GT7 vs GT6 architecture changes

[wowbaggerBR]

It's honorable the way he says it though and his reason behind not having those features. They're not doing it so that they can be able to keep the entire game at the same level, basically.

There is a certain japanese developer who would say something like "it is technically possible to do it...". Then he will giggle when you ask him if some particular feature will be in the next game: "i don't know. it's technically possible". Giggles again.

 

[NOSWaster]

That statement by Dan has a familiar aroma of Kaz.

 

[TheeFrogmanlego]

I can't find the more recent, straight-up answer by Dan about that, but performance issues is the basic reason why they haven't implemented it.

FM4
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-09-23-under-the-hood-of-forza-4-interview?page=2


FM5
http://forums.theonlineracingassociation.com/t10344p220-official-forza-motorsport-5-thread#225714

And then, this is what he said about it when talking about FM5. Like I said before, there was an article where he shortly explained why FM5 doesn't have those features, I just can't find it.


It's honorable the way he says it though and his reason behind not having those features. They're not doing it so that they can be able to keep the entire game at the same level, basically.

Sounds like they are to lazy to code dynamic lighting into the series..

 

[NOSWaster]

Oh oh! I love how it was basically said that if it can't be done at 60 fps, then it won't be done (from how I interpreted it). Do they not know that stable 30 isn't much worse than stable 60?

 

[iRevelationz]

Oh oh! I love how it was basically said that if it can't be done at 60 fps, then it won't be done (from how I interpreted it). Do they not know that stable 30 isn't much worse than stable 60?

I don't know how well this translates to racing games, but I can play BF3 on 360 (30 FPS) for a match or two, then switch to any Call of Duty (60 FPS) and instantly notice a HUGE difference.

I'm still convinced the lack of dynamic time/weather in Forza 5 is a time-related issue and not performance. If PD can do it with GT5 on PS3 with hardware almost a decade old, I see no reason why T10 couldn't do it on a console that's multifolds more powerful.

 

[Tenacious D]

It may be an unfamiliarity thing between the two teams. PD worked to get weather effects in GT4, and then reworked them for the more advanced PS3 and GT5. Turn 10 had basic damage in Forza 1 then built on that every game until they came up with a pretty darn good system for F4. And neither one has managed to get the other guy's cool trick up and running yet, even on The ONE.

 

[Imari]

They said on the reveal of the FM5 that the game won't have night races.

They didn't say it was because of performance issues though. Performance issues on the X360 was the reason stated FM4 didn't have them. For FM5/X1, for all we know they were just too busy modelling every last bolt/making weirdy Top Gear voiceovers/improving their lens flare.

There's a difference between not being able to do it because of performance issues and not doing it because you're doing something else.

 

[phil_75]

Xbone is not powerful enough simple.

From giving the impression "all games are running at 1080@60" it has now been revealed Killer Instinct has been dropped to 720p (laughable), Ryse has dropped to 900p, there is talk of halved framerates now and Forza has apparently been downgraded since E3 too (where it was running on targeted hardware PC)

There have also been multiple developers saying PS4 is quite a bit more powerful with them saying if a game runs at 1080@30 on PS4 it will likely be 900@20 on Xbone.

Just after that was said, Ryse was announced to be running at 900p.
Coincidence?

 

[wowbaggerBR]

Xbone is not powerful enough simple.

But if the PS3 is capable of doing 24 hours races with weather variations and day/night/day cycles, the X360 would be capable as well. If decade old systems could do it, then stands to reason believing that the Xbone could manage those features. After all, is way more powerful than PS3 and X360

IMO, Turn10 is not interested in making night races and weather alternation on Forza. At least, for now on.

for all we know they were just too busy modelling every last bolt/making weirdy Top Gear voiceovers/improving their lens flare.

I found the Clarkson's interventions on Autovista quite funny, and the ones made by the other guy very good too. It's a more developed system to introduce you to a specific car. In GT5, for instance, we have to read a long text - something that is too 1998, if you think about it - to know about the background and history of the car.

 

[Imari]

I found the Clarkson's interventions on Autovista quite funny, and the ones made by the other guy very good too. It's a more developed system to introduce you to a specific car. In GT5, for instance, we have to read a long text - something that is too 1998, if you think about it - to know about the background and history of the car.

I enjoyed them too, to be honest. I spent a couple of hours going through them all. I just made sure that I made those observations about FM negative lest I be accused of being a FM fanboy/apologist.

The truth is there's no reason why weather and night racing shouldn't be in FM5, other than they chose not to do it.

 

[ReverenceSatans]

Xbone is not powerful enough simple.

