GT5 Latest News & Discussion

[SSJNeBiRoS]

I repeat that I think that this is more a problem of angle than a different resolution, for example these 2 image are from the same car from the garage and the first one seems to have better resolution, but they are the same obviously.

 

[CoolColJ]

Jpeg compression artifacts? I'm in the wrong forum apparently.

You should do a comparison with uncompressed pictures that's all. Something that is 18mp will have a ton of comrpession to keep the file size down.

All those artifacts around the edge of these "simple" images reeks of jpeg compression
And maybe there is mipmapping and texture filtering aspects to it as well.
Unless the surface is flat to the camera angle and close up. I don't think the GT5 engine uses 16x anisotropic filtering

 

[JDMKING13]

Why do you think I found this out? I was drooling over the pics one by one, marveling the best looking cars in any racing game (every single screw is modeled, by the way) when "Oh, the textures here appear to be lower res." *go check the other pic* "Yep, lower res. Hey, I guess I should let people know. I never post any news, I guess I could share this."

What a mistake. Man, what a mistake.

Come on people, quit trying to find haters where there are none. Please.



Jpeg compression artifacts? I'm in the wrong forum apparently.

Yep unfortunately this somehow happens a lot right now, they were rare until recently but it seems to be the new norm apparantly.
Whatever happened to the saying "play the ball, not the player"?
But maybe this isn't my business to bring up, just noticed this change in attitude which isn't for the better.

Anyway, I thought it was common knowledge that the cars whilst racing appear to be slightly less detailed than when viewed in the garage.
Not that it really matters to me, it's not as if they suddenly appear to be build from LEGO.
And those welding joints in those NASCAR pictures sure impressed me.

Agree with you analog this is for every racing... well every racing game i payed that features liveries. @ D i'm not trying to hate on you bro you said you where drooling over the pics, but you post, and point out how the stickers aren't perfect. Maybe your trying to help others notice the flaws i don't know, but just like analog said this is common knowledge to many. In the end the stickers look good I didn't think they where so bad where you had to point them out, but if you felt you had to point them out to get your point across no prob. 👍

 

[RACECAR]

I found it surprising that the Nascars had beer ads on them. I thought that was a no-no for E rated games. I thought that's why Nascar Racing 4 replaced all alcohol advertising on all their cars. Interesting.

Perhaps the ESRB has since then be abit more linient on Beer adverts in the games hence why you are seeing them here. That or EA has been lazy with the locensing.

^ WOW, you can see the text!

Yep, you can read the engraving right there. Would easy to figure out what year those cars are from

What's with the censoring above the fog lights?

Those are serial numbers.

Whatever happened to the saying "play the ball, not the player"?

Do not despise the racketeer, instead despise his sport

 

[Sasuki]

You should do a comparison with uncompressed pictures that's all. Something that is 18mp will have a ton of comrpession to keep the file size down.

All those artifacts around the edge of these "simple" images reeks of jpeg compression
And maybe there is mipmapping and texture filtering aspects to it as well.
Unless the surface is flat to the camera angle and close up. I don't think the GT5 engine uses 16x anisotropic filtering

I agree, and here's an example

From left to right jpeg compression increases and artifacts

 

[Dravonic]

Anyway, I thought it was common knowledge that the cars whilst racing appear to be slightly less detailed than when viewed in the garage.

That's exactly why I posted it. That was true up to GT4 but not in GT5P.

In GT5P the car models are exactly the same in the garage and in race. However, watching the Blitz closely, it looked like the textures were not the same but I was never able to confirm. Then I saw these new NASCAR pics and indeed the 3D models are the same but not the textures.

That's relevant news for anyone who cares about graphics, so I posted it. Too bad I never realized the thread title is "GT5 Latest good News and General Discussion Thread"...

I repeat that I think that this is more a problem of angle than a different resolution, for example these 2 image are from the same car from the garage and the first one seems to have better resolution, but they are the same obviously.

http://i32.tinypic.com/2zfv43b.jpg[IMG]

[IMG]http://i29.tinypic.com/2iqfkab.jpg[IMG][/QUOTE]

I agree that the angle change the overall look but take a better look at the comparison I made. Pay attention how you can read "Belts" very clearly in the garage shots but not in the race shots.

 

[analog]

I found it surprising that the Nascars had beer ads on them. I thought that was a no-no for E rated games. I thought that's why Nascar Racing 4 replaced all alcohol advertising on all their cars. Interesting.

Good point, I remember the Lancia Delta S4 rallycar from GT4, the real one having a Martini sponsorship livery, having white blocks to replace the letters.
Maybe it's got something to do with the percentage of alcohol in these beverages.

