Relaxed, General Forza 5 Chat

[Ialyrn]

You should take a look at DriveClub, Project Cars look bland in comparisson.



Consoles' hardware can't be compared to similar pcs, there is always more juice to extract in a closed system enginered with the only purpose of running games. Also the top first party studios in consoles always experiment more in custom graphics and effects. Graphics in pc are usually powered by brute force, top of the line gfx cards and default gfx libraries, the hardware is rarely optimized and exploited so deep like in consoles.

I will grant you that the water effect on the windscreen is amazing in that video, and better than in Pcars for that specific aspect. and I will also grant you that driveclub does look impeccable for a console racing game. But Project cars has a fully unlocked FPS, and it has been built as a pc racing simulation first and foremost. Not to mention it still isn't finished yet. The console side development was tacked on way after SMS had already started work on the game. When it comes to the console versions of Pcars though, driveclub may be on par with Pcars visually, if not slightly above it. But driveclub was designed only for the playstation platform.

I can tell you from first hand experience though, that Pcars doesn't look bland at all. The world looks fairly alive and vibrant if I am honest. I don't know if you have access to Pcars or not, but if you do; I have doubts you would be saying it looks bland.

As for pc games having to "brute force" their way to top tier graphics in a fair amount of modern games, that is because dev studios behind some multiplats seem to have pretty much given up on optimising them for PC. When you come across a game from a good studio that has PC in mind however, it is a completely different story.
Both Pcars and even Assetto Corsa can be included in the latter, as both run impeccably well on PC. And both are exceptionally well optimised for the platform. Assetto Corsa I will grant is a pc only game, but it serves to make a point. This is evident by the multitude of hardware which can be used with either title though. And Dice, besides their mistakes; have taken use of PC hardware very well in battlefield. It is fairly well optimised for use on PC, one of the few multiplats that is. The latest dragon age game is another example as well, along with the Batman Arkham games.

But then you have games like far cry 4, which severely let the team down. It is clear that Ubisoft at this point just don't care about PC. The crew is the only one of their recent games that runs remotely fine on PC, I know because I have it. But even then, it is not the best optimised game in the world. You can also take the Codemasters games, which again are well optimised for PC. And with graphical gains available to them over their console counterparts. F1 2014 looks miles better on pc over the 360/ps3, and I am expecting the same when the next F1 game from codemasters comes around. Which will be on the X1 and PS4 as well. A proper comparison can then be made between them. F1 2013 would happily run with better graphics than the 360/PS3 version on lower end hardware. I used to run it on a GT630 with 2 GB of GDDR3 between medium to high settings at 720p@60fps, which was a £50 graphics card when I bought it. I used to play it all the time when I had my Thrustmaster TX wheel. Which evidently was before I got my GTX780, as I purchased it when the TX wheel broke and I was forced to get a refund for the wheel.

So even though a lot of PC games require the brute force of PC hardware to run them, it simply isn't the case for every single game available for PC. There are a ton more that I have not mentioned, because it would just take far too long to list them all. But I guess with me always having access to gaming capable computers and consoles, I am able to objectively look at the games to see what is what. Not to mention that the PC versions, even the badly optimised ones; can have vastly more things added into their graphics because of the extra headroom available.

I am not going to go all "PC master race" on this though, as I don't buy into all that rubbish myself. I am just here for the games, and I don't particularly care which platform they are on. A good game is a good game, and a bad one is bad. Its all the same to me, and each platform has its good and bad points. But I will say this, PC gaming is and always has been held back by console gaming. You will know what I mean that that "one" pc game comes along that looks greater visually than anything the consoles can muster. It happens each and every console generation, and this time around wont be any different.

@Johnnypenso You make a very good point, and the console versions of any game are always filled with compromises. Doesn't matter if they are a multiplat or first party exclusives, something always has to give for overall playability of the title in question. T10 have been making compromises since Forza was created, and so have PD with gran turismo. Sometimes that can lead to a game dev cutting corners though, which is something I personally don't like to see. Especially when it makes certain features, or aspects of gameplay feel unfinished or rushed. It can ruin the enjoyment that should be had with a game.

