Reverse Lights!

[RedOak]

i think its got more to do with production value guys... as wierd as it may sound to all of you, putting working reverse lights that actually turn on and off cost time/money the team probably don't have. Its most probably on the to do list, but way way down.

Also, having switchable lights costs memory and a game like GT which puts it all in physics and car models, probably doesn't have that much memory to spare to show lights on the cars.

 

[Scoop2004]

I'm referring to the usefulness it has in the game. It doesn't change your gaming experience, not even a little bit.

Going by your logic, and others who say its ok that reverse lights dont feature in Gt games. Would you mind if brake lights didnt work? Since theyre not really important (So unimportant that Formula cars and gokarts dont even have them) and dont change the gaming experience?

I imagine you'd be astonished, and thoroughly dissapointed that Kaz the perfectionist has missed out an important part of the cars modelling, If he has went to the trouble of modelling everything on the car including brake hoses [which certainly wont improve the gaming experience] then its not unfair to expect reverse lights to work FFS. after all most of the cars are road cars, and my road cars reverse lights work fine....

 

[Sohvakettu]

If we base the need of reverse lights on the GT5 being simulation then i think it should be of the lowest priority. I still haven't seen prove for truly realistic tyre model that takes in to account the track and air temps, the tyre pressure and whatnot. Also the brake temps and fading should be included and the engine temperature and and...

Actually they should first include working indicators before they start to think about the reverse light

(PS. I personally don't expect all those things from this game as GT games are more about casual fun driving than hard core simulation to me. Not that i wouldn't be delighted if they included all these things...)

 

[SrRd RacinG]

How the **** do these topics keep popping up and how do they last?

 

[P3nT4gR4m]

How the **** do these topics keep popping up and how do they last?

cos people like you keep bumping them to the top

 

[Sniffs]

it's the n00bs who ressurect these threads that keep them alive.

now, for an old fogie gamer's opinion (I've been playing them for thirty years, people)...

Backups are seen as a sign of a cheap game!
Think about it, EVERY other game even vaguely involving cars automatically slaps the backups on, in some, even at the expense of brakelights. one of the worst offenders I ever saw was Ford Racing Three, and that was a manufacturer's authorized licensing series.
another possible reason is that everything KY-san DIDN'T put in is allready in every other game, and he was trying to be different.

now, GT5 is allready put to bed, so there's no reason for bothering with a nitpick detail like this, now.

 

[Devedander]

i think its got more to do with production value guys... as wierd as it may sound to all of you, putting working reverse lights that actually turn on and off cost time/money the team probably don't have. Its most probably on the to do list, but way way down.

Also, having switchable lights costs memory and a game like GT which puts it all in physics and car models, probably doesn't have that much memory to spare to show lights on the cars.

Well in all fairness they have working brake lights and they are some pretty impressive ones at that... I really can't see how it's takes that much to impliment reverse lights when functioning lights are already done.

Also this is a game of polish... if you want to argue what's really necessary, boxes with black circles for wheels is all that really is needed in the way of graphics, obviously necessity isn't the ultimate deciding factor in what goes in. When you look at the detail that goes into the cockpits and car models it really makes no sense to claim time to perfect a detail makes it unreasonable in PDs eyes.

 

[Dravonic]

Going by your logic, and others who say its ok that reverse lights dont feature in Gt games. Would you mind if brake lights didnt work? Since theyre not really important (So unimportant that Formula cars and gokarts dont even have them) and dont change the gaming experience?

I imagine you'd be astonished, and thoroughly dissapointed that Kaz the perfectionist has missed out an important part of the cars modelling, If he has went to the trouble of modelling everything on the car including brake hoses [which certainly wont improve the gaming experience] then its not unfair to expect reverse lights to work FFS. after all most of the cars are road cars, and my road cars reverse lights work fine....

I stopped reading when you said brake lights are not important.

Either way, my logic is: if it doesn't matter, you shouldn't be crying to the four winds that it's heresy it's not in the game. That's different from what you think my logic is: if it doesn't matter, it shouldn't be in the game.

