GT Sport vs Other Games: Comparison Video Thread

[Sojiira]

Cool, never played RR but they do an awesome job matching the trackside details

 

[McLaren]

You can't touch the chassis frame/shell and you can't have fire/smoke.
That is, anything that may imply safety issues is a big no for most if not all manufacturers. Seemingly, the same reason applies to why you 'can't' roll (production) cars on their own in those games.
That leaves them with damage/tearing of body panels and lamps.

And that's why you won't see a NFS with real cars doing what Burnout did ages ago.

See, that's what I thought originally. But, Johnny was quoting another developer who claimed there was no limitations; just no gore.

 

[Johnnypenso]

See, that's what I thought originally. But, Johnny was quoting another developer who claimed there was no limitations; just no gore.

For reference, here is the interview, and it starts at the relevant part:

 

[cutmeamango]

See, that's what I thought originally. But, Johnny was quoting another developer who claimed there was no limitations; just no gore.

You thought correctly.

As you could see, that comment from Stefano is quite hollow.
He says "developers use it" as an excuse to not have damage. But all major games prior to AC already had visual damage to the same extent they present. So first, who are those mythical developers? And second, he ends saying that yes, they do have damage in their game. Just that.

Even if we take his "no limits other than decapitation" comment thoroughly as presented (and not as the vague hyperbole it is), why do these simulation games do not present cars with chassis deformation, pillars bending like Burnout did decades ago?
Merely a design decision? PCARS goes to long length removing body panels completely, yet radiators (and everything "inside the chassis") remains intact.
And what's more, all other game developers reached the very same decision?

We can also bring the voice of another developer on this very forum to further contest it:

I could not agree with you more on this point.

Safety in the modern era is wholly linked with the dispersion of energy in a crash. That energy is normally dissipated by allowing parts to break off and by dint of crumple zones that keep the cockpit and driver intact. But I don't write the licensing rules.

I want it to be very clear that this isn't a Mercedes issue. It's manufacturer wide. We do have visual damage on the Mercs. But we can't go to town on the level of damage, for all manufacturers, as we used to be able to 10 years ago.

I was trying to find but the AMS/Stock Car developer said similar things and they are a game with mostly race modified cars and fictional models.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You thought correctly.

As you could see, that comment from Stefano is quite hollow.
He says "developers use it" as an excuse to not have damage. But all major games prior to AC already had visual damage to the same extent they present. So first, who are those mythical developers? And second, he ends saying that yes, they do have damage in their game. Just that.

Even if we take his "no limits other than decapitation" comment thoroughly as presented (and not as the vague hyperbole it is), why do these simulation games do not present cars with chassis deformation, pillars bending like Burnout did decades ago?
Merely a design decision? PCARS goes to long length removing body panels completely, yet radiators (and everything "inside the chassis") remains intact.
And what's more, all other game developers reached the very same decision?

We can also bring the voice of another developer on this very forum to further contest it:





I was trying to find but the AMS/Stock Car developer said similar things and they are a game with mostly race modified cars and fictional models.

Why are Stefano's statements hollow but Ian Bell's are not?

 

[Pillo-san]

You thought correctly.

As you could see, that comment from Stefano is quite hollow.
He says "developers use it" as an excuse to not have damage. But all major games prior to AC already had visual damage to the same extent they present. So first, who are those mythical developers? And second, he ends saying that yes, they do have damage in their game. Just that.

Even if we take his "no limits other than decapitation" comment thoroughly as presented (and not as the vague hyperbole it is), why do these simulation games do not present cars with chassis deformation, pillars bending like Burnout did decades ago?
Merely a design decision? PCARS goes to long length removing body panels completely, yet radiators (and everything "inside the chassis") remains intact.
And what's more, all other game developers reached the very same decision?

We can also bring the voice of another developer on this very forum to further contest it:





I was trying to find but the AMS/Stock Car developer said similar things and they are a game with mostly race modified cars and fictional models.

I think it has more to do with that it would make the models to intricate, meaning to much work for the studio and then too taxing to run on the system the game is running on. After all the damage needs to both visually and mechanically represent what it would do irl if the title is talking about sim. It cant be like in some games where you simply have couple different models/layers depending on the level of damage.

I mean it was kinda demanding by just emulating damage on simple models 10 years ago with proper cad software.

