- 3,384
- Las Vegas
- dawko-san
Till there's no premium NSX 90' I'll have to glad with a standard one.
Quality over Quantity (GT7)
- Thread starter Bloodmasters
- 330 comments
- 18,014 views
- 326
- Antarctica
Actually there's a premium '91 NSX, have you checked the Acura dealer?
- 3,384
- Las Vegas
- dawko-san
- 232
- Rio de Janeiro
- BloodyCharity
You really didnt noticed that before? lol!
Enjoy it,is premium and one of the bests in my opinion.
- 232
- Rio de Janeiro
- BloodyCharity
Didn't Gran Turismo series appear in Guiness world records as the racing game with a huge number of cars and oldest car in a racing game?
I Guess that's why PD had to import PS2 cars in GT5 and GT6.
I know It can sound a bit rude with people who like standard cars,but lets face the true,unfortunatelly these PS2 standard cars in GT6 are treated like a joke,no one takes them seriously and they are not wrong to think like this. The most controversial is the Supra RZ,being one of favourites of fans and being one of the worsts,too. It's literally a joke. My favourite car is a standard,but I still can't enjoy it like I do with other premiums. In the end,standards are just a joke. Some of the most significant ones need to be reworked to premium,and the rest need to die once for all. Why is a joke? Because they can't fit in a 2010+ game. They are amazing for 2006,but terrible for 2015. I know there are very good cars as standards,I really love the GroupB rally cars. But is just inevitable to ignore them,because we can't really enjoy them like we do with premiums,don't matter what.
(Sorry for the double post)
Last edited:
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
When you purchase both cars and look at their specs in the garage, the standard Honda '90 has:
8 more hp
6 more ft-lbs of torque
6 more PP
15 less kg's
than the premium Acura '91.
I haven't discovered their maximum specs yet. Curious to know which car ends up being the most powerful/lightest.
- 10,207
- South
- HarskGaming96
The Acura NSX '91 which we have has 274 PS (270 HP) and 288 NM and 1365 kg;
The Honda NSX '90 which we have has 280 PS (276 HP), 294 NM and 1350 kg.
Both them are powered by 3.0 V6 engines.
- 3,417
- NJ
- Rave2Grave
Stock, post-purchase garage specs, no oil change yet:
Acura '91
266 hp / 7,000 rpm
210 ft-lb / 5,500 rpm
1,365 kg
433 PP
Honda '90
274 hp / 7,000 rpm
216 ft-lb / 5,500 rpm
1,350 kg
439 PP
Fully modified + oil change:
Acura '91
451 hp / 8,000 rpm
311 ft-lb / 6,500 rpm
1,117 kg
544 PP
Honda '90
433 hp / 8,000 rpm
300 ft-lb / 6,500 rpm
1,110 kg
518 PP
The Honda has the advantage when stock, but the Acura wins when fully modified. Hope this clears up the confusion.
Acura '91
266 hp / 7,000 rpm
210 ft-lb / 5,500 rpm
1,365 kg
433 PP
Honda '90
274 hp / 7,000 rpm
216 ft-lb / 5,500 rpm
1,350 kg
439 PP
Fully modified + oil change:
Acura '91
451 hp / 8,000 rpm
311 ft-lb / 6,500 rpm
1,117 kg
544 PP
Honda '90
433 hp / 8,000 rpm
300 ft-lb / 6,500 rpm
1,110 kg
518 PP
The Honda has the advantage when stock, but the Acura wins when fully modified. Hope this clears up the confusion.
Last edited:
- 15,532
- Cairo, Egypt
- GTP_SEMS
Having just got Driveclub with it's stunning visuals I really won't be happy if we get standard cars. Having a constantly beautiful game makes it so much more appealing.
- 28,470
- Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Johnnypenso
Here's some additional perspective to further that point. The most popular racing/driving games on console over the next year or two are likely to be:
Forza 5
Forza 6
Horizon 2
Horizon 3
Drive Club
Project Cars
All high quality, high detail, uber premium cars and tracks. Everything rich and lush and most importantly, all the same quality. Nothing sticks out as sub-par or out of place. You put hundreds of hours into these games, and everything you see, all the tracks and all the cars are all super high quality.
