GT6 graphics downgrade over GT5*comparison inside!*

[BrandonW77]

Other than the missing reflection of headlights on the road, in my opinion the GT6 photos look much better. Good thing we're all allowed to have our own opinions. 👍

 

[wutang4ever]

I don't see how the frame rate is worse in 6, nearly every race in 5 was plagued by screen tearing directly in the middle of the screen going around every turn, in 6 the few screen tears I've noticed were very high on the screen and not directly in my FOV.

 

[G.T.Ace]

The bugged lens-flare, which is also hurting the overall lighting in photomode, destroyed the GT6 pictures.
The HDR of GT6 has a much higher range and more precision, but GT5 is easier to handle in photomode.

Like mentioned already, it's a matter of trade-offs, both games have their positive and negative graphical details.

EDIT: And I agree with wutang4ever about the framerate.
GT5 could hold 60 frames slightly better, but the screen tearing was extreme and I'm not experiencing this in 6.

 

[andryush]

You do not seem to know much about technology implementation for GT6 so stop criticizing as you do, it's just stupid.

I'm sorry but your reaction makes me not want to explain again.

However, I still sympathetic:

Wow, thanks for the video... tesselation in GT6 is extremely sloooooow... you are telling me they sacrificed great visual quality of GT5 to have this... feature in photomode? Taht's ridiculous, in race and replay GT6 uses different LOD models for distant cars, no tesseletion. It is very slow in photomode, i think there's no chance and possibility to effectively use this during actual gameplay or replays. So tesselation is no excuse for bad trade offs they made. This is some nightmare...

 

[G.T.Ace]

You're wrong, the adaptive tesselation is also working outside of the photomode.
When a car's approaching the camera the mesh is starting to become more detailed.
Please stop judging these things as bad trade-offs or a nightmare, when you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[andryush]

You're wrong, the adaptive tesselation is also working outside of the photomode.
When a car's approaching the camera the mesh is starting to become more detailed.
Please stop judging these things as bad trade-offs or a nightmare, when you don't know what you're talking about.

I know what i am talking about, and i know how tessellation works. But honestly i didn't see it working when racing, i saw LOD pop in when i approach opponents, but nothing similar to how tessellation works. Also in replays, it didn't smoothed out wheel arcs of cars. So either it is bad implemented, or there is no tessellation in race/replay.

 

[Master__Shake_]

I don't know what tessellation is, but I have noticed that distance objects, portions of track, edges of tracks, etc. are all more blurry in GT6 than they were in GT5. The closer I get, the more defined and pronounced the improvements are for details of other cars or track portions. I've tried fixing this on multiple TVs and a computer monitor, in 720P, 1080i & 1080P, and I've noticed it in all resolutions. It's not pixelation, it's more of a light haze or blur on distance. Like a low-megapixel cell phone camera trying to focus on more than just one person or thing, it can't capture the background as well. I never noticed it this defined in GT5, but I'm not sure if this was a planned effect in GT6.

Aside from this, pronounced blurry sections of track during high or low rates of speed, are pointing to not only framerate issues but obvious degradation of system effectiveness to display the tracks at full resolution. I don't believe this is entirely for the fact of GT6 being "unpolished" compared to GT5, but as a limitation of the PS3 itself for the minimal amount of supplied RAM and dated processing power. You can't expect 4k resolution out of a 1080P TV, can you?

 

[Lawndart]

I would agree that GT 6 is different than 5 and I do prefer 5.

Without getting technical, what was traded was "depth and contrast" for "smoothness". And its highly subjective in that people have subtle differences in taste.

But I do believe there is good reason. Pd are more likely to tone down something that isn't "perfect" in their eyes than get creative in how to achieve an effect. Or they will do it reluctantly i.e. Motion blur removed from GT 6, and hard shadows no longer in GT 6... And there went the depth and contrasts.

What hard shadows gave us in GT 5 was more than most appreciate. They did in fact enhance contrast as you went from "true black" to "bright" in just a few pixels. But they could fix the interpolation at the defining line when alpha materials rendered.

Notice in GT 6 there isn't "true black"... Sure it gets dark, but nothing like the contrasts of GT 5.