 

[WolfRacer543]

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

But not by much (only the umbra/penumbra stuff, and the slightly conical shape of them). You could assume you only know the direction of the sun's rays, and light the entire sky in that direction and it'd give you the same results if you applied a point source of light at the sun's position. Of course to know the direction you first have to know the position.

But anyway. Reverse lights SHOULD be in the game. Are they important, not really, should they be there, yes. Do all race cars have them, no, should the cars that do have them in real life have them in game, yes.

I dont really see how you can argue with that, other than arguing the importance of them and whether you feel PD should "waste" their time on it, which is a topic that has been beaten to death so many times over the years I dont see the point in going over it yet again.

 

[Griffith500]

If it doesn't matter, you shouldn't be crying to the four winds that it's heresy it's not in the game.

Reverse lights SHOULD be in the game. Are they important, not really, should they be there, yes. Do all race cars have them, no, should the cars that do have them in real life have them in game, yes.

That's about all that needs to be said. Still, people will discuss whether it is important to them, as individuals...

 

[Stonemonkey]

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

But not by much (only the umbra/penumbra stuff, and the slightly conical shape of them). You could assume you only know the direction of the sun's rays, and light the entire sky in that direction and it'd give you the same results if you applied a point source of light at the sun's position. Of course to know the direction you first have to know the position.

Not by much? when the sun is rising and the sun is setting the shadows are on completely opposite sides of the longitudinal line through the object. If the sun is directly overhead then the shadow of a building is almost in it's own footprint (actually will be with directional light) but an hour later the shadow could cross a street.

 

[Devedander]

I stopped reading when you said brake lights are not important.

Either way, my logic is: if it doesn't matter, you shouldn't be crying to the four winds that it's heresy it's not in the game. That's different from what you think my logic is: if it doesn't matter, it shouldn't be in the game.

It seems like you may be exagerating the facts or at best applying one persons extremem behavior to everyone or many people...

I don't see anyone crying to anyone that they should be in, it's usually people who are displeased at worst and expressing their potential joy if some eye candy did make it in and only when someones comes along and prods them to quantify their likes or puts them on the defensive by telling them what they want is not important or otherwise belittling their personal taste do they get into it and hash up a real debate over the validity of that desire... which of course is then sited as whining and complaining.

Often it seems akin to poking a dog and then being annoyed the dog barks too much.

Let's be honest here, we have the hardcore "sim" fans who care about nothing other than the brutal accuracy of the recreation and it could be "Hard Drivin" graphics for all they care as long as it's physics are right, then we have those who are really only interested in the eye candy - and let's not fool ourselves, GT is as much about eye candy as any game; there is a reason comparison screenshots, glory videos and every last sparkly detail is pointed out at some point - and then we have the vast majority who fall somewhere in betwee... and interspersed (liberally it seems) are those who would say anything that's not important to themselves personally just isn't important and can't seem to accept that others might have different taste and desires and through this intolerance whine as much or more about the whining than anyoneelse...

/whinyrant

 

[HN7]

It seems like you may be exagerating the facts or at best applying one persons extremem behavior to everyone or many people...

I don't see anyone crying to anyone that they should be in, it's usually people who are displeased at worst and expressing their potential joy if some eye candy did make it in and only when someones comes along and prods them to quantify their likes or puts them on the defensive by telling them what they want is not important or otherwise belittling their personal taste do they get into it and hash up a real debate over the validity of that desire... which of course is then sited as whining and complaining.

Often it seems akin to poking a dog and then being annoyed the dog barks too much.

Let's be honest here, we have the hardcore "sim" fans who care about nothing other than the brutal accuracy of the recreation and it could be "Hard Drivin" graphics for all they care as long as it's physics are right, then we have those who are really only interested in the eye candy - and let's not fool ourselves, GT is as much about eye candy as any game; there is a reason comparison screenshots, glory videos and every last sparkly detail is pointed out at some point - and then we have the vast majority who fall somewhere in betwee... and interspersed (liberally it seems) are those who would say anything that's not important to themselves personally just isn't important and can't seem to accept that others might have different taste and desires and through this intolerance whine as much or more about the whining than anyoneelse...

/whinyrant

+1 👍

 

[Dravonic]

It seems like you may be exagerating the facts or at best applying one persons extremem behavior to everyone or many people...

