Forza 5 physics vs GT6 аnd other sims

[McLaren]

I don't think the intention is to sell cars either, but I agree that they most likely enjoy seeing their creations shown in such detail for enthusiasts.

The closest you could get a few years ago outside of being in the physical presence of the cars were through configurators & top tier manufacturers only just started putting those together in the last couple years to give a basic idea of their cars in various finishes; before, only dealerships had access to them.

Though, I should give a nod to TDU as well since it allowed a Vista-esque view on the cars & allowed you to configure with different options (interiors & OEM wheels even if it was very limited) before buying them in game.

Would love to see PD or T10 take that next step towards modeling the cars. PD is right there on the edge as I believe picking different colors would change the interiors to better match instead of a basic black leather finish for every car.

 

[Imari]

Hmm, right. Don't you think though, the SAME storage space could be used for more texture memory, higher resolution... additional cars or maybe events? I know what you speak of, believe me. Besides, another generation of good-quality in-game graphics and mind-boggling photomode and Auto Vista graphics is a bit much. About time they all get an equal share.

If they were running out of space on the disc, maybe. They're not.

Hard drive/blu-ray disc space does not give you any more memory to use for textures, or help you use a higher resolution in any way.

If you know of what you speak, you need to explain it a bit more. Because what you're saying here makes no sense.

^^ Sorta. They might have used the same sources and energy to recreate every bit of the in-game driving more accurately, for instance - full 360 degree panning interior camera anyone?

Isn't this just more of the "prettiness for prettinesses sake" that you're complaining about? How does a 360 degree panning interior camera add to the racing?

When I purchase a product, that's ALL I expect to pay for it and get my money's worth, irrespective of how much DLC or how many other additional updates or goodies they want to dish out after release.

What do you feel that you're being forced to buy? T10 have been pretty clear about what the game disc does and does not include. DLC has been a part of FM for some time now.

^^ I've deliberately held back from buying an X1 due to the bugs I keep reading about FM5 on the official forums, and how the hardware might not be fully next-gen compliant. End of year would be a good time to determine whether the X1 and FM5 are for me or not.

What exactly does "next-gen compliant" mean?

 

[VXR]

I agree, changing the interior colour would be a great touch.

 

[Wolfe]

You know, a long diatribe that nonetheless largely says nothing more than "lol GT6" only works as a rebuttal when he's actually using GT6 as the standard that Turn 10 should have aspired to. It's especially hard to say he's being hypocritical when he never said anything about PD's incompetence at all, never mind attempting to defend it as you are claiming he was doing.

Clearly, the absence of any features that Polyphony has already tried are nothing but testaments to Turn 10's wisdom in game development, because those features couldn't possibly turn out any better than they did in GT5/GT6. That actually sounds a bit like the excuse from the other side that Gran Turismo doesn't need a livery editor because every online race would be a parade of crude dick drawings.

Bottom line is, I've followed Forza through FM2, FM3, FM4, and Horizon, and I think FM5 makes a weak sales pitch (by itself) for a next-gen launch title. For anyone who had already decided on a Microsoft XBOX One™, I certainly recognize that it's a great game worth having. But after FM4's breakthroughs and Horizon's one-of-a-kind experience, I expected something with more of a "wow!" factor.

 

[Speedster911]

I agree, changing the interior colour would be a great touch.

Yes, that ability should have always been there, don't know why it isn't. I was actually referring more to the details of the interior in a 360 view. At least a full 180 deg one.

Speedster911 said
Hmm, right. Don't you think though, the SAME storage space could be used for more texture memory, higher resolution... additional cars or maybe events? I know what you speak of, believe me. Besides, another generation of good-quality in-game graphics and mind-boggling photomode and Auto Vista graphics is a bit much. About time they all get an equal share.
If they were running out of space on the disc, maybe. They're not.

Hard drive/blu-ray disc space does not give you any more memory to use for textures, or help you use a higher resolution in any way.

If you know of what you speak, you need to explain it a bit more. Because what you're saying here makes no sense.

^^ Sorta. They might have used the same sources and energy to recreate every bit of the in-game driving more accurately, for instance - full 360 degree panning interior camera anyone?
Isn't this just more of the "prettiness for prettinesses sake" that you're complaining about? How does a 360 degree panning interior camera add to the racing?

When I purchase a product, that's ALL I expect to pay for it and get my money's worth, irrespective of how much DLC or how many other additional updates or goodies they want to dish out after release.​

What do you feel that you're being forced to buy? T10 have been pretty clear about what the game disc does and does not include. DLC has been a part of FM for some time now.

^^ I've deliberately held back from buying an X1 due to the bugs I keep reading about FM5 on the official forums, and how the hardware might not be fully next-gen compliant. End of year would be a good time to determine whether the X1 and FM5 are for me or not.​

What exactly does "next-gen compliant" mean?

It seems a lot of time and energy was put into pulling off Forza Vista. The same energy and RESOURCES could have been used to perfect elements of the actual gameplay. That's all I have to say. If it makes sense well and good, if not, so be it. I do not have the time to "back up my case" with detailed info, facts and whatnot.

Cheers.

 

[Igano]

Speedster you are confused there is big difference between memory (ram) and disk space. The space the autovista takes is not an issue at all, because with blue ray you get more than plenty space! Autovista is not loaded into memory when not in autovista. This means that there is no resources taken away from Autovista unless you are in Autovista. Weather is something that will need additional gpu and cpu which is the difficult part in balancing performance. Of course it will need some disk pace but there is way too much space available than what is needed. What I tell you is 100% accurate.

As for the next-gen compliant this is totally subjective as the term next-gen it simply means that this is the newest generation of consoles. There is no measurement of what is that exactly. On paper PS4 might be a bit ahead but you can't claim that a console with an 8-core CPU and 8 GB DD3 ram is not next-gen. What could we say about Wii U than? But don't get stuck on the on-paper advantage of PS4 it matter what titles you want to play. Even if on paper there is an advantage that does not mean that GT7 will look better than FM5 on default. It's all matter of programming and the tools that are given to the devs and of course the choices they will make to balance the performance/quality scale. Also keep in mind DX12 will come and it will probably improve things a lot on Xbox ONE! On a comparison video on Youtube for Tomb Raider between PC PS4 and Xbox One I can tell you PC looked better as usual but Xbox One looked a bit better than PS4 for me at least.

I hope I made some things more clear for you!

 

[SlyNine]

Frankly, I'm among the group who are surprised that the last of the assets they made for 360 -- DLC in particular -- weren't already built with the next gen in mind. I can't think of any reason they couldn't have kept "master" files, and simply scaled them down for the 360 games.

I simply have no issue with the level of quality in the FM4/FH models, either. Errors/glitches or inaccuracies, sure, but when the radio/HVAC buttons are legible in photomode I think there's more than enough detail. I'd rather have more cars to drive than insanely detailed ones. Don't get me wrong, though -- I don't think FM5 is lacking for cars, it has plenty. I just wonder if it was really necessary to cut so many.

That sums it up for me. Why the heck do they waste their time redoing everything. Just do it once and capture EVERY detail you can and make a master copy with more detail then you can ever use. Do it right the first time and you shouldn't need to do it for a couple console generations at least. If they would have done this from Forza 1 they would only have to worry about physics and licensing. All of the suspension geometry would be there. If some information was missing, like say what material or spring rate that car had, it wouldn't take to long to acquire and incorporate.

The auto vista cars from FM4 were good enough for sure, and I'd bet some were used in FM5.

 

[Igano]

If only programming and software worked as simple as you think it does (in your mind...)!

 

[UKMikey]

That sums it up for me. Why the heck do they waste their time redoing everything. Just do it once and capture EVERY detail you can and make a master copy with more detail then you can ever use. Do it right the first time and you shouldn't need to do it for a couple console generations at least. If they would have done this from Forza 1 they would only have to worry about physics and licensing. All of the suspension geometry would be there. If some information was missing, like say what material or spring rate that car had, it wouldn't take to long to acquire and incorporate.

The auto vista cars from FM4 were good enough for sure, and I'd bet some were used in FM5.

I'm not trying to compare with the GT series but it's the only other example I know of this future proofing being applied. As I understand it the standard cars are based on Photomode models in GT4 which were supposedly captured with as much detail as possible at the time but they still don't look great in current gen.

If it were possible to future proof cars to that extent there would be no graphical divide in any such game.