From giving the impression "all games are running at 1080@60" it has now been revealed Killer Instinct has been dropped to 720p (laughable), Ryse has dropped to 900p, there is talk of halved framerates now and Forza has apparently been downgraded since E3 too (where it was running on targeted hardware PC)

There have also been multiple developers saying PS4 is quite a bit more powerful with them saying if a game runs at 1080@30 on PS4 it will likely be 900@20 on Xbone.

Just after that was said, Ryse was announced to be running at 900p.
Coincidence?

What an absolute load of rubbish.

No where was there ever given an impression of everything being 1080p@60fps.

Ryse was never confirmed to be native 1080p and has always been known as a 30fps game.

The FM5 build shown at TGS was confirmed to be identical to Gamescom and PAX which had absolutely no issues. The "downgrade" was confirmed to be nothing more than a TV calibration problem.

And the "1080p@30fps vs 900p@20 fps" claim was admittedly missing any sort of optimisation for the XB1 i.e no use of the extra hardware it has which would greatly decrease it's performance.

 

[Zer0]

The truth is there's no reason why weather and night racing shouldn't be in FM5, other than they chose not to do it.

They would have no other option to choose. FM5 is basicly a scaled graphical version of FM4 with upgraded effects, even they repeat the same exact graphical shortcuts than in FM4 to maintain the framerate. We will see in FM6 but they would need to develop from fresh a new graphical real-time engine and scrap their actual FM1 like precalculated graphics to achieve the GT5-6 possibilities: dynamic lighting and real time shadows (that would imply rebuilding all the previous tracks) and the new processor hungry effects (weather effects, track reflections, volumetric smoke, working headlights, etc). And all that over the actual graphics, with no downgrades and with their self imposed standard of locked 1080p/60fps in a Forza short development time of two years. T10 are not known by their technological achievements, like PD, but known for being conservative and priorizing the graphics performance over the features. That jump would be an unexplored territory for them and will leave out of their secure environment.

What will be interesting is the technological jump from GT6 to GT7 given the massive hardware diferences and how advanced are their achievements in a weaker hardware.

 

[Imari]

FM5 is basicly a scaled graphical version of FM4 with upgraded effects, even they repeat the same exact graphical shortcuts than in FM4 to maintain the framerate.

Got a source or evidence for that? You know, apart from obvious things like using LOD models which is standard tech for every game in the last ten years.

 

[Zer0]

Got a source or evidence for that? You know, apart from obvious things like using LOD models which is standard tech for every game in the last ten years.

See the videos.

No realtime reflections in the AI cars (a simple environment map), no self shadows in the AI cars, blacked interiors in the AI cars (no real-time lighting), pre-backed lighting and shadows in the tracks, same trick in the hood view reflections as in FM4, etc.

 

[ShiftingGears]

That statement by Dan has a familiar aroma of Kaz.

I don't see any similarity between their interviews whatsoever besides the fact that they are speaking as the heads of their respective companies.

Greenawalt addresses the fans concerns and perceived shortcomings of the Forza series directly and articulately, and explains the reasons for the decisions made.

You will never hear Kaz be that articulate or forthright about GT's shortcomings, ever.

I'm still convinced the lack of dynamic time/weather in Forza 5 is a time-related issue and not performance. If PD can do it with GT5 on PS3 with hardware almost a decade old, I see no reason why T10 couldn't do it on a console that's multifolds more powerful.

I think this is the most logical conclusion...

Now, that's totally possible on the Xbox 360, but it means the specialists we have in graphics would need to work on that problem, and it would be a hard problem.

...Especially when he says that it is possible to do for the XBox. Much of what was quoted earlier was more about compromises that have to be made by T10 considering the finite amount of resources and time. Not the hardware.

 

[NOSWaster]

I don't know how well this translates to racing games, but I can play BF3 on 360 (30 FPS) for a match or two, then switch to any Call of Duty (60 FPS) and instantly notice a HUGE difference.

I'm still convinced the lack of dynamic time/weather in Forza 5 is a time-related issue and not performance. If PD can do it with GT5 on PS3 with hardware almost a decade old, I see no reason why T10 couldn't do it on a console that's multifolds more powerful.

I don't notice much difference on my PC when I'm playing Planetside 2 at min and getting vsynced 60 FPS or playing at ultra and getting vsynced 30.

Actually I do notice a difference. The GPU's fan is screaming at me to keep my GPU below 70C...

Then again, isn't GT5's 1080p at 30 FPS? I swear it dropped to 25 or lower earlier. Night race on Sarthe. Grid of 13 people and I was at the back. I revved the car and actually saw skips and jumps in the dial.

