GT Sport - Trailers, Videos and Screenshots

[Samus]

We demonstrated that PoDi has never cheated on visual (if you remove the cine effects of course).

So they've never cheated on Visuals as long as you remove the bits they did use to cheat with? Gotcha.



Re-create those visuals at the TGTT in game in GT5. I'd love to see it.

I'd also like to see from this trailer:



Road textures in game that look as good as 0:20 and a few second after.
The general detail of the cars in game, while racing.
The dust and gravel effects on the RX-7.
The smoke and dust effect on the KTM along with the detail of the model.
Dusk racing that looks anything like 1:27
In game model quality that matches 0:29
In game model quality that matches 1:42 the Alpine
In game lighting to match 2:06

All of those should be perfect as well, no aliasing or jaggedness, just like the trailer.

If you do somehow manage all of those, we can then move onto all of the Vision GT trailers and all of their effects.

 

[sems4arsenal]

I still remember an interview with Kaz where someone said if the GT5 trailer was pre-rendered and he said no and it's what we'll get in game. Might've been the plan then but we got nothing like that.

 

[Zlork]

Have already seen a trailer with aliasing? No.

In-game, there will be probably aliasings in GT Sport.

I haven't played all the games on this generation but developers are more able to handle aliasing.

And this is one of the strong point of PoDi. I'm pretty sure they will make an effective AA. I don't worry.

 

[Samus]

Have already seen a trailer with aliasing? No.

In-game, there will be probably aliasings in GT Sport.

I haven't played all the games on this generation but developers are more able to handle aliasing.

Yeah, way to miss the point by a country mile.

And this is one of the strong point of PoDi. I'm pretty sure they will make an effective AA. I don't worry.

Yes we know, you're pretty sure PD can do absolutely anything and have supreme confidence in them.

 

[Tornado]

We demonstrated that PoDi has never cheated on visual (if you remove the cine effects of course)

I'll spell this out for you, because no "we" didn't.


GT5 never does alpha blending anywhere near as well as that trailer shows. I participated in lots of Photomode competitions when GT5 was new, and you always had to deliberately set up camera shots to get around anything with smoke or rain or snow or dirt rather than actually do the setup you were planning, or just take the photo you want and pray that the game will try and smooth them out anyway. There are spots in that trailer where it would be impossible to get a clean picture like the trailer shows if you elected to take the photo at that point. Sometimes the post processing the game did in Photomode would do exactly that. Not always, and it means nothing for when you were actually racing.

GT5 never did dynamic shadows on the car models anywhere near as clean as that trailer shows. They were, in a word, a mess. The refresh rate was much slower then the surrounding lighting. The resolution was extremely low. The lighting wasn't anywhere near as soft. Most of the time the car models didn't seemed to be properly mapped to support them.

GT5's dynamic lighting never manages to be as smooth and trouble free as that trailer shows with the two cars rallying towards the end. You had two cars racing in the dirt at night and you would end up loaded with graphic artifacts. On top of the alpha blending problems that headlights exacerbated, when headlights hit plumes of dirt or snow or rain when you were that close to another car outside of bumper cam and you would frequently get a shimmering effect as the engine struggled to render the partial transparency. This says nothing about how the framerate completey collapses in such a situation, even in replays, which the trailer gives no indication of.







GT6 did manage to fix all of these problems to a considerable degree. Headlights are occasionally flaky and the framerate is just as bad, but nevertheless it was a real triumph that a lot of people took note of when the game was first playable. But GT6 isn't GT5, nor do landscape shots in phototravel make GT5's effects look more like those in that trailer.


And, again, what about the sounds, Zlork? How come PD is always to be 99% trusted when it comes to visual aspects of trailers when the sound in their trailers are so obviously faked that they dubbed race car noises on a Tesla?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Have already seen a trailer with aliasing? No.

In-game, there will be probably aliasings in GT Sport.

I haven't played all the games on this generation but developers are more able to handle aliasing.

And this is one of the strong point of PoDi. I'm pretty sure they will make an effective AA. I don't worry.

99% sure? "Pretty sure" doesn't sound like 99%. Maybe 80% this time? 70%? Enquiring minds want to know.

Speaking of aliasing, have you played GT6 yet?

 

[Toysuprahot]

The graphics they use in trailers are extremely identical to ingame, that's why he says "99%". Sounds, and everyone knows this, are not the in-game. But the engine is not tweaked or anything and the comparison with Ubisoft is dishonest. The trailers are better because they are rendered on much higher end processing units. But all the graphic engine is the same, you only get the usual disadvantage of lower quality shadows, etc...
It is much like playing on very high settings vs weak/medium settings (in the case of the ps3, we can assume the difference is more very high/weak).

 

[ImaRobot]

The graphics they use in trailers are extremely identical to ingame, that's why he says "99%". Sounds, and everyone knows this, are not the in-game. But the engine is not tweaked or anything and the comparison with Ubisoft is dishonest. The trailers are better because they are rendered on much higher end processing units. But all the graphic engine is the same, you only get the usual disadvantage of lower quality shadows, etc...
It is much like playing on very high settings vs weak/medium settings (in the case of the ps3, we can assume the difference is more very high/weak).