Some might call this "richness" or "vibrant". Due to a new rendering technique they muted the contrasts or split the difference to bias the pallet to solve the hard edges from hard shadows... Or more specifically, they removed all hard edges.

But due to how we interpret moving images it's not easy for the average gamer to pin point "why".

But it's even more complicated as the rendering technique that did hard images is still there, just toned way down. This problem will be solved in GT 7 as they just need more resources. So they likely traded multiple rendering per frame for tesilation.

A strange trade off but it works for the most part as tesilation needs to be proven as it's the leading tech to enable more cars on track and likely an important part of the track editor, without sloppily just consuming resources -> I'm looking at you Forza 5...

I don't mean to bore you guys to death, but from my pov what we are seeing is two steps forward, one step back, in preparation for 5 steps forward in GT 7.

I was very impressed with digital foundries findings as they not only caught on, they have measuring tools to nearly prove it. As a developer I'm impressed that people outside of the dev teams are starting to pick up on our tricks... It means expectations will rise and I'm wanting that! I want the mobile and social games to .bomb... They will eventually, its a cancer I can't/refuse to perpetuate.

Eventually the lazy publishers will clue into the threat and react... But that's a whole different story, only mentioned because PD pulling that BS vertical currency crap with no real "money sinks" beyond buying cars... I can do nearly everything in GT 6 with 5 cars... Social games disease is effecting everything, even GT.

 

[andryush]

I would agree that GT 6 is different than 5 and I do prefer 5.

Without getting technical, what was traded was "depth and contrast" for "smoothness". And its highly subjective in that people have subtle differences in taste.

But I do believe there is good reason. Pd are more likely to tone down something that isn't "perfect" in their eyes than get creative in how to achieve an effect. Or they will do it reluctantly i.e. Motion blur removed from GT 6, and hard shadows no longer in GT 6... And there went the depth and contrasts.

What hard shadows gave us in GT 5 was more than most appreciate. They did in fact enhance contrast as you went from "true black" to "bright" in just a few pixels. But they could fix the interpolation at the defining line when alpha materials rendered.

Notice in GT 6 there isn't "true black"... Sure it gets dark, but nothing like the contrasts of GT 5.

Some might call this "richness" or "vibrant". Due to a new rendering technique they muted the contrasts or split the difference to bias the pallet to solve the hard edges from hard shadows... Or more specifically, they removed all hard edges.

But due to how we interpret moving images it's not easy for the average gamer to pin point "why".

But it's even more complicated as the rendering technique that did hard images is still there, just toned way down. This problem will be solved in GT 7 as they just need more resources. So they likely traded multiple rendering per frame for tesilation.

A strange trade off but it works for the most part as tesilation needs to be proven as it's the leading tech to enable more cars on track and likely an important part of the track editor, without sloppily just consuming resources -> I'm looking at you Forza 5...

I don't mean to bore you guys to death, but from my pov what we are seeing is two steps forward, one step back, in preparation for 5 steps forward in GT 7.

I was very impressed with digital foundries findings as they not only caught on, they have measuring tools to nearly prove it. As a developer I'm impressed that people outside of the dev teams are starting to pick up on our tricks... It means expectations will rise and I'm wanting that! I want the mobile and social games to .bomb... They will eventually, its a cancer I can't/refuse to perpetuate.

Eventually the lazy publishers will clue into the threat and react... But that's a whole different story, only mentioned because PD pulling that BS vertical currency crap with no real "money sinks" beyond buying cars... I can do nearly everything in GT 6 with 5 cars... Social games disease is effecting everything, even GT.

You mean they abandoned deferred rendering(or shading) technique just to have tessellation? No deferred rendering would explain toned down lighting in GT6.

 

[ThaSyn]

I'd choose GT6's graphics over GT5's graphics any day!

 

[Lawndart]

You mean they abandoned deferred rendering(or shading) technique just to have tessellation? No deferred rendering would explain toned down lighting in GT6.

