GT6 Performance Analysis and tech details.
- Thread starter phil_75
- 272 comments
- 13,441 views
- 10,403
- GTP_Spag69
- spagetti69
- 2,913
- UK
- phil_75
EksSo if I agree with you then I magically have an understanding about what makes GT important?
PD are too stubborn to drop the framerate and they wouldn't let themselves live with 720p native.
Conclusion: None of us will get what we want.
No because now i already know you don't.
You would rather have pretty picture than a great running and responsive game.
Buy a TopGear magazine if you want high res pictures, we want a game!
But yes you are right, none of these things will happen thank god.
Last edited:
- 13,909
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Right. So when I play NFS or Grid on PC with frame rates well in excess of 60, they'll feel totally different?
They really don't. An arcade game is an arcade game because it's an arcade game, not because it's running at 30fps.
See, the thing about controller lag is that running at 30fps or 60fps doesn't change a thing, unless you screw it up like Shift 2 and somehow link the control input through the graphics. Every other racing game, including GT, has physics and control inputs separate from graphical output.
I'm not sure I've ever seen physics tick rate data for Gran Turismo, but FM3 was 360Hz so I'd assume Gran Turismo was at least that. So actually, although you can't see it on screen, the physics will respond in 3ms once you get past whatever transmission lag is in your wheel/DS3.
The only thing I assume you're referring to, is that if the car in front of you jams it's brakes on a fraction of a second after the current frame has been rendered. With 60fps you see it 16ms after it happens, with 30fps you see it 33ms after it happens. Both are way, way, way shorter than human reaction times.
http://www.humanbenchmark.com/tests/reactiontime/stats.php
A really, really quick human reacts in 100ms. A normal human reacts in 200ms. You'll probably have seen more than ten frames at 60fps before you react to something in the first one. How does 30fps matter again?
Still doesn't understand 720p on 1080p TV...
SuperCobraJet
(Banned)
- 2,472
- Virginia USA
- SuperCobraJet1
Fact of life conclusion:
PS3, reguardless of model and PD's magic, is incapable of delivering buttery smooth consistent 1080p/60fps.
There are framerate issues with GT5, the GT6 demo, and inevitably they will be present in the GT6 game.
I think that brings us back to the "placeholder" status again.
PS3, reguardless of model and PD's magic, is incapable of delivering buttery smooth consistent 1080p/60fps.
There are framerate issues with GT5, the GT6 demo, and inevitably they will be present in the GT6 game.
I think that brings us back to the "placeholder" status again.
Last edited:
- 2,913
- UK
- phil_75
Imari
What the hell are you banging on about?
You are absolutely clueless!
You prioritise pretty pictures over how a game runs!
So 60fps doesn't make a big difference in how a game looks, feels and responds? http://frames-per-second.appspot.com/
What has human reaction time got to do with how a PS3 outputs frames?
And it doesn't make a difference in controller lag? Lmao! http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-lag-factor-article
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-vs-console-lag-round-two-article
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/digitalfoundry-tech-focus-battle-against-latency
Ok mate, back to school.
Oh and for homework have a read of this http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-gran-turismo-5-tech-analysis
A couple of exerpts:
There is an argument that Polyphony might have considered 720p with 2x MSAA for lowest resolution mode. Running at 60FPS tends to blend things naturally in the human eye any way, and this effect is amplified when everything is in motion, as in a driving game. It may also have increased performance and reduced tearing.
Aside from these ugly elements, the overall pristine look of the game is exemplary, and it's a clear visual leap beyond what was seen in Gran Turismo 4. This is Polyphony Digital's forte of course. Low resolution, 30FPS, clear clipping issues and a need to use one of the lower-quality framebuffer modes made the original GT look pretty abysmal up against the superb-looking Gran Turismo 3.
From Rage face off: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-rage-face-off
First up, let's address the most positive aspect of the 60Hz implementation: the feel of the game. Most console video games run at 30 frames per second, introducing an inherent level of latency which isn't ideal but to which we have become accustomed. A typical 30FPS game has lag of anything between 100ms at best (unless we're talking about*Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit) up to anything like 150ms. Factor in frame-rate drops and latency can creep even higher. On top of that, you need to add the additional delay incurred by your flatpanel monitor.We measured Rage's input lag at an extremely consistent 83ms on Xbox 360, making the game feel that much more responsive than much of the competition, with Killzone 3 at 116ms and Bulletstorm at 133ms, for example. Now, what is truly remarkable here is just how well Rage sustains that 60Hz update and thus that rock-solid controller response.
I have given loads of examples by experts and professionals why keeping 60fps is a far better bet than a drop in resolution.
You find me anywhere that someone says 30fps is a good idea in a driving game, go on, just one!
Uncharted 1,2 & 3, God of War 3, Killzone 2 & 3 arguably the best console graphics this gen.
Just remind me what resolution they are again?
So they look rubbish on your 1080p TV then yeah?
Last edited:
- 4,182
- Ottawa
Phil, thank you for those links.
I now have a better understanding of how 30fps and 60fps affect the perception we have of what is happening when we play.
Imari, I am not sure to follow your point on
I now have a better understanding of how 30fps and 60fps affect the perception we have of what is happening when we play.
Imari, I am not sure to follow your point on
even if the input of the controller is fast enough, any additional delay not being able to see the reaction on screen will change the perception of the game, if you are a normal 200ms human, it is going to be even worse. What am I missing?
frame rate absolutely and without any doubt does affect the overall feel of games. You can "get by" with a smooth and consistent 30fps (I got by with 10 or 12fps way back in the day in Red Baron and Falcon 3.0), but 60fps (particularly for games like driving and flight sims where movement is happening at very high speeds and requires very quick and responsive control) is far better. Dropping the resolution to 720p affects the general image quality a bit, but doesn't have nearly the impact on the game in general that dropping to 30fps does. I would take the res drop over the fps drop in an instant...
- 13,909
- Adelaide
- Neomone
That the difference between 30fps and 60fps seems large when it's 16ms vs 33ms, but is actually pretty small when it's 216ms vs 233ms, which is the actual time from you seeing a change on screen to taking whatever action.
It certainly affects the fluidity of perception, but it doesn't affect gameplay to anywhere near the extent you would think.
- 4,182
- Ottawa
Kaz has been a "60fps guy" right from day one. I well remember unlocking the 60fps mode in GT1 and being blown away by how smooth and responsive it felt in comparison to the regular 30fps mode. I loved it - even though it had the visual details turned way down to get the frame rate up there.
- 258
Okay I really feel I need to say this, because this is getting out of hand.
It's sad to see this site, for which I have so much respect, for which I have so much love, being degraded into a place where there's so little room for serious discussion, and being taken over by blating sheep and parrots trying to ride along with the succes of other's comments. It is truly a pathetic sight to behold, and I think many people on these forums should be ashamed about the way they treat other people. This is not the GTPlanet I remember anymore. I'm not talking about the whiners, they were always there, always will be. Same as I'm not talking about fanboys. I'm talking about the general way in which people react to each other, which tends to get closer to bullying than discussion in the last few months.
I always came here to read good discussions on a subject we all love, but that idea for this site is long gone, it seems. And that makes me extremely sad...
This is not the GTPlanet I know...
It's sad to see this site, for which I have so much respect, for which I have so much love, being degraded into a place where there's so little room for serious discussion, and being taken over by blating sheep and parrots trying to ride along with the succes of other's comments. It is truly a pathetic sight to behold, and I think many people on these forums should be ashamed about the way they treat other people. This is not the GTPlanet I remember anymore. I'm not talking about the whiners, they were always there, always will be. Same as I'm not talking about fanboys. I'm talking about the general way in which people react to each other, which tends to get closer to bullying than discussion in the last few months.
I always came here to read good discussions on a subject we all love, but that idea for this site is long gone, it seems. And that makes me extremely sad...
This is not the GTPlanet I know...
- 534
- Jakarta
- Chiyo_Cute
30fps is horrible for a racing game.
if GT5 was 30fps I wouldn't buy it at all.
I can't even stand looking at the replay which always in 30fps.
I even have my Media Player Classic installed with AviSynth script that doubles frame rate by interpolating the original video.
I enjoy looking at the fluid 60fps motion of any sort of movies.
But that's me, each person is different, some don't have the sensitivity or the perception to differentiate or enjoy the 60fps over 30fps than the other.
My friend even suffer motion sickness if he plays 3D game which runs at 60+ fps.. he prefers 30-40 fps to prevent dizziness.
if GT5 was 30fps I wouldn't buy it at all.
I can't even stand looking at the replay which always in 30fps.
