GT6 visuals

[Griffith500]

So you're saying PD needed more time?

Referencing an etymological dictionary, it seems that "efficiency" just stems from "accomplishment", itself from "completion", which is entertainingly devoid of qualifiers.
The term "complete" is at once both applicable and inapplicable to any game.

 

[JohnBM01]

It is not in my best interests to say this as a Gran Turismo fan and as a Gran Turismo blogger, but Forza Motorsport 4 has much lovelier graphics than GT5. That even considers the amount of detail put into the detail put into the cars and even the tracks. I'm not saying GT5 is ugly, but FM4 is a benchmark for lovely graphics. On the other hand, GT5 does have weather effects in addition to the game's graphical and processing power. I am certain GT6 will look mind-blowing no matter what.

 

[Tom3593]

I expect GT6 to look fantastic visually. Hopefully it will release on the PS4, rather than the PS3, which is a machine on it's last legs. GT5 doesn't even look that good IMO! It looks worse than GT5P.

Now while I expect the cars to be beautifully detailed, one thing that really irks me is how bland and terrible the tracks look in GT5. They lack so much detail it isn't even funny. When I played Forza 4, what impressed me is the draw distance of the track, and how detailed every track was! GT5 on the other hand looks so plain, and so awful.

I truly hope with a more powerful machine, PD can give us detailed tracks.

Maybe you have a rubbish tv and basic cheap HDMI cable its looks pritty amazing on my tv buddy, i do think it should be improved for GT6 though

 

[TokoTurismo]

I expect GT6's tracks to look *Project CARS* beautiful. 👍

 

[Scaff]

Maybe you have a rubbish tv and basic cheap HDMI cable its looks pritty amazing on my tv buddy, i do think it should be improved for GT6 though

I think its commonly accepted that the standard cars and standard tracks in GT5 do not look as good as the premium ones. As such launching into an attack on someone is not really needed simply because you disagree with them.

I happen to agree that the standards (cars and tracks) don't look as good as they should (in comparison to the best of GT5), my grands worth of Sony TV and HDMI cable (which has no bearing on quality - its a digital signal - it either works or it doesn't) don't factor into that at all.

 

[Griffith500]

I think its commonly accepted that the standard cars and standard tracks in GT5 do not look as good as the premium ones. As such launching into an attack on someone is not really needed simply because you disagree with them.

I happen to agree that the standards (cars and tracks) don't look as good as they should (in comparison to the best of GT5), my grands worth of Sony TV and HDMI cable (which has no bearing on quality - its a digital signal - it either works or it doesn't) don't factor into that at all.

Whilst you're technically right, I don't quite agree that an HDMI cable always "either works or it doesn't". You can get an intermediate state, just as there was before with any other cable / interface scheme. In this case, it's individual pixels that drop out, rather than the full screen, giving a snow / sparkle effect (but the audio always drops completely if bits are missing, possibly because it's so offensive to introduce digital "noise" at full volume...)

This quality degradation is a bit more visually apparent with the HDMI standard than with previous consumer video standards, and if you're getting a full picture and full sound (no dropouts), chances are your cable is fine. You are supposedly far more likely to get a full failure (no signal at all) than this partial degradation, though; additionally, you probably should regard such degradation as a failure, too, even though it "sort of works".
It's important to consider that these dropouts are controlled by the receiver hardware and firmware / software, not the cable itself - i.e. if the signal degrades substantially in the cable, the receiver chip turns its outputs off or picks a default value instead.

That said, as long as the signal is getting through in its entirety (according to the "quality" and compatibility of the entire transmission chain), because it's digital, in theory it will be the same no matter which cable you use. Which I'm guessing is what you meant.

 

[Scaff]

Whilst you're technically right, I don't quite agree that an HDMI cable always "either works or it doesn't". You can get an intermediate state, just as there was before with any other cable / interface scheme. In this case, it's individual pixels that drop out, rather than the full screen, giving a snow / sparkle effect (but the audio always drops completely if bits are missing, possibly because it's so offensive to introduce digital "noise" at full volume...)

