Forza 5's woeful lighting and how it backfired

[driver_34_]

I fail to see how that is a miracle.

Ok find me a game with the same features in old gen consoles

 

[ImaRobot]

Ok find me a game with the same features in old gen consoles

really? That's what you're pulling now? I'm not exactly sure what this is supposed to prove.

 

[driver_34_]

really? That's what you're pulling now? I'm not exactly sure what this is supposed to prove.

It is 1080p 60 fps with good phusics like gt or not?
By the way it doesn't look even closer to gt graphics

 

[ImaRobot]

It is 1080p 60 fps with good phusics like gt or not?
By the way it doesn't look even closer to gt graphics

What you are asking for, not even GT achieves, so why are you asking for others in comparison?

 

[TrevorPhilips]

*Asks for 1440x1080 at 60fps, gets 1280x720 at 30fps.....

 

[driver_34_]

What you are asking for, not even GT achieves, so why are you asking for others in comparison?[/QUO

it doesn' have even dynamic lightning and 60fps

 

[Ialyrn]

1440x1080p with 60fps

So you are saying that GT6 isnt even running true 1080p, just a resolution that is close to it when displayed on a full HD screen? That is pretty bad considering the frame rate isn't consistent, even when everything is set to run at 720p on a basic HD ready display.

it doesn' have even dynamic lightning and 60fps

Neither does GT6, nor GT5 before it. As the frame rates fluctuate on a constant basis, even when rain and night racing isn't even a factor.

 

[driver_34_]

What you are asking for, not even GT achieves, so why are you asking for others in comparison?

*Asks for 1440x1080 at 60fps, gets 1280x720 at 30fps.....

The fanboys are very strange

 

[ImaRobot]

*Asks for 1440x1080 at 60fps, gets 1280x720 at 30fps.....

He asked, as if the game he was comparing it to achieves the things he asked for. He also asked for a game showing features he was talking about(weather), not technical prowess.

The fanboys are very strange

Oh the irony here

 

[SlipZtrEm]

The fanboys are very strange

If you're going to resort to name-calling, you'll find your time here short.

You're asking for something GT itself doesn't achieve. If you want to continue this obvious GT vs FM discussion, take it to the appropriate thread.

 

[Terronium-12]

Forza 5 Thread, Day 149: Good lord this thread is making less and less sense every day.

I can't number in the morning.

 

[driver_34_]

So you are saying that GT6 isnt even running true 1080p, just a resolution that is close to it when displayed on a full HD screen? That is pretty bad considering the frame rate isn't consistent, even when everything is set to run at 720p on a basic HD ready display.






Neither does GT6, nor GT5 before it. As the frame rates fluctuate on a constant basis, even when rain and night racing isn't even a factor.

It is very normal that with all that partycicle effects to stay at stable 60 fps. Remember that ps3 have only 256 mb
at Imarobot i just asked to bring me a game with the same features and he bring me a game that just doesnt have at all 1440x1080p and doesnt reach 60fps and dynamic lights.

I don't think this isn't dynamic

 

[ImaRobot]

It is very normal that with all that partycicle effects to stay at stable 60 fps. Remember that ps3 have only 256 mb
at Imarobot i just asked to bring me a game with the same features and he bring me a game that just doesnt have at all 1440x1080p and doesnt reach 60fps and dynamic lights.

I don't think this isn't dynamic

Whatever you asked for doesn't matter, because you're already ignoring the fact that GT can not achieve the things you asked for. I can show you a potato and it'll be as relevant to this conversation as anything else.

I'll one up you; Show me a game that achieves 1440x1080p AND 60fps with these features, on any console to date.

 

[TrevorPhilips]

He asked, as if the game he was comparing it to achieves the things he asked for. He also asked for a game showing features he was talking about(weather), not technical prowess.

What?... He said find him a game that runs at 1440x1080 at 60fps using only 256mb of RAM using dynamic lighting. (it's all there, go check!)

I just found it funny you offered up that, which bares no relevance to what he asked for. The smug tone in your post is what made me laugh the most.

Whether GT achieves all this is another question. A question I'll leave to you guys to slog out. 👍

 

[driver_34_]

If you're going to resort to name-calling, you'll find your time here short.

You're asking for something GT itself doesn't achieve. If you want to continue this obvious GT vs FM discussion, take it to the appropriate thread.

I asked him to bring me a game with 1440x1080. I don't think pgr4 has that resolution and framerate

Whatever you asked for doesn't matter, because you're already ignoring the fact that GT can not achieve the things you asked for. I can show you a potato and it'll be as relevant to this conversation as anything else.

I'll one up you; Show me a game that achieves 1440x1080p AND 60fps with these features, on any console to date.

GT does run with 1440x1080p and 60fps

 

[Terronium-12]

Okay, let's come at this from a different perspective:

Does any of this have anything to do with Forza Motorsport 5? No. Does it even have anything to do with Forza Motorsport at all? No.

It ends. Now.

 

[Vspectra]

Hoooooooooold on there, you cant compare photomode renders against actual game footage, and say theyre on the same level. I'm not one to defend pCars but at least post screenshots of what you actually see in GT6.

Those GT6 pics are in-game, I took them using CFW. You can even see the dithering on the vegetation.

EDIT - just read Terronium's post.

 

[Speedster911]

To the rescue? I doubt that there was any rescuing to be needed.

Whether my input was necessary or not is nothing to worry about, we don't need reminders that we are allowed to post.

That's the problem, though. You actually started on the way to getting into a discussion with someone, and then all of a sudden you turned around and said "Nanananana I don't have too." You initiated a debate( lets just say discussion ) and backed out. Still if you are going to post opinions on things, its just odd to ignore someones request on why you think that. Why even post it at that point? Still though, thats how it works on this forum. If you make claims, then you are the one that provide for those claims.