I even have my Media Player Classic installed with AviSynth script that doubles frame rate by interpolating the original video.
I enjoy looking at the fluid 60fps motion of any sort of movies.
But that's me, each person is different, some don't have the sensitivity or the perception to differentiate or enjoy the 60fps over 30fps than the other.
My friend even suffer motion sickness if he plays 3D game which runs at 60+ fps.. he prefers 30-40 fps to prevent dizziness.
Look, we have one person in this discussion who is saying 60fps matters and is backing that up with a fair bit of evidence from a number of pretty well-informed sources that in fact it does matter. Then we have another person who says it doesn't matter. Fine. If you think it doesn't matter, I don't particularly care. But if you are going to tell me it shouldn't matter to me either, then you need to present some evidence of your own. Where are the sources that show that frame rate doesn't have a big impact on the way we relate to games.
Nobody is saying resolution doesn't matter. I love high resolutions. But the impact of a slightly lower res is far less jarring to me than the impact of 30fps instead of 60fps. For me, 60fps is sort of a "gold standard." If a game is running at a perfect 60fps (meaning it never drops below 60) that's a game that I can totally get lost in. 60fps feels like reality to me. 30fps always feels like a game. I can always sense that slightly lower responsiveness and it creates a much larger dissociation from the game for me than just dropping the res a level ever would.
Nobody is saying resolution doesn't matter. I love high resolutions. But the impact of a slightly lower res is far less jarring to me than the impact of 30fps instead of 60fps. For me, 60fps is sort of a "gold standard." If a game is running at a perfect 60fps (meaning it never drops below 60) that's a game that I can totally get lost in. 60fps feels like reality to me. 30fps always feels like a game. I can always sense that slightly lower responsiveness and it creates a much larger dissociation from the game for me than just dropping the res a level ever would.
- 13,909
- Adelaide
- Neomone
Because all those facts are used to come to a conclusion. A conclusion which is then an opinion.
You've used the facts come to the conclusion that frame rate is the be-all end-all when it comes to gameplay. That's great, for you.
For my setup, I'd prefer 1080p @ 30fps, and I've been trying to explain why. It has to do with the fact that running in 720p is a significant visual degradation for me, and that 30fps has a significant but non-gamebreaking effect on gameplay.
Maybe it's to do with the fact that PC sim racing has taught me to spend most of my time looking a long, long way up the road, and so I am impacted by lack of resolution and blurriness more than the average player. I dunno.
I don't think trying to explain why I prefer something different means that I have to cop a load of namecalling from you.
I'm not trying to argue that 60fps isn't better. It obviously is. I'm saying that it's not an absolute requirement for a decent gaming experience, and that there actually might be some ground there for some people preferring a 1080@30 experience over a 720@60 one if that's the choice that's given.
30fps may be an immersion breaker, but jaggy aliased graphics can be too. It just depends what you notice more.
Edit:
So not GT5 or the GTA demo then?
ftmp, GT5 is 60fps for me. I don't race online and really only race the AI to earn $. My primary mode of playing the game is picking a car and a track and doing laps. I rarely experience less than 60fps in GT5. The GTA demo? Its all over the place. I only use the cockpit view btw.
Note though that I didn't say I can't enjoy a game running at less than 60fps. I certainly can. I've been playing videogames since the late 70s and I've played games under all sorts of trying conditions - including ridiculously low resolutions like 320x240 (or lower even). I can enjoy games under all sorts of circumstances. But if I have a choice between visual splendor at 30fps or slightly less visual splendor at 60fps, I'll take the extra fps every time.
Note though that I didn't say I can't enjoy a game running at less than 60fps. I certainly can. I've been playing videogames since the late 70s and I've played games under all sorts of trying conditions - including ridiculously low resolutions like 320x240 (or lower even). I can enjoy games under all sorts of circumstances. But if I have a choice between visual splendor at 30fps or slightly less visual splendor at 60fps, I'll take the extra fps every time.
So if I agree with you then I magically have an understanding about what makes GT important?
PD are too stubborn to drop the framerate and they wouldn't let themselves live with 720p native.
Conclusion: None of us will get what we want.
Not everything is a matter of opinion. You're delving into the physical realm. You're saying your brain is wired differently than others, and therefore you experience reality differently than others.
Every forum I've every seen is like this, this is a reflection of our culture. We are an oppressed people who turns to the internet in order to work out that oppression on others.
what a character.
