Gran Turismo Sport: General Discussion
- Thread starter Formidable
- 47,132 comments
- 4,795,157 views
- 3,280
- France
Of course, more settings like tyre pressure, the better. However, maybe if Poly thinks they can't simulate tyre pressure like in real life with the same figures, they don't put it in the game.
You can put 100 settings available, it doesn't mean the simulation is good. Forza Horizon 2 has tyre pressure and the effects are real when you change it but like in real life? Not so sure. (FH2 best game so far of this gen)
I would be happy to see tyre pressure adjustement in GTSport
- 357
- Singapore
If you’re playing your games at 30 FPS then the amount of time your display is sitting on one frame is 33.3 milliseconds. This means that when you move your mouse to aim at a target, it will take at least 33.3 milliseconds before you even start to see the cursor move. This delay is halved to 16.65ms at 60 FPS and so on. Of course this is without considering other factors such as networking latency (in multiplayer games) and monitor response time which can add additional latency.
source : http://www.technologyx.com/featured/understanding-frame-rate-look-truth-behind-30v60-fps/
source : http://www.technologyx.com/featured/understanding-frame-rate-look-truth-behind-30v60-fps/
Aussie_HSV
(Banned)
- 721
- Australia
It will take you 10 times that amount of time to blink (around 300 milliseconds).
And then there's reaction time between deciding to change gears and actually changing gears, or deciding to brake and actually starting to brake.
Input delay variation between 33/1000ths or 17/1000ths of a second seems fairly insignificant to me.
And then there's reaction time between deciding to change gears and actually changing gears, or deciding to brake and actually starting to brake.
Input delay variation between 33/1000ths or 17/1000ths of a second seems fairly insignificant to me.
Last edited:
- 5,351
- United States
- kudos00
👍 There's a reason simulators are not a lower framerate by default.
- 357
- Singapore
Im talking about input latency and FPS actually. FPS is not just about visual smoothness or argument about how a human eye cant see beyond 30fps.
Do you know that even gran turismo 1 are made with 60fps in mind ? Do you know the Hi-Fi mode in GT1?
- 38
- PL-GB
- thedawidm86pl
Guys it's massive differance between 30 vs 60 fps in sim racing game when you play it on wheel (smoothness drive, better controle, quicker reaction..). Just do test play Dirt/PC/AC and then try Driveclub or FH2.
On gamepad difference are lower.
For me GTS must be 60fps gameplay, 30fps replay with better, more polished graphics.
On gamepad difference are lower.
For me GTS must be 60fps gameplay, 30fps replay with better, more polished graphics.
- 13,907
- Adelaide
- Neomone
It should be noted though that for almost all modern simulators the physics system is not locked to the graphics system, and they run at different clock speeds. So yes, while you lose a few hundredths of reaction time (which realistically is an order of magnitude below most people's actual reaction times) your actions still go directly into the physics system as fast as the controller can deliver them. You may not see them until a hundredth later, but your actions are processed just as fast at 30fps as 60fps.
For hotlapping, the difference is minimal since you're not really reacting to very much unless you're seriously overdriving the car. In a race there's an advantage to having a higher framerate, but it's still pretty minimal. A hundredth of a second delay is negligible when a realistic human response time is a tenth of a second or more.
The biggest advantage to 60fps is that it looks much, much nicer when you're moving at really high speeds. When you're doing 200mph there are big visual changes from one frame to the next, and so increasing the amount of frames is a big deal for visual comfort.
As much as people would like you to believe, it's not really about input delay. Not with any properly designed game at least (Shift 2, take a bow you piece of rotting ferret feces).
- 357
- Singapore
- 1,984
- Barcelona
- mannjonusa
It might seem like a minor point, but here in Europe at least, a lot of the stress about FPS is the fault of Digital Foundry. A lot of game sites reference performance, but not many have a department entirely dedicated to it.
It's just flamebait, in technical article form.
Personally, and as @eran0004 pointed out, it's about motion sickness. I get it a lot and good frame rate really helps (though it isn't the only cause).
Also, @Imari - good points. Wasn't that Jenson Button vs Olympic triathletes reaction test proving that even a F1 driver has an average reaction time of 0.6s?
Also, some of this FPS willy waving is people with expensive gaming PC's trying to justify the cost to people without such luxuries.
It's just flamebait, in technical article form.
