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

[MagpieRacer]

Ok part 2 of my graphical comparison coming up, this time, instead of using the default photomode settings, I had a play around with them to get some very different results between the 2 games. *note* I realise I am not the best photographer so lets not get into the skillz argument thanks.
GT5

FM4

GT5

FM4

GT5

FM4

GT5

FM4

GT5

FM4

GT5

FM4

GT5

FM4

 

[buickgnx88]

That's the one thing I like about GT over FM is how the car's reflections look more realistic, since it seems like FM almost overdoes their paint reflections.

 

[JDMKING13]

That's the one thing I like about GT over FM is how the car's reflections look more realistic, since it seems like FM almost overdoes their paint reflections.

Like he said he is not the best photographer and I still think GT5 looks better, but those FM4 pictures are not the best. I have been on FMplanet and some of those guys make some great work. 👍 Mid thanks for the comparison though 👍

 

[Tornado]

Laguna looks, uh, quite different between the two games.

 

[PzR Slim]

That's the one thing I like about GT over FM is how the car's reflections look more realistic, since it seems like FM almost overdoes their paint reflections.

I've seen this about being too reflective said a couple of times now. I actually made a point of looking at cars on my drive home from work the other night and even three quarters of an hour before sun down with an overcast sky, reasonably dirty cars (they can't all have been washed that day) still looked very shiny and reflective.

I suggest everyone does the same. I was really very suprised just how shiny and reflective they looked. And I assume that cars in FM have that just out of the showroom look, so I'm not sure they are too reflective or shiny.

Another thing I would suggest people do is to get some Auto Clay. It's a small clay block that you pull small pieces off and then rub all over the bodywork of your car. It removes all the small particles of brake dust, pollution, tree sap, etc that builds up on your car and isn't removed by normal washing. Run your hand over the surface of the bodywork of your car the next time you give it a good wash and you will feel all the crap that is there. Once this stuff is removed and you give it a decent wax you will be amazed how much better the car looks compared to a normal wash. Before I took my previous car to get a trade in price when I was buying my new car I spent a good few hours doing this and the dealer said it was the best condition bodywork he had ever seen in a second hand car.

Like he said he is not the best photographer and I still think GT5 looks better, but those FM4 pictures are not the best. I have been on FMplanet and some of those guys make some great work. 👍 Mid thanks for the comparison though 👍

Yeah don't think the pics do either game justice. Think FM looks a little better in the first shot but overall GT still looks just a touch more realistic. However, get the best snappers from both games to do their best and I'm willing to bet both games would look absolutely stunning and hard to separate.

 

[PzR Slim]

Sorry double post. Please delete.

 

[Symtex]

Let me take a crack at it. These images were taken during the Forza replay. not photomode.

 

[PzR Slim]

Let me take a crack at it. These images were taken during the Forza replay. not photomode.

As I was saying! Two very nice shots 👍

 

[Akira AC]

The roundness of the headlamps is quite poor to be honest, that also includes some of the car's geometries.

 

[prymet1me]

The roundness of the headlamps is quite poor to be honest, that also includes some of the car's geometries.

Can you give more details, you are making me feel like I am blind. The car looks fine to me.

 

[Akira AC]

Its pretty evident to be honest:

Those are very few polygons for a circle, also notice the texture used for the headlamp.

 

[Symtex]

Its pretty evident to be honest:

Those are very few polygons for a circle, also notice the texture used for the headlamp.

Don't forget this is an aftermarket bumper I put in. don't forget this image was compress by the great people of Facebook :-P

 

[prymet1me]

I must not be as much as a graphic expert because I do not see an issue with the headlamp. And to be honest I cant see them while I am racing. Also, what should the headlight look like or is there an example you have the IS correct?

 

[Akira AC]

I must not be as much as a graphic expert because I do not see an issue with the headlamp. And to be honest I cant see them while I am racing. Also, what should the headlight look like or is there an example you have the IS correct?

The headlamp is a volumetric object, not a picture closed in a circle. Notice the headlamps on the McLarens in the photo-barrage by MildAshers, those are volumetric objects included in the car, notice also the circles and their roundness, these headlamps shown here are textures and not objects, and there is a substantial difference to be acknowledged.

Don't forget this is an aftermarket bumper I put in. don't forget this image was compress by the great people of Facebook :-P

Image compression has nothing to do with the number of vectors used to compose the circle, besides, after market bumpers should not affect the geometry composition of the car, likewise they should not affect the graphical output of the game(during replay).

 

[prymet1me]

I appreciate your attention to detail, all I know is when I look at the cars in the actual game...it looks just fine. shrug.

