- 4,072
- Tallinn
Missing self-reflections like the mirrors typically seen in Gran Turismo.
I hope they will make "self-reflections." And maybe guys from Driveclub can help them? ^_^
Missing self-reflections like the mirrors typically seen in Gran Turismo.
Why would it have them in the first place?Except...
The driver grips the wheel in the first shot exactly as the driver does in GT6. Check it out in Photo Mode with the GT-R from the same angle...
This shot is also missing self-reflections...
https://www.gtplanet.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Koheihirate_2015-Dec-25.jpg
Why would it have them in the first place?
Ok. What part of the car is supposed to be reflecting itself?Not saying that, but it's just another little bit of evidence for the case that this is GT.
Easier on the framerates.Why would it have them in the first place?
Well no, what I was asking is why the car on the picture would have a self reflecting image in the first place, not necessarily why it may have been removed. Doesn't seem like something it would produce at that angle of the picture posted by @chzsln485 .Easier on the framerates.
Ok. What part of the car is supposed to be reflecting itself?
Or is there something I'm just not understanding about this term and how its being used.
Except what? Is it using something else to be rendered in?Except...
How are people equating this with GTS?
We had the NSX trailer ages ago, and that wasn't indicative of the quality of GT6. These things may share code with the game, but the actual quality of what can be achieved when you've got more than a handful of milliseconds to render each frame means that there's very little that can be meaningfully read into a trailer like this.
I don't think they're relating it to specifically GTS, but rather just from GT:How are people equating this with GTS?
So what's the consensus? Is this genuine GTS/GT7 footage?
Thanks for that, that's what I was misunderstanding. What I took from it was that you guys where just talking about the mirror glass reflection, so when he posted the 3/4 front view I thought he was pointing out the front/top of the car.Gran Turismo uses the standard cubemaps to generate reflections which only captures the surrounding environment, it isn't able to reflect its own car parts like here.
vs.
Except what? Is it using something else to be rendered in?
How are people equating this with GTS?
We had the NSX trailer ages ago, and that wasn't indicative of the quality of GT6. These things may share code with the game, but the actual quality of what can be achieved when you've got more than a handful of milliseconds to render each frame means that there's very little that can be meaningfully read into a trailer like this.
I wasn't confused about that, just that the angle showed wasn't necessarily an angle that would have produced self reflections. Like I said, I was quite literally only thinking of the mirror glass and didn't think of the mirror extension. Obviously he knew what I was getting at and easily pointed it out where my error was. So thanks for your unnecessary post after the fact that I acknowledged my problem 👍Which is pretty much what we both said, that GT is unable to reflect upon its own self.
The image I posted is in fact better than it would be if the angles were aligned with the sun and the moon, since it is at a lower pov than the GT shot, which it shows the mirror clearly.I wasn't confused about that, just that the angle showed wasn't necessarily an angle that would have produced self reflections. Like I said, I was quite literally only thinking of the mirror glass and didn't think of the mirror extension. Obviously he knew what I was getting at and easily pointed it out where my error was. So thanks for your unnecessary post after the fact that I acknowledged my problem 👍
I wasn't trying to disprove, I asked a question of what is supposed to be reflecting, In which I got the answer I was looking for. So I'm not sure ehy you're continuing down this line as if I was going down that path in the first place. It just makes it seem like you got bothered that I acknowledged his post and not yours, either way this is childish, I already admitted where I was making the mistake, so continue going on about it if you like, but there's nothing else for me to say about it since it's been corrected before your snappy reply.The image I posted is in fact better than it would be if the angles were aligned with the sun and the moon, since it is at a lower pov than the GT shot, which it shows the mirror clearly.
So props for attempting to disprove something clearly visible 👍
I said it was in-engine, not irrelevant.It couldn't be completely unrelated to GT, or else the driver would not be sporting a Gran Turismo helmet. I'm not sure how anyone, at this stage, can think this isn't to do with GT.
Looks like...
Because speculations.How are people equating this with GTS?
Ha, not at all. You had continued to ask repetitive questions (imo) which was answered the page before, in-fact, under the post of which is in questioned. The answer was there, it's just that you refused to study it I assume.I wasn't trying to disprove, I asked a question of what is supposed to be reflecting, In which I got the answer I was looking for. So I'm not sure your continuing down this line as if I was going down that path in the first place. It just makes it seem like you got bothered that I acknowledged his post and not yours, either way this is childish, I already admitted where I was making the mistake, so continue going on about it if you like, but there's nothing else for me to say about it since it's been corrected before your snappy reply.
Working off a cell phone, you tend to miss things when you can only see one post at a time. I replied to his because it was a direct quote of mine, i noticed his first. I'm not sure why you are so bothered by it, @Vspectra didn't seem to mind answering the question, but for some reason you want to continue arguing about a point that has been dropped for some reason I can't understand.Ha, not at all. You had continued to ask repetitive questions (imo) which was answered the page before, in-fact, under the post of which is in questioned. The answer was there, it's just that you refused to study it I assume.