- 606
- Poland
- Emet_PL
There won't be new GTR in FM3.
Forza3 Definitive Trailer: AKA Why we are better than GT5 w Pro Racer Testimonials.
- Thread starter blademask
- 2,433 comments
- 237,444 views
- Status
There won't be new GTR in FM3.
- 10,270
- Bonn
- GTAce
Same, now please look at the track textures in the G37 pics, and no, thats not motion blur.
Plus that there are only 8 cars on the track, its 720p (we dont know if that is even real, like in many games lol) at 60 fps, 30 fps in cockpit view.
Now GT5P, which is way older *coughrepeatcough* looks better with 16 cars on track, in 1280x1080 (upscaled 1920x1080) and with 60fps also when driving in cockpit view.
I agree that some of the track backgrounds are quite bland, but thats more a design choice than "graphics", because the background graphics are still great (mostly noticable on Eiger). I have also yet to see 3D spectators like in GT5P (if you know a vid with some, please link).
EDIT: Forgot the grass that moves in the airflow in GT5P.
- 1
400k polygons per car no problem for 360.You are confused.You say how this can be?Ati Polygon tessellation explains everything.You draw 40k model and give to gpu and enable poly tesellation.Tessellation is a technique where you can subdivide a large polygon into a few smaller ones and this makes objects look more realistic without having to spend too many polygons. More polygons always means more calculations.Gpu handles all processing.No need to wait for cpu.This is why forza 3 cars look more realistic and detailed.
- 342
- Haifa
- Tomeru
- Tomeru
Well, personally, I look at the road while racing, so high mountains and greenish hills don't bother me much. Even during replays I look at the driving. It's ok to admire the scenery, but there are more important things to the graphic department.
- 9,058
- Murica
- BasedAckbar
I feel the flame war is gonna start again...
- 158
I feel the flame war is gonna start again...
sadly
- 9,058
- Murica
- BasedAckbar
Should we get a mod to close it? I mean this thread has become Flame War 1 with the advent of Flame War 2 around the corner.
- 193
- commedieu
Yeah I knew they couldn't be THAT off lol. Just couldn't find any e60 bmw headlight image that looked different than the ones i posted. And the ones you posted, as you said.. still aren't accurate, but at least some of the basic model is closer. The lights in f3 are sunken into the headlight.. which is odd.. and the surfacing is off. As the 300c.
My point is that graphic/detail wise, GT5/GT5p is ages beyond forza3. Which is clearly illustrated on the smallest insignificant scale, the headlights. Its not as if PD perfected the headlights and moved on. You can even see the bevels under the hood/different parts aren't drawn by bumpmaps/displacement for the pannels. Like the Forza3 image vs the M5 image you posted of the side bumper, you can see a huge gap there.
Saying that well.. gt5p has higher detail.. but the small details are low polygon doesn't negate the fact that Gt5p has higher detail. Remember this is not only zoomed in, but zoomed in with a camera at the TV. No one is going to be seeing these vehicles at this level. Just like zooming in on any feature CGI film will produce mistakes/problems.
All of these things combined provide the level of photoreality that GT nears, and forza has a while to go. As others have said, they haven't fully modeled the bottoms of vehicles as the youtube shows. Its not like theres a 300k polygon undercarrige under all the vehicles. Its just an excuse.
Turn10's LOD = bullshots and upping the resolution of the vehicles for press captures. Just like Epic has done with the Gears/Unreal Engine titles. It happened with Forza1 & 2 the exact same way. Glorious "in engine" screenshots, then the final product ships with normal jaggies that any game would have, and low detailed vehicles. No LOD system isn't active this close on a framed up vehicle. Re g37 images.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,729
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
I feel the flame war is gonna start again...
Tell you what guys, how about you focus on posting meaningful, on-topic content and worry a little less about the state of play with regards to the moderation of the thread.
The staff are more than aware that its a live topic, and its being checked regularly.
Currently all you are doing is spaming the thread yourselves and run the risk of causing a kick off if people take issue with what you are saying.
Leave the moderation of the thread to the staff, and if you do have an issue you want to bring to our attention then use the Report button.
Thanks
Scaff
Zer0
(Banned)
- 1,624
- 110
Haha,
Cool! levetating peugeot's!
Has that peugeot got damage to the front? and also is the bodywork made of carbon fibre?
Cool! levetating peugeot's!
Has that peugeot got damage to the front? and also is the bodywork made of carbon fibre?