 

[Speedster911]

^^ 👍👍

 

[Zer0]

I will grant you that the water effect on the windscreen is amazing in that video, and better than in Pcars for that specific aspect. and I will also grant you that driveclub does look impeccable for a console racing game. But Project cars has a fully unlocked FPS, and it has been built as a pc racing simulation first and foremost. Not to mention it still isn't finished yet. The console side development was tacked on way after SMS had already started work on the game. When it comes to the console versions of Pcars though, driveclub may be on par with Pcars visually, if not slightly above it. But driveclub was designed only for the playstation platform.

I can tell you from first hand experience though, that Pcars doesn't look bland at all. The world looks fairly alive and vibrant if I am honest. I don't know if you have access to Pcars or not, but if you do; I have doubts you would be saying it looks bland.

As for pc games having to "brute force" their way to top tier graphics in a fair amount of modern games, that is because dev studios behind some multiplats seem to have pretty much given up on optimising them for PC. When you come across a game from a good studio that has PC in mind however, it is a completely different story.
Both Pcars and even Assetto Corsa can be included in the latter, as both run impeccably well on PC. And both are exceptionally well optimised for the platform. Assetto Corsa I will grant is a pc only game, but it serves to make a point. This is evident by the multitude of hardware which can be used with either title though. And Dice, besides their mistakes; have taken use of PC hardware very well in battlefield. It is fairly well optimised for use on PC, one of the few multiplats that is. The latest dragon age game is another example as well, along with the Batman Arkham games.

But then you have games like far cry 4, which severely let the team down. It is clear that Ubisoft at this point just don't care about PC. The crew is the only one of their recent games that runs remotely fine on PC, I know because I have it. But even then, it is not the best optimised game in the world. You can also take the Codemasters games, which again are well optimised for PC. And with graphical gains available to them over their console counterparts. F1 2014 looks miles better on pc over the 360/ps3, and I am expecting the same when the next F1 game from codemasters comes around. Which will be on the X1 and PS4 as well. A proper comparison can then be made between them. F1 2013 would happily run with better graphics than the 360/PS3 version on lower end hardware. I used to run it on a GT630 with 2 GB of GDDR3 between medium to high settings at 720p@60fps, which was a £50 graphics card when I bought it. I used to play it all the time when I had my Thrustmaster TX wheel. Which evidently was before I got my GTX780, as I purchased it when the TX wheel broke and I was forced to get a refund for the wheel.

So even though a lot of PC games require the brute force of PC hardware to run them, it simply isn't the case for every single game available for PC. There are a ton more that I have not mentioned, because it would just take far too long to list them all. But I guess with me always having access to gaming capable computers and consoles, I am able to objectively look at the games to see what is what. Not to mention that the PC versions, even the badly optimised ones; can have vastly more things added into their graphics because of the extra headroom available.

I am not going to go all "PC master race" on this though, as I don't buy into all that rubbish myself. I am just here for the games, and I don't particularly care which platform they are on. A good game is a good game, and a bad one is bad. Its all the same to me, and each platform has its good and bad points. But I will say this, PC gaming is and always has been held back by console gaming. You will know what I mean that that "one" pc game comes along that looks greater visually than anything the consoles can muster. It happens each and every console generation, and this time around wont be any different.

@Johnnypenso You make a very good point, and the console versions of any game are always filled with compromises. Doesn't matter if they are a multiplat or first party exclusives, something always has to give for overall playability of the title in question. T10 have been making compromises since Forza was created, and so have PD with gran turismo. Sometimes that can lead to a game dev cutting corners though, which is something I personally don't like to see. Especially when it makes certain features, or aspects of gameplay feel unfinished or rushed. It can ruin the enjoyment that should be had with a game.