December 2016 (3 years between games) GT7 releases and maybe, just maybe, has standard cars and tracks. Maybe, just maybe, hundreds of cars without interiors. Maybe, just maybe hundreds of cars with painted on body panel separations and no damage beyond superficial.
Anything short of all standards being super premiums on the outside and with some sort of realistic interior will make GT a second class citizen in terms of overall quality. Tracks without fully updated environments will look even more out of place than they do now. GT will have gone in one generation, from the industry leader in overall graphics to last place. That will be an incredibly sad day if it happens.
- 15,532
- Cairo, Egypt
- GTP_SEMS
You nailed it, heck look at what other developers are doing this gen, a lot have opted to go 30 FPS to have more eye candy, they're doing the absolute maximum to make games look visually as impressive as they can, mind boggling what PD are thinking.
- 8,705
Let's not be silly here. We shouldn't be compromising response by killing the frame rate. Remember how much worse the dropped frames were in the GT6 demo than the ugly tearing in the full games either side of it?
These 30 Hz games will be awful with head mounted displays, something we all suspect PD will get involved with, for better or for worse. I play console games on a PC monitor, and it is amusing (in the worst possible way) how much the controls feel out of sync in many games due to developers targeting TVs and their hideous input lag. That'll hurt on an HMD, too.
The "lock picking" in AC Unity is an immediate and infuriating example - it's just an anticipated, rhythmic reaction "game", but the timing is miles off on a low latency display such that it's hard not to press X to be awesome far too early. That game feels sluggish overall, incidentally, contributing to much of the control woes (although that's mostly because everything is dominated by the rigid timings of the animation system, and poor visual feedback and general handling of cued "commands").
So there are other things far more important than visual consistency, never mind peak visual quality. Thankfully, PD usually get those core mechanical considerations right (FFB filter latency notwithstanding).
Visual consistency and impressiveness are obviously desirable, just not at the expense of the immediacy of that primal sensory feedback loop.
- 15,532
- Cairo, Egypt
- GTP_SEMS
@Griffith500 Not what I meant, meant it as that developers this gen have been doing everything they can to increase visual fidelity, sim racers need 60 FPS for me (even without VR) and seeing as they were aiming for it last gen, this gen we should be getting atleast a smooth 60 with little drops.
However last gen assets will look very out of place (they were already on the PS3) on the PS4, visual consistency is key here, so to finalize I really can't see anyway PD can get away with using standard tracks let alone cars.
However last gen assets will look very out of place (they were already on the PS3) on the PS4, visual consistency is key here, so to finalize I really can't see anyway PD can get away with using standard tracks let alone cars.
- 13,861
- Adelaide
- Neomone
That's a good point, actually. Standard cars would stick out, but standard tracks would be incredibly bad looking. Track graphics take up a lot more screen area than cars do.
- 8,705
Yes, the visual disparity will only increase on PS4 with Standards as they are. However, we'll need to wait and see what PD actually do with the Standards. If they can reduce the differences, that will be welcome, regardless of what everyone else is doing.
The tracks ought to have been made to PS4 quality already, and effectively "downgraded" for use on PS3, texture and scenery wise particularly. Those tracks which did not debut on PS3 may receive yet more work also (no track was untouched).
Again, more info needed.
- 1,492
- Germany
- KiroKai
- KiroKai
Have you played on any city tracks? Besides adding some bloom on SSR5 and rendering them in a tweaked graphics engine there's literally nothing done to them since GT5. There's so many 2D low res textures in places where objects should be, and this is an issue of most old tracks, but especially apparent on the city courses.
- 8,705
GT5 is a PS3 game. Standards originate from PS2 games. Surely the issue is with content "carried over", and not the new-to-series-on-PS3 locations?
Textures and scenery are the two areas I specifically addressed. Swapping a cardboard cutout for something with a few more polygons is trivial once that object has been made.
