GT6 graphics downgrade over GT5*comparison inside!*

[PepeMickey]

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

Do I need to have GT6 in order to see these comparison shots. I'm looking at them just like everybody else here can, probably with more experienced eyes than yours.

I'm giving an opinion based on what I see in these pictures, I don't know what I'm talking about? how is that even possible when I didn't actually elaborate on anything?

You my friend make no sense at all. If you like GT6's graphics that's fine but you can't refute what DF tests show nor what the pictures above show.

 

[emula]

GT6

better smoke
better shadows
better sky
better cars interior
better reflections and light effects on the body of car
better rain effect on the windshield
better (new tracks + improved autumn ring and laguna seca)
200 standard improved

thread closed

 

[andryush]

GT6

better smoke
better shadows
better sky
better internior of cars
better reflections and light effects on the body of car
better rain effect on the windshield
better (new tracks + improved autumn ring and laguna seca)
200 standard improved

closed thread

Wrong.
Better sky...

 

[emula]

Wrong.
Better sky...

stop trolling please, is so sad

 

[Shirrako]

Photomode in GT6 is worse than it was in GT5, the lights on the road are not even visible in GT6, photmode needs fixing, not a downgrade from GT5in terms of graphics, just photomode.

 

[andryush]

stop trolling please, is so sad

This is no trolling, this are the facts.

@Shirrako

Graphics in photomode are the same as in gameplay for the most part. So lights on the road are missing from the gameplay too.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

For better viewing, reduce exposure to -0.3 or -0.2 in GT6, with my calibrated TV, the lower exposure actually makes it more realistic in feel and overall nicer to look at.

 

[TenEightyOne]

For better viewing, reduce exposure to -0.3 or -0.2 in GT6, with my calibrated TV, the lower exposure actually makes it more realistic in feel and overall nicer to look at.

I often find that people who criticise the graphical output of software actually have no idea about the calibration of their viewing device or what the different settings do to outputs from different sources (ie digital TV, analogue TV, HDMI at differing rates).

Most people's tendency is to have settings that over-sharpen and over-expose, cos brighter is bestest.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Looking at screencapture or screen shot on my laptop browser is a lot different than viewing the game on my TV. My laptop display is of Phillips brand and it's on default gamma ( non calibrated ), while my TV displays a lot better image ( contrast, brightness, gamma and saturation that are calibrated for natural look ) I only need to change the PS3 color range when playing game to full and limited for watching BR/HD movies. I copied some of the pictures posted on this thread, and view them on my PS3 using my TV, a world of difference in a good way.

 

[andryush]

For better viewing, reduce exposure to -0.3 or -0.2 in GT6, with my calibrated TV, the lower exposure actually makes it more realistic in feel and overall nicer to look at.

Often i found interior view too dark in some cars, playing with negative exposure doesn't sound like good idea. Also problem of the sky on this particular shot is low resolution/quality of used effects. But sure, good tv calibration can help in hiding that

 

[metramt8]

@NixxxoN

Show me examples of working and visible tesselation in GT6. I didn't see it anywhere except the trailer with Ferrari, where they showed dynamically changing wireframe.

GT6 uses post-process anti aliasing which blurs the image resulting in worse image quality than in GT5 which uses hardware AA.

I don't think GT6 physics are far more complex than GT5 physics, they can't draw so much horsepower.

Take the Toyota 2000-GT, hood camera, and turn on the lights. You will see the pop up lights being processed by the adaptative tesselation.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Often i found interior view too dark in some cars, playing with negative exposure doesn't sound like good idea. Also problem of the sky on this particular shot is low resolution/quality of used effects. But sure, good tv calibration can help in hiding that

You have no idea the purpose of tv calibration then, it's not for hiding visual defects.

 

[andryush]

You have no idea the purpose of tv calibration then, it's not for hiding visual defects.

Yeah, right...
I don't know the purpose of calibration of TV...
And i'm probably using 100% sharpness, contrast and colour on my tv...

that's very shallow thinking by you, very shallow judgment.

If i said that good TV calibration can make game look better, it doesn't mean that i'm changing my TV settings for every game to hide its defects. I have one setting which i think gives most natural looking image and i stick with it for almost every game.

 

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Have you calibrated for proper gamma levels ? Gamma alone could transform how the image is produced. Your comment of helping hiding the sky problem is the cause of my statement earlier. I never said the sky has no problem, a good calibrated tv usually will highlight any visual defect in an image ( movie or game or photos ). I simply stated that with good calibration, a game will look much better than without.

And, most of the time what you think is realistic image, it's really not always the case, until you have properly calibrated the tv ( I used professional service/equipment optimized for lighting condition of the room ) for correct gamma levels, color etc. Not all games will look good ( the viewer eyes ), some games have less saturation, some have over exposure lighting, some have aliasing issues, no calibration can fix these

Also disable all post processing by the tv, that means all sharpness, dynamic contrast/brightness, natural motion, DNR, edge enhance etc, they will only make the response time worse and generally degrade picture quality/calibration.

