Reverse Lights!

[Lucas]

Maybe people are too used to have a lot of details and want every single one of them.

Certainly not me.

It's fine if you think reverse lights are cool and want them, but to say they must be in? That it's a problem not to have them? Then you're going too far.

They must be in, given it's a simulator, regardless how good or not.

 

[Stonemonkey]

You've just said it all. Details such as these are great and people like them (I certainly do) but they don't matter the slightest. Would you complain that there's no ad in the building? Or that shadows are inaccurate? Or that there's no bicycle? I hope not.

And thus I go back to my previous statement: why can anyone care about it?

Correct shadows are one thing I would care about, perhaps not so much from a bike against a wall but shadows are a great visual cue for indicating depth and shapes of surfaces and are probably among the most important aspects of creating the illusion of solid 3d in a 2d image and if not done right is something the brain can subconciously pick up on.

 

[Stonemonkey]

Certainly not me.



They must be in, given it's a simulator, regardless how good or not.

I still don't get why you say they must be in because it's a simulator, it's a simulator of circuit racing and they are not required for that and in most cases of circuit racing it appears to me that they are required by regulation to NOT be there.

 

[P3nT4gR4m]

Without getting too deep into the semantics of it the word "simulator" puts it on a sliding scale of detail and accuracy. Technically speaking, sitting in a cardboard box and making "brrrrm brrrm!" noises is a simulator, just not a very good one.

If GT is "simulating" things like lateral and longitudinal grip versus g-force, weight shifting, acceleration and torque effects I'm pretty much cool with it not simulating xmas tree decorations.

 

[Dravonic]

Correct shadows are one thing I would care about, perhaps not so much from a bike against a wall but shadows are a great visual cue for indicating depth and shapes of surfaces and are probably among the most important aspects of creating the illusion of solid 3d in a 2d image and if not done right is something the brain can subconciously pick up on.

I agree. But we are talking about light placement here. They've put the sunlight at the exact same place it would be in real life and that's not really necessary. The shadows would still look right in a volumetric sense if the sunlight was coming from a different angle, they just wouldn't match the real ones.

 

[Stonemonkey]

I agree. But we are talking about light placement here. They've put the sunlight at the exact same place it would be in real life and that's not really necessary. The shadows would still look right if the sunlight was coming from a different angle, they just wouldn't match the real ones.

I am very confused by what you're trying to say there.

They've put the sunlight at the exact same place it would be in real life and that's not really necessary.

In real life the sun could be in many places depending on time of day and time of year. So where they've positioned the sun will probably match for some time.

The shadows would still look right if the sunlight was coming from a different angle

Only if the shadows are dynamic and re-drawn correctly, the shadows have to match up with the lighting on objects otherwise it'll look very strange and probably suffer some really ugly artefacts.

 

[Seismica]

Guys, we shouldn't get hung up on how important the feature is.

We know the feature, (as with many other features in GT games) is not important. But it is desirable to make the game as close to life as possible.

As i pointed out in my post on page two, they do indeed photograph the car with the reverse lights on, so we might see them in GT5.

 

[Dravonic]

I am very confused by what you're trying to say there.

Since a picture is worth a thousand words:

This is what you're saying I think. The shadows don't match the object. But that's not what I was saying. I'm talking about the shadow in the game diverging from the real one because the light source is at a different position.

 

[WolfRacer543]

Guys, we shouldn't get hung up on how important the feature is.

We know the feature, (as with many other features in GT games) is not important. But it is desirable to make the game as close to life as possible.

I agree, I've said it before in several of the previous reverse light threads and you just said it again, so there's no need to repeat it again.

I'm not sure why we need another thread about this topic.

 

[Stonemonkey]

Since a picture is worth a thousand words:

This is what you're saying I think. The shadows don't match the object. But that's not what I was saying. I'm talking about the shadow in the game diverging from the real one because the light source is at a different position.

Not exactly no, I have done some work with shadows in CG and have some understanding.

Sorry, I edited my last post but took a while.

 

[Dravonic]

Not exactly no, I have done some work with shadows in CG and have some understanding.

Sorry, I edited my last post but took a while.

OK, I think we still have a communication problem. I can open maya and render some images to illustrate better what I'm saying but that's not important at all to the discussion so let's just drop it.

 

[Stonemonkey]

OK, I think we still have a communication problem. I can open maya and render some images to illustrate better what I'm saying but that's not important at all to the discussion so let's just drop it.

What! you want to go back to the OT? I'd say this is a bit more interesting. Well, to me at least as I have an interest if graphics programming.

 

[rkk01]

Reversing lights are merely symbols.... they are not hugely important in themselves.

Symbolic of all the little details that have inexplicably been skipped, intentionally or unintentionally, by PD.


When the GT5TT 370Z models shots were launched, people on here were obsessing over whether the directional tread on the Yokos was the right way round - if that's the fanatic level of detail that PD (and GTP'ers) can go to, then reversing lights must be as fundamental as having an engine and gearbox!!

The absence of these little details becomes difficult to reconcile with the fabulous car models - especially when most of the car model detail is as redundant as high def trees when you are actually racing......

 

[Dravonic]

What! you want to go back to the OT? I'd say this is a bit more interesting. Well, to me at least as I have an interest if graphics programming.

Well if the thread starter is telling me this I can't say no

What I'm trying to say is, suppose this is a real building:

That's how it's shadow look at October 1st, 3 o'clock. Due to PD's crazy attention to detail, they made sure that in the game it looks exactly like this. That's what they did with suzuka shadows that Devedander was referring to.

Now, suppose PD wasn't that obsessive and this is how they reproduced the building in the game:

Would you complain?

 

[Stonemonkey]

Well if the thread starter is telling me this I can't say no

What I'm trying to say is, suppose this is a real building:

That's how it's shadow look at October 1st, 3 o'clock. Due to PD's crazy attention to detail, they made sure that in the game it looks exactly like this. That's what they did with suzuka shadows that Devedander was referring to.

Now, suppose PD wasn't that obsessive and this is how they reproduced the building in the game:

Would you complain?

Examples:
If the sun was in the position to cast the first shadow but the scene was drawn with the second shadow crossing the track so that when I stop the car in the shadow I can still see the sun (if I can look up) yes I would complain.
If shadows from multiple objects (buildings/trees/signs etc.) don't line up as they should yes, I would complain.
The sun will be used as the light source for calculating lighting, if shadows are not also calculated from that then the shadows and lighting would not visually match and that could also cause some severe graphical bugs and yes, I would complain.

It is things like that that destroy the solid 3d illusion as well as the fact the brain uses visual cues like shadows to interpret an image and if shadows are off then uncertainty into how the image is interpreted can creep in.

If however, you are meaning that the lightsource has moved to give the changes in shadow you have drawn and the entire scene is worked to take that into account then there is no innacuracy in the shadows.

But since your posts mention changing the angle of the sun as well as changing the shadows I'm still not fully understanding.

 

[Lucas]

To put it bluntly, Forza 3 and Gran Turismo 5's Suzuka have the Sun in different places in their Suzuka, both at around the same hour, but Forza 3's Sun is inaccurately placed, though the shadows match the Sun. I have made a (crude) drawing, waiting for it to upload.

 

[Dravonic]

Examples:
If the sun was in the position to cast the first shadow but the scene was drawn with the second shadow crossing the track so that when I stop the car in the shadow I can still see the sun (if I can look up) yes I would complain.
If shadows from multiple objects (buildings/trees/signs etc.) don't line up as they should yes, I would complain.
The sun will be used as the light source for calculating lighting, if shadows are not also calculated from that then the shadows and lighting would not visually match and that could also cause some severe graphical bugs and yes, I would complain.

It is things like that that destroy the solid 3d illusion as well as the fact the brain uses visual cues like shadows to interpret an image and if shadows are off then uncertainty into how the image is interpreted can creep in.

If however, you are meaning that the lightsource has moved to give the changes in shadow you have drawn then there is no innacuracy in the shadows.

In real world terms it means the sun is in a different position but that's not how it works in a computer.
But since your posts mention changing the angle of the sun as well as changing the shadows I'm still not fully understanding.

Sun is a global lighting so changing the position has no effect. It's treated as infinite parallel rays so the position doesn't matter, only the direction. To change the direction I change the angle.

 

[Stonemonkey]

Sun is a global lighting so changing the position has no effect. It's treated as infinite parallel rays so the position doesn't matter, only the direction. To change the direction I change the angle.

How on earth do you think sundials work?

Wait a minute, is the lightsource in maya a directional light? The sun is a point lightsource.

@lucas, that diagram doesn't show innacuracies in shadows, instead it shows innacuracies in the position of the lightsource, the shadows are correct.

 

[Dravonic]

How on earth do you think sundials work?

Wait a minute, is the lightsource in maya a directional light? The sun is a point lightsource.

You're having trouble translating the real world into computer world. Wait a second and I will show you.

Yes the sun is a point light source but that's not what people normally use in computers. Directional light is the way to go since the sun is so far away it's rays are practically parallel to us. To simulate the sun walking around the sky you just need to change the directional light source angle.

EDIT: Do you need the pictures or you understand what I mean? It's quite troublesome to produce them

In a computer you can either create a point light and set it's position to millions of kilometers away (and that's just stupid) or use directional light since the result is pretty much the same.

@lucas, that diagram doesn't show innacuracies in shadows, instead it shows innacuracies in the position of the lightsource, the shadows are correct.

That's exactly what I'm trying to say. Well not now. Now I'm explaining how lights work in computers lol.

 

[Stonemonkey]

OK, you can use a directional light source to approximate the direction the light hits the objects in the scene.

but the direction of that vector does depend on the suns position.

 

[Dravonic]

OK, you can use a directional light source to approximate the direction the light hits the objects in the scene.

but the direction of that vector does depend on the suns position.

Yes, exactly.

 

[Stonemonkey]

Sun is a global lighting so changing the position has no effect.

Are you meaning that the sun moving across the sky will not affect the shape of shadows?

 

[P3nT4gR4m]

That's right people, you heard it here first - sundials lie!

 

[Dravonic]

Are you meaning that the sun moving across the sky will not affect the shape of shadows?

No... I'm not referring to real life...

I'm saying how it works in a computer program. To simulate sunlight, people use directional lights (global lighting since it affects the whole scenario) in a computer (and thus in GT5), and changing the directional light position won't affect the shadows. In real life however, since the sun is a point light source (to us), it obviously does.

 

[Stonemonkey]

Now I'm explaining how lights work in computers lol.

I do have some idea about lighting and shadows in computers. Although a little strange.

 

[P3nT4gR4m]

That only applies to "baked" maps, in which the sunlight and shadows are actually pre-rendered onto the scene and then additional "dynamic" lights can be used to add a bit of dynamic detail in the dark bits.

It gets used because it's less "expensive" in terms of processing power but more and more it's becoming less and less important since the processors are so powerful nowadays.

 

[Dravonic]

I do have some idea about lighting and shadows in computers. Although a little strange.

And thus you can easily understand what I mean...

 

[Stonemonkey]

and changing the directional light position won't affect the shadows.

Directional lights don't have position.

when using as sunlight, the direction of a directional light does change with respect to the suns position.

shadows change in real life depending on position of the sun.

shadows in computers change with respect to directional light sources.

so if you alter the angle of your directional light source to emulate the light coming from the sun as it changes position your shadows will change.


And if you use point light sources (as I often do) the shadows will change with the suns position also.

 

[Dravonic]

Directional lights don't have position.

when using as sunlight, the direction of a directional light does change with respect to the suns position.

shadows change in real life depending on position of the sun.

shadows in computers change with respect to directional light sources.

so if you alter the angle of your directional light source to emulate the light coming from the sun your shadows will change.

OK... are you just trying to prove something I said is wrong for whatever reason? Since you already understood what I'm saying I don't understand what you're trying to do here...

Yeah it doesn't have a position... it's everywhere... but in a program like maya it's represented by a bunch of arrows and you can move it around even though it has no effect. I believe you can do the same thing in other programs like 3DSMax and the sort. That's what I meant by changing the position... was a misleading statement, sorry about that.

 

[Stonemonkey]

Sorry, no. I've been trying to figure out your first post in reply to what I said about shadows. I just could not get it but I see what your thinking now with moving the light indicator around in modelling software.