 

[cuco33]

How many polygons do you think was used to make this?

I'll guess at 1... because it looks to me is nothing more than a simple texture plopped onto a solid block.
And how many polygons were used for the rear hatch of this?

See that's my problem with the visuals between the 2 games. I'm no graphics whore but it's clear as day to me that the worst Forza 4 can be is nowhere near the level of the worst that GT5 can be.

 

[Akira AC]

Standard(also notice that in FM4 there shouldn't been any standard cars, and the roundness of the headlamp is actually a bit more complex than the Mustang one)

It's been known as a graphical glitch by other sections of the forums.

See that's my problem with the visuals between the 2 games. I'm no graphics whore but it's clear as day to me that the worst Forza 4 can be is nowhere near the level of the worst that GT5 can be.

Agreed, a fair comparison cant be done, yet is done and there is some debate to be had (graphics during gameplay).

 

[GTForzafan]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-10-21-reassessing-gran-turismo-5-article?comment_start=50

This is why videogames journalism can't be taken serious....
See this man's review of forza 4 and now the glorifying 2.0 Spec update... /s
The text, is pure GT fan material...

 

[PzR Slim]

I wonder sometimes if you see the same things others do Akira.

Both taken in replay mode.

 

[prymet1me]

Thanks PzR Slim , I still cant figure out what he is talking about. Hopefully he can further explain his point thanks to your pictures.

 

[GTForzafan]

"It's been known as a graphical glitch by other sections of the forums."

The standards awful look, is a graphical glitch ? FANTASTIC

And nitpicks a headlamp, go figure ....

 

[Imari]

The headlamp is a volumetric object, not a picture closed in a circle. Notice the headlamps on the McLarens in the photo-barrage by MildAshers, those are volumetric objects included in the car, notice also the circles and their roundness, these headlamps shown here are textures and not objects, and there is a substantial difference to be acknowledged.

How exactly does one distinguish between a high resolution 2d texture and a 3d object when you're looking at them in a 2d image? Ultimately they both end up as 2d images on your screen, so I fail to see how you can state categorically that one resulted from a 3d model and the other didn't.

Actually, that's not quite true, there are certain things you can look for that point to something being a texture. None of them appear in these images though. Of note to me, is that you can see where the bulbs rest in the headlamps. Were the headlamps textures, you'd expect the bulbs to be perfectly centred on the front face. They're not, they're slightly offset as one would expect from the parallax different of them lying slightly behind the plane of the glass of the headlamp. And they're offset to different sides depending on which side of the car you're viewing from.

You could do be clever and do that with textures, but it seems like it would probably be more difficult than just modelling the headlamp.

 

[cuco33]

Standard(also notice that in FM4 there shouldn't been any standard cars, and the roundness of the headlamp is actually a bit more complex than the Mustang one)

So what if it's a standard? Standards make up 80% of the game's content.
With that said, the VW GTI in GT5 shot that I took is a 2D texture, not a 'volumetric object' or 3D model. It's a 2D texture slapped onto the face of the car.

It's been known as a graphical glitch by other sections of the forums.

Glitch or not, this happens in the game 100% of the time. There's even a Lupo spec race that you race... you guessed it, Lupos of this quality. There are no premium Lupos in GT5, so all will show this jaggy edge in game as you drive by them. You'd think that in photomode these edges would be smoothed out at least, but are not.

Agreed, a fair comparison cant be done, yet is done and there is some debate to be had (graphics during gameplay).

I still hold my comment as the truth. The worst in Forza 3/4 is still significantly better than the worst in GT5. Sadly happens when you port 800+ cars. Some standards look great, while most look like crap.

 

[Vaxxtx]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-10-21-reassessing-gran-turismo-5-article?comment_start=50

This is why videogames journalism can't be taken serious....
See this man's review of forza 4 and now the glorifying 2.0 Spec update... /s
The text, is pure GT fan material...

Blessed, Greatness, Poetry, Art, and every other term I laugh at when someone describes GT5. Yeah...biased review. Rather funny how he talks about all the unfortunate stuff, yet still says its all that. I giggled while reading it at least.

Thanks PzR Slim , I still cant figure out what he is talking about. Hopefully he can further explain his point thanks to your pictures.

I am in the same boat. I looked for a while, trying to see what he meant. I dont get it either, so you are not alone.

 

[PzR Slim]

Thanks PzR Slim , I still cant figure out what he is talking about. Hopefully he can further explain his point thanks to your pictures.

You can just see at this close range that the outside circle of the light is made up from lots of straight lines. But how he saw that from such a distance in the first pics posted when it's only just visible at this zoomed in distance I have no idea. As for his second point I think he was suggestin the headlight was a flat texture and not a volumetric shape. The second pictures proves it is a volumetric shape.