 

[andryush]

Have you calibrated for proper gamma levels ? Gamma alone could transform how the image is produced. Your comment of helping hiding the sky problem is the cause of my statement earlier. I never said the sky has no problem, a good calibrated tv usually will highlight any visual defect in an image ( movie or game or photos ). I simply stated that with good calibration, a game will look much better than without.

And, most of the time what you think is realistic image, it's really not always the case, until you have properly calibrated the tv ( I used professional service/equipment optimized for lighting condition of the room ) for correct gamma levels, color etc. Not all games will look good ( the viewer eyes ), some games have less saturation, some have over exposure lighting, some have aliasing issues, no calibration can fix these

Also disable all post processing by the tv, that means all sharpness, dynamic contrast/brightness, natural motion, DNR, edge enhance etc, they will only make the response time worse and generally degrade picture quality/calibration.

Yeah i know, all that post process stuff just makes input lag higher. Not good for racing or FPS games.
By saying that good calibration can make game look better i mean, that for example 100% sharpness for sure will make it look worse, which = bad calibrated tv

How should i calibrate gamma in my TV for best image? i have only 3 levels of gamma in my tv settings, so not much of a choice.

 

[Voodoovaj]

Do I need to have GT6 in order to see these comparison shots. I'm looking at them just like everybody else here can, probably with more experienced eyes than yours.

I'm giving an opinion based on what I see in these pictures, I don't know what I'm talking about? how is that even possible when I didn't actually elaborate on anything?

You my friend make no sense at all. If you like GT6's graphics that's fine but you can't refute what DF tests show nor what the pictures above show.

Actually, it does help to have GT6 because then you can see the differences for yourself. Looking at screen shot on a forum assumes that there isn't anything bizarre happening in the screen capture process. For instance, the square blocks of light; these screens are the first time I've ever seen them.

I find all that @andryush posts dubious because for all his claims of "downgrades", I've found inconsistencies.

Maybe microsoft is paying him to drive people to Forza 5

 

[andryush]

Actually, it does help to have GT6 because then you can see the differences for yourself. Looking at screen shot on a forum assumes that there isn't anything bizarre happening in the screen capture process. For instance, the square blocks of light; these screens are the first time I've ever seen them.

I find all that @andryush posts dubious because for all his claims of "downgrades", I've found inconsistencies.

Maybe microsoft is paying him to drive people to Forza 5

hahah, i think Forza 5 is even worse than GT6 So no, sadly but MS is not paying me for making this comparison))) i'm making it for the good of the series, maybe someone in PD will hear my cries

 

[Shirrako]

This is no trolling, this are the facts.

@Shirrako

Graphics in photomode are the same as in gameplay for the most part. So lights on the road are missing from the gameplay too.

Wrong, GT6 lights are a lot brighter than GT5 when you play the game, lights are not missing when playing the game, what are you on about?

The title thread is quite misleading since the photomode in GT5 improves the graphics while GT6's photomode needs updating, it's missing a lot detail you see in game when you actually play.

Last week i paused the replay so that the exhaust of the car was spitting fire, guess what was visible in photomode? none of the fire was there or sparks that appear when you try to take pictures of them.

Belongs in a photomode discussion and not a "overall graphics" discussion.

 

[andryush]

Wrong, GT6 lights are a lot brighter than GT5 when you play the game, lights are not missing when playing the game, what are you on about?

The title thread is quite misleading since the photomode in GT5 improves the graphics while GT6's photomode needs updating, it's missing a lot detail you see in game when you actually play.

Belongs in a photomode discussion and not a "overall graphics" discussion.

To be honest, I find in-game headlights equally useful in both games As for the rest of effects, this shots weren't fabricated, this is how both games look. Screenshots clearly pinpoint the differences and i don't understand why so many people deny this. Even when having side to side comparison. But still, nobody bothers to make comparison, which will SHOW that i'm wrong.

Majority of posts i read here is "it's impossible! GT6 is better". Most of the people here are just repeating what they were told by PR people, and nobody is using their own brain.

 

[Shirrako]

To be honest, I find in-game headlights equally usefull in both games As for the rest of effects, this shots weren't fabricated, this is how both games look. Screenshots clearly pinpoint the differences and i don't understand why so many people deny this.

GT5 photomode was updated after being quite buggy.
GT6 photomode was not updated and is missing a lot detail that you see in game.

These screenshots prove nothing, the pictures you posted even lack the headlight detail on the road in GT6, if you're saying that the photomode images turly reflect how the game looks like then i guess everyone races in the dark on GT6.

It's not your fault, it's PD's fault for making the GT6 photomode so buggy, they will update it without a doubt in the future liek they did for GT5.

 

[andryush]

GT5 photomode was updated after being quite buggy.
GT6 photomode was not updated and is missing a lot detail that you see in game.