 

[Sasuki]

Check this out !!! E3 Trailer FULL SONG

[YOUTUBEHD]PG6Qx-qcSxA[/YOUTUBEHD]

Thank you so much for sharing, i was looking for this song all over the net.

Thanks again mate 👍

 

[Dravonic]

You should do a comparison with uncompressed pictures that's all. Something that is 18mp will have a ton of comrpession to keep the file size down.

All those artifacts around the edge of these "simple" images reeks of jpeg compression
And maybe there is mipmapping and texture filtering aspects to it as well.
Unless the surface is flat to the camera angle and close up. I don't think the GT5 engine uses 16x anisotropic filtering

I agree, and here's an example

From left to right jpeg compression increases and artifacts

Notice how in the case of bad image compression the whole pic has odd artifacts. That's not what's happening in the GT5 shots. I assure you the GT5 shots have very high quality with next to none compression artifacts. This is not a problem at all. The quality is more than enough to make the comparison I'm making.

I repeat that I think that this is more a problem of angle than a different resolution, for example these 2 image are from the same car from the garage and the first one seems to have better resolution, but they are the same obviously.

http://i32.tinypic.com/2zfv43b.jpg[IMG]

[IMG]http://i29.tinypic.com/2iqfkab.jpg[IMG][/QUOTE]

Also notice how the texture filtering in high angles mask out the texture's problems. The higher angle one looks better. My comparison shows a flat angle with better textures and a higher angle with worse textures so it's not the texture filtering at all. It's texture resolution.

 

[Seismica]

@Dravonic;

The textures are the same. The difference (If any) is negligable, and only a result of different angles. The images you posted were a bad example, why didn't you search out further examples?

EDIT: These images are .png and the source images were both affected by the same level of .jpeg compression.

EDIT2: And as someone posted above, the difference in textures is evident from varying angles of the in-garage shots.

 

[gtsmashbros]

Aw man now it'll say Alchohol Reference next to the rating, resulting in loss of sales.

 

[eSZee]

SSJNeBiRoS, posted pics from the garage and race that are different from your pics, and the texture in his pics are the same.




No one said you only need to post only positive, your trying to put words in my mouth.

I also posted some negative things about the power shifting in GT5, but people were too busy with VS thing and they ignored my post.

this:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?p=3927953#post3927953

Power shifting is when you shift, a manual gearbox car, without lifting off the throttle. When it comes to paddle shift cars, you're always on throttle so every shift is a powershift, I guess.
People didn't reply to you cause you were confusing powershifting with downshifting, which is what both videos seem to be showing.
Too bad you can't read this.

 

[Dravonic]

@Dravonic;

http://img46.imageshack.us/img46/1284/nascar1.png[img][img]http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/1995/nascar2t.png[img]

The textures are the same. The difference (If any) is negligable, and only a result of different angles. The images you posted were a bad example, why didn't you search out further examples?

EDIT: These images are .png and the source images were both affected by the same level of .jpeg compression.[/QUOTE]

Well I am in the wrong forum. Obviously the difference is small enough for people around here to overlook. I'll keep this in mind.

And my examples are valid. A lot better actually than using a comparison where the lower resolution textures are blurred out by HDR lighting. You can still see they are worse however.

 

[Seismica]

Well I am in the wrong forum. Obviously the difference is small enough for people around here to overlook. I'll keep this in mind.

And my examples are valid. A lot better actually than using a comparison where the lower resolution textures are blurred out by HDR lighting. You can still see they are worse however.

They were not clearly worse, you need your eyes testing.

Also, see post #20611

His images are better than mine, because they show a difference in the quality of the textures from two in-garage screenshots. It's the angle of the images that makes the textures look distorted.

EDIT: To add, the difference in the images you posted was made irrelevant by the other pics. It seems to me like you went through and picked the worst example. Just like I went through and tried to select the best example. But like I said, the pics someone else posted should put an end to this discussion because he just proved the textures appear different in quality in the same showroom environment, from different examples.

 

[JDMKING13]

Well I am in the wrong forum. Obviously the difference is small enough for people around here to overlook. I'll keep this in mind.

And my examples are valid. A lot better actually than using a comparison where the lower resolution textures are blurred out by HDR lighting. You can still see they are worse however.

D its just stickers bro I don't think people are overlooking them, but its not a big deal they look fine. 👍

 

[Dravonic]

They were not clearly worse, you need your eyes testing.

Also, see post #20611

His images are better than mine, because they show a difference in the quality of the textures from two in-garage screenshots. It's the angle of the images that makes the textures look distorted.

