- 262
- Adelaide
- LilBigHulk
Yeah I’m spitballing here but I think the increase frame rate to the extent they are talking would be a priority only if VR is what they are aiming to do
Gran Turismo's Future: "4K Resolution is Enough", But 240fps is the Target
- Thread starter GTPNewsWire
- 173 comments
- 23,564 views
- 571
- Italy
How they gonna mange a 4k 120 fps game with better textures,better trackside objects like grass and trees, better lod,Ray Tracing, dynamic tod an weather, possibly more cars on screen,more complex objects geometry etc. when on ps4 pro the game it's able to run only at 1800p 60fps with tons of compromises like baked lighting and weather, aggressive lod, low quality textures on some cases etc..
Now there are two outcomes that come to mind, or they will simply do a simple port of GTS with some little improvements on ps5, or the PS5 will be a super powerful console
Now there are two outcomes that come to mind, or they will simply do a simple port of GTS with some little improvements on ps5, or the PS5 will be a super powerful console
Last edited:
- 1,206
- South Africa
120FPS is great...
As long as the extra grunt of the CPU does the work, and the GPU grunt handles graphics again. PD designed their current setup around the jaguar cpus, thats forced them to use GPGPU extensively for the current gen. Next gen, looks like it's all CPU for CPU stuff, GPU for GPU stuff and all is well in the world.
As long as the extra grunt of the CPU does the work, and the GPU grunt handles graphics again. PD designed their current setup around the jaguar cpus, thats forced them to use GPGPU extensively for the current gen. Next gen, looks like it's all CPU for CPU stuff, GPU for GPU stuff and all is well in the world.
- 10,956
- Canada
Can we please focus on improving the gameplay and everything else to make GT great and fun again Kaz? It's always "future this, future that" but never improves stuff like the AI.
GTS has already gone backwards in content. Improving fps means nothing to me if the game isn't fun to play...
GTS has already gone backwards in content. Improving fps means nothing to me if the game isn't fun to play...
Last edited:
- 1,874
- United States
But do you really think that a 500.00 dollar console is going to be able to achieve such when 2000.00+ dollar computer systems are struggling to maintain 90fps in a high resolution capable of basically no or minimal screen door effect VR headsets with graphics set to high quality in the most demanding games?
In my opinion to accomplish those claims in VR on a 500.00 console (which is built out of currently available PC parts) the resolution would have to be so low on the headset that reading text or any fine detail in the image would be basically impossible.
Corsa
Premium
- 2,104
- United States
I agree with him.
Refresh rates over pixel density every time.
When I made the jump to 1440 it looked great, but it was the 144hz that was incredible.
Hooked my rig up to a 4K panel, yes it produce a beautiful image in the pits.
When objects started moving quickly my PC became very angry with afterburner showing 75c temps/reduced fps.
No problem, we’ll just lower AA, textures, shadows, ambient occlusion, and mirrors a bit.
Which left me with reduced image quality barely pushing 60fps.
I still think the current sweet spot for Turing machines is 1440/144hz.
Refresh rates over pixel density every time.
When I made the jump to 1440 it looked great, but it was the 144hz that was incredible.
Hooked my rig up to a 4K panel, yes it produce a beautiful image in the pits.
When objects started moving quickly my PC became very angry with afterburner showing 75c temps/reduced fps.
No problem, we’ll just lower AA, textures, shadows, ambient occlusion, and mirrors a bit.
Which left me with reduced image quality barely pushing 60fps.
I still think the current sweet spot for Turing machines is 1440/144hz.
- 1,466
- United Kingdom
- evildave333
The drawback to all this high frame rate / resolution is having to buy a £1500+ TV... **** that lol. Coming soon Sony brand genetically engineered eagle eye implants because you wont be capable of perceiving the resolution lol
- 1,336
- New York
This. Guarantee this is number is being aimed at VR support.
- 64
- BOULOGNE BILLANCOURT
4k is enough, yes... but which 4k ???
A new real native 4k or the old checkerboarded 1800p of GTS ?
I would prefer raytracing than 8k or 120fps...
A new real native 4k or the old checkerboarded 1800p of GTS ?
I would prefer raytracing than 8k or 120fps...
- 3,384
- Las Vegas
- dawko-san
- 1,078
- Near Nürburgring
- DanPrez
A 449 dollar console wont be able to render GT Sport in 240 fps and neither 8K. People who would like to spend that amount of money - or preferable less - wont have the necessary display technology anyways. We should take everything he said there with a huge grain of salt. That being said, 120 fps and 4K in GTS sounds great, but i think developers have to decide what they are going after. Raytracing certainly will kill all those pretty smooth frames real quick. We cant have everything and people should adjust their excpectations a bit.