This quality degradation is a bit more visually apparent with the HDMI standard than with previous consumer video standards, and if you're getting a full picture and full sound (no dropouts), chances are your cable is fine. You are supposedly far more likely to get a full failure (no signal at all) than this partial degradation, though; additionally, you probably should regard such degradation as a failure, too, even though it "sort of works".
It's important to consider that these dropouts are controlled by the receiver hardware and firmware / software, not the cable itself - i.e. if the signal degrades substantially in the cable, the receiver chip turns its outputs off or picks a default value instead.

That said, as long as the signal is getting through in its entirety (according to the "quality" and compatibility of the entire transmission chain), because it's digital, in theory it will be the same no matter which cable you use. Which I'm guessing is what you meant.

Even then the chances of getting a single pixel drop-out is almost zero....

http://www.expertreviews.co.uk/home...-cables-make-no-difference-the-absolute-proof


....my own experience of a wide range of cables has shown zero benefit in using a more expensive cable and not a single pixel drop out from a cheaper cable (and if anyone can prove an expensive HDMI cable does offer a better signal they can claim a cool $1M - http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/90-swift-september-28-2007.html).

However the main point I was making is that it doesn't matter how much you spend on a HDMI cable, its not got to make GT5 look any different at all.

 

[Griffith500]

True, but none of that is because of some magic infallibility of "digital" waveforms alone. It's a combination of the relative robustness of digital, plus all the redundancy inherent in the HDMI standard and the intelligently thought-out failure states in the interfacing steps. All of that means that degradation is usually avoided, or rather the normal "degraded state" is a total loss of video (which is pretty impossible to ignore). That failure state would be annoying if it happened all the time, but it's pretty damned easy to test for at home, and weed out at the factory.

Then there's the issue of error handling; the "types" of errors one HDMI cable produces might be easily sorted using one correction algorithm / system, but not by another, and vice versa. That's assuming the errors propagated are not just random and are actually due to some structural / electrical trait / fault in the cable and connectors. But since errors are so rare in production items, and (because they're?) easily tested for, I guess it's generally not going to make a difference in practice. Which, given the quantity of data these things transmit, is an amazing achievement, frankly.

You're right that, in theory, as long as the data is being received, there should be no difference ("quality" or otherwise) between two working HDMI cables at all.
You do have to wonder, though, how two different PS3s can result in different colour casts on otherwise identical hardware, as commented in the article you linked to. I wonder, mostly, whether it's true.

I've had no problems with my el cheapo HDMI cables, nor any others I've seen, either. One thing that is important for durability and compatibility with receivers, and sometimes highly suspect on the very cheapest items, is the quality of the connectors, but that's still easily had for little enough money.

But yes, sorry, the "you need a better HDMI lead" is not a valid point, in practice, at all. 👍
I'm also very wordy today.

 

[avens]

Did you see the picture I posted ,the grass is amazing, as to were it looked like vomit in the first pic you showed , and the trees got color changed , before they were this neon green crap but now there a sage green colors , it got a texture face lift around the fifth patch the game got . I thought PD would to the same to grand valley but nope -.- 👎

Most GT5 tracks are or have content from GT4. They are dated by 8 years.

A great example is twin ring motegi: DLC that was a straight copypasta without the slightest improvement, even less so a rework. Another one is laguna seca, not because of the awful visuals (which are) but mainly because the circuit layout is incorrect.

When PD releases new content it is fantastic for a console game. Problem is that's 25-33% of GT5's content and that took them 8 years and counting lol.

 

[Zer0]

Most GT5 tracks are or have content from GT4. They are dated by 8 years.

A great example is twin ring motegi: DLC that was a straight copypasta without the slightest improvement, even less so a rework. Another one is laguna seca, not because of the awful visuals (which are) but mainly because the circuit layout is incorrect.

Seriously...






And what is wrong with the Laguna Seca layout??

 

[Scaff]

Can we get this back on topic - its GT6 visuals, not GT5.

 

[Foxiol]

I expect GT6's tracks to look *Project CARS* beautiful. 👍

I own pCARS and yes tracks looks good but sometimes they feel/look over-saturated because of the bad use of the colour palette and textures.