It's odd how you can say you don't have time to post a reasonable explanation to an opinion you have, yet you've posted already 3 times about how you don't have time.

Hey, you're right, as usual. You win the popularity contest yet again. Please note how many times "you" is used in your response. I'm a little tired of the finger-pointing and nitpicking every little thing I say and how you're holding me accountable, so to speak.

I am certainly not accountable to anyone here, neither do I owe anyone any explanation at all. Good luck digesting that.

Cheers.

So you're just going to stick to the drive-by comment approach? That contributes nothing.



Since its concrete, you shouldn't have a problem providing proof. Have a read of the AUP while you're at it.

The name-calling attitude you adopt when anybody calls you out on your nonsense is unwelcome too. Either drop it, or you'll be unwelcome as well.

Name-calling? Where? Can you point out?

Literally the stupidest thing I've read all day, and no I'm not giving examples or an explanation.

It's just stupid and you'll have to accept that.

Precisely... precisely. Sheesh, some people!

 

[ImaRobot]

Hey, you're right, as usual. You win the popularity contest yet again. Please note how many times "you" is used in your response. I'm a little tired of the finger-pointing and nitpicking every little thing I say and how you're holding me accountable, so to speak.

I am certainly not accountable to anyone here, neither do I owe anyone any explanation at all. Good luck digesting that.

Cheers.

Except for the fact that you do if you're going to make such claims. The odd thing I'm having trouble wrapping my head around is, is that I'm having a conversation with you so why wouldn't I point you out directly?

Popularity contest? I see how you're approaching things now.

 

[GranTurismo guy]

Hey, you're right, as usual. You win the popularity contest yet again. Please note how many times "you" is used in your response. I'm a little tired of the finger-pointing and nitpicking every little thing I say and how you're holding me accountable, so to speak.

I am certainly not accountable to anyone here, neither do I owe anyone any explanation at all. Good luck digesting that.

Cheers.



Name-calling? Where? Can you point out?



Precisely... precisely. Sheesh, some people!

Which part of you initiated the debate don't you understand? You're making out that people are picking on you and they aren't.

It's probably best to not bring things up if you don't want to have to prove your point!


I get the feeling that this thread was created with gt6's lighting in mind. I think it's less "forza 5 has woeful lighting", and more "gt6 just has exceptional lighting" as I definitely wouldn't say fm5's lighting is bad. It's the best of the fm series.

 

[Terronium-12]

as I definitely wouldn't say fm5's lighting is bad. It's the best of the fm series.

Bad, no, but the god rays are unbelievably obnoxious.

 

[GranTurismo guy]

Bad, no, but the god rays are unbelievably obnoxious.

It looks like they're toning that down in fm6.

also, I don't remember the lighting looking this good at long beach in fm5

 

[ImaRobot]

The only thing wrong with the lighting on Long Beach was that it was just too damn bright You can manage to find that spot in the settings for good photos, but it was hard.

Spoiler: shameless self promotion.

 

[Terronium-12]

What part of ending this conversation, one that has nothing to do with the topic, didn't you understand the first time I said it?

 

[Speedster911]

Which part of you initiated the debate don't you understand? You're making out that people are picking on you and they aren't.

It's probably best to not bring things up if you don't want to have to prove your point!


I get the feeling that this thread was created with gt6's lighting in mind. I think it's less "forza 5 has woeful lighting", and more "gt6 just has exceptional lighting" as I definitely wouldn't say fm5's lighting is bad. It's the best of the fm series.

Hmm, I should have read the forum rules better then at the time I registered; don't really recall anywhere I HAVE to prove my point if others disagree with it or find it questionable.

FM5's lighting is the best of the series.. though.. scroll down to my second response..

It looks like they're toning that down in fm6.

also, I don't remember the lighting looking this good at long beach in fm5

View attachment 432846

I'm impressed..I hope that isn't photo-mode lighting in action and the game's actual lighting. It definitely looks toned down to achieve a more photo-realistic look. Love it. Can't wait to take FM6 for a spin.

 

[ImaRobot]

Hmm, I should have read the forum rules better then at the time I registered; don't really recall anywhere I HAVE to prove my point if others disagree with it or find it questionable.

You have to provide evidence for a claim if you are going to say it as a fact. Not just because someone disagrees with you. If you don't want people to question your points then stop stirring the pot.

I'm impressed..I hope that isn't photo-mode lighting in action and the game's actual lighting. It definitely looks toned down to achieve a more photo-realistic look. Love it. Can't wait to take FM6 for a spin.

I'm also wondering this. When done in the past, have the photo's been sourced as photomode or actual in-game visuals?

 

[GranTurismo guy]

Is there a difference between photo mode and gameplay? I haven't noticed.

 

[Ialyrn]

Is there a difference between photo mode and gameplay? I haven't noticed.

You can change the brightness, contrast and exposure in photomode, so you can sort of make the lighting what you want. To a point anyway.

 

[GranTurismo guy]

You can change the brightness and contrast in photomode, so you can sort of make the lighting what you want. To a point anyway.

Oh right, so it's more about how the photo can be adjusted to look better.

 

[Speedster911]

You have to provide evidence for a claim if you are going to say it as a fact. Not just because someone disagrees with you. If you don't want people to question your points then stop stirring the pot.


I'm also wondering this. When done in the past, have the photo's been sourced as photomode or actual in-game visuals?

No, I don't have to, I really don't..

Stirring the pot...?!

Alright... can we now move on, please?