It wouldn't be one to one. Other indications of reducing load is the reduction in alpha blending (reducing rendering cycles). Despite not being able to see under PD' dress, the reduced rain drops on windshield, projected headlights (reduction on light sources), no ambient light casting in cockpits, removal of the layer that drew hard shadows, LOD now pops instead of blends (not related) generally are all reduction in overhead... The tesilation is the only quantifiable tech that would use common resources in a cell processor architecture that also explains that loads on the hardware have not reduced.

So its sloppy deductive reasoning. And I'm not an engineer but it's quite hard to not have a deep understanding of game technologies in my line of work...

My whole point is to identify supporting evidence that explains a degradation in over all quality, yet has indicators that the system as a whole is actually more robust... Perhaps establishing a possible expectation of what GT 7 may look like.

I foresee a mash up of 5-6 features, all higher res, achieving a near window perfect result.

But to be fair... I have seen GT 5 running on a 4k TV well over a year ago at Sony HQ and I could swear it was like looking out/through a window... But it was so remarkable that I can't draw a contrast to what is currently in a shipping GT product.

 

[JohnScoonsBeard]

It wouldn't be one to one. Other indications of reducing load is the reduction in alpha blending (reducing rendering cycles). Despite not being able to see under PD' dress, the reduced rain drops on windshield, projected headlights (reduction on light sources), no ambient light casting in cockpits, removal of the layer that drew hard shadows, LOD now pops instead of blends (not related) generally are all reduction in overhead... The tesilation is the only quantifiable tech that would use common resources in a cell processor architecture that also explains that loads on the hardware have not reduced.

So its sloppy deductive reasoning. And I'm not an engineer but it's quite hard to not have a deep understanding of game technologies in my line of work...

My whole point is to identify supporting evidence that explains a degradation in over all quality, yet has indicators that the system as a whole is actually more robust... Perhaps establishing a possible expectation of what GT 7 may look like.

I foresee a mash up of 5-6 features, all higher res, achieving a near window perfect result.

But to be fair... I have seen GT 5 running on a 4k TV well over a year ago at Sony HQ and I could swear it was like looking out/through a window... But it was so remarkable that I can't draw a contrast to what is currently in a shipping GT product.

@Lawndart
Thanks for the insight. I have a question regarding lighting in video games.

Do video game producers try to simulate what video/still cameras "see" or what the human eye sees?

Our eyes are capable of seeing and perceiving detail in around 10 stops of light. Cameras capture little more than half that.

As an example of where this fails in GT5 and GT6 take High Speed Ring when in the tunnel. At the exit to the tunnel all the game shows is overexposed light making it difficult to see upon immediate exit from said tunnel. The game fairly quickly adjusts and the overexposure is gone. However if the track were to exist in real life the drivers eyes would still be able to make out the detail at the end of the tunnel due to being able to see greater stops of light (better than a camera).

So limited HDR type methods should be used (as in GT6) to stop the shadows being too dark and the highlights being lost. This is especially true in a game that is trying to simulate reality. To me it looks as if PD are trying to do this in cockpit mode in GT6 where the shadows are possibly less black and highlights certainly don't "blow out" so easily. However when you switch to other views highlights are lost (eg parts of clouds will be blown out).

 

[Lawndart]

@Lawndart
Thanks for the insight. I have a question regarding lighting in video games.

Do video game producers try to simulate what video/still cameras "see" or what the human eye sees?

Our eyes are capable of seeing and perceiving detail in around 10 stops of light. Cameras capture little more than half that.

As an example of where this fails in GT5 and GT6 take High Speed Ring when in the tunnel. At the exit to the tunnel all the game shows is overexposed light making it difficult to see upon immediate exit from said tunnel. The game fairly quickly adjusts and the overexposure is gone. However if the track were to exist in real life the drivers eyes would still be able to make out the detail at the end of the tunnel due to being able to see greater stops of light (better than a camera).

So limited HDR type methods should be used (as in GT6) to stop the shadows being too dark and the highlights being lost. This is especially true in a game that is trying to simulate reality. To me it looks as if PD are trying to do this in cockpit mode in GT6 where the shadows are possibly less black and highlights certainly don't "blow out" so easily. However when you switch to other views highlights are lost (eg parts of clouds will be blown out).

Human eyes, it's all about being convincing. It's also why games used to doctor all there screenshots/box shots.