The point was not to attack the PC games or Project Cars, the point was to put into perspective what a console fitted with an "outdated" gfx card and with a "tablet cpu" can do compared to the best example in PC suffering in a high-end hardware in the same taxing conditions (weather, night, time change, etc), as you told. There is no point to weight the console graphics as if they were pure benchmarks numbers running in pc. DriveClub is an example of what theorically could not be possible with a PC with the same console specs if we would trust the 1:1 hardware claims from PC to console. Multiplatform games developed with PC in mind also does not make sense to figure the console limits vs pc, they are not meant to be low level coded games as the first party best examples in consoles, are just game ports with some downgraded features in order to fit easily in a lesser hardware.

It's a fact that the best graphical examples in PC have always needed the help of the "brute force" (best gfx cards available at the time, large ammounts of ram, etc) in order to run smoothly with maxed graphics (or graphical mods).

Pcars run impeccably well on PC if you have a £350 graphic card and an overclocked pc. It's a very demanding game for the average PC, specially with all the features running. That's far from optimized seeing what a +4 years outdated gfx card with a tablet cpu is capable in PS4.

And yes, Project Cars (PC) particle effects, as context, looks bland in comparisson. The gameplay lacks the visual punch and the environmental effects of Drive Club.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

Going back to the resolution of the consoles though, it doesn't matter to me if a game is at 720p or 1080p. Sure the picture is often clearer at 1080p, but I would rather have a stable and solid framerate. I would even take reduced graphics as well, because they just don't ultimately matter to me.

I agree.
I'll take the stable and solid framerate anyday.
I rarely if ever had any framerate issues with FM4.
IMO the graphics were good enough.

For some reason though, everyone has jumped onto this "everything has to be 1080P@60fps" band wagon. Both the X1 and the PS4 are getting slated when it doesn't hit that. And if that is all people care about, none of the consoles currently on the market are for them. They need to go to PC and have done with it. The consoles are what they are, and nothing will change that now. We have to bite the bullet and wait till the next generation comes around.

Yes 1080p@60fps is the new game hype buzzword.
Something for the teenage crowd to ooh and aah over I guess.
The problem is, hype is about all it amounts too.
They claim they can deliver it, but the real functionality is another story.
I only care about it if it is smooth and solid, but don't waste my time with hype and hat.

Saying we will have to wait until the next gen, is another way of saying this next gen isn't really that distinguishable from the last gen.

I prefer console gaming for the simplicity factor.
However, IMO it is becoming more and more just a shell game.
I have a so-so medium power PC for playing the Civ series and a couple other non graphic intensive games, but will require a major rebuild for racing games.
I may end up having to take that route, depending on how GT7 turns out.

What we are facing on the PS4 and X1 is not a hardware bottleneck, just weak hardware overall.

I agree.
As I said earlier, I'm interested to see if PD can actually deliver a smooth 1080p/60fpm with GT7 on the PS4.

 

[Johnnypenso]

The point was not to attack the PC games or Project Cars, the point was to put into perspective what a console fitted with an "outdated" gfx card and with a "tablet cpu" can do compared to the best example in PC suffering in a high-end hardware in the same taxing conditions (weather, night, time change, etc), as you told. There is no point to weight the console graphics as if they were pure benchmarks numbers running in pc. DriveClub is an example of what theorically could not be possible with a PC with the same console specs if we would trust the 1:1 hardware claims from PC to console. Multiplatform games developed with PC in mind also does not make sense to figure the console limits vs pc, they are not meant to be low level coded games as the first party best examples in consoles, are just game ports with some downgraded features in order to fit easily in a lesser hardware.

It's a fact that the best graphical examples in PC have always needed the help of the "brute force" (best gfx cards available at the time, large ammounts of ram, etc) in order to run smoothly with maxed graphics (or graphical mods).

Pcars run impeccably well on PC if you have a £350 graphic card and an overclocked pc. It's a very demanding game for the average PC, specially with all the features running. That's far from optimized seeing what a +4 years outdated gfx card with a tablet cpu is capable in PS4.