These screenshots prove nothing, the pictures you posted even lack the headlight detail on the road in GT6, if you're saying that the photomode images turly reflect how the game looks like then i guess everyone races in the dark on GT6.

It's not your fault, it's PD's fault for making the GT6 photomode so buggy, they will update it without a doubt in the future liek they did for GT5.

Can't agree with you, part of my second set of comparison shots was taken in a way, which minimizes occurrence of extra juicy effects seen in photomode like DOF, blur etc. ( shutter speed of 1/8000s and maximum aperture value of f 42.0). So it is almost like direct feed screenshot, but with extra resolution and AA. Also i posted off-screen screenshots, of replay mode, which also show some obvious differences between both games.

I think that even photomode can't change the way the lighting works in GT5. We don't see extra dynamic light sources for example, we don't see extra shadows. If you look closely, you can even see that far away part of the La Sarthe track is gone, so game doesn't improve graphics in such a great extent that will invalidate this comparison. The reason why you see lack of the headlight detail on the road in GT6 is because this effect is toned down compared to GT5. And global lighting simply works differently in both games. (for example you can't achieve same lighting condition at the same hour set in both games.)

(headlight detail on the road are present in both games, but effect is toned down in GT6, like all other lighting effects)

 

[PepeMickey]

For better viewing, reduce exposure to -0.3 or -0.2 in GT6, with my calibrated TV, the lower exposure actually makes it more realistic in feel and overall nicer to look at.

Don't know about GT6 but this works for GT5. A properly calibrated TV makes all the difference, FM4 for example, a lot of people complained about the high contrast and over exposed track surface and sun reflections, while FM4 does have high contrast within the game, if they could only see how FM4 looks like on a properly calibrated TV. Any game for that matter.

Most people just go with the default presets and worse, they set their consoles for maximum display output.

 

[Fanapryde]

Last week i paused the replay so that the exhaust of the car was spitting fire, guess what was visible in photomode? none of the fire was there or sparks that appear when you try to take pictures of them.

I guess it is a matter of pausing at the right frame. I managed a few good photos from a fire spitting BMW M3... It was not easy, a lot of pausing and rewinding, but the flames are there

 

[Gabba73]

In the ending movie of GT6 through the real cockpit cam of kaz's Nissan we see the cockpit instruments glow with halo at the night (0:32-0:45, 1:19-1:32, 1:50-2:17, 4:04-4:32, 4:49-5:12, 6:00-6:43, 7:04-7:27, 7:43-8:24).
I think the night lighting effects in GT5 are far better and realistic of GT6 ..... so the glow and halo of cockpit instruments.

 

[Voodoovaj]

(headlight detail on the road are present in both games, but effect is toned down in GT6, like all other lighting effects)

You are looking at two different lighting models with a definite bias towards GT5, since you are completely blind to what is being depicted in the GT6 example.

In the GT5 pic, you see all cars have a uniform light cast in front of them. In the GT6 photo, you can see how the light overlaps and the road is lit by all cars in the range, which is more authentic. You can all see the road is lit in the distance by two more cars in GT6 pic, but in GT5 only the first two cars cast light.

What are you trying to describe by saying that GT6 is "toned down"?

 

[OdeFinn]

Tv calibration.. for which backlight of room(different lamps needs different calibration, halogen, normal bulbs etc), using what color temperature..
Calibration using by how it does look by own eyes or using really "real colors", do many ways to do it right or wrong.
Calibration using software and analysing by own eyes..
Using proper equipment for it, like Spyder4Pro or similar.

Everyone who has touched gamma or and other settings on tv can say they have calibrated their tv, to please their own eyes.

PS. Calibration is done weekly on normal usage if picture is needed to be proper.

 

[RedBaron]

In the ending movie of GT6 through the real cockpit cam of kaz's Nissan we see the cockpit instruments glow with halo at the night (0:32-0:45, 1:19-1:32, 1:50-2:17, 4:04-4:32, 4:49-5:12, 6:00-6:43, 7:04-7:27, 7:43-8:24).
I think the night lighting effects in GT5 are far better and realistic of GT6 ..... so the glow and halo of cockpit instruments.

It depends how you perceive that. From the perspective of human eye or those imperfect digital cameras. I prefer human eye perception for race, camera effects for replays.

 

[GregOr1971]

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....

My fellow forum member you should know that developing games on closed platform as PS3 is , will always be a trade off between what you want and what (now) 8 year old (150€) limited hardware can do. In order to make some new features or improve some old features everyone complaint (like that "blocky" smoke effect that bothered everyone in GT5???) they needed to cut back some other things . When you'll live in real world and have some clue what is going on behind dev process (optimizing,trade offs ...) then some of decisions PD made will make some more sense to you

 

[Azure Flare]

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.

16 premium cars on track at the same time still works.

 

[Fanapryde]

I guess it is a matter of pausing at the right frame. I managed a few good photos from a fire spitting BMW M3... It was not easy, a lot of pausing and rewinding, but the flames are there

Probably not entirely at its place here, but @Shirrako: