Forza 5 physics vs GT6 аnd other sims
- Thread starter shved111
- 1,034 comments
- 83,972 views
- 10,956
- Canada
I can't even survive in a 10 lap race. 
- 543
- Colorado
- lonewanderer85
- TJDAWG
- 462
- MLR_SPARCO
It may be a certain type of race that you would've liked to be longer or you wanted the career mode to last longer,either way this is just a simple thing that could be added to the game,as for GT the A.i would have to be greatly improved for a good endurance race seeing as you can practically pass all the A.i on the first or second lap,I honestly wouldn't mind driveatar on GT.
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,139
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Thanks, it looks like I'll need a private lobby for the leading laps ones. Caboose (lose an MP race) works without any other humans as well from the looks of things.
Last edited:
- 543
- Colorado
- lonewanderer85
- TJDAWG
- 198
- WY
- SlyNine
I just don't understand the restriction. We couldn't add more points to the point map? We couldn't fit the geometry of the suspension? Someone would have to explain to me how laser scanning a car and gathering billions, instead of millions, of points has some sort of limits that are inline with in real-time rendering. I just don't see how they are not decades ahead of what we can do in real time.
In short, I have trouble believing that state of the art capture technology in 2000 didn't capture enough details to bring an Xbox one/ PS4 to their knees.
- 4,381
I have a feeling these restrictions may be put deliberately. Licensing issues, publication issues, not seeing eye to eye on certain aspects.. or just plain ol' BS industry politics.
Consoles could have been a whole lot more powerful today, at practically the same price, but they're not. The PC continues to reign superior..
- 566
- Patra, Greece
If it was that easy games would be built by a few people. There are hundreds of people doing that thing and even than it's a struggle. Remove that and add that only seems logical in your mind, but in reality everything needs to be tailored exactly in order to meet a schedule.
If you think that data taken in fm1 could be same high quality as fm5 the answer is very simple NO and the reason is the procedures change constantly and new hardware and software makes the new HD graphics possible. The first forza was out on 2005 until now EVERYTHING has changed.
A good example of how fast things progress:
http://www.livescience.com/45086-3d-insects-system.html
- 40,768
That doesn't answer much. This in particular:
Couldn't be more diversionary if you said "Hey, look over there!" No one ever said programming a modern game is easy, so repeatedly arguing that it is hard to make games doesn't mean anything when the discussion is about asset creation (which isn't even necessarily related to game development) to the highest quality possible.
Yes, new modeling ideas happen every day, and a car made 15 years ago to the highest level possible wouldn't be as good as one made today (I can only think of one game that even made car models in several pieces circa-2000) unless you were really lucky at guessing what the industry would focus on. And yeah, if you made a Forza 5 quality model in 2005 you'd be essentially wasting resources on something that you couldn't use for years. But how close is that extreme example (that admittedly you didn't bring up) to what actually happened with the jump from Forza 4 to Forza 5? I know of no cars in the series that were created in 2000; and even the ropiest of the Forza 2 carryovers (like the pre-facelift NSXs or C4 Corvette) stood out as poor looking because they simply weren't modeled well rather than any technical limitations that prevented them from being done better. Going back to GT5/GT6, the C5 Corvette Premium car is separated by 9 years and a few hundred thousand polygons from the Standard model that first debuted in GT3, and PD still screwed it up in enough places that the Standard model looks more accurate if you compare them both to a real picture.
Making a target render circa-2005 so detailed that it would choke even an Xbone or PS4 when done in real time would certainly have been possible (especially since it probably would have been inefficiently created). The main issue I can see is that it would be much more expensive and time consuming to do one for a hypothetical game 7 years down the road than doing one for the time period, and I don't see any problem with not wanting to do something that far in advance when you can get more quantity done with the same resources if you create stuff for the hardware currently on the market. But again, some of these cars were being created at the same time as the ones they made for Forza 5 were. Possibly even later than some of the Forza 5 cars, assuming Turn 10 spent most of the time after Forza 4 content ended working on 5. So, ignoring the assertions regarding the R5 Turbo and Chevelle in Forza 5, why is it odd to question why stuff made that recently wasn't done up to the required quality in the first place?
Couldn't be more diversionary if you said "Hey, look over there!" No one ever said programming a modern game is easy, so repeatedly arguing that it is hard to make games doesn't mean anything when the discussion is about asset creation (which isn't even necessarily related to game development) to the highest quality possible.
Yes, new modeling ideas happen every day, and a car made 15 years ago to the highest level possible wouldn't be as good as one made today (I can only think of one game that even made car models in several pieces circa-2000) unless you were really lucky at guessing what the industry would focus on. And yeah, if you made a Forza 5 quality model in 2005 you'd be essentially wasting resources on something that you couldn't use for years. But how close is that extreme example (that admittedly you didn't bring up) to what actually happened with the jump from Forza 4 to Forza 5? I know of no cars in the series that were created in 2000; and even the ropiest of the Forza 2 carryovers (like the pre-facelift NSXs or C4 Corvette) stood out as poor looking because they simply weren't modeled well rather than any technical limitations that prevented them from being done better. Going back to GT5/GT6, the C5 Corvette Premium car is separated by 9 years and a few hundred thousand polygons from the Standard model that first debuted in GT3, and PD still screwed it up in enough places that the Standard model looks more accurate if you compare them both to a real picture.