And yes, Project Cars (PC) particle effects, as context, looks bland in comparisson. The gameplay lacks the visual punch and the environmental effects of Drive Club.

And again, you compare the two games without any perspective as to why each game made the choices they did. DC went for eye candy, they maxed out the environmental eye candy and the polygon count. Results = 12 cars on track and only 30fps. PCars set a minimum standard for gameplay primarily and cars on track and 1080p/60fps. Results = 45 cars on track and 60fps and physics calculations at 600Hz. There are comprimises that all console game devs will have to make and the tradeoffs are the same. Overall graphic detail and environmental effects vs. car count vs. frame rate vs. physics detail and other stuff.

Needing a high end PC to run PCars at 1080/60 is also a myth. You can build machines for $800 or so that will run the game on very high settings. Yes it's more than a console obviously but you don't need a £350 GPU nor any overclocking to play on very high settings unless you want triple monitors. You also have access to a wealth of PC racing sims and there's no annual fee to pay to race online.

Forza made the same choices. Everyone makes the same choices on consoles because you can't do everything you want to do. As we move along they'll find ways to squeeze more things in there and games will get better and DX12 may blow things wide open but that remains to be seen.

 

[Ialyrn]

It's a fact that the best graphical examples in PC have always needed the help of the "brute force" (best gfx cards available at the time, large ammounts of ram, etc) in order to run smoothly with maxed graphics (or graphical mods).

Pcars run impeccably well on PC if you have a £350 graphic card and an overclocked pc. It's a very demanding game for the average PC, specially with all the features running. That's far from optimized seeing what a +4 years outdated gfx card with a tablet cpu is capable in PS4.

project cars will run on a dual core i3 with GTX650 from 2 graphics cards generations ago. Wont be the best experience, but it should be able to do the same 30fps that driveclub does. and with the same amount of cars on the track.



The thing is here though, is that you don't even need a £350 graphics card to play Pcars on PC. Or any pc game for that matter. It will run on a graphics card that costs £150 and less. I used to run it on the same GT630 I mentioned before, I just had to be smart with the graphical settings I had turned on. You don't even need a large amount of ram either, but it can help to a point to have more. Most games though don't use more than 4GB of system ram, and a lot still don't use any more than 1 to 2gb of Vram on the graphics card. The only reason I have a GTX780, is for the longevity it provides. For example, there are quite a few people out there using GTX580's (and the AMD equivalents) and maxing out the graphics on even the newest games available.

GTX750ti (£110 graphics card)


AMD R9 270x (£115 graphics card)


dual core i3 with a GT630 (£50 graphics card)


So please tell me where in those 3 videos, that Pcars is been brute forced by high end hardware?

 

[Wolfe]

We'd have to see those systems run a full racing grid in a midnight thunderstorm for a legitimate comparison to PS4/XBone. Just because you can "run" the game doesn't mean you're getting everything. You need hardware that squashes the minimum specifications if you're hoping for an experience like you can have on consoles.

 

[phillgt2002]

Lol. Zer0. You like Driveclub, we can see that.

 

[Stubbypath]

I got my Xbox One and Forza 5 a few days ago and want to ask a few questions.
Should I buy the car pass or buy Car packs separately?
Does the car pass still work since all the car packs are out?
I just wanted to ask because each car pack is $15NZD and the track booster packs thingys are $7.50NZD, I wanted to know which is better value.

 

[GranTurismo guy]

I got my Xbox One and Forza 5 a few days ago and want to ask a few questions.
Should I buy the car pass or buy Car packs separately?
Does the car pass still work since all the car packs are out?
I just wanted to ask because each car pack is $15NZD and the track booster packs thingys are $7.50NZD, I wanted to know which is better value.

Buy the car pass

 

[Speedster911]

I wish this DLC stuff would end for good and that developers release the final product upfront.

They can always make DLC available later, but it ought to be free.