I don't understand what you're trying to say. If you're trying to say that it's pop-in then you're being a bit silly as that's ridiculous. 2 seconds is plenty of time for a car traveling at speed to cover a fair amount of distance. I infact saw this proven last night (Friday night) when I witnessed a fatal high speed crash after a car full of people came over the brow of a hill around 150km/h, locked the brakes up and skidded for about 50-60metres straight into a concrete pylon, the front half of the car with the driver still in it ending up in the river. It was all over (and I mean 'all over') in 2-3 seconds, over about 150m. Cars travel fast mate, especially racing cars.
- 713
- UK
I love PD's approach, but I don't quite feel the same way, they seem to know full well what to do to get your attention, which proves how amazingly experienced they are, but when I play the game, from a driving view, you see some areas that need improvement and get the feeling that these amazing fine details are there just for these ultra-zoomed in photo's.. it's the only area of GT5 graphics I'd like to see improved, more 'detail' in the track/scenery, other then that, almost perfection!
I am not sure if you would agree that bump-mapping is actually more resource intensive and I think T10 in this one case have made possibly a good technical decision. In the M5 Pic, the bonnet is seperately modelled, but it does look like the wing/bumper interface is indeed bump-mapped, but this is actually closer to real life where BMW panel fit is extremely good and bump mapping allows you to 'close' the gaps up to look 'flush', as per real life. It also allows the PDC sensors to look quite detailed etc..
I don't see their approach to be 'negative' in this one aspect, they could have modelled all items seperately and not bump-mapped, and if they chose the same poly mesh resolution as PD I think it would have been less processor intensive.
On the cars, PD are king, totally respect/love them for it.. they put their heart and soul into the cars, they could half the poly's and still make it look as detailed. It's only when zoomed out, if you are honest, a lot of the detail is sometimes lost, and I would like a little more 'detail' in terms of textures and scenery to really hammer the realisim thing home.. But PD are clever, real life tracks are quite boring and bland at times, and they make them look cleaner/nicer then real life. T10 are struggling to make their real life tracks look as 'clean' IMO, but when you see Camino Viejo, and the level of detail on the track/scenery etc, as I person who appreciates the technicalities of these things, it's equally as impressive as anything else I've seen.
No, but there are more poly's in their models (evident in a lot of the released shots), they just don't have the experience/talent to get the lighting to look real, or make headlamps/taillamps look real, this is something that they need to improve on, they do need to get it to at least the level of the M5 images, if they leave the 300c head/tail lamps as is, that will be noticed in every photo-mode shot people produce, and be an issue of contention!.
Where as I'd liked the 'bullshots' thing to be true, T10 have clarified exactly how these are created, and what 'differences' there are, people have even directly posed the idea that high res models/textures/skyboxes etc are swapped in for photo-mode, but this has been rebuttled quite vociferously,
All models/textures/detail levels etc, etc are all purely in-game, and it's the same photomode all people will be using in the final game..
The Photomode adds more AA (obviously), Motion Blur (if required) and DOF(if required), in-game it's 720p 4xMSAA, so we know the level of 'jaggies' to expect.
Please don't get me wrong here, I'm no FM3 'defender of the realm'.. I am quite a technical person who sees a lot of excellent stuff in two excellent games, but I see strengths and weaknesses in both that are very evident, to compare car models at this depth favours GT5 easily (and well done PD!), but zoom out, and take a track that shows off their new engine (like Camino Veijo, or whatever it is called), and you can see that their graphics resource is quite well spread between car/track/scenery etc..
Since it's all Beta code so far (well T10 say alpha, but it feels to polished to be alpha for me, I'd call that beta!), it's hard to really nitpick, especially since I have this feeling that these discrepencies in LOD as an example which really is hitting that 300C and that G37 shot is something that looks too wrong to be true...
Still, the only reason debate will rage on is simply that we are all waiting for in-game GT5 footage, and I am preying (almost daily) it'll be in my hands for Christmas, then we can start looking at who does what/how..
I've seen the breakdown of the GT5 trailer that shows many shadow issues, the funniest one being the shadows lagging the car, but I know this is not the final product and defend against people who bound it around as if this is from the final game.. it works both ways!
Last edited:
- 713
- UK
This has been confirmed 'fixed'.. it looked hideous..
Again most of these comparisons are on early code, there are some things that will be fixed (glitches,car models etc), and some that won't change much.. I've defended GT5 on many forums when people use discrpencies in the trailer to slag it off, it's also not the finished product, I wish both sides would stop being too critical and comparing what isn't 100% the final thing..