I don't see anyone crying to anyone that they should be in, it's usually people who are displeased at worst and expressing their potential joy if some eye candy did make it in and only when someones comes along and prods them to quantify their likes or puts them on the defensive by telling them what they want is not important or otherwise belittling their personal taste do they get into it and hash up a real debate over the validity of that desire... which of course is then sited as whining and complaining.

Often it seems akin to poking a dog and then being annoyed the dog barks too much.

Let's be honest here, we have the hardcore "sim" fans who care about nothing other than the brutal accuracy of the recreation and it could be "Hard Drivin" graphics for all they care as long as it's physics are right, then we have those who are really only interested in the eye candy - and let's not fool ourselves, GT is as much about eye candy as any game; there is a reason comparison screenshots, glory videos and every last sparkly detail is pointed out at some point - and then we have the vast majority who fall somewhere in betwee... and interspersed (liberally it seems) are those who would say anything that's not important to themselves personally just isn't important and can't seem to accept that others might have different taste and desires and through this intolerance whine as much or more about the whining than anyoneelse...

/whinyrant

Look at it this way. I'm a CG enthusiast. I play any game with great graphics for the graphics alone. One of the main reasons I love GT are the epic graphics. Ask me how much of a difference the lack of reverse lights make in the eye-candy department. "Oh, the reverse lights don't work". That's it. What difference does it make in the driving department? None. The only place it actually makes any difference is in the I-want-everything-right (a.k.a. I'm-just-nitpicking) department. Some people somehow escalate that to "GT not having them is stupid" or, in your own words, "ridiculous not to" and I am the one exaggerating? Give me a break. As you know, I've said it before, and I'm gonna say it again: I want reverse lights; I think they should be included; my only objection is to those who are trying to convince me reverse lights are important enough for their presence in the game to be mandatory.

"crying to the four winds" is just "complaining" with added "lolz", but you know that already. I'm not exaggerating facts to try to support my argument or anything. I'm just trying to make fun of the situation.

 

[Peter]

We don't need it, so everyone stop going crazy over reverse lights. The only reason you all should care is if you crash and need to reverse a lot(aka, you suck).

 

[WolfRacer543]

Not by much? when the sun is rising and the sun is setting the shadows are on completely opposite sides of the longitudinal line through the object. If the sun is directly overhead then the shadow of a building is almost in it's own footprint (actually will be with directional light) but an hour later the shadow could cross a street.

Yeah but the point I'm making is you dont need to know where the sun is to draw the shadows.

If the sun is rising from your left, you dont need to know where the sun is, if you know its at an angle of 45 degrees to the ground you can simply light the entire sky with rays projecting at 45 degrees.

Its because the sun is so far away you can do this. If you had a light globe set into a wall in a room, lighting generated from the point source of the globe would be different to lighting the room as if the entire wall was lit up but the rays perpendicular to the wall, because in reality the light from the globe is eminating out in all directions. However since the sun is so far away, you assume the rays are parallel by the time they reach us here on earth, so there is no difference between lighting the world with a point source at the sun's location, or simply lighting the entire sky at the appropriate angle.

 

[rkk01]

Yeah but the point I'm making is you dont need to know where the sun is to draw the shadows.

If the sun is rising from your left, you dont need to know where the sun is, if you know its at an angle of 45 degrees to the ground you can simply light the entire sky with rays projecting at 45 degrees.

Its because the sun is so far away you can do this. If you had a light globe set into a wall in a room, lighting generated from the point source of the globe would be different to lighting the room as if the entire wall was lit up but the rays perpendicular to the wall, because in reality the light from the globe is eminating out in all directions. However since the sun is so far away, you assume the rays are parallel by the time they reach us here on earth, so there is no difference between lighting the world with a point source at the sun's location, or simply lighting the entire sky at the appropriate angle.

You obviously need to get out more...

... and look around you!!!

What you say about lighting the whole sky with light at 45 degrees to draw the shadows would only work in a 2D drawing - eg a school type ray drawing.