GT5 can't do 1080p@30 on full grids, night races, and weather, at least not when you're viewing the other 15 cars in front. Good thing that was only for half a lap.

I don't see any similarity between their interviews whatsoever besides the fact that they are speaking as the heads of their respective companies.

The "Well, technically it is possible" part of it. That is what I was referring to. Nothing else.

 

[Scaff]

I don't notice much difference on my PC when I'm playing Planetside 2 at min and getting vsynced 60 FPS or playing at ultra and getting vsynced 30.

Actually I do notice a difference. The GPU's fan is screaming at me to keep my GPU below 70C...

Then again, isn't GT5's 1080p at 30 FPS? I swear it dropped to 25 or lower earlier. Night race on Sarthe. Grid of 13 people and I was at the back. I revved the car and actually saw skips and jumps in the dial.

GT5 can't do 1080p@30 on full grids, night races, and weather, at least not when you're viewing the other 15 cars in front. Good thing that was only for half a lap.

GT5 isn't true 1080p and it doesn't have a locked frame rate (it can hit 60fps, but it can also drop as low as 15-20 with a full grid, in the rain and 3D enabled).

However I can't agree with you that a locked 30 is much different to a locked 60, its a massive difference and more than visible to me. I would say however that a locked 30 would be better than an unlocked target of 60 for me, fluctuations in frame rate are far more distracting than a lower, locke rate.

 

[NOSWaster]

GT5 isn't true 1080p and it doesn't have a locked frame rate (it can hit 60fps, but it can also drop as low as 15-20 with a full grid, in the rain and 3D enabled).

However I can't agree with you that a locked 30 is much different to a locked 60, its a massive difference and more than visible to me. I would say however that a locked 30 would be better than an unlocked target of 60 for me, fluctuations in frame rate are far more distracting than a lower, locke rate.

Since I'm too lazy to make multiple quote blocks, I'll make an ordered list.

1) Well I knew that much. It's like 1280*1080 and stretched to 1920*1080 or something, right?

2) Not having a locked frame rate is a bit disconcerting. I would prefer it to be locked to 30 than have it fluctuate wildly between 30 and 60 in a race.

3) I haven't played many games locked at 30 vs 60 since I can't really find an effective way of locking my framerate to half my monitor's refresh rate on V-sync. So really all frame locked games I've played have been on adaptive Vsync, Planetside 2 having been able to force it down to 30 irritatingly.

So if you can recommend something I can find (preferably free) to help test at locked 60 v locked 30, I'd greatly appreciate it. And no, I'm not doubting you. Just wonderin'.

 

[Scaff]

Since I'm too lazy to make multiple quote blocks, I'll make an ordered list.

1) Well I knew that much. It's like 1280*1080 and stretched to 1920*1080 or something, right?

2) Not having a locked frame rate is a bit disconcerting. I would prefer it to be locked to 30 than have it fluctuate wildly between 30 and 60 in a race.

This may be of interest...

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-gran-turismo-5-tech-analysis

3) I haven't played many games locked at 30 vs 60 since I can't really find an effective way of locking my framerate to half my monitor's refresh rate on V-sync. So really all frame locked games I've played have been on adaptive Vsync, Planetside 2 having been able to force it down to 30 irritatingly.

So if you can recommend something I can find (preferably free) to help test at locked 60 v locked 30, I'd greatly appreciate it. And no, I'm not doubting you. Just wonderin'.

Not in a single game, I'm more basing it on switching from the likes of BF3 (30fps) to COD (60fps) and Shift (30fps) to FM4(60fps), in both cases the smoothness of the titles running 60fps is quite a change.

 

[NOSWaster]

Not in a single game, I'm more basing it on switching from the likes of BF3 (30fps) to COD (60fps) and Shift (30fps) to FM4(60fps), in both cases the smoothness of the titles running 60fps is quite a change.

Aha. From a graphical standpoint, definitely.
From a gameplay perspective, I would assume that the double in framerate allows us to see changes in visual cues more quickly or make some things less distracting. I don't know how to explain it. I have a headache and I should have been in bed a while ago, regardless.

 

[Griffith500]

It's funny all the qualifying words people are using in different threads for the-one-true-resolution that's meant to wear the moniker "1080p".

"Native" certainly isn't correct. That's referring to LCD matrix resolutions, where running lower than the native resolution of the screen incurs a blurring penalty, because we aren't meant to have control over the hardware we use. That's why "native" is so important. Still, I've seen 1280x1080 TVs advertised as supporting 1080i "natively", except that it's clearly processing the input to reduce the pixel count somehow.