 

[Speedster911]

Speedster you are confused there is big difference between memory (ram) and disk space. The space the autovista takes is not an issue at all, because with blue ray you get more than plenty space! Autovista is not loaded into memory when not in autovista. This means that there is no resources taken away from Autovista unless you are in Autovista. Weather is something that will need additional gpu and cpu which is the difficult part in balancing performance. Of course it will need some disk pace but there is way too much space available than what is needed. What I tell you is 100% accurate.

As for the next-gen compliant this is totally subjective as the term next-gen it simply means that this is the newest generation of consoles. There is no measurement of what is that exactly. On paper PS4 might be a bit ahead but you can't claim that a console with an 8-core CPU and 8 GB DD3 ram is not next-gen. What could we say about Wii U than? But don't get stuck on the on-paper advantage of PS4 it matter what titles you want to play. Even if on paper there is an advantage that does not mean that GT7 will look better than FM5 on default. It's all matter of programming and the tools that are given to the devs and of course the choices they will make to balance the performance/quality scale. Also keep in mind DX12 will come and it will probably improve things a lot on Xbox ONE! On a comparison video on Youtube for Tomb Raider between PC PS4 and Xbox One I can tell you PC looked better as usual but Xbox One looked a bit better than PS4 for me at least.

I hope I made some things more clear for you!

OK, let me put it this way:

When I say resources, I most certainly DO NOT mean the X1's hardware prowess or processing power and/or memory, I meant time, energy and resources on T10's part... research and hard work they put in Forza Vista could have been diverted towards perfecting the cockpit views, and aspects that have either been done wrong or missing since FM3. Prime examples:

* Lack of certain upgrades showing up cosmetically

* Insufficient rim choices

* No ability to add race car bodykits or modify other visual aspects of the car (think NFS Underground or F&F)

* Full pitstops and fuel usage/tire wear playing a significant role in longer races etc.

Mate, I can go on and on but I'm barely scratching the surface with that list. Don't care to debate much. FM5 is what it is, and that's that. Those who are staying full on it, well and good, that's great.

Next-gen complaint: I took one look at the smoke effects, which look noticeably worse than FM4.

^^ When you drift, or there's excessive wheel spin.. why do I see random farts of smoke popping UP from the track while the car is a few feet ahead? That is plain wierd and never happens in real life. With this new hardware, I was especting them to pay more focus to particle density and realism. GRID II did a decent job of this on previous gen, so did some of the NFS games - tire smoke should start coming off the tires, out and away from the wheel housings (governed by speed and wind direction) before you start to see smoke trails on the track itself. <--- that part comes after

I think this is never getting fixed in a Forza game. And YES, having good particle effects is part of the overall visual package and virtual driving experience.

 

[Tornado]

I'm not trying to compare with the GT series but it's the only other example I know of this future proofing being applied. As I understand it the standard cars are based on Photomode models in GT4 which were supposedly captured with as much detail as possible at the time but they still don't look great in current gen.

If it were possible to future proof cars to that extent there would be no graphical divide in any such game.

The GT4 assets were mostly created using modeling practices that were already outdated by the time the game came out, and very few of them actually do look better than they did in GT4 as a result (since even the best models in that game had shortcuts taken in their design to fake detail that GT4 couldn't simulate, such as dynamic shadows being represented by actually drawing shadows on the car textures, and drawn on body parts) so it's not really comparable to Turn 10 throwing out their modern multi-piece car models (which are exponentially more suitable for updating) and presumably "starting from scratch" with stuff in some cases only half a year old. I have a hard time believing that something like the Alfa Romero TZ3, which was released for Horizon a month before Forza 5 was announced, was incapable of being modeled to the same level of quality as any of the cars that were being modeled at the same time for Forza 5.

If only programming and software worked as simple as you think it is (in your mind...)!

If only there was an example that showed art assets could be transferred between different game engines, even across different generations of hardware.

 

[UKMikey]

If only there was an example that showed art assets could be transferred between different game engines, even across different generations of hardware.

Do you mean the example I just used, which you just said wasn't comparable in the post above?

 

[Ialyrn]

@Tornado From my understanding, the cars in Horizon had to be "reduced" in quality by playground games; which was one of the major reasons of the pitiful car list. I dont know 100% with that, because I Have not personally been able to get my hands on the ripped 3d models from Horizon to compare with those from FM4. Though I believe I read something somewhere from playground games themselves, stating that this was the case. It was something about compromise with regards to the map size, traffic cars, day/night transition, and everything else going on in the game.