Also notice how the texture filtering in high angles mask out the texture's problems. The higher angle one looks better. My comparison shows a flat angle with better textures and a higher angle with worse textures so it's not the texture filtering at all. It's texture resolution.

Explained already. Another reason why my comparison is actually quite good. The comparison in the bottom by the way. In the first comparison the angles are wrong for this case.

 

[Seismica]

Explained already. Another reason why my comparison is actually quite good.

So the showroom image that he posted with the lower quality textures is down to texture resolution?

Right, gotcha.

 

[Dravonic]

So the showroom image that he posted with the lower quality textures is down to texture resolution?

I don't know if it's me explaining it wrong or you understanding it wrong...

Of course not. His first image looks better than his second image because of the higher angle in the first image. When the texture is the same, the higher the angle the better the texture looks, right? That's what his images show.

However, I have a comparison that contradicts this observation. The flat angle one looks better. What gives? The textures are not the same in this case. "In race" cars have lower texture resolution.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Yes the "in race" crops are closer than the "in photomode area" ones but you can still notice that they have lower resolution textures. Pay attention how it's easier to read whats written.

It's not from a video, it's from the 18MP pics posted in the news page.

Hey, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying they look bad or even that they are low resolution textures. Note I said "lower than". Even though it's lower than the ones in photomode it's still pretty high and will look fairly good in 1080p.

Still, it's kind of a sad that extreme close ups, like the ones shown in the video posted by Sasuki, won't look so sexy in texture based cars.

Hmmm, interesting spot. I guess it's not too surprising that lower-resolution textures would be used in-race; in Photomode it'll be one car, on track it's 16 with damage. And like you said, it'll still look fairly good in 1080p on our TV's... and are many of us really going to be keeping all of our Photomode shots at the output'd 18 MP? Glad you brought this up.

As much as I complain about the Standards, though, this probably won't affect them much; their texture resolution is already lower than an in-race Premium's, so they'll probably be using one level of resolution universally in the game. I'm still concerned about how they'll look at 18 MP though; GT4 shots typically showed polygon edges at their 1280x1024 resolution...

 

[gtracedriver]

I think it has more to do with the angle that they are of different resolution textures, for example without zooms or anything:

Race:

Garage:

I think this pic clearly indicates how the good the game will look in replays with light source falling on the car. It actually make it look more beautiful.

They have two photomode options and I doubt it will look any bad than the first shot. I don't see what the fuss is all about

 

[JDMKING13]

I think this pic clearly indicates how the good the game will look in replays with light source falling on the car. It actually make it look more beautiful.

They have two photomode options and I doubt it will look any bad than the first shot. I don't see what the fuss is all about

👍

 

[Dravonic]

I think this pic clearly indicates how the good the game will look in replays with light source falling on the car. It actually make it look more beautiful.

They have two photomode options and I doubt it will look any bad than the first shot. I don't see what the fuss is all about

Well I'm not bringing this up to create any fuss.

I'm bringing this up because it's quite relevant to those who, like me, will spend a lot of time in photomode. Basically, you don't want to do extreme close ups with an "in race" car. You are better off doing it with an "in photomode location" car.

 

[FoolKiller]

Here's an idea: Why don't we wait until we have the game in our possession before attempting to make any judgment calls on image quality in any situation?

 

[maxpontiac]

Here's an idea: Why don't we wait until we have the game in our possession before attempting to make any judgment calls on image quality in any situation?

That would require a massive culture change at GTPlanet.

Never mind that GT5 is going to represent NASCAR.
Never mind that GT5 will have the best NASCAR models.

It's all about the way stickers look.👎

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Well I'm not bringing this up to create any fuss.

I'm bringing this up because it's quite relevant to those who, like me, will spend a lot of time in photomode. Basically, you don't want to do extreme close ups with an "in race" car. You are better off doing it with an "in photomode location" car.

👍

It worked the same way in GT4 (especially due to 3D wheels only being available in Photomode). Though I'm thinking the road cars will suffer a lot less than a sticker-plastered NASCAR vehicle. Which is handy.

Here's an idea: Why don't we wait until we have the game in our possession before attempting to make any judgment calls on image quality in any situation?

...it's odd how this kind of comment only ever pops up when there's anything critical uttered about the images. When people are fawning over stunning pictures... nothing.

 

[Dravonic]

Here's an idea: Why don't we wait until we have the game in our possession before attempting to make any judgment calls on image quality in any situation?

The PS3 won't magically grow more RAM when you insert your GT5 BD. PD can still optimize the code and make the higher textures fit? It's possible but at this late in the game that's wishful thinking. I'm amazed at the texture resolution already, I doubt it will still get higher.