The engine is "tweaked." It is running at a level not possible on the system it's portraying, and that's what everyone is pointing out.

If the final game is running "lower quality shadows, etc.." that's already indication that it's not running identically. Maybe you're mistaking it for the actual modeling of the vehicles and the rendering of the landscape, but still, trailers seem to have a higher LOD for the cars they're showing.

 

[cutmeamango]

This is some dumb and clueless :censored:slinging over what, a trailer that has dithered shadows, low-res reflections and low poly objects in its showroom mode.

If the final game is running "lower quality shadows, etc.." that's already indication that it's not running identically. Maybe you're mistaking it for the actual modeling of the vehicles, and the rendering of the landscape.

Sampling ≠ Assets.

But carry on .

 

[ImaRobot]

Sampling ≠ Assets.

If I posted something wrong, would you care to elaborate? Wouldn't want to continue down a path if I'm basing it off wrong information.

 

[Johnnypenso]

This is some dumb and clueless :censored:slinging over what, a trailer that has dithered shadows, low-res reflections and low poly objects in its showroom mode.




Sampling ≠ Assets.

But carry on .

What I see is some people that are posting fact or identifying misinformation with known information and then there are some other people that are posting speculation or outright falsehoods in lieu of fact.

 

[cutmeamango]

If I posted something wrong, would you care to elaborate? Wouldn't want to continue down a path if I'm basing it off wrong information.

Things like alpha resolution buffers, texture filtering, anti-aliasing get supersampled when rendering these videos. That's why there's no aliasing, textures look good at low angles and long distances, and shadows don't flicker or show much stepping (although it's visible in all trailers posted because the blending technique to do volume remains the same).

Assets, like texture quality, models (car and environment) remain the same.

People scream at IQ "downgrades" (the sampling bit) when they slap "actual gameplay!" over (that is, direct-feed capture of "real-time" rendering, which pre-renders are not), which trailers rarely do since they are showcasing its assets with planned camera work and scenes.
And in the cases they do, it's usually understood that it was running on a different environment like high end computers or dev machines. Cases where they put "actual gameplay" over pre-rendered stuff are rarer (PS3 CG games haha), but then they are usually backtracked as "target renders" of "actual gameplay".

There are assets "downgrades" definetely. Lower density, less particles, less light sources, lower texture resolutions. That's where all the Ubisoft games shown here shine. But again, it's understood as running on a different environment like high end computers or dev machines, and in their cases, they have to attain a level of multiplatform parity too and of course, performance throughout. You can even unlock some stuff by editing ini's with Watch_Dogs.

When it comes to GT trailers, IQ is higher but assets aren't. That's why they are similar.
IQ downgrades from pre-rendered videos are understood, just like increase of IQ in replays (or showroom like GT5 and 6) are too (and those are real-time renderings).

What I see is some people that are posting fact or identifying misinformation with known information and then there are some other people that are posting speculation or outright falsehoods in lieu of fact.

What I see are people getting hung up on someone saying they are sure about something because there's nothing else to do.
And caring about facts is a patternless tide here.

 

[ImaRobot]

Things like alpha resolution buffers, texture filtering, anti-aliasing get supersampled when rendering these videos. That's why there's no aliasing, textures look good at low angles and long distances, and shadows don't flicker or show much stepping (although it's visible in all trailers posted because the blending technique to do volume remains the same).

Assets, like texture quality, models (car and environment) remain the same.

People scream at IQ "downgrades" (the sampling bit) when they slap "actual gameplay!" over (that is, direct-feed capture of "real-time" rendering, which pre-renders are not), which trailers rarely do since they are showcasing its assets with planned camera work and scenes.
And in the cases they do, it's usually understood that it was running on a different environment like high end computers or dev machines. Cases where they put "actual gameplay" over pre-rendered stuff are rarer (PS3 CG games haha), but then they are usually backtracked as "target renders" of "actual gameplay".

There are assets "downgrades" definetely. Lower density, less particles, less light sources, lower texture resolutions. That's where all the Ubisoft games shown here shine. But again, it's understood as running on a different environment like high end computers or dev machines, and in their cases, they have to attain a level of multiplatform parity too and of course, performance throughout. You can even unlock some stuff by editing ini's with Watch_Dogs.

When it comes to GT trailers, IQ is higher but assets aren't. That's why they are similar.
IQ downgrades from pre-rendered videos are understood, just like increase of IQ in replays (or showroom like GT5 and 6) are too (and those are real-time renderings).

With all that said, I'm not sure where I implied that sampling is the same as assets. I was just stating that maybe because the actually modelling stays relatively similar, that he may be wrong to say that they are running on an untweaked, like-for-like engine. That's why I stated he might be just comparing the actual assets, as he himself pointed out a difference, even though he said it's "untweaked."

What I see are people getting hung up on someone saying they are sure about something because there's nothing else to do.
And caring about facts is a patternless tide here.