 

[cutmeamango]

Why are Stefano's statements hollow but Ian Bell's are not?

It says right there in the post but I guess I can be clearer.

1) "Some companies use (manufacturers' limits) as an excuse to not have damage".

2) "We don't have anything on our contracts that talk about that (having or not damage)" "[...] But nothing saying we cannot put damage".

3) (Answering the question) "So yes, we do have damage".

Even being charitable and excusing the damage/no damage binary to a "degrees of damage representation", we know all major racing games had damage comparable to those in AC before AC (GT5, Forza 5, Grid Auto, GSC, iRacing and so on): visual body panels/lamps/glass, mechanical damage to varying extents.

At that point, the "urban myth" is constructed on a false proposition.

The "We can't put blood or decapitated people", while probably true, only serves as an exaggeration to parody the point he constructed.

That's why it is hollow.

Meanwhile, Ian Bell's game from all of them is perhaps the one that goes the furthest in terms of damage representation, even approaching the comically uncanny. Yet there he is saying manufacturers' do mind what type of damage is represented.
Doubting him begs the question on why would he downplay something that might as well set his product apart?

And anyhow, what he says has been corroborated time and time again by other devs and released products if you take your time observe it.

That's why it's not hollow.

I think it has more to do with that it would make the models to intricate, meaning to much work for the studio and then too taxing to run on the system the game is running on. After all the damage needs to both visually and mechanically represent what it would do irl if the title is talking about sim. It cant be like in some games where you simply have couple different models/layers depending on the level of damage.

I mean it was kinda demanding by just emulating damage on simple models 10 years ago with proper cad software.

Damage currently isn't anything close to a physical simulation of it. They are just mesh distortions (or plain object drops) and stencils that do not directly correlate to force and direction of impact, objects involved and so on.
And lately cars have been modelled accounting their bits and pieces rather than one big shell like a decade ago.

While Beam.NG is "heavy" due to how it's achieved (everything is composed of lots of bones I think) that's not really the limitation, since you don't actually need to be as precise as that tries. Especially not so for thing that aren't really that technically bound like doors opening or caving, smoke or fire, pillars bending/breaking, completely shattering windows and so on.

 

[marcvic]

The superiority of GT Sports graphics goes far beyond just the lighting engine. It also gets me how a lot of people are saying that it only looks "a little" or "a bit" better than the competition.

 

[1241Penguin]

Good god the transmission whine still sounds like crap, and I'm not complaining about the volume. It's a shame cause beneath the whining the engine sounds seems to have improved decently.

 

[McLaren]

The superiority of GT Sports graphics goes far beyond just the lighting engine. It also gets me how a lot of people are saying that it only looks "a little" or "a bit" better than the competition.

Because it does in some situations. SMS are finally allowing its testers to release pics/videos and some of these guys are posting some incredible-looking photos right now.

 

[Eager Snake]

Because it does in some situations. SMS are finally allowing its testers to release pics/videos and some of these guys are posting some incredible-looking photos right now.

Everything is subjective at the end. For me, PCars 2, even in some of the new videos is still looking "pretty bad". It's not a bad looking game, but is just... like a game in terms of visual presentation.
This is just a personal thing, but the cars look empty for me, very artificial. In that regard, GT always looked miles better in my opinion.
I can "feel" the graphics, and that alone makes me enjoy the game in a whole different way, and no other game has achieved that for me, but again, is a subjective thing.

 

[McLaren]

Everything is subjective at the end. For me, PCars 2, even in some of the new videos is still looking "pretty bad". It's not a bad looking game, but is just... like a game in terms of visual presentation.
This is just a personal thing, but the cars look empty for me, very artificial. In that regard, GT always looked miles better in my opinion.
I can "feel" the graphics, and that alone makes me enjoy the game in a whole different way, and no other game has achieved that for me, but again, is a subjective thing.

Uh, how does one "feel" graphics?

Sounds a lot like you already have a set preference if that's how you choose to describe GT & PCars 2 as "pretty bad". Those are extreme descriptions....

 

[Eager Snake]

Uh, how does one "feel" graphics?

Sounds a lot like you already have a set preference if that's how you choose to describe GT & PCars 2 as "pretty bad". Those are extreme descriptions....