 

[Speedster911]

@Tornado From my understanding, the cars in Horizon had to be "reduced" in quality by playground games; which was one of the major reasons of the pitiful car list. I dont know 100% with that, because I Have not personally been able to get my hands on the ripped 3d models from Horizon to compare with those from FM4. Though I believe I read something somewhere from playground games themselves, stating that this was the case. It was something about compromise with regards to the map size, traffic cars, day/night transition, and everything else going on in the game.

Why do you need rips to compare models, when your eye is the best judge? The difference is practically day and night... to the keen observer.

 

[HAL20XX]

Who said they had to go and recapture all of these cars? They said rebuild, which would be done with their current data.

Seeing as how all of the cars that were in FM4 and are now in FM5 have the ability to open doors in every case and hood and trunk in some cases, it shows that for the 275+ cars now in the game, they scanned what they needed to at the time.

 

[Ialyrn]

Why do you need rips to compare models, when your eye is the best judge? The difference is practically day and night... to the keen observer.

Poly count and vertex count gives a far clearer picture of the 3d models used, going by eye only is not the best way to determine the levels of detail of a particular 3d asset. Take the rear light cluster on the back of the F458 for instance, there could be a higher cluster of tightly placed poly's in F4 compared to the F458 used in Horizon. By removing Poly's in an area like that may not give any noticeable indication by eye alone, not if the 3d modelers are good anyway. So the only clear way to find out, is to look at the mesh directly in a 3d editing program. If there are less poly's on each car in Horizon, it frees up resources for other area's of the game; mainly because the cars would need less processing power to render. One of the biggest differences in Horizon compared to F4, is the reflections on the cars themselves. It has been noticeably toned down, which again frees system resources to be used elsewhere. This can have a knock on effect to what your eye sees though, and can trick you into thinking the actual level of detail is worse on a particular car. Another benefit of using a 3d program is the ability to do what's called a "clay render", which is the best way to compare visual details between 2 different 3d models. There are no reflections on this type of render, and it really helps to show any imperfections in a 3d model. It is used by not only hobby 3d modellers, but also by game devs; and even the movie/television industry.

 

[Speedster911]

^^ Interesting.

The first time I booted up Horizon, I noticed right away how not so super-detailed the head and tail lights were, compared to FM4. The reflections left a lot to be desired as well. Like I said, the keen observer will pick these things up right away without the aid of a program (unless you really want to dive into the finer bits)... especially if you've been into PC gaming.

 

[Wolfe]

I noticed the reflections had changed, but I had no reason to notice any downgrading in the models themselves. I believe the tradeoff made Horizon a better game, and it's the sort of thing I would like to see more often in this bloated-budget HD age. 👍

 

[Speedster911]

For one thing, devs in general should be focusing a whole lot more on game physics and sound design. Not just talking racing/driving games.

 

[Igano]

I noticed the reflections had changed, but I had no reason to notice any downgrading in the models themselves. I believe the tradeoff made Horizon a better game, and it's the sort of thing I would like to see more often in this bloated-budget HD age. 👍

For me fps comes first than all the rest of the visual effects as long as they don't lower the framerate below 60.

 

[Speedster911]

^^ Can't say for sure if the next Horizon game will be 60 fps.

It seems devs have accepted 30 fps as the console standard. And it shouldn't be. Games are best enjoyed at 60 fps or more! MY personal opinion <--- just saying!

 

[Wolfe]

Framerate is high on my list, too, but Horizon's 30fps was so uncharacteristically steady compared to the usual Xbox 360 game that it didn't bother me.

 

[UkHardcore23]

^^ Can't say for sure if the next Horizon game will be 60 fps.

It seems devs have accepted 30 fps as the console standard. And it shouldn't be. Games are best enjoyed at 60 fps or more! MY personal opinion <--- just saying!

Horizon is an arcade open world game, No chance it will manage 60fps. You would need a console double the power of the PS4 to run it at 60fps unless you wanted the game to look like TDU.

 

[Terronium-12]

Horizon is an arcade open world game, No chance it will manage 60fps. You would need a console double the power of the PS4 to run it at 60fps unless you wanted the game to look like TDU.

How did you come to that conclusion?

 

[UkHardcore23]

How did you come to that conclusion?

It's a hunch, If Horizon 2 is 60fps i'l eat my hat! I just dont see the XO a capable console to provide good visuals and 60fps for an open world game. Sony couldnt even do it with Infamous on PS4 which would be far less power hungry than Horizon 2 is going to be.