Personally, and as @eran0004 pointed out, it's about motion sickness. I get it a lot and good frame rate really helps (though it isn't the only cause).
Also, @Imari - good points. Wasn't that Jenson Button vs Olympic triathletes reaction test proving that even a F1 driver has an average reaction time of 0.6s?
Also, some of this FPS willy waving is people with expensive gaming PC's trying to justify the cost to people without such luxuries.
- 397
- Croatia
- GTEFGHA
- 13,907
- Adelaide
- Neomone
I'm not seeing anything in that disagree with what I said.
There is the additional point that an unlocked frame rate is undesirable because it messes with people's time perception though. If you've got a solid 30 or 60 frames per second, you know exactly how much time each frame update represents. It's consistent. If the frame rate varies between 40 and 60, it becomes much more difficult to accurately perceive what's going on. You're then dependent on your own internal time sense instead of being able to reference an external "clock".
Which is why I think GT5 and 6 would have been better at a locked 30 than a wobbly 50, but that's not a popular opinion.
If you're curious, here's an (old) list of various simulators and the clock speeds of their physics engines. That's from 8 years ago. You can see that only console games like Ferrari Challenge and SCGT are actually running at screen refresh rate, and their status as true simulators is dubious.
- rFactor – 400 Hz
- Test Drive Unlimited – 100 Hz (collision detection) / 1000 Hz (vehicle dynamics)
- netKar Pro – 333 Hz [posted by Kunos on RSC]
- Forza Motorsport 2 – 360 Hz [from wikipedia article]
- Ferrari Challenge: Trofeo Pirelli – 60 Hz
- iRacing – 360 Hz [from AutoSimSport]
- Live For Speed – 100 Hz (general) / 2000 Hz (tyre rotation) [posted by Scawen on lfsforum]
- NASCAR Racing 2003 Season – 288 Hz (possibly)
- Grand Prix Legends – 288 Hz
- Sports Car GT – 50 Hz [from Blackhole Motorsports article]
http://www.virtualr.net/tech-stuff-physic-engine-rates
I loved Shift 2. I bought it on PS3 and PC, and spent ages trying to fix the input lag. I finished the game a couple of times, you can actually learn to play around the half second delay in hotlapping but them moment anything goes wrong you're stuffed.
As much as I love the idea of the game, it is basically literally unplayable unless you're a masochist. It does so many design things right, and stuffed it up with stupid controls. It is unfortunately an awful, awful game.
- 357
- Singapore
- 16,505
- Melbourne
- ScottPuss20
- CheetahsMeow
Let me buy into the 30FPS vs 60FPS debate. In my experience, playing a 60FPS game after playing a 30FPS game is pretty much night and day, the differences are instantly recognizable. 30FPS does look worse, even for games that don't involve car racing e.g Fallout 4, which REALLY looks slow. But you do get used to it after a while, so there's no problem. 60FPS is necessary for games that require fast reaction times and concentration - like COD. I would find it harder to focus if the game ran at 30FPS. For GT Sport, 60FPS is a must.
- 5,766
- USA
- TPC_Raccooon23
- CRaccoon23
You're better than me. I didn't have the patience to complete Shift 2 even once. A shame because it was great in other areas like the atmosphere, track list, career mode, and especially the customization. Being able to transform street cars into racing machines, both inside and out, was fantastic. But like many other newer NFS games, it just failed where it mattered most, the driving. Truly a waste.
Last edited:
Yes.
60 fps is strongly recommended, even mandatory, for racing games (sim and arcade), FPS and BTA.
For the rest, it's not very important. 30fps, it's OK.
FPS has nothing to do with speed of the game, only fluidity. Imagine simply if you draw an up arrow in one frame and want to transform it to a down arrow in the last frame. If you just insert one frame in between, pointing left, the animation is going to be very jerky. If you insert two frames in between it's going to be smoother, and so on.
The entire transition will take place over the same second, it just has less information to complete the transition so it looks rougher.
That's why a side-by-side comparison still runs at the same speed and is in sync, the 60fps is just smoother. The only difference in perception of speed is usually with motion blur.
http://30vs60.com/dirt3.php
- 16,505
- Melbourne
- ScottPuss20
- CheetahsMeow
- 13,907
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Yep, that's pretty much it. There's a delay until you see the results of your input, but it starts being processed by the physics engine faster than that.