Again, is subjective, and some people "feel" things, some people don't, even if that sounds a bit crazy with this kind of things.
I'm an emotional type of person, I'm a photographer and videographer, and, yes, I feel with images, with video and all of that.
Maybe is a combination between the music, the memories that I have and what I'm seeing when I'm playing a GT game, but yeah, I feel the graphics, I feel that they are most realistic or most... accurate to me. Something that PCars can't really give me.
So, yeah, it may sound weird, but is only a subjective thing. Is not an extreme description, is just a personal one

 

[Corsa]

The only thing I'm "feeling" right now are my ears bleeding my god raceroom sounds incredible.

 

[GPR]

The superiority of GT Sports graphics goes far beyond just the lighting engine. It also gets me how a lot of people are saying that it only looks "a little" or "a bit" better than the competition.

Well although I do agree, the gap in visual superiority is much much smaller than it used to be in the old days.

In certain small areas I can see some graphical aspects of other titles like PCars and Forza as being perhaps a little better than GT but on an overall judgement I still think GT leads the pack.

I'd say the modelling is second to none and natural light seems a little more refined and accurate. But sometimes even that can not be quite bang on in certian areas of tracks and views. For instance sometimes to me the ambient light in cockpit views seem too dark compared to the light outside. Or shadows don't seem quite the right tone for the time of day, particulaly with some tracks which can make them seem a bit too flat and lacking extra dimension and depth. Which is one factor why some people think GT looks quite dull in comparison.

But there is a clear advancement in many areas over GT6. I don't understand when some people claim it isn't much better looking than GT6. Sure the step gap difference may not be as big as it used be from earlier iterations but when I see side by side photos or videos there is a clear difference to me. There is much more subtle refinement in GTS that really add to the visual realism and experience. From textures/finishes to light to the subtle layering of effects and reflections.

The one thing that really bothers me so far more than anything else graphically is those darn headlight glows (or glows in general), especially when front on or near front on. It looks too over the top, especially in lighter conditions. They are too soft and big it just kills the realism to me. Once the camera angle gets past a certian degree they pretty much vanish, (Yes that should happen but not quite as dramatically as it currently does.). They should be more flare like in appearance and not so uniform. Highlight and sheen glows seem a bit big and overemphasied too. I can't imagine those particular effects being that system heavy so I feel like they could be improved quite a bit.

Overall in certain areas it can seem a bit too clean and clinical looking, not that it looks bad at all just not quite as gritty and vaired as real life.

Anyway I could pick at little things here and there forever to be honest, like scenery models/objects, certian shadow edges, materials, smoke, dust, the list can go on and on. GT is far from perfect but in certian areas it is quite impressive. I'm convinced some of the other issues are due to not only production time facotrs but hardware limitations, which sucks becuase they can produce better but have to limit aspects because of the hardware. Render distance is a key problem there, particualy on the Nordschleife.

This is purely graphics mind you, don't get me started on sound or other aspects. I can be very picky with details and ideally want games like this to aim for that uncanny-valley of realism.

 

[bdj57]

The only thing I'm "feeling" right now are my ears bleeding my god raceroom sounds incredible.

I agree. Probably the best sounding sim racer in recent years. The problem in GTS is that race cars still have their engine sounds muffled from what I've heard so far, just like road cars. That is why engine sound volume is quite low inside the cockpit. Race cars didn't sound muffled inside the cockpit cause the interior is almost literally ripped-off including parts that insulated sounds from engine bay and outside. It is kind of bother to me actually. Hope PD notice this issue and do slightly tune and adjusting the sound a bit more before release.

 

[GPR]

I agree. Probably the best sounding sim racer in recent years. The problem in GTS is that race cars still have their engine sounds muffled from what I've heard so far, just like road cars. That is why engine sound volume is quite low inside the cockpit. Race cars didn't sound muffled inside the cockpit cause the interior is almost literally ripped-off including parts that insulated sounds from engine bay and outside. It is kind of bother to me actually. Hope PD notice this issue and do slightly tune and adjusting the sound a bit more before release.

I do agree, although I think they really need to do more than a slight tune of levels. It isn't just a volume issue, but that could be an easy/quick solution to help make the overall levels seem more accurate.

I does sound like they've come a long way since GT6. On the whole it is sounding a lot better, but particularly for the race cars there is a lack of rawness and agressive tone to the engines. I think the whines and backfires are sounding pretty good but the engine sounds are often weak in comparison. They should definitely be beefed up. It's like they're set at a level of 6 but should be set to11! (Spinal Tap levels).