Also we have the Crew coming out and that doesnt actually look that great graphically and it's coming out at 30fps

 

[Terronium-12]

It's a hunch, If Horizon 2 is 60fps i'l eat my hat! I just dont see the XO a capable console to provide good visuals and 60fps for an open world game. Sony couldnt even do it with Infamous on PS4 which would be far less power hungry than Horizon 2 is going to be.

Also we have the Crew coming out and that doesnt actually look that great graphically and it's coming out at 30fps

Fair enough, but Second Son could have been 60fps at the cost of resolution, Nate Fox even confirmed as much. At the end of the day, the One doesn't have to be twice the console the PS4 is as it all comes down to optimization and resource management.

 

[Speedster911]

Horizon is an arcade open world game, No chance it will manage 60fps. You would need a console double the power of the PS4 to run it at 60fps unless you wanted the game to look like TDU.

It's a hunch, If Horizon 2 is 60fps i'l eat my hat! I just dont see the XO a capable console to provide good visuals and 60fps for an open world game. Sony couldnt even do it with Infamous on PS4 which would be far less power hungry than Horizon 2 is going to be.

Also we have the Crew coming out and that doesnt actually look that great graphically and it's coming out at 30fps

If it does get 60 fps, then I'm getting in line with you... I'll EAT my hat too!

Let's not forget the X1 just launched.. and after about 2 years or so, programmers would have had plenty of hands on experience in optimizing the hardware's potential, especially with DX12. Let's not use the PS4 Infamous as a benchmark. Even though the previous gen PS3 had markedly more powerful hardware, it was eventually the X360 that was more programmer-friendly and better optimized multi-platform games were the X360 versions. Maybe the same holds true for the X1 - perhaps MS deliberately limited the X1's power to cater to a certain standard of gaming, until they release some kind of software/hardware upgrade or introduce newer models. Remains to be seen. Just a theory.

You're saying The Crew doesn't look impressive? Uhh... what?! The trailers I've seen had my jaw dropping constantly.. I'm not sure what version it was.. but it was downright ridiculous. Sad that it's 30 fps. Looks like this generation too, consoles will be getting the short end of the stick, next to gaming PCs.

Framerate is high on my list, too, but Horizon's 30fps was so uncharacteristically steady compared to the usual Xbox 360 game that it didn't bother me.

I will give the game mad kudos for that.. the frame rate WAS rock-steady at 30, with zero tearing. 👍 And it was actually the smooth kinda 30 fps, not choppy and stuttery at all, especially when you kill the lights in a dark room and keep the backlight as low as possible. I would say the majority of popular X360 games I own or have played have very steady 30 fps throughout. Maybe I haven't played the choppy ones with screen tearing.

 

[Terronium-12]

Small correction, the only thing the PS3 had over the 360 (not accounting for XDR or any of the various IO's and interconnects) was CELL. Everything else was either too arbitrary or severely bottlenecked by having to make due with a shared 512MB of RAM.

The 360's GPU was considerably more capable.

 

[Speedster911]

^^ We might see the same scenario being played out this generation too.

 

[Tornado]

Do you mean the example I just used, which you just said wasn't comparable in the post above?

Yes. Because I took his already vague-to-the-point-of-being-meaningless response to mean that any amazingly highly detailed assets that were created (as suggested by SlyNine) wouldn't have been able to be used beyond the game/system they were created for; which absence any evidence suggesting that to be the case (and, indeed, with what seems to be evidence pointing to the idea that Turn 10 did not entirely refrain from porting/updating older assets anyway) I responded with an example where a game developer did exactly that (and it's hardly the only one, even if it's rare for developers to do it officially).

Your post was suggesting that the entire concept of future proofing assets was futile, which may very well be true (and is certainly so after enough time has passed from their creation, particularly as new features are thought up); but the cars PD made for GT4 not being an example of why since the entire modeling style PD had used for those assets (one piece models with drawn on body parts and shadows) made them irrelevant in the long term regardless of any advances in graphical quality and regardless of how good their best versions of those assets were. They looked good in 2005, which is a testament to PD's skills; but no matter how much more accurate the GT3/GT4/GT5/GT6 Corvette C4 looks than the FM2/FM3/FM4 one, it still isn't comparable in terms of technical quality or functionality.