Here are a few examples;

1) load up your favorite FPS game. Now pick 3 random spots or objects in the room. Now get really close to them. You'll notice an inconsistency, we call these props, and are often meant to look 'good enough', not perfect because it's very unlikely that any player will sit there staring at that none relevant object.

2) in a racing game, park next to a cone, then think for a second about its size, check it out from different view points. Notice how it's nearly as tall as the car? Racing games tend to increase the size of objects so they are more noticeable and increase the sensation of speed. And from a player pov it's actually more believable than if they were scaled realistically, they look tiny.

3) again, any game with people, wall up to an NPC, then go to external view, now look at the difference in details throughout the whole model... Pay particulate attention to the edges of the model, the eyes and mouth.

4) kids in games have huge alien sized eyes and tiny noses... It's what makes them look young to us. Notice again, girls, tween ones, they have more butt and bust than they ever would in reality (well, these days they are clearly eating something they didn't have when I was a kid) this is because they would look like teen boys otherwise...

The idea is if you're not looking, then you won't really know. So it's mostly based on perception. We call this screen read...

GT 6 tries to do both, in game, and photo mode. These used to be different assets in GT games, also used in replays and one reason they used to be so amazing to watch. The photo mode locations are to scale so photos look good/real, GT also doesn't exaggerate 'cones/props' as much as other games and that's why it seems slower...

But HDR is just an effect to do other "smoke and mirrors" the tunnel analogy is much like being blinded by a setting sun on a given corner. They do that (over do it) for a dramatic effect. This does happen in real life (sun) but not from a tunnel. A real race car is particularly prone to blinding the driver as the screen is always dirty and often pitted/cracked... Leading to major refraction.

I hope I explained it clearly, in more recent years magazines and print photos are all doctored too...
To exaggerate and try any trick you that hot girl is real...

 

[eran0004]

Can't agree with you guys. This comparison shows clearly how polished GT5 is. Lighting has so much more range to it. Look at the sky, how sun lights environment, very subtle effect on distant landscape. GT6 lighting look flat and limited. Headlight glow is gone or highly reduced. GT6 is graphical and performance downgrade over GT5 unfortunately... absolutely no cheating here.

Both shots were taken on Nordschleife at 5:20 with 1x time lapse

Get a real camera and try to take any of the shots in the GT5 column. It can't be done. As far as cameras go, the GT6 shots are more realistic than the GT5 shots.

And the visual effects changes when you view the game through the camera instead of watching a replay or simply walking around (or even driving a car) so a photomode comparison doesn't paint a complete picture.

 

[JohnScoonsBeard]

I hope I explained it clearly,

Perfectly. Thanks. My interest is particularly as a photographer and videographer, understanding the limits of photographic equipment. I like what they're doing in cockpit mode as it mostly works as the eye would see it. Other views seem more like how a broadcast camera works although I think this might also vary by track (eg Tokyo is fixed time and weather, hence looks pretty much the same in GT5 and 6).

Cheers

 

[andryush]

Get a real camera and try to take any of the shots in the GT5 column. It can't be done. As far as cameras go, the GT6 shots are more realistic than the GT5 shots.

And the visual effects changes when you view the game through the camera instead of watching a replay or simply walking around (or even driving a car) so a photomode comparison doesn't paint a complete picture.

Well, i'm not comparing photomode in both games, but their visuals. Yeah, GT6 has lens flare effect which is ugly but still it represents in some way effect you get when shooting photos with real camera directed at the sun. GT6 presents more realistic camera behavior, while in GT5 we get more HDR photography effect with higher range of properly exposed bright and dark parts of the scene.

What i am comparing here is for the most lighting effects. In GT5 we have lot of bright light sources, lights of the cars beautifully glow in the dark, even dynamic ones (headlights of two nearest cars) look brighter than in GT6. Gauges and indicatotrs inside cars also glow in the dark in GT5, with halo around them, in GT6 this effect is gone and we have poor glowing, flat texture, without halo, same is for the taillights and headlights in GT6, just bright, flat texture without any glow.

Also you can see how much superior skylight and sunlight is in GT5 compared to GT6. Look at last comparison shot, GT6 has very ugly light to dark area transition, in GT5 everything is smooth. GT6 uses lower quality effects than GT5.