- 3,384
- Las Vegas
- dawko-san
- 714
- New York
- GTP-DEADPOOL
This is incorrect. 60fps 1080i is not the limit of the human eye......not even remotely close actually. Last I checked it's closer to 1000fps not 60. And we can see well well past 1080i. BUT the question becomes distance to screen.
If your tv is 30' away, sure you can't tell the difference. But in standard viewing within 7' you can EASILY see the difference vs 4k. Even more so if you have placed your screen within 40" for proper FOV, then the difference between 1080i and 4k is hilariously obvious.
- 2,224
- chicago
- EliteKilla29
An educated guess, or do you know some info that we don't know?
With ray-trace effects I have doubts they'll hit 120fps at 4k. A 2080 TI currently struggles to hit 60fps at 1440p with just ray-traced reflections in Battlefield 5. So I wonder how PD will balance everything.
Really hoping we'll get dynamic time of day back at least for GT7. It's still astonishing in GT5/6
God damn I miss GT5/GT6.
- 6,911
- United Kingdom
Last week I was looking at new 120HZ Sony TVs coming out soony and decided I'm going to get the 55" XH90 as long as input latency is lower than current Sony TVs. Seems best Sony TV for PS5 releasing this year as should support 4K120 and VRR. Also 55" is the same size screen they use at the World Tours.
This is great news as 120Hz should make one feel more one with the car, 60Hz feels like you are a bit too behind. I wonder if next-gen PS VR will support 240Hz and higher resolution panel, that would be great to try out although maybe too early to be having such a high refresh rate device. 240Hz seems like it be too much compromise to be supported for everybody unless they just limit it like Hi-Fi mode back in the day or just at lower resolutions like 1080p. It would be good if they enable feature to export replays rendering 8K60 too even if it takes a while to process. Given 8K TVs should become more affordable very soon, would be good to have option to see how GT would look like on 8K TVs and upload to YouTube in best quality.
PS5 is going to be a beast for sure!
This is great news as 120Hz should make one feel more one with the car, 60Hz feels like you are a bit too behind. I wonder if next-gen PS VR will support 240Hz and higher resolution panel, that would be great to try out although maybe too early to be having such a high refresh rate device. 240Hz seems like it be too much compromise to be supported for everybody unless they just limit it like Hi-Fi mode back in the day or just at lower resolutions like 1080p. It would be good if they enable feature to export replays rendering 8K60 too even if it takes a while to process. Given 8K TVs should become more affordable very soon, would be good to have option to see how GT would look like on 8K TVs and upload to YouTube in best quality.
PS5 is going to be a beast for sure!
GTV0819
(Banned)
- 6,084
- Papua New Guinea
Those were the days.
- 714
- New York
- GTP-DEADPOOL
- 714
- New York
- GTP-DEADPOOL
Yep, for me I have a 65" 4k HDR 33" from my face. I'm sadly still running the standard PS4 because I'd rather not waste money on the Pro when the 5 is later this year. But even going from my old 55" 1080p unit to the 65" 4k was a shocking difference in clarity. I find a lot of guys read things like "if you sit 7' away youll never notice", that myth pops up all the time and is a load of garbage. Anyone who cant tell the difference between a 1080p screen and a 4k screen need their eyes checked, especially if the 4k screen is playing 4k content.
- 1,874
- United States
I bet you would be surprised as to the numbers of gamers across different games and on even different platforms prefer racing a well coded AI than put up with the human wreckfest a lot of online racing turns out to be. Even prefer offline championships to online racing as well.
Actually even iracing is currently adding really adjustable AI racing within their service.
ACC has an very, very good offline adjustable AI to race against.
The AI in GTS is just too slow and likes to play the rubberband game but it would not take a lot to speed them up and make them more adjustable including aggression, make them more aggressive on holding/defending their position and to attempt to overtake once passed.
I find a good AI can give a good racing experience and in a lot of cases give you a much cleaner and more respectable racing experience than online. With the current state of the penalty system in GTS even with the poor AI in the game it is many times better than that daily sport mode race where you are constantly being punted off.
I guess you are one of those that think online makes a sim racer and offline is just someone playing games. At the end of the day both are just driving their pretend race car around a pretend track and really playing a game. lol!
Similar threads