 

[Symtex]

All I see is a pretty darn good pic :-)

 

[xPPRTxDETROITx]

SONY isn't rich and operating at a huge profit like a certain monopoly. SONY can't afford to hire 250 additional people to work on Gran Turismo. Do you know what that would cost just in payroll, assuming they were getting just $25K a year? 6.25 million dollars. That's not benefits, that's not the extra cost of buying the equipment and software to do their jobs, or leasing the space where they can work. And then there's what MS got with those 400 plus workers they hired. In two years, this constellation of studios produced...

Sony isn't rich? Really? Really? Wow. And those 250 people work for sound labs and software programming firms etc. They don't get paid by MS they get paid by the Firm they work for FOR THE SERVICES THEY PERFORM, for numerous clients like turn ten, and other software firms, etc.etc. MS pays the firms for their services, look how many buisness names are in the credit.

My fishing buddy Jeff works for Pixar and has a small buisness he does on the side and has credits on more than a couple games, on one sports franchise he was payed a small around a grand to create a few jersey wrinkles. He is on the credits for said game, another buddy of mine works at a helicoptor factory building well, helicopters, he is a sound guy for many independent games including head of the Worms franchise. Like I said he continues working his $60,000 a year assembly line job, because he doesn't make much money.

point being sony had the money and god knows the time to get this right. They may not have as much cash as MS, but hell they have all the money in the world my man. How many Sony products have you owned in your life? How about your parents? How about your grand parents? Think about it.

 

[Tornado]

The standards awful look, is a graphical glitch ? FANTASTIC

Yeah, for many of them it is, and that car looks nothing like that anymore because they fixed it.

No, there isn't a Standard in the game that looks nearly as good as any of the Premiums. But let's consistently call a spade a spade.

 

[prymet1me]

You can just see at this close range that the outside circle of the light is made up from lots of straight lines. But how he saw that from such a distance in the first pics posted when it's only just visible at this zoomed in distance I have no idea. As for his second point I think he was suggestin the headlight was a flat texture and not a volumetric shape. The second pictures proves it is a volumetric shape.

He lost me because when I am actually playing the game the cars look really great. When going to buy a car and you press the X button you can look around the car and click the right stick for 3 levels of zoom. I mean if you want to harp on car textures you can harp about the liveries being jagged at times.

I just didn't see the light thing he was trying to point out.

 

[Akira AC]

I wonder sometimes if you see the same things others do Akira.

Both taken in replay mode.

I wonder how can you get that angle on replay, I also wonder why the number of vectors that composes the circle around the headlamp magically increased(compared to the first screenshoot taken by Symtex).

"It's been known as a graphical glitch by other sections of the forums."

The standards awful look, is a graphical glitch ? FANTASTIC

I'm referring to the line blockiness, which has been know as a glitch, which is not the same as claiming "The standards awful look, is a graphical glitch", standards do look worst than most of the FM models, and in their own right they also look worst than most of the stuff from this generation.

Showing evidence of the low LOD used in Forza to save memory however is something that should be acknowledged.

How exactly does one distinguish between a high resolution 2d texture and a 3d object when you're looking at them in a 2d image? Ultimately they both end up as 2d images on your screen, so I fail to see how you can state categorically that one resulted from a 3d model and the other didn't.

Actually, that's not quite true, there are certain things you can look for that point to something being a texture. None of them appear in these images though. Of note to me, is that you can see where the bulbs rest in the headlamps. Were the headlamps textures, you'd expect the bulbs to be perfectly centred on the front face. They're not, they're slightly offset as one would expect from the parallax different of them lying slightly behind the plane of the glass of the headlamp. And they're offset to different sides depending on which side of the car you're viewing from.

You could do be clever and do that with textures, but it seems like it would probably be more difficult than just modelling the headlamp.

Actually you are right, but just like GT5's Golf GTI there is no roundness on the headlamp(if we consider X,Y,Z axis there is nothing on the Z axis), the mustang headlamp has a roundness area which should be noticeable in the picture(again this roundness corresponds to the Z axis), however such extension in that volumetric object is absent as it cant be noticed(and it can be noticed on a IRL picture).

Its been know that GT5's standards are ports from GT4's photomode models, but something that people dismiss is that FM models are tweaked models from previous Forzas(most of them, not all of them), the existence of different LODs for different parts of each game have also been noticed, yet is really hard to acknowledged such thing for FM's in game graphics.

I'm sorry but FM also uses similar tricks to save system memory and production time, just like GT this stuff can be noticed during gameplay(and in FM this stuff do exist).