Still, GT5 will be 'graphics' king, I am certain and happy with it, but I really can't bring myself to just laugh at FM3 as some do, as I will be getting that also because despite the graphics not being quite as good, in-game they seem more the good enough, and I'm really encouraged from all the hands-on's so far from some quite 'valid' sources, and I'm also looking forward to NFS:S, it has it's own mix of stuff that should make it most enjoyable particularly the mix of arcade graphical flourishes with supposedly top notch simulation physics
- 23,800
- Philippines
Mhmmm... pop-up... reminds me of the old "Tokyo Xtreme" series...
You could go so fast in that game, you'd catch up to the draw-distance as the muddy textures of far-away objects don't have time to switch to the close-up textures before you reach them. Modify your car into a 250 mph monster and you would outrace the polygon-drawing ability of the PS2 altogether (although... to be fair... the old game engine was originally written for the Dreamcast ages ago...) and you would be driving on thin air... felt like it, too... the obstacles that are left undrawn are assumed by the game engine to not exist.
Much more satisfying way of achieving stage breakout than banging your car against a wall 1,000,000 times.
You could go so fast in that game, you'd catch up to the draw-distance as the muddy textures of far-away objects don't have time to switch to the close-up textures before you reach them. Modify your car into a 250 mph monster and you would outrace the polygon-drawing ability of the PS2 altogether (although... to be fair... the old game engine was originally written for the Dreamcast ages ago...) and you would be driving on thin air... felt like it, too... the obstacles that are left undrawn are assumed by the game engine to not exist.
Much more satisfying way of achieving stage breakout than banging your car against a wall 1,000,000 times.
- 713
- UK
Mhmmm... pop-up... reminds me of the old "Tokyo Xtreme" series...
You could go so fast in that game, you'd catch up to the draw-distance as the muddy textures of far-away objects don't have time to switch to the close-up textures before you reach them. Modify your car into a 250 mph monster and you would outrace the polygon-drawing ability of the PS2 altogether (although... to be fair... the old game engine was originally written for the Dreamcast ages ago...) and you would be driving on thin air... felt like it, too... the obstacles that are left undrawn are assumed by the game engine to not exist.
Much more satisfying way of achieving stage breakout than banging your car against a wall 1,000,000 times.
I'm still reeling from GTA4, going flat out and suddenly come to an abrupt halt, then the lampost is drawn
Mhmmm... pop-up... reminds me of the old "Tokyo Xtreme" series...
You could go so fast in that game, you'd catch up to the draw-distance as the muddy textures of far-away objects don't have time to switch to the close-up textures before you reach them. Modify your car into a 250 mph monster and you would outrace the polygon-drawing ability of the PS2 altogether (although... to be fair... the old game engine was originally written for the Dreamcast ages ago...) and you would be driving on thin air... felt like it, too... the obstacles that are left undrawn are assumed by the game engine to not exist.
Much more satisfying way of achieving stage breakout than banging your car against a wall 1,000,000 times.
lol the beta days of tdu for pc had that beat, you could get fast enough drafting other cars to fall through the world. had that happen on one of the island big races two times in closed beta. thankfully by open they had it fixed.
gt5p has had shadow glitches and it is bit disheartening to see that the recent gt5 trailer still shows signs of shadow glitching can hope they get that beat by the time we actually see the game.
but i really really am hoping that they can squeeze some kinda AA into gt5, game looks gorgeous otherwise and the engine rendered videos with AA look jaw dropping but the in game rendering lacking AA trim details and such fall apart, lest if you focus on it, not so much a big deal while you are actually racing.
far as forza 3 goes, alot of people are huge fans of that alot of people think pgr is the king of sims and others gt. live for speed probably would show them all up truth be told. but long as you enjoy whatever game your playing enjoy it maybe?
we can get a general idea of what gt5's physics will be like from prologue, but we wont know exactly what they can possibly be like until the game is actually out. gt4 had some impressive side by side videos of the yellowbird nring lap vs the same guy doing it in gt4 and it was truely impressive how close the guys steering inputs and lap time was in gt4 vs real life. i expect that gt5 will be no less impressive in the end run.
While the actual game doesn't quite match the "bullshots", on a properly "calibrated" screen, the cars and the environments in GT5P- well, some the tracks like Fuji and Suzuka is at least as good as some of the recent gameplay videos I've seen of FM3- albeit not as contrasty and with less saturation. Sure, the trees aren't 3D and in replay mode, the shimmering effects in Prologue becomes more apparent (and to some annoying). While all the recent video capture of FM3 present a softer edges to the car, the cars in Prologue even while running on at full HD screen and despite the 2x MSAA, have considerably more jaggies (especially at a distance as the LOD decreases) but at its ideal distance you do get a better sense of detail and definition.