I prefer how tracks are made in GT5 (the real ones like Nürburgring, SPA, Suzuka; and mostly how good and realistic SSRX looks with the textures and lighting -despite the current hardware issues-)

They just need to remake the old ones not just copy/paste them with the old assets (buildings, textures and trees) which is the thing that makes them look awful.

PD knows how to make tracks even by not having the best technology to map them as iRacing´s "Laser Scan" method.
I prefer to see a mix between GT5´s best tracks and iRacing´s than pCARS ones. (which still looks good but look at the textures and trees)

Also there is one game that is doing a great job which is Assetto Corsa. Wait to see those tracks...they are using an excellent colour palette and great lighting. (they said that they looked at GT5 to make the graphics good looking)

I made a little article for a rFactor spanish forum (in which I am a VIP ) comparing some photos from Assetto Corsa with GT5.

Here: http://www.rfactornews.com/content.php/3270-Fotos-comparativas-GT5-VS-Assetto-Corsa-(by-Foxiol)

 

[TokoTurismo]

I own pCARS and yes tracks looks good but sometimes they feel/look over-saturated because of the bad use of the colour palette and textures.

I prefer how tracks are made in GT5 (the real ones like Nürburgring, SPA, Suzuka; and mostly how good and realistic SSRX looks with the textures and lighting -despite the current hardware issues-)

They just need to remake the old ones not just copy/paste them with the old assets (buildings, textures and trees) which is the thing that makes them look awful.

PD knows how to make tracks even by not having the best technology to map them as iRacing´s "Laser Scan" method.
I prefer to see a mix between GT5´s best tracks and iRacing´s than pCARS ones. (which still looks good but look at the textures and trees)

Also there is one game that is doing a great job which is Assetto Corsa. Wait to see those tracks...they are using an excellent colour palette and great lighting. (they said that they looked at GT5 to make the graphics good looking)

I made a little article for a rFactor spanish forum (in which I am a VIP ) comparing some photos from Assetto Corsa with GT5.

Here: http://www.rfactornews.com/content.php/3270-Fotos-comparativas-GT5-VS-Assetto-Corsa-(by-Foxiol)

Ohh, guess nevermind about pCARS's own than. Than again, I do agree with you about GT5 and iRacing tracks. I truly love GT5's colour palette for the Nurburgring a lot.

Also, pretty cool to hear that Assetto Corsa looked at GT5 to make their graphics great, they look excellent. Great comparison too btw. 👍

 

[Zuku]

As long as PD fixes the areas that went wrong with GT6 visuals will be fine such as

-Shadows
-Graphical issues on certain tracks where top of trees had pixel problems(at least that's what I remember).
-Rear View mirrors(these were some of the worse I've seen in all seriousness

Still just to add no matter how great the visuals the rest of the game ain't there it's not better than GT5 just sayin.

 

[Foxiol]

Ohh, guess nevermind about pCARS's own than. Than again, I do agree with you about GT5 and iRacing tracks. I truly love GT5's colour palette for the Nurburgring a lot.

Also, pretty cool to hear that Assetto Corsa looked at GT5 to make their graphics great, they look excellent. Great comparison too btw. 👍

Thank you very much.

And yes lots of developers always take a look at what PD does in that department at least.

We have an excellent and good looking game despite the hardware issues. GT6 is going to look superb. 👍

 

[TokoTurismo]

Thank you very much.

And yes lots of developers always take a look at what PD does in that department at least.

We have an excellent and good looking game despite the hardware issues. GT6 is going to look superb. 👍

Haha, you're welcome bud. I agree with you, GT6 is gonna look ultimate. :tup:

 

[gtone339]

This is what we need for GT6:

 

[kekke2000]

This is what we need for GT6:

I think the cars from GT5 Premium is enough. The only visual improvements about the cars would be the cliche damage model. Seeing the damage model for GT5 reminds me alot of Need For Speed High Stakes. There is one model of a mint condition car and one of a smashed up car. Depending on where the car takes damage that part slowly turns into the smashed up model. Making every wreck pretty much identical. I would love to see Grand Theft Auto style damage models for GT, that goes for roll over physics aswell.