 

[eran0004]

Well, i'm not comparing photomode in both games, but their visuals.

But you are, because the only reference you're using is photomode pictures.

What i am comparing here is for the most lighting effects. In GT5 we have lot of bright light sources, lights of the cars beautifully glow in the dark, even dynamic ones (headlights of two nearest cars) look brighter than in GT6.

All the GT6 pictures are exposed after the sky, which means that everything else is underexposed. Take a picture without the sun in the background and we can see what the effects are like.

Gauges and indicatotrs inside cars also glow in the dark in GT5, with halo around them, in GT6 this effect is gone and we have poor glowing, flat texture, without halo, same is for the taillights and headlights in GT6, just bright, flat texture without any glow.

I haven't noticed any difference in the interior, the instruments still glow in the dark. And regarding headlights and taillights I've seen a lot more glow in GT6 than in GT5, especially during gameplay and replay. In photomode, the result is depending on the exposure.

Also you can see how much superior skylight and sunlight is in GT5 compared to GT6. Look at last comparison shot, GT6 has very ugly light to dark area transition, in GT5 everything is smooth. GT6 uses lower quality effects than GT5.

You're comparing an underexposed shot to an overexposed shot.

 

[andryush]

But you are, because the only reference you're using is photomode pictures.

I don't have capture card, and i found it not necessary to show differences in lighting, because in gameplay GT6 still looks as bad as in photomode.

All the GT6 pictures are exposed after the sky, which means that everything else is underexposed. Take a picture without the sun in the background and we can see what the effects are like.

You got the point here. It can be the case here, but still, last comparison shot shows superiority of GT5 effects.

I haven't noticed any difference in the interior, the instruments still glow in the dark.

Yes, in GT6 instruments glow in the dark, but halo effect is gone.

And regarding headlights and taillights I've seen a lot more glow in GT6 than in GT5, especially during gameplay and replay. In photomode, the result is depending on the exposure.

The tail lights, more glow in GT6? O_O you have not played GT5 recently, did you? Player's car taillights in GT6 have glow effect with halo around them, and sometimes it is flicckering and dissapearing or "jumping" from light to light. For opponents cars it rarely appears on them but for most of the time it's just glowing texture not any light source.

if you can't tell the difference...

Or very poor glow effect. Not mentioning the beautiful sky in GT5, and fact that GT6 photo is little out of focus.

You're comparing an underexposed shot to an overexposed shot.

I think exposure of photomode is not the case here. Game's lighting system has changed, lighting works in different way in GT6. And it's clear that GT5 produced better results.

 

[NMKH91]

That light coming from sun is really disturbing

 

[CeeJay]

What is going on with the sun effects in GT6?? Does it really look like big blocky squares like that when you're driving?

 

[andryush]

What is going on with the sun effects in GT6?? Does it really look like big blocky squares like that when you're driving?

Probably not, it looks like this only in photomode. Got to make a screenshot of it when in gameplay/replay mode.

 

[eran0004]

@andryush

Instrument panels are not designed to blind the driver at night, they are designed to be readable at night. The halo in GT5 might look cooler, but it's hardly more realistic than the GT6 picture.

Glow from the player's car is much better in GT6 than in GT5, as well as overall light effects (not to mention shadows and dust/smoke!). It's true though that other cars on the track doesn't have the same level of effects as in GT5.

The beauty of the sky depends on the time of day. In that particular photo the GT5 sky is brighter, but that's just one sample out of thousands of possible scenes. Overall I find the skies in GT6 more impressive than the skies in GT5.

What is going on with the sun effects in GT6?? Does it really look like big blocky squares like that when you're driving?

No it doesn't. It's probably the shape of the aperture in photomode that causes that.

 

[jlmcmillan1978]

I agree with the OP & really feel that GT5 looked better in most ways. The main difference seems to be the new lighting that they are using. But our eyes must see things very differently from person to person, because for every one of us that swears 5 looked better there seem to be 10 that prefer the look of 6.
I don't get it, there is no where near the amount of gradual steps in contrast, it's either too light or too dark to me all of the time. Smoke effects & shadows look way better around the edges in 6, thats very obvious, but overall I really think there was a downscaling of things to free up RAM for other things. Much like the menus look far poorer, but therefore load far faster. PD was obviously hitting the PS3 limits with GT5 so to improve in some areas I guess they were always going to have to step backwards in others.