In a 3D world, the sun moves in inclination (vertical angle from the horizon - 45 in your example) and azimuth (ie angle from a N-S meridian line). So, at sunrise, the sun will be at a low angle of inclination in the eastern sky, with a very long shadow to the west of the structure - and the opposite at sunset. In between, at midday local time, the sun will be at its zenith, due south of the structure (northern hemisphere). On the equator, the sun will be directly overhead and the structure will have no shadow. North or south of the equator a very short shadow would be cast in the opposit deirection to the sun...

 

[rkk01]

All this talk about whether reversing lights are needed is obsolete....

Night racing = lights (of all sorts) needed.

End of argument

 

[P3nT4gR4m]

...so there is no difference between lighting the world with a point source at the sun's location, or simply lighting the entire sky at the appropriate angle.

In look, no, you're quite right - there's no difference but in terms of processing power required to simulate a point lightsource a million or whatever miles away and the somewhat cheaty, directional method the difference is astronomical (no pun intended)

Simulating the sunlight in any game with a point source at approximate distance of the sun would mean you'd never hit the magic 60fps refresh rate. In fact you'd be close to 60mins per frame (guesstimate)

This is why games use directional lighting.

 

[rkk01]

OT - but there are some lovely dynamic lighting effects here....



... and the dynamic weather doesn't look too shoddy either!

And with a 5th March (?) launch date it should keep me entertained for a while before GT5 lands...

 

[WolfRacer543]

You obviously need to get out more...

... and look around you!!!

What you say about lighting the whole sky with light at 45 degrees to draw the shadows would only work in a 2D drawing - eg a school type ray drawing.

In a 3D world, the sun moves in inclination (vertical angle from the horizon - 45 in your example) and azimuth (ie angle from a N-S meridian line). So, at sunrise, the sun will be at a low angle of inclination in the eastern sky, with a very long shadow to the west of the structure - and the opposite at sunset. In between, at midday local time, the sun will be at its zenith, due south of the structure (northern hemisphere). On the equator, the sun will be directly overhead and the structure will have no shadow. North or south of the equator a very short shadow would be cast in the opposit deirection to the sun...

I'll let you in on a secret, light is a 1 dimensional phenomenon Each ray could be described by a single straight line, hence, 1D. In 3D, you simply have an extra co-ordinate describing the line. 2D you describe the line by x and y, 3D you describe it by x, y, z. So what you are talking about simply means instead of saying "45 to the left", now you can say "45 degrees from one axis and 22 degrees from the other". Its still only 1 directional lighting

The reason light is 1D is because even if its in the x, y and z co-ordinate frame, the co-ordinates x, y and z are superfluous, as a straight line can actually be described by only 1 paramater.

P.S. I'm aware light isn't truely 1D because it is dependant on space such as interference patterns caused by a slit experiment, but for 95% of purposes light can be considered to travel in a straight line.

This is why games use directional lighting.

Oh yes, I agree

And sorry, I'm taking this thread off topic. I just can't help myself when it comes to this sort of stuff

 

[rkk01]

I'll let you in on a secret, light is a 1 dimensional phenomenon Each ray could be described by a single straight line, hence, 1D. In 3D, you simply have an extra co-ordinate describing the line. 2D you describe the line by x and y, 3D you describe it by x, y, z. So what you are talking about simply means instead of saying "45 to the left", now you can say "45 degrees from one axis and 22 degrees from the other". Its still only 1 directional lighting

The reason light is 1D is because even if its in the x, y and z co-ordinate frame, the co-ordinates x, y and z are superfluous, as a straight line can actually be described by only 1 paramater.

P.S. I'm aware light isn't truely 1D because it is dependant on space such as interference patterns caused by a slit experiment, but for 95% of purposes light can be considered to travel in a straight line.

You've expanded your original comment with more detail - but your position is still incorrect because it ignores time. You need to know the position of the sun to correctly draw shadows in a 3D world because the position of the light source changes with time - both in height and location.

Each individual ray path is 1D and because the sun is effectively at infinity, each ray path is parallel, and can be defined as a point (x, y, z) and vector or 2 points. The interaction of these parallel 1D lines with a real 3D world is only as you describe for a single snapshot, frozen in time. If you want to model shadows correctly you need to model the traverse of the sun across the sky for any given day (and each is different).