Even some of the little stuff like the corner and racing line masteries were really cute. The night racing was incredibly well done, despite it not being dynamic. For a small car list the car choice was excellent, and the visual touches of adding roll bars and Motec to the inside of the car as you race modded was great. The way they did adaptive AI was kind of cool, it had something like 20 AI levels and would change them between races depending on your finishing position, or you could just lock it to the level you wanted. The AI was competitive, if a little bit "touring car".
Input lag aside, a lot of it's problems with driving were the ridiculously soft base setups the cars were hampered with. If you put a reasonably sensible tune on them, it drives a bit like Ferrari Challenge or Forza 2. Decent, but not super.
I very much agree that it was a waste of what could have been a very good game.
It gives the illusion of smoother gameplay. If you're doing a reaction test like responding to a light then smoothness doesn't matter, but in a real life situation where anticipation and amplitude of reaction come into play then smoothness matters.
The same things can be done with lower frame rates, it just gets harder. It's a little harder to accurately 360 noscope with 30 fps, but by no means impossible. It's incredibly difficult at 10fps. You might as well not bother trying at 1fps.
This is the thing, while in some situations 60fps does have some advantages over 30, they're not massive and they actually make very little difference in real gameplay. I mean, playing at 120fps is technically better than playing at 60, but nobody really cares because the improvement is relatively tiny. 30 to 60 is not so far removed from that.
Brend
Premium
- 11,772
- Scotland
- GTSophy-Lapos
- ClassicBrend
There are games that absolutely need 60FPS. Playing WipEout in 30FPS is absolutely atrocious for example. One of the reasons the Vita ports of HD Fury were pretty redundant.
Anything that requires very quick reactions need 60FPS+ to be playable I'd say, try playing phantom HD Fury with half the frame-rate. You won't get very far without smacking walls.
I do agree if you're conditioned to accept 30FPS you probably don't understand what those who vouch for 60FPS are trying to sell. Seriously though, the best example of this in terms of 'modern day' is WipEout HD Fury for me, it's night and day and time-trials and speed-laps prove it further.
Anything that requires very quick reactions need 60FPS+ to be playable I'd say, try playing phantom HD Fury with half the frame-rate. You won't get very far without smacking walls.
I do agree if you're conditioned to accept 30FPS you probably don't understand what those who vouch for 60FPS are trying to sell. Seriously though, the best example of this in terms of 'modern day' is WipEout HD Fury for me, it's night and day and time-trials and speed-laps prove it further.
Last edited:
- 2,021
- N. Ireland
- JamboGT
I wouldn't say unplayable, I was generally top 50-100 in times on Fury/HD and myself and my housemate, who was marginally quicker than me could do split screen, 30fps racing at Phantom easily enough. (just to note, on PS3, splitscreen WipEout HD is 30fps compared to the single players 60, it is actually the easiest way to see the difference I think.)
However!
I vastly prefer 60 fps and would be delighted if graphical bells and whistles were dropped in order to get 60fps as often as possible if not all the time! GT Sport seems to be hitting in the 50s pretty consistently with a few months to go so am sure it will be fine.
However!
I vastly prefer 60 fps and would be delighted if graphical bells and whistles were dropped in order to get 60fps as often as possible if not all the time! GT Sport seems to be hitting in the 50s pretty consistently with a few months to go so am sure it will be fine.
- 13,907
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Fair enough. It's true. Wipeout you damn near need 60fps for the high speed classes.
Again though, you're not reacting so much in Wipeout as needing perfect timing. If you're actually reacting to the corners there ain't no way you can play phantom and above. It's about smoothness, consistency, accuracy and forward planning. Which is why Wipeout on PSP was such a pain, because even though it was 60fps it sometimes dropped and a few dropped frames was enough to throw your entire rhythm off.
Let's remember though that phantom is 700kmph or more. Those are exceptional circumstances that don't apply to a racing game like Gran Turismo, or even many other games at all. I can't think of many other games that change the screen that fast, short of 360 noscoping which I mentioned above.
Or you could be one of those people who doesn't accept it as a black and white issue. All other things equal, 60 fps is better. But all other things are almost never equal. And while there are some games for which it's nearly a necessity (although not for the reason of reactions that continues to float around), for many it's not. People make an awful lot of fuss about 60 fps being mandatory for games which it's merely nice to have.
I mean, Forza Motorsport is smoother than Forza Horizon, but anyone who makes like it's a night and day difference has an agenda to push.