It's more so what @Johnnypenso actually wrote. He comes in saying he's nearly 100% sure that nothing will change from the trailer. He then says that DC looks like a cartoon. Everyone was just simply correcting information that is unknowable at this point, as well as addressing willfully ignorant views.

 

[Zlork]

.

 

[RACECAR]

Let me guess, Zlork is on one of his imaginative claims about the almighty GT again?

 

[cutmeamango]

With all that said, I'm not sure where I implied that sampling is the same as assets. I was just stating that maybe because the actually modelling stays relatively similar, that he may be wrong to say that they are running on an untweaked, like-for-like engine. That's why I stated he might be just comparing the actual assets, as he himself pointed out a difference, even though he said it's "untweaked."

Oh sorry, I wrote a lot and forgot to make that clear. It can be all in the same engine, but with multiple passes and higher buffers because the engine supports it. Just like replays are the same engine, and photo-mode is the same engine.
Are those trailers captured from a real-time rendering PS3 feed? They aren't.
Not much confusion there.

 

[AudiMan2011]

Let me guess, Zlork is on one of his imaginative claims about the almighty GT again?

You guessed right. Delusions of grandeur can do strange things to people.

 

[ImaRobot]

Oh sorry, I wrote a lot and forgot to make that clear. It can be all in the same engine, but with multiple passes and higher buffers because the engine supports it. Just like replays are the same engine, and photo-mode is the same engine.
Are those trailers captured from a real-time rendering PS3 feed? They aren't.
Not much confusion there.

I understand that. I just felt "untweaked" was the wrong word to use. Although, I've never claimed it was a different engine and specifically mentioned that it's likely not going to be like-for-like when the game ships.

 

[Toysuprahot]

Wow, such condescending, much appropriate.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Wow, such condescending, much appropriate.

If you're going to make such a broad sweeping accusation least you could do is be specific about who you are talking about.

 

[Toysuprahot]

If you're going to make such a broad sweeping accusation least you could do is be specific about who you are talking about.

It is obvious, Racecar and AudiMan behave condescendingly with Zlork just because he supports GT, so immediatly he becomes some kind of "worshipper" of the "almighty" gran turismo, a ridicule way of saying that he is a blind GT "fanboy" whose opinions are worthless just because he likes GT and defends it.

 

[Scaff]

And caring about facts is a patternless tide here.

Actually a quite clear pattern exists for this.

Those who post opinion and speculation as if it were fact have a pattern of getting very defensive when asked to support them.

 

[ImaRobot]

It is obvious, Racecar and AudiMan behave condescendingly with Zlork just because he supports GT, so immediatly he becomes some kind of "worshipper" of the "almighty" gran turismo, a ridicule way of saying that he is a blind GT "fanboy" whose opinions are worthless just because he likes GT and defends it.

While they might be condescending, at the same time @Zlork is clearly making some irrational statements, especially against other games. The way he presents the information just makes it seem like he's purposely turning a blind eye to favor something he's partial to.

 

[Scaff]

It is obvious, Racecar and AudiMan behave condescendingly with Zlork just because he supports GT, so immediatly he becomes some kind of "worshipper" of the "almighty" gran turismo, a ridicule way of saying that he is a blind GT "fanboy" whose opinions are worthless just because he likes GT and defends it.

Not quite true now is it.

Its the posting of opinion and speculation as if it were fact and then being unable to support it that is the issue.

Everyone can have their own opinion, but you don't get to have your own facts.

The facts are that PD have put out trailer before that look and sound far better than the end result is, therefore a few seconds of GTS in the trailer is not 99% of what the finished title will look like.

Its fine from that to say that he hopes it will be 99% of that quality, its not fine to say it will be 99% of that quality unless you are able to prove that . Its also perfectly OK for both sides to discuss that up to the point that the AUP gets crossed (and that has not happened).

 

[GTPorsche]

Still no new trailers, videos or screenshots I guess?

 

[Castrol96]

I'm currently making a video on comparing GT6 to GT Sport. Just to let you guys know.

 

[Toysuprahot]

Deleted

 

[Scaff]

Actually you're pretty late to the party, and my message has nothing to do with that as it was much better discussed some posts ago.

You know how much of this thread and the posting history of the people in it I have read and am aware of?

I'd be amazed if that were the case!

You're trying to make it sound as if Zlork is wrong and such reactions from racecar are appropriate as "obviously" Zlork is stating a fact for which he has no information to back it up.

No, I'm saying that Zlork has made a number of factual claims that don't seem to have been backed up.

Yeah, the usual "will be" and "could be" useless way of trying to sound clever. It is hard to think Zlork could be talking factually. No, you're juist trying to ridicule him.

Please show exactly when I ridiculed him. That's a rather serious accusation to make.

I've simply asked that factual claims are backed up, annd unless you can show otherwise I strongly suggest you think again about making that accusation.

 

[Toysuprahot]

Deleted

 

[KilzoneStrife]

Man, this thread...