As for the main post in this thread. The tracks are really dull in GT as it is now. There are barely any shadows and the detail level is very low in many cases. Sorry for mentioning Forza but I did some laps around Suzuka in both games and GT lacks a sense of life and reality when it comes to track details.

 

[Griffith500]

I think the cars from GT5 Premium is enough. The only visual improvements about the cars would be the cliche damage model. Seeing the damage model for GT5 reminds me alot of Need For Speed High Stakes. There is one model of a mint condition car and one of a smashed up car. Depending on where the car takes damage that part slowly turns into the smashed up model. Making every wreck pretty much identical. I would love to see Grand Theft Auto style damage models for GT, that goes for roll over physics aswell.

As for the main post in this thread. The tracks are really dull in GT as it is now. There are barely any shadows and the detail level is very low in many cases. Sorry for mentioning Forza but I did some laps around Suzuka in both games and GT lacks a sense of life and reality when it comes to track details.

Eh, you're wrong about how the damage model works. It's procedural, but they've not allowed "enough" CPU power to make it work quite right. In that sense, it's exactly like GTAIV's approach in style, except GTAIV uses more constraints and probably allocates more processing power to the calculations required as a result. But the vanilla damage model in GTAIV isn't all it could be, and it takes tweaks / mods to make the most of it. GT5 is probably the same - this is PD's first stab at it on a production basis.

Anyway, there's always a reason two games look different: different compromises.

 

[TokoTurismo]

Eh, you're wrong about how the damage model works. It's procedural, but they've not allowed "enough" CPU power to make it work quite right. In that sense, it's exactly like GTAIV's approach in style, except GTAIV uses more constraints and probably allocates more processing power to the calculations required as a result. But the vanilla damage model in GTAIV isn't all it could be, and it takes tweaks / mods to make the most of it. GT5 is probably the same - this is PD's first stab at it on a production basis.

Anyway, there's always a reason two games look different: different compromises.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who knows this..

 

[Exorcet]

I think the cars from GT5 Premium is enough. The only visual improvements about the cars would be the cliche damage model. Seeing the damage model for GT5 reminds me alot of Need For Speed High Stakes. There is one model of a mint condition car and one of a smashed up car. Depending on where the car takes damage that part slowly turns into the smashed up model. Making every wreck pretty much identical. I would love to see Grand Theft Auto style damage models for GT, that goes for roll over physics aswell.

That's not how it works. If there were only two models and they swapped, you wouldn't have incremental damage or location specific damage.

GT5's damage is real time deformation, it's just not extremely accurate.

 

[Scaff]

The next member to drag this thread off-topic and attempt to turn it into a GT vs FM debate will be getting a temporary ban from GT Planet.

 

[Zer0]

Scaff, how I'm supposed to reply to this:

GT lacks a sense of life and reality when it comes to track details.

When the kekke2000 original post is still alive comparing the two games and FM4 is put as an example to construct that sentence? I don't see fair that when the comparisson it's favourable to FM4 nothing happens and when someone reply to that to favour GT5, warnings come and the posts get deleted, even being directly related to the GT6 graphics. I would have not replied to him if the moderation would have not allowed that comparisson in the first instance.

 

[Tornado]

Still alive, like the posts you've refused to answer in certain other threads; instead claiming moderation bias much like now?




kekke2000 said that he hopes GT6 tracks have more life and color to them, and used Forza 4 as an example of what he is interested in. That's not turning it into a Forza vs. GT5 debate.

Your post was basically nothing more than a video comparing Forza 4 and GT5 and saying Forza was worse because GT5's details were more realistic (plus a link to 4 year old thread that did the same) with a sentenced tacked on about how GT6 shouldn't do what Forza does; and that you wish people focused less on GT4 ported tracks when comparing the two games. That's pretty much nothing but turning it into a Forza vs. GT5 debate.