The video I posted above ^ shows some very good dynamic lighting where the objects are moving - and IIRC previous Silent Hunter games have had a full sun / moon / celestial model which chanegs with the days / months / seasons etc - not that GT5 needs that sort of detail...

 

[Neal]

 

[WolfRacer543]

You've expanded your original comment with more detail - but your position is still incorrect because it ignores time. You need to know the position of the sun to correctly draw shadows in a 3D world because the position of the light source changes with time - both in height and location.

Each individual ray path is 1D and because the sun is effectively at infinity, each ray path is parallel, and can be defined as a point (x, y, z) and vector or 2 points. The interaction of these parallel 1D lines with a real 3D world is only as you describe for a single snapshot, frozen in time. If you want to model shadows correctly you need to model the traverse of the sun across the sky for any given day (and each is different).

The video I posted above ^ shows some very good dynamic lighting where the objects are moving - and IIRC previous Silent Hunter games have had a full sun / moon / celestial model which chanegs with the days / months / seasons etc - not that GT5 needs that sort of detail...

I didn't mention time because of the fact, well, that wasn't the point I was making Now all we're talking about is updating our directional lighting according to time, height, location, blah blah, it just comes down to a direction of the light source in the end. Its not like you actually have to model the movement of celestial bodies, you simply need a function or a table which describes direction at a given time.

I'm really not sure what we're arguing about (are we even arguing? ) I feel like you're just stating a fact which expands on the fact I already stated, and now I'm doing the same, lol.

 

[P3nT4gR4m]

Time is relevant to directional lighting in games, tho, because of the way directional lighting is handled. Directional lighting (as already mentioned) is a cheat. It's not rendered in realtime. Instead the map is rendered (a process that can take hours) and a "shadowmap" is produced This shadow map is overlaid on the geometry of the map at runtime and, therefore the shadows cannot move. Easiest way to imagine this is it's the opposite of lighting - the map is fully lit to begin with and then the shadows are projected onto it.

Problem is shadow maps are a fixed thing - they cannot change over time. I'm not sure how games with day/night cycles get around this but I suspect they bake a progression of shadowmaps and move between them over time.

 

[Lucas]

The only reason you all should care is if you crash and need to reverse a lot(aka, you suck).

Or a.k.a. "I didn't spend 40 dollars in a glorified demo so I don't have to drive like Michael Schumacher since the moment I start playing GT5".

That sounds more like it. Anyways, why a reverse button, then? If we are never going to see reverse lights, why even have a reverse gear, geez.

 

[Sohvakettu]

Anyways, why a reverse button, then? If we are never going to see reverse lights, why even have a reverse gear, geez.

Umm... What?

 

[Lucas]

Umm... What?

Some people say they never use reverse, and thus there's no need for reverse lights. Get rid of the damn gear, then. The gear is there, so it is meant to be used.

I don't know why I bother to reply. As long as one person understands that reverse lights should be there, I'm happy. And there are obviously 5 persons other than me that agree, so...

 

[Griffith500]

Makes me smile every time I think of it!

Shadow maps can be computed on the fly. As can ambient lightmaps (inc. reflections for colour "bleed") for better realism (Crysis does this), although deferred rendering makes all of this much faster (GRiD? DiRT 2 definitely has it.)

Anyway, the point is, fully dynamic daylight (and moonlight) is possible.

Good articles here, for those that are interested:
1 | 2 (4th entry) | 3 (2nd entry) | 4 (4th entry) | 5
6 (2nd post) | 7 | 8 (deferred lighting!)

EDIT:

I don't know why I bother to reply. As long as one person understands that reverse lights should be there, I'm happy. And there are obviously 5 persons other than me that agree, so...

Err, yeah, I think we covered that...

if it doesn't matter, you shouldn't be crying to the four winds that it's heresy it's not in the game.

Reverse lights SHOULD be in the game. Are they important, not really, should they be there, yes. Do all race cars have them, no, should the cars that do have them in real life have them in game, yes.

That's about all that needs to be said. Still, people will discuss whether it is important to them, as individuals...

 

[ImprezaAddict]

It would complete the realism in cars, but its not something I really care about. I'll be using cockpit view all the time.