In regard to photomode however it's possible. Swap in the better textures momentarily to render the pic and swap them out latter. I don't know why they wouldn't have it ready already but maybe they are still working on it. Who knows.

Either way, that's what we have now and probably what we will get in the final game. But yeah, there's a chance the situation will change. We will find out.

 

[Kusogaki]

@Dravonic

The difference is kind of... negligible, no? And I don't think PD would create 2 different Photomodes, doesn't matter if you're on a Photo location or watching a replay trying to find a special frame, the photo\file will be generated the exact same way.

But who knows the origin of those inconcistencies, it's not a problem of raw processing power to generate the photo\file ("race replay against simple dark\smoky photo location" falls apart when you are presented with something like the Redbull Hangar, sporting crazy geometry and reflections).

And yeah, maybe they are still tweaking the system, since Kaz mentioned something as trying to achieve up to 20 megapixels photos or something along those lines.

 

[Dravonic]

@Dravonic

The difference is kind of... negligible, no? And I don't think PD would create 2 different Photomodes, doesn't matter if you're on a Photo location or watching a replay trying to find a special frame, the photo\file will be generated the exact same way.

But who knows the origin of those inconcistencies, it's not a problem of raw processing power to generate the photo\file ("race replay against simple dark\smoky photo location" falls apart when you are presented with something like the Redbull Hangar, sporting crazy geometry and reflections).

And yeah, maybe they are still tweaking the system, since Kaz mentioned something as trying to achieve up to 20 megapixels photos or something along those lines.

Yes the difference is quite small. People thinking I'm wrong actually only shows how small the differences are but for the PS3 and it's limited memory that makes a huge difference. By looking at the pics the "in race" textures seem to be half 75% the resolution but that's only a wild guess (and let the accusations to my sanity or eyes condition restart) and with a 256MB supposedly full memory pool increasing the texture resolution significantly seems far fetched to me.

Note that they can do it in photomode locations because they have only one car, and possibly other details that give more memory leeway.

And it's not 2 different photomodes, but one photomode where one asset has lower resolution textures in one circumstance and higher in another. As SlipZtrEm pointed out GT4 also had this and other differences when taking a pic while racing or while in a photomode location.

EDIT: I did some testing and it's looking a lot more like 75% than half.

That would require a massive culture change at GTPlanet.

Never mind that GT5 is going to represent NASCAR.
Never mind that GT5 will have the best NASCAR models.

It's all about the way stickers look.👎

I don't see anyone complaining, do you?

 

[FoolKiller]

...it's odd how this kind of comment only ever pops up when there's anything critical uttered about the images. When people are fawning over stunning pictures... nothing.

Actually, I made the comment because it became an issue of debate that was getting irritating, especially considering it was in regard to marketing images.

As for comments like this being made when people fawn over stunning images, go look at the comments in the GT PSP section when we only had marketing images. They were quickly pointed out as "bullshots." Probably because they looked to be GT5P quality.

And you should notice that I said "any judgment calls," because GT PSP did teach us that PD is not above sprucing up their marketing images a bit.

The PS3 won't magically grow more RAM when you insert your GT5 BD. PD can still optimize the code and make the higher textures fit? It's possible but at this late in the game that's wishful thinking. I'm amazed at the texture resolution already, I doubt it will still get higher.

You do realize that I didn't make a statement that voiced an opinion either way right? I make no claims of any magical processes of any sort.

What I did attempt is to point out that you all are debating over what these marketing images represent from the game itself. I don't know enough about computer imagery, digital imagery, or even photography to tell if you are seeing something that is there or not.

But I do know enough to know that digital images, taken off the Internet, and released for marketing purposes have a high possibility of not being a 1:1 representation of the game I will play.

The debate that was beginning here has a higher likelihood of being moot come November than adding anything to the conversation.

 

[Dravonic]

You do realize that I didn't make a statement that voiced an opinion either way right? I make no claims of any magical processes of any sort.

What I did attempt is to point out that you all are debating over what these marketing images represent from the game itself. I don't know enough about computer imagery, digital imagery, or even photography to tell if you are seeing something that is there or not.

But I do know enough to know that digital images, taken off the Internet, and released for marketing purposes have a high possibility of not being a 1:1 representation of the game I will play.

The debate that was beginning here has a higher likelihood of being moot come November than adding anything to the conversation.

You do realize such a thing has to happen for you statement to be valid, right?

I did realize you were concerned the debate to be moot, that's why I told you it most likely won't, although it does have a chance to be.