Gone are the days when you used to get upgrades, patches and additional content for free.

 

[GranTurismo guy]

I wish this DLC stuff would end for good and that developers release the final product upfront.

They can always make DLC available later, but it ought to be free.

Gone are the days when you used to get upgrades, patches and additional content for free.

dlc has been a thing for quite a while afaik

 

[SimTourist]

I wish this DLC stuff would end for good and that developers release the final product upfront.

They can always make DLC available later, but it ought to be free.

Gone are the days when you used to get upgrades, patches and additional content for free.

So I must've imagined that T10 added 3 tracks and multiple cars for free then.

 

[Speedster911]

So I must've imagined that T10 added 3 tracks and multiple cars for free then.

Read again. They "ought to".

dlc has been a thing for quite a while afaik

Well, that doesn't make it stink any less, mind you!

 

[ImaRobot]

I wish this DLC stuff would end for good and that developers release the final product upfront.

They can always make DLC available later, but it ought to be free.

Gone are the days when you used to get upgrades, patches and additional content for free.

I dont ever remember getting additional content for free "back in the day", what are you even on about? Still, either way, there has been plenty of additional content for free. Patches are always free. Upgrades? what does that even mean.

Whats odd, is that its impossible to release a complete game, unless you wanted to spend a decade just to release one. Even games released back in the day where not complete, they were just done. You're always on about the old days, but the fact is that those where just as incomplete as whats being released today with many glitch's that there would be no way to fix back then. The difference now is that we can get updates and patch's for this games on the whim, without having to buy a total new product like you would have iif we where still on anything before the Xbox/ps2.

All DLC shouldn't be free, thats ridiculous. What do you do for a living? Thats like saying anything you do at work, no matter what it is, you shouldn't get paid for it.

 

[Ialyrn]

I remember back in 1996 I got given duke nukem 3d for pc as a gift, and I bought a couple of expansion packs that came on old 3.5inch floppy disks. Key word here is bought.
Sure, going back a while we used to get the odd map, race track, cars and so on for "some" games via patches. But it was never an industry standard though, and this was just on PC. They used to pretty much just contain bug fixes, and still do for the most part.

I don't have a problem with DLC however, at least when it is proper additional content; such as car packs for Forza. What I don't like though, is when we pay for DLC and it turns out it is contained on the disk but locked out (looking at Capcom here). Not even a problem for me with the recycled cars in FM5 that where in previous forza games, as I know they was rebuilt for the new system. Those cars should be included in FM6 now by default, and more. Though we may still get the "odd" car that was in a previous forza though. There are a few cars that where dropped over the years, especially between forza 1 and 2, and then again with forza 2 and 3. Pretty much cars from tuning shops, such as Tommy Kaira.

 

[RacerPaul]

I hate myself for playing their game and buying dlc In an ideal world, none of
us would ever have bought any of it and they would've abandoned the idea

 

[Wolfe]

I agree with Ialyrn, DLC is fine as long as it's not just an access code for content on the disc, especially if the AI can use it. It doesn't necessarily mean the title is incomplete at launch. It's also a way to get something in return for lending extra support to a developer -- I've never regretted buying the LCE or expansion pack for FH1 because I think this genre needs a game like the Horizon series, and I'm glad to have helped Playground succeed with it.

 

[SimTourist]

In Forza terms I look at DLC as something that's gonna be included in the next mainline entry, we're just given an early access to it if we wish to pay. I much prefer it this way than having no post-release support. Asking for free DLC is pretty dumb though, you realize that all the modellers, sound and physics guys, etc. have to get paid, right? Every game business is just that, a business, it's all fun and games until the day you run out of money and have to downsize or close down entirely. We've already lost many great racing devs/series, losing even more isn't gonna benefit anyone.

 

[Speedster911]

I think there are far more important things that should be depicted accurately in a sim.

However, it is nice to see a developer give high priority to particle effects.