Of course these smaller shots reduce the blemishes considerably but it's not unlike reducing a 24" x 30" landscape print to 8" x 10", the inherent quality to the image should remain intact. And as to the calibration- I have a preset on my Sharp Aquos for the game- one of them is to reduce the saturation (at -5) but I keep the sharpness at the normal setting while finetuning the hues. The colour temperature is at the default setting (neutral).
This additonal image is captured ingame (from Taxigamer)
Last edited:
- 713
- UK
Nice shots, I love some of those replay camera angles, really adds to the effect!.. This do as a complete image look better then any of the FM3 track overview shots shown so far !
For me, the only time the track does feel a bit too clean and sterile is only while playing, since you are obiously much zoomed in.. so the vast majority of what you see is the track textures etc.. T10 put loads of nice textures, but overall don't nail the realisitic 'look' IMO..
I think they engineered their fantasy tracks to give you something you don't n normally get, and that is the oppertunity to see the same LOD as those high replay cameras whilst actually playing.. I will love to see Eiger given a total make over in the same vein, that would be awesome indeed!
That London shot is actually showing the only thing I do thing needs improvement, the jaggies, the very flat looking buildings(lighting wise), the trees, etc, etc.. Although to be fair I think that's not the best shot of in-game london I've seen.. I love the window reflections whilst playing, something the photo's don't show to well! I'll see if I can find some of mine (I did loads when I had the PS3 hooked upto my 1080p Projector!)
Last edited:
- 818
That shot is very odd... if you track along with your mouse in that youtube video you get a frame where the cars aren't there, then suddenly they appear... BUT, if you actually watch the video, pressing pause-play-pause-play very quickly, I can't find the frame you showed with no cars. I think it means there must be 1 or 2 frames that have no cars, and youtube managed to use that frame as a reference. I certainly dont notice anything when the video is actually running.
Regarding textures... watching the this video the textures look fine to me. This leads me to believe the shots we've seen where the environment textures and grass look blurry/muddy are simply a "feature" of replay designed to focus on the car.
I've yet to see a GOOD video of in game footage that is representative of the game, the closest ones are these two:
http://www.gamersyde.com/news_forza_3_le_mans_at_60fps-8250_en.html
http://www.gamersyde.com/news_forza_3_camino_viejo_at_60fps-8195_en.html
Both of which look pretty damn good to me, and I'm sure they still have compression artifacts (they are both taken with video cameras, so would be losing detail compared to what it actually looks like). The 2nd one has a few seconds of the in car camera at the beginning too (before the driver swaps to hood cam).
All the "screenshots" I've seen are NOT representative of the final game because they are from replay mode/photo mode. They do things like blurring environment textures, the may have higher model textures, have more filters (which may or may not make them look better) and are not indicative of LOD bias in actual game play.
Also, things often look different in motion, as an example, look at GTR evolution. Look at a tree when stationary and it looks low res and ugly. However, when in motion, the trees look great, more natural than most games I've played and you dont notice the little flaws you see when stationary, you just notice the nice "soft" feel that looks pretty good to me.
I'm not saying the final game, FM3, will *definately* look better, all I'm saying is the 2 good quality in game videos (if anyone has seen other ones feel free to prove me wrong) when viewed at 720p, or 540p for the 2nd one, look extremely promising to me. I'm gonna wait until it comes out before I judge the game based on screenshots that are not indicative of in game play, compared to GT5P shots that aren't indicative of in game play either, or looking at videos that are such low quality they do no justice to the game at all.
looks more detailed than FM3. End of argument. 
- 489
Interesting!
I never thought the difference whould be that big! I thought they would at least use the same models in the whole game as they did with Forza 2, but this is really weird. I mean they lie to the consumer, by presenting these photomode screenshots and make people believe that this is actually ingame.
I guess Turn 10 has just reached the limit of the Xbox360 and only some minor improvements could be made compared to Forza 2 and now they have to present pure photomodematerial to stand a chance against its competitors. And now i even understand why they were loudmouthing so much, they need to get the people hyped for a game they actually know is inferior in so many ways.
Poor Forza 3 fanboys...
I never thought the difference whould be that big! I thought they would at least use the same models in the whole game as they did with Forza 2, but this is really weird. I mean they lie to the consumer, by presenting these photomode screenshots and make people believe that this is actually ingame.
I guess Turn 10 has just reached the limit of the Xbox360 and only some minor improvements could be made compared to Forza 2 and now they have to present pure photomodematerial to stand a chance against its competitors. And now i even understand why they were loudmouthing so much, they need to get the people hyped for a game they actually know is inferior in so many ways.
Poor Forza 3 fanboys...
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