- 1,492
- Germany
- KiroKai
- KiroKai
But especially early content made for the PS3 is outdated for the new generation. Tracks like London and Eiger Nordwand have been made around 2006, so while they were impressive for their time, it takes more than upscaled textures to make them competitive.
Combined with the partly upgraded PS2 locations, it gives many tracks an outdated feel. PD's recent photo travel modelling standards didn't seem next gen ready to me either (especially Ronda), so I see few content that is ready for PS4 as much as Sierra is. I expect either another GT with massive quality differences, or one that's released with much less content (especially tracks, again) which isn't necessarily bad. Who knows how many new tracks they will actually finish by release.
Combined with the partly upgraded PS2 locations, it gives many tracks an outdated feel. PD's recent photo travel modelling standards didn't seem next gen ready to me either (especially Ronda), so I see few content that is ready for PS4 as much as Sierra is. I expect either another GT with massive quality differences, or one that's released with much less content (especially tracks, again) which isn't necessarily bad. Who knows how many new tracks they will actually finish by release.
Last edited:
- 50,829
- Australia
- SpacedustDaddy
Every time I watched a new Gran Turismo game intro, I wondered what it would be like in game. We have yet to play a Gran Turismo game just as the intro looks. Not even the replays are as high definition as the intros. Hopefully, GT7 will finally let us drive cars as we see them in the intro.
- 8,705
The track surface is usually stored separately from everything else (although it's all packed together). Extra track surface detail can be added without touching the scenery.
The geometric detail of the base scenery is not usually an issue, and upgraded textures will have a huge effect there: you can even displace a subdivided simple mesh using textures...
Extra, more detailed props can be added to the track with ease, see Laguna Seca.
Ronda is a large open course maker location, with a full pre made road network - that makes it distinct from Sierra, which is just a background like the old course maker.
The photo locations are new, and it's possible they were made to a higher quality and downgraded just the same as the other new locations - there must be a reason the old photo locations were excluded. Incidentally, it's the texture detail that is most lacking.
It all takes effort, still, but it can be progressive, much more so than with the cars (although the semi-Premiums paint a spectrum of progressive detailing as well).
- 50,829
- Australia
- SpacedustDaddy
If you look at the GT3 intro, the standard cars in GT6 almost look like the cars in that intro. So, that took about 10years to be able to play cars from GT in high quality. The current premiums look like cars from the GT4 intro. Try to look at GT5, GT5P, GT6 intros, after playing GT6. THe ingame cars dont look as crisp. It may have something to do with 60fps or how PD make their intros such hi-def. The intros we get are definitely not the same quality as ingame. Yet.
- 1,079
- Norway
The intro videos are rendered with raytracing, and even with computers many times more powerful than a PS3, they're probably not able to render it in real time. They can still use the same 3D models though, it's just that reflections, accuracy and shadowing will be extremely much more precise.
I've not really done this sort of thing before but I wouldn't be surprised if it took 2-10 times more time to render the movie, than the duration of the actual movie is, even if the system that did it was significantly stronger than a PS3.
I've not really done this sort of thing before but I wouldn't be surprised if it took 2-10 times more time to render the movie, than the duration of the actual movie is, even if the system that did it was significantly stronger than a PS3.
- 50,829
- Australia
- SpacedustDaddy
Don't we all know it!
Look at the first Metal Gear Solid! That game was the same pixel graphics from the cutscene to real time. I keep hoping it would have been that way for Gran Turismo. I saw the demo for GT1 before I saw that intro, so I was prepared. GT3 & GT4 cars had good quality. Although, GT3 cars are much closer to the GT3 intro, than GT4 cars to the GT4 intro.
GT5P graphics were as close as the intro, but I think it's the frames per second ingame that hurt GT5.
Look at the first Metal Gear Solid! That game was the same pixel graphics from the cutscene to real time. I keep hoping it would have been that way for Gran Turismo. I saw the demo for GT1 before I saw that intro, so I was prepared. GT3 & GT4 cars had good quality. Although, GT3 cars are much closer to the GT3 intro, than GT4 cars to the GT4 intro.
GT5P graphics were as close as the intro, but I think it's the frames per second ingame that hurt GT5.
Similar threads
