR) or after it was mentioned for the first time by PD