From what I've heard I believe there needs to be more kick with bass and sustained grunt in the lower to mid frequencys, to really give that feeling of the power and aggresive grunt in the lower rev ranges, particlarly with V8's. With a more raw and unclean sound from the upper-mid to higher frquencies. While also bumping up db levels overall. That's a rough assesment and just my opinion from what I can hear.

Although right now what bothers me the most about the sound is the tyre suqeals/screehes. They still seem too uniform and samey in all conditons of driving, and across different tyre types. Plus the sound just doesn't seem realistic at all to me. Ideally I'd like PD to start from scratch in this area and really do a massive overhaul. Considering how much tyre squeal is present in the game (to me sometimes over present), and even more so when tyre wear comes into play, then is a major sound issue to me, as far as viewing and playing pleasure and immersion is concerned.

Just my two cents.

 

[ScottPuss20]

Don't shoot me but I think GT Sport sounds better. There's a lot more bass and throatiness, which sounds crazy right? I feel as though the engine in GT Sport revs harder than in RaceRoom. There's too much environmental sound and doesn't sound beefy like an 8 cylinder should. The sound of the gearbox and driveshaft flex is excellent, but the actual note doesn't blow me away. Seems as though it's been recorded on a windy day, while GT's sound has been recorded in a garage which some sound proofing. I prefer the extra bass of GT.

JUST MY OPINION

 

[Imari]

Don't shoot me but I think GT Sport sounds better. There's a lot more bass and throatiness, which sounds crazy right? I feel as though the engine in GT Sport revs harder than in RaceRoom. There's too much environmental sound and doesn't sound beefy like an 8 cylinder should. The sound of the gearbox and driveshaft flex is excellent, but the actual note doesn't blow me away. Seems as though it's been recorded on a windy day, while GT's sound has been recorded in a garage which some sound proofing. I prefer the extra bass of GT.

JUST MY OPINION

GTS sounds like Raceroom heard through a pillow.

 

[bdj57]

Don't shoot me but I think GT Sport sounds better. There's a lot more bass and throatiness, which sounds crazy right? I feel as though the engine in GT Sport revs harder than in RaceRoom. There's too much environmental sound and doesn't sound beefy like an 8 cylinder should. The sound of the gearbox and driveshaft flex is excellent, but the actual note doesn't blow me away. Seems as though it's been recorded on a windy day, while GT's sound has been recorded in a garage which some sound proofing. I prefer the extra bass of GT.

JUST MY OPINION

I don't have any problem with how GTS sounds like. It is just the loudness of engine sound should be more adjusted in racing cars. Road cars in other hand is fine imo. I also like the addition of chassis rattle and gearbox/clutch sound we never heard in previous GT, it sounds crisp and pleasing to hear it is like having ASMR with cars (would be perfect if PD change how shifting sound work to make it less "synthetic").

GTS sounds like Raceroom heard through a pillow.

Yeah, I have already said GTS sounds muffled. Pretty much the same with your statement I guess... I can imagine doing that and surely I get your point .

 

[Johnnypenso]

 

[MisterOne77]

GTS still looks better in my opinion. However, I don't think the comparison should have used footage from VR mode in PC2. From what I've seen in other games, the graphics in VR mode aren't as good as they are when not using the VR headset. Then again, this may not be the case with Project Cars.

 

[marcvic]

Are those on/off load sounds I'm hearing from GT Sport:tup:?

Here's also some real-life videos for more reference.

 

[GordonS]

Oh.. They should have made the tyre sounds better for Pcars2. It is the same stone dragging tune as in Pcars1.

 

[bdj57]

Are those on/off load sounds I'm hearing from GT Sport:tup:?

Here's also some real-life videos for more reference.

The one from Evo video have the audio captured closely resembles how GTS sounds like, while the one on Bathurst did sound like RaceRoom. PC2 however is WIP so there is still changes later imo, need to tweak a bit more. I guess different audio capture as reference could make a difference of realism approach in each game.

 

[Corsa]

Don't shoot me but I think GT Sport sounds better. There's a lot more bass and throatiness, which sounds crazy right? I feel as though the engine in GT Sport revs harder than in RaceRoom. There's too much environmental sound and doesn't sound beefy like an 8 cylinder should. The sound of the gearbox and driveshaft flex is excellent, but the actual note doesn't blow me away. Seems as though it's been recorded on a windy day, while GT's sound has been recorded in a garage which some sound proofing. I prefer the extra bass of GT.