 

[Scaff]

Scaff, how I'm supposed to reply to this:


When the kekke2000 original post is still alive comparing the two games and FM4 is put as an example to construct that sentence? I don't see fair that when the comparisson it's favourable to FM4 nothing happens and when someone reply to that to favour GT5, warnings come and the posts get deleted, even being directly related to the GT6 graphics. I would have not replied to him if the moderation would have not allowed that comparisson in the first instance.

And how do you know exactly what moderation action has been taken in regard to other members?

Simple answer is that you don't and a request to get this thread back on topic had already been made, a request you ignored, do not then complain that action was taken for ignoring a member of staff.

Its quite simple this is not a FM vs GT thread and ANY member trying to turn it into one from this point on is getting a holiday.

Now either get back on topic or stop posting in the thread.

 

[Zer0]

I would like to join the topic discussion but I'm still don't know how to proceed to reply something here without being warned. My complain is about what is allowed and not by the moderation in this thread, I mean not deleted and discussed until the public warnings appear.

This is the topic:

I expect GT6 to look fantastic visually. Hopefully it will release on the PS4, rather than the PS3, which is a machine on it's last legs. GT5 doesn't even look that good IMO! It looks worse than GT5P.

Now while I expect the cars to be beautifully detailed, one thing that really irks me is how bland and terrible the tracks look in GT5. They lack so much detail it isn't even funny. When I played Forza 4, what impressed me is the draw distance of the track, and how detailed every track was! GT5 on the other hand looks so plain, and so awful.

I truly hope with a more powerful machine, PD can give us detailed tracks.

First warning:

Can we get this back on topic - its GT6 visuals, not GT5.

Second warning:

The next member to drag this thread off-topic and attempt to turn it into a GT vs FM debate will be getting a temporary ban from GT Planet.

 

[kekke2000]

I would like to join the topic discussion but I'm still don't know how to proceed to reply something here without being warned. My complain is about what is allowed and not by the moderation in this thread, I mean not deleted and discussed until the public warnings appear.

This is the topic:


First warning:


Second warning:

Scaff, how I'm supposed to reply to this:

Good point. I think mentioning FM is not turning it into a debate. I can help you reply to my earlier post by making a new and unrelated statement:

I did some laps around Suzuka in another racing game and GT lacks a sense of life and reality when it comes to track details.

 

[05XR8]

I did some laps around Suzuka in another racing game and GT lacks a sense of life and reality when it comes to track details.[/QUOTE]

Simple. GT would do well to add more sense of life and depth in their environments. More flag waving in the stands, emergency vehicles moving around in the background. Racing on the 24hour Nur has much more life than the North Loop. In GT4 spectators running back when the rally cars approach turns was awesome. It has been mentioned hundreds of times, as Kaz said, more time was needed. I am not the first nor the last to mention these details may be addressed in GT6.

 

[Scaff]

I would like to join the topic discussion but I'm still don't know how to proceed to reply something here without being warned. My complain is about what is allowed and not by the moderation in this thread, I mean not deleted and discussed until the public warnings appear.

This is the topic:


First warning:


Second warning:

So you can't keep it on topic and seem to want to drag it off topic, and for the record the first warning was back in Jan....

If the two of you wish to try and drag this off topic then please continue. However be aware that will result in you receiving a two day temp ban.

This is NOT a FM vs GT discussion thread (we have one of those already) so keep it on topic or take a holiday.

Your choice.

....however you want some clarification, so here it is.

• Don't post about just GT5 visuals (which is what the second warning was about)
• Don't post GT vs FM flamebait (which is what the first and third warnings were about)
• You can mention GT5 visuals if they are in relivence to GT6)
• YOu can mention Forza (if its in relievence to GT6 and not a FM4 vs GT5 flamebait)
• If your not sure then don't post - ask a member of staff)

Now get back on topic, and that means the topic of the thread, not the moderation of the thread (that you can take to a PM), anyone failing to do so will get a two day ban and the thread will be locked.

 

[Crispy9001]

Hopefully GT6 has a pit area that looks like this

Wow, that's beautiful and awesome. At the same time.