 

[Lawndart]

To really get what the OP is getting at, you need to look more broadly at a scene. Despite the ease at pointing out the details.

The stronger argument is that GT 5 effects and lighting all work together more consistently and the trade offs complement more than they detract.

But again, there is a big subjective component to all this...

I simply 'feel' like things look more natural in GT 5, something about it is more authentic than GT 6... But that is my opinion. But its authenticity like that that gives GT 5 a long shelf life. It's too easy to spot the compromises in GT 6 like lack of AI cars headlights, hard line LOD very obvious on Daytona, jarring popping in Brands Hatch, crazy shadows and cutting out audio on Bathurst, no ambient light in cockpits (they are just bright textures), etc.

And yes, the led lights in a race car are actually blinding... They are designed to be read from your peripheral vision, not directly focused on, minus the HUD, witch we actually don't look at unless there is an issue anyway.

 

[PepeMickey]

So sun light burning the earth is apparently ''better'' than GT5's more natural lightning, one more time, the GT excuser making sense when there is none.

 

[andryush]

@andryush

Instrument panels are not designed to blind the driver at night, they are designed to be readable at night. The halo in GT5 might look cooler, but it's hardly more realistic than the GT6 picture.

Yes, i agree with you, that this might be less realistic, but it looks better))

Glow from the player's car is much better in GT6 than in GT5, as well as overall light effects (not to mention shadows and dust/smoke!). It's true though that other cars on the track doesn't have the same level of effects as in GT5.

Disagree, glow from the players car in GT6? WHERE? it has no glow. Or it's buggy as rest of the game and simply bacame invisible....or it is track dependent (very possible)

The beauty of the sky depends on the time of day. In that particular photo the GT5 sky is brighter, but that's just one sample out of thousands of possible scenes. Overall I find the skies in GT6 more impressive than the skies in GT5.

You can't get same result in GT6 as in GT5 on Norschleife. Lighting is just different, better i think.

Although De La Sarthe looks similar in both games, but still, GT5 has more refined lighting effects.


*new comparison shots set*

Generally lighting in GT5 is more intense and reach, except some elements around the track in GT6 which has more intense lighting than in GT5. Also it is worth pointing out, that GT5 managed to render 16 fully detailed Premium cars, while GT6 renders only 8 cars on track, and most of them are Standard cars. Framerate in GT6 was very choppy on this track, while GT5 performed smooth all the way.

I think it's clear which rendition si the winner here...

 

[eran0004]

So sun light burning the earth is apparently ''better'' than GT5's more natural lightning, one more time, the GT excuser making sense when there is none.

Once again, the guy that doesn't even have GT6 doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

@andryush GT6 is able to do 16 premium cars on track. The rest we can disagree about. I prefer the graphics in GT6.

 

[andryush]

Once again, the guy that doesn't even have GT6 doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

@andryush GT6 is able to do 16 premium cars on track. The rest we can disagree about. I prefer the graphics in GT6.

I know, if GT5 can do it, why GT6 couldn't? It's a sequel! Bigger, better, faster, more!!! But what is the reason for not doing it? Seriously, GT6 is so much muted compared to GT5...idk, maybe PD dialed it all back, so in near future GT7 Prologue could shine on PS4....

 

[HuskyGT]

I have to agree in something. The light effect in GT5 were far better. I remember how much fun it was to drive at day/night/day transitions. In GT6 it's a headache, especially in cockpit view. Even during morning hours like the Nurburgring at 8 or 9am it feels like you're wearing sunglasses. In GT5, the way the sun started hitting the surface of the tarmac, and through the leaves of the trees was just brilliant, and there was no sudden or permanent darkening.

I hate it and I hope it gets fixed.

 

[Ninners]

The glow in the dashboard was most likely removed because it doesn't glow that much from the cockpit cam and besides if it glows in real life it would have to be from a certain distance.