JUST MY OPINION

I don't know what kind of system, laptop, PC you're listening to the video on. If it's a decent surround sound with a sub, disregard.

If not...

Relisten to it on your cell phone in a quiet room, cup your hand over the speaker a few inches away. This will give a quick, cheap surround sound effect.

There is no way GTS sounds more throaty than raceroom, unless my 40 year old ears are beginning to malfunction.
I'm not bashing GTS, I just wish it sounded more like RR.

 

[ScottPuss20]

GTS sounds like Raceroom heard through a pillow.

You could totally argue that - doesn't mean I agree though. I think it's more to do with how the sounds are captured rather than the sound itself. It's curious how one video sounds like RaceRoom while the other sounds like GT Sport:

Are those on/off load sounds I'm hearing from GT Sport:tup:?

Here's also some real-life videos for more reference.

First one sounds like GTS, second one sounds like RaceRoom. Which one is accurate based on this comparison?

Microphones do play a major role here.

 

[Eager Snake]

You could totally argue that - doesn't mean I agree though. I think it's more to do with how the sounds are captured rather than the sound itself. It's curious how one video sounds like RaceRoom while the other sounds like GT Sport:

First one sounds like GTS, second one sounds like RaceRoom. Which one is accurate based on this comparison?

Microphones do play a major role here.

Let's not forget, it's also a matter of taste. Some people prefer something like PCars or Raceroom, some people don't.
At the very end, it depends of the microphones and the enviroment. I always remember my first time hearing a Corvette.
I started to smile because it was, at least to my ears, the exact same sound that I was hearing back in the day in GT5.
The helmet is also a very defining thing but some people just prefer not caring about it because some people wants a visceral experience.

 

[lancia delta hf]

You could totally argue that - doesn't mean I agree though. I think it's more to do with how the sounds are captured rather than the sound itself. It's curious how one video sounds like RaceRoom while the other sounds like GT Sport:

First one sounds like GTS, second one sounds like RaceRoom. Which one is accurate based on this comparison?

Microphones do play a major role here.

Expertise has a large part to play in it, just as lighting does of which PDI have the most expertise. Also the first vid does not sound like GTS. In GTS the whine dominates everything.

Let's not forget, it's also a matter of taste. Some people prefer something like PCars or Raceroom, some people don't.
At the very end, it depends of the microphones and the enviroment. I always remember my first time hearing a Corvette.
I started to smile because it was, at least to my ears, the exact same sound that I was hearing back in the day in GT5.
The helmet is also a very defining thing but some people just prefer not caring about it because some people wants a visceral experience.

I really don't think it is a matter of taste. Most racers who love cars like myself want accuracy, which ever is most accurate is the one I prefer.

 

[bdj57]

Here is an example where both games didn't catch the exact real life sound. GTS has weak engine notes on cockpit view, while PC2 has too much reverb and sounded like Driveclub instead imo. However, both games is still WIP so things could change.

As for graphics, since both games have different time and conditions set I can't really give a fair judgement tbh. It is up to you which one is your pick (and please being wise to choose "real life" because it is not a game and you can injured yourself if crashed ) :



Edit : Found RaceRoom footage of GTR GT3 while it is not the same track I just want to focus my point with sounds and imo RR sound is adequate to real car sounds like. Pretty well balanced without being too smooth or overly dramatic. I can't think any other racing sim (how about rFactor or IRacing?) that have impressive sound as good as RR right now. I guess RR should be the benchmark on how race car sounds like and other devs should noticed that. Doesn't have to be the same, but at least use it as a reference sample on audio and sound design.



(Should be noticed that this video was from 3 years ago, there is probably some slight changes and improvement in the recent build of how GT-R GT3 sounds like on RR)

So far from what I've seen big names like GT, Forza, AC, Project Cars are still lacking in some area of how sounds work on their games. Even they have correct and accurate sound sample, somehow still felt "gamey" and in certain cases is a bit unnatural with noticeable and digitally recreated sound effect. Just my opinion based on my observations watching and listening to gameplay footage from various title I mentioned earlier, would be different if I get my hands on with some of these titles.