I've always had minor gripes with Forza and GT in terms of graphical inconsistencies. GT more so.

^^ (YES, I had to drag Forza/GT into it yet again)

 

[Wolfe]

We've already lost many great racing devs/series, losing even more isn't gonna benefit anyone.

I wonder if Codemaster's recent downsizing could have been due in part to a strategy of relying upon expected DLC revenue that didn't materialize. They appear to really lean on it.

 

[SimTourist]

I wonder if Codemaster's recent downsizing could have been due in part to a strategy of relying upon expected DLC revenue that didn't materialize. They appear to really lean on it.

I think it has more to do with the $15 mil/year that they have to pay F1 execs to have the license and declining sales of their games.

 

[Wolfe]

Ah, never played their F1 games, so that didn't occur to me.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

I wish this DLC stuff would end for good and that developers release the final product upfront.

They can always make DLC available later, but it ought to be free.

Gone are the days when you used to get upgrades, patches and additional content for free.

You ought to only be paid for four days of the week at work. That fifth one? The company should get you for free.

...

DLC that's optional, and isn't simply an unlock code for something on the disc? I don't see the problem. We each determine if the price is worth it on our own terms. I know I'd rather have access to a car that was released shortly after the game was for a minimal fee, than to wait almost two years to have it in the sequel.

 

[GranTurismo guy]

You ought to only be paid for four days of the week at work. That fifth one? The company should get you for free.

...

DLC that's optional, and isn't simply an unlock code for something on the disc? I don't see the problem. We each determine if the price is worth it on our own terms. I know I'd rather have access to a car that was released shortly after the game was for a minimal fee, than to wait almost two years to have it in the sequel.

What makes me upset with DLCs is when content is recycled and you must pay for it again. The transit was a charged dlc three times. The first time? Of course, it's new content, but then after that, it's just easy cash to make off customers unfairly.

 

[Zer0]

And again, you compare the two games without any perspective as to why each game made the choices they did. DC went for eye candy, they maxed out the environmental eye candy and the polygon count. Results = 12 cars on track and only 30fps. PCars set a minimum standard for gameplay primarily and cars on track and 1080p/60fps.

"Choices" is your new argument and certainly not in the context of what I was replying:

Ialyrn: "project cars is by far the prettiest racing game ever made to date"

In a pc, the gfx choice should be in your graphic card not in the game, it's the nature of the beast, except that the game is so bad optimized that even with the best cards (way more powerfull than PS4) the extra level of maxed effects (as seen in Drive Club) would make pCARS below unplayable.

project cars will run on a dual core i3 with GTX650 from 2 graphics cards generations ago. Wont be the best experience, but it should be able to do the same 30fps that driveclub does. and with the same amount of cars on the track.



The thing is here though, is that you don't even need a £350 graphics card to play Pcars on PC. Or any pc game for that matter. It will run on a graphics card that costs £150 and less. I used to run it on the same GT630 I mentioned before, I just had to be smart with the graphical settings I had turned on. You don't even need a large amount of ram either, but it can help to a point to have more. Most games though don't use more than 4GB of system ram, and a lot still don't use any more than 1 to 2gb of Vram on the graphics card. The only reason I have a GTX780, is for the longevity it provides. For example, there are quite a few people out there using GTX580's (and the AMD equivalents) and maxing out the graphics on even the newest games available.

GTX750ti (£110 graphics card)


AMD R9 270x (£115 graphics card)


dual core i3 with a GT630 (£50 graphics card)


So please tell me where in those 3 videos, that Pcars is been brute forced by high end hardware?

Read what Wolfe said.

What I said:
"It's a very demanding game for the average PC, specially with all the features running."

And what you said:
Take it this way, I have project cars on my system. I can run it at 140fps+ at 1080P on my system with all details maxed out.... when I am on a track with no AI, and on clear weather settings at midday. The moment I stick on a full grid of AI, with time transition between day and night, and with weather turned on. I can see my FPS plummet to around 70fps, with dips into the 60's. And that is running on a single GTX780 (A £350 graphics card), and an FX-4300 overclocked from 3.8GHz to 4.6GHz; which is cooled by an AIO water cooler unit from Corsair.