Making a target render circa-2005 so detailed that it would choke even an Xbone or PS4 when done in real time would certainly have been possible (especially since it probably would have been inefficiently created). The main issue I can see is that it would be much more expensive and time consuming to do one for a hypothetical game 7 years down the road than doing one for the time period, and I don't see any problem with not wanting to do something that far in advance when you can get more quantity done with the same resources if you create stuff for the hardware currently on the market. But again, some of these cars were being created at the same time as the ones they made for Forza 5 were. Possibly even later than some of the Forza 5 cars, assuming Turn 10 spent most of the time after Forza 4 content ended working on 5. So, ignoring the assertions regarding the R5 Turbo and Chevelle in Forza 5, why is it odd to question why stuff made that recently wasn't done up to the required quality in the first place?
Last edited:
- 198
- WY
- SlyNine
I'm talking specifically about the capturing methods of the time. Back in 2000 I'm pretty sure we had all the tools necessary to capture the same amount of detail that they have in the cars of Forza 5 (cars, jets, and more were built with CAD). But It was the first game in the series so I don't blame them for going cheap. But I'd expect more forward thinking moving forward.
You seem to have a fixation on the weakest point of my argument, and not the argument as a whole.
- 4,381
^^ They can if they want to. But that would mean working with a far more powerful and more expensive console. Similarly, it's going to reflect in their game price.
Chances are maybe, 20% of the population will be willing to dish out the heavy dollas for something like that.
Cheers!
Chances are maybe, 20% of the population will be willing to dish out the heavy dollas for something like that.
Cheers!
- 566
- Patra, Greece
That's what I get from your argument. To my knowledge all games must compromise between the current technology, time and cost. They are out there to make money and are not non-profitable companies. So far no other company has managed that future proofing in this type of game yet you seem to be fixated on why Turn10 can't do what no other company can.
- 198
- WY
- SlyNine
I don't think anyone is arguing that there are compromises to be made. The argument is weather it would be more efficient to invest in captures that would be used in future versions of the games. Plus its more of a question, why doesn't it happen? you make very vague posts that don't really have anything to do with the question.
How long has Iracing been around, how many times have they had to remodel the same car?
- 198
- WY
- SlyNine
what's so hard about capturing higher detailed models? I know we have the technology, and I'm not so sure the methods of capturing cars in Forza 3 is so much different than Forza 5, other than they are better at it thanks to experience. The tracks have now moved to laser scanning, and I'd wager they keep those around for a generation or two. I know things I made in Maya can still be imported in to Maya years later. I wonder if Toy story creators had to remodel the older characters for the new movies?
So really why don't they?
The second part is my point. They could either not pay their design team, or add more content. To me it sounds like its a higher investment up front, but more cost effective down the line.
Well you could start by comparing and contrasting the methods and limitations of digitally capturing cars threw out the years. Explaining along the way why capturing cars at Forza 5 details were simply to taxing on the team/technology back when they made Forza 2.
Iracing was laser scanning tracks from day one, right out of the gate. Iracing The models they captured from day one were every bit as detailed as Forza 5 tracks. Yet in Forza 4 they set out to recapture many tracks, many of which were not used in Forza 5.
I think they were just looking 3 years ahead instead of 15. Tho I disagree that consoles could be significantly more powerful at the same price point. 500$ for a gaming rig with a custom built OS isn't bad.
Assuming you were replying to me, I'm not sure the power of the consoles are relevant.
Last edited:
- 566
- Patra, Greece
How can I know (and you) the exact capturing methods and limitations when only a person who did this can know this. And that person and only could explain to you, why they couldn't future proof it. If they could it, would be so much easier for them and they wouldn't want to shot themselves in their leg would they?
Laser scanning is a very expensive procedure (according to various developer interviews) which was on a very early stage, now that it is more common I see more companies using it. I did not claim to be a 3d modeller in turn 10, but it's not rocket science to know the technological steps between 2006 to 2013 are huge because technology is everywhere around us and you can see that it's the fastest-advancing creation of man. Let's take it on reverse and prove to me that they had the same exact methods and they chose to ignore future proofing when it was applicable?
- 198
- WY
- SlyNine
So your argument is this, since they didn't do it that way it must not be a good idea or impossible. Good point, we know they didn't (perhaps couldn't) gather more detail. But in T10s recent interview with ISR they talk about how these laser scanned tracks will save them tons of time in the future (future proofing) and that some tracks were circa 2005.
Now Iracing has been laser scanning tracks since 2007, had T10 started that then we would have a lot more tracks now; it would have saved them money in the long term. Now if they could apply that to cars, and had they figured out a way to apply that to cars 5 years ago they would have saved resources. That's my (and wolfes) point. Was it possible or feasible I don't know, but I think it was.
Yes, there were compromises to be made. They probably were not sure how to go about laser scanning. Hell just figuring out how to model the cars from each game was probably a huge task even if you didn't actually model any cars. So maybe you're correct and it was simply beyond there capabilities. But if you choose to shoot someone's ideas down or tell them it wont work, please have a valid argument to back it up.
Last edited:
- 566
- Patra, Greece
If you choose to make such a wild claim as this:
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.
Please have a valid explanation on how such a thing could happen because you take it for granted that it could be future proofed?
Keep in mind when Turn10 put out the 1st game they didn't know much more than that. It was their first game and they couldn't know from then how many installments they would make and what would be the next gen console. Let alone predictions on what would the polycount would be in the future etc. You take this for granted because these things have come to pass. A company making a new title is going safely with reasonable choices that don't involve big risks.
I believe I have told you all I know on the matter.
Similar threads