Anyway, what everyone's trying to say is 1920x1080 p(rogressive output)

Which is what the PS3 sends to your TV, incidentally, regardless of whether it or the TV rescales it or not - which is why "native" is doubly inaccurate, since it would otherwise seem to vary from TV to TV to monitor etc. GT5 renders at 1280x1080x60/30p, but the hardware upscales that to (or the framebuffer is already at) 1920x1080x60/30p for transport over HDMI and interpretation at the other end.

 

[Zer0]

You will never hear Kaz be that articulate or forthright about GT's shortcomings, ever.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Gran...y-About-60-fps-Frame-Rate-Issues-161939.shtml

 

[Imari]

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Gran...y-About-60-fps-Frame-Rate-Issues-161939.shtml

Might briefly drop from 60fps? When the truth is, it's rarely at 60fps in normal conditions, it's hovering around the mid-50s. See the Digital Foundry analyses.

 

[Zer0]

Might briefly drop from 60fps? When the truth is, it's rarely at 60fps in normal conditions, it's hovering around the mid-50s. See the Digital Foundry analyses.

 

[ch3ng]

Sounds like they are to lazy to code dynamic lighting into the series..

Sounds like Forza 5 is a launch game on a new console with not enough development time.

The truth is there's no reason why weather and night racing shouldn't be in FM5, other than they chose not to do it.

Time.

Xbone is not powerful enough simple.

From giving the impression "all games are running at 1080@60" it has now been revealed Killer Instinct has been dropped to 720p (laughable), Ryse has dropped to 900p, there is talk of halved framerates now and Forza has apparently been downgraded since E3 too (where it was running on targeted hardware PC)

1. Forza TGS Demo was the same as the Gamescom Demo
2. There are no downgrades
3. The game always run on Xbox One hardware

Anyway. PD should do a new engine to take full advantage of the PS4 hardware. Sometimes it is better to do something from scratch.

 

[Samus]

Yes but Kaz was talking pre-release, when the issues were much, much worse. So it doesn't really stack up with your suggestion he was "articulate or forthright about GT's shortcomings" when he was indeed being very coy with the truth, which is on release the framerate was a mess.

 

[Griffith500]

Yes but Kaz was talking pre-release, when the issues were much, much worse. So it doesn't really stack up with your suggestion he was "articulate or forthright about GT's shortcomings" when he was indeed being very coy with the truth, which is on release the framerate was a mess.

The slowdown due to full-screen and particle effects, like the water spray etc., will likely remain. The majority of instances of slowdown in GT5 were due to exceeding the polygon budget thanks to the static-threshold, discrete LoD switching (too many cars too close to you? Ouch). That's why London had its polygon count reduced in certain situations via an update.
With the tessellation, that will have disappeared because, in theory, you can tailor the global budget per-frame (V-sync status should tell you you're running late and need to scale back, for instance - more robust and proportionally responsive metrics would be preferred, though).

Given the usual kind of communication we get, that was indeed Kaz being forthcoming. There's also that technical discussion (talking about the PS2's buffer fill rate among other things) that also went into some other shortcomings. I seem to remember Kaz saying he wished the shadows were better as well. That was after release, of course, but the comments about the rain before release were aimed at players; i.e. about the game they would take home with them.

We could see all these issues in the "Release Candidate" demos that surfaced around October 2010, although maybe not on YouTube videos of them, and they were commented on at the time - that's the media's job, not hype, not spreading bigotry: reporting the facts.

 

[Imari]

There's a difference between GT5 2.13 or whatever we're up to now, and GT5 1.01 which was when Kaz made that comment.



Ignoring the stuff on SSR7, Toscana and Chamonix because they're legitimately graphically taxing, the game still struggled on London and Nurburgring with less than a full field. Start at about 2:20, through to about 4:20.

When he made the comment, the frame rate in game was almost never actually 60fps. Over the course of several patches they optimised, fine-tuned and chopped stuff out of the scenery. Good on them for doing so, because the game sure needed it.

His comment has since become reasonable, but at the time it was said it was the height of understatement.

 

[Zer0]

There's a difference between GT5 2.13 or whatever we're up to now, and GT5 1.01 which was when Kaz made that comment.

You were talking in present and I have replied you in present.

Anyway I don't see the point to use the outdated benchmarks to talk and make points about the actual game. That is misleading to people new to the series or that not know certain things.

 

[Samus]

You were talking in present and I have replied you in present.

Anyway I don't see the point to use the outdated benchmarks to talk and make points about the actual game. That is misleading to people new to the series or that not know certain things.

The discussion was about a comment made in the past. You can't use something from the present to prove a point about something said in the past when that past was different.