 

[Speedster911]

You ought to only be paid for four days of the week at work. That fifth one? The company should get you for free.

...

DLC that's optional, and isn't simply an unlock code for something on the disc? I don't see the problem. We each determine if the price is worth it on our own terms. I know I'd rather have access to a car that was released shortly after the game was for a minimal fee, than to wait almost two years to have it in the sequel.

Thank you very much for that insightful response.

Love the sarcasm.

I dont ever remember getting additional content for free "back in the day", what are you even on about? Still, either way, there has been plenty of additional content for free. Patches are always free. Upgrades? what does that even mean.

Whats odd, is that its impossible to release a complete game, unless you wanted to spend a decade just to release one. Even games released back in the day where not complete, they were just done. You're always on about the old days, but the fact is that those where just as incomplete as whats being released today with many glitch's that there would be no way to fix back then. The difference now is that we can get updates and patch's for this games on the whim, without having to buy a total new product like you would have iif we where still on anything before the Xbox/ps2.

All DLC shouldn't be free, thats ridiculous. What do you do for a living? Thats like saying anything you do at work, no matter what it is, you shouldn't get paid for it.

Paying anything over $60 for a GAME is an abomination!

 

[Johnnypenso]

"Choices" is your new argument and certainly not in the context of what I was replying:

Ialyrn: "project cars is by far the prettiest racing game ever made to date"

In a pc, the gfx choice should be in your graphic card not in the game, it's the nature of the beast, except that the game is so bad optimized that even with the best cards (way more powerfull than PS4) the extra level of maxed effects (as seen in Drive Club) would make pCARS below unplayable.



Read what Wolfe said.

What I said:
"It's a very demanding game for the average PC, specially with all the features running."

And what you said:
Take it this way, I have project cars on my system. I can run it at 140fps+ at 1080P on my system with all details maxed out.... when I am on a track with no AI, and on clear weather settings at midday. The moment I stick on a full grid of AI, with time transition between day and night, and with weather turned on. I can see my FPS plummet to around 70fps, with dips into the 60's. And that is running on a single GTX780 (A £350 graphics card), and an FX-4300 overclocked from 3.8GHz to 4.6GHz; which is cooled by an AIO water cooler unit from Corsair.

And yet other people post in the PCars thread all the time about running it on mid to high settings on their 5 year old computers with no trouble keeping 1080p/60fps. You're not comparing apples to apples, as there is no setting on consoles that is equal to "maxed out" on a pc. Please do your research before making your obviously erroneous statements.

 

[ImaRobot]

Thank you very much for that insightful response.

Love the sarcasm.



Paying anything over $60 for a GAME is an abomination!

No its not, its a choice. So "back than" you never bought one expansion for any game for any console? If thats so, then good for you. If you made that choice, then just like you, I can make my choice to pick and choose what I want to pay.

Key word, choice. You don't have to spend over $60 for a game.

 

[Zer0]

And yet other people post in the PCars thread all the time about running it on mid to high settings on their 5 year old computers with no trouble keeping 1080p/60fps. You're not comparing apples to apples, as there is no setting on consoles that is equal to "maxed out" on a pc. Please do your research before making your obviously erroneous statements.

Not sure what all you talking about. If a PC game is stated as "by far the prettiest racing game ever made to date" is of course with its better gfx settings and running under a very good gfx card capable of sustain a good framerate under these conditions.

The programers "choices" argument and the minimum pc required to run a featureless or graphically downgraded Pcars is obviously not what I'm discussing.

Neither I have stated anything about graphical settings in consoles. The comparisson is about the most demanding scenario (raining, time change, etc) in a game programmed and optimized for an "outdated" console hardware vs a PC game running maxed out in a newer and more powerfull hardware.