The Graphics

[N155AN]

maybe its 200mb because it lacks some things like the anit aliasing, because its clear the shadows in cockpit are worse than prologue, but its obviously been scaled down to fit 200mb, the model of the exterior is still pretty damn good.

 

[Williams_fan]

If I'm honest, I'm blown away. The graphics, which are apparantly so much worse than Forza 3 and GT5P are still brilliant. I haven't played either in ages, and thus looking at this demo is very impressive. The physics are amazing. You get used to braking while turning, then giving the right pedal a solid kick in other more basic games, but this reminds me what real driving is like. The rear of the car does have a tendancy to be somewhat loose, but then again, what is 350ish bhp supposed to do to the rear of a car if put down too quickly. It's all too easy to talk about 400, 500, 600, without realising the effect of a comparatively meager 250. The demo does have its faults, and so many people are so eager to mention these (TokyoDrift), but it is called 'The real driving simulater', and in that respect, they have succeeded. I will be eagerly awaiting the real thing

 

[scf2k]

Can anyone link a TGS clip of the 1080P source signal, not a camera recording a TV, cause as far as i can tell the time trial looks better than any TGS footage i've seen, how people can tell TGS has better graphics than the time trial when looking at a 4mbps HD video over a 40mbps (at least) PS3 source signal is beyond me. There is a reason HDMI was invented.

Wasn't TGS demo shown on exhibitions only? I don't think it's available as a direct feed capture. Though it's clear that TGS demo has better graphics and more features, even on the cam videos. Just look at this http://gamersyde.com/stream_gran_turismo_5_gamescom_720_replay-12547_en.html

 

[mr_VOLCANO]

You guys who complain about graphics, check out your display setting in options, turn on flicker reduction. IMO GT5 demo looks better then gt5p on my tv!

 

[mr_geez]

Unfortunately the graphics in this Time Trial Demo are not the highest quality, but I can say we can blame Indy track for it.. It is dull and not too colorful to say the least,especially when you compare it to prologue tracks.. I especially have some issues during changing the view (I tried every option available in menu and I have 1080p Sony Bravia TV so I don't think my TV is the problem) and some really annoying frame drops on some parts of the circuit.. As for the track not only it is dull and flat but htere are some noticable poor textures of people in the stands (very PS2 like) , grass is much worse than the prologue version and replays also are not as good as the GT5P ones..
I hope when we get proper demo it will look much better..

 

[cicohipe]

I think it's pretty clear this isn't the final build of the game, so to say that it is the final build of the graphics engine is kind of silly also. For one thing, there is no tyre smoke, surely there will be tyre smoke... Also their is no individual strands of grass as was the case in prologue, and the whole course just looks like it has been stuck on low detail settings. Put on top of this the fact that a PD rep has come out and said this is not the final build of the graphics engine and really their is little more to debate. Oh and look at how the brightness changes when you go into rear view... that just doesn't make any sense... it's clearly beta code....

 

[moxtau]

The graphics are more than enough as they are in this demo. Actually one would be hard pressed to find a better looking sim.

For me is far more important how they upgraded the physics and the sound, or little details like the cockpit movement. Very happy with the demo :-)

 

[Obli]

I have tried this demo on two TV sets; a 20" Samsung which has a native resolution of 1680 x 1050 and a 32" Samsung which has a native resolution of 1280 x 720.

The 20" Samsung looks great. Very sharp. The larger one looks pretty bad in comparison. Jaggies galore, hazey, funny colours. Usually the 32" looks fantatsic with games but for some reason GT5 Prologue and TT demo look pretty awful.

EDIT: just found this at Eurogamer: GT5 Time Trial 720p/1080p analysis

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-gt5-time-trial-blog-entry

 

[WolfRacer543]

Actually one would be hard pressed to find a better looking sim.

Mainly because sims haven't been pushing the graphics for years. I think a lot of PC sims are running on ancient engines that do physics great and DID graphics awesome about 5 years ago but are now dated in the graphics department.

 

[Dravonic]

I guess you've been out of the loop for quite sometime.
PC version of DiRT2 with DirectX 11 render-mode is.. graphically, in different league. Welcome to 2010(almost).

OK so I checked it out. Still not finished downloading the demo, but from what I saw in the videos they have some great direct 11 gimmicks that hardly add to the graphics. Overall, the environment graphics are significantly better due to processing power overkill present on newer PCs that allow for full 3D audiences and the sort, better image treatment with high quality sampling anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering. If I had to declare a winner dirt2 would be the obvious one but not by far. I wouldn't go as far as saying it's "graphically in a different league". I'm not sure by the videos alone, will be more confident when the demo download finishes, but the cars in GT5P appear to be more detailed.

As soon as the demo finishes downloading I'll give my last word.

 

[code_kev]

Dirt 2 on the pc, graphically, obliterates any console racer. It's a DX11 pc game man. It is VERY pretty.

I'd rather have GT5 and Forza 3 over Dirt 2 any day, but lets at least be realistic. GT5 isn't really a looker (the cars look really nice but it's lacking in pretty much every other area), it would have been a few years ago but games have moved on. As I said, the cars do look great though, it runs nice and smooth and the graphics are clear.

I guess I sound quite negative but I'm not brand obsessed, I just like racing games. I don't feel that I have to pretend that PD have "dumbed" it down (a ridiculous notion dreamt up so the PD/ GT obsessed don't lose any sleep).

Also I love the use of speech comments when refering to Foza as being a sim. To call Forza an arcade game would be to call the GT series one too.

 

[magburner]

The first time I played the demo I said wow two times! The first was because of the physics, which are vastly different and better than GT5, and the second time was when I clapped my eyes on the graphics.

I don't know what PD have been doing for the past five or six years, but the graphics are way below what I was expecting. They seem almost cartoonish in nature, and the environment is nigh on sterile. Maybe my excpectations are too high, but who can blame me when I've been seduced by the 'vision'?

I'm willing to let the graphics lie if the functionality and features match the awesome physics, but from what I've seen so far, I'm not filled with confidence. Lets hope PD have an ace up their sleeves eh?

 

[Radracing]

It's a DEMO! It dose not include a lot of features the final game has to offer. If anything it was just giving for free for the driving experience of the new pyhsics engine not the eye candy that you are looking for. So stop whinning and DRIVE! see what you are made off and get on top of the leader board.

It's so obvious they didn't include a lot of things that is going to be in the full game. They didn't want the free download to be to massive.

 

[code_kev]

Yes, in these days of broadband, the difference between a 200 meg demo and a 600 meg demo really matter... the demo is small not because of a reduction in quality, it's because it contains next to nothing.

Had to laugh at the notion one guy had earlier that the shadow quality was cut to save space, brilliant! What next, the sky is a jpeg but in the final one it will be a bitmap?

P.s. the shadows are calulated using maths etc, removing them would not really save any space. Just so you know.

 

[magburner]

It's a DEMO! It dose not include a lot of features the final game has to offer. If anything it was just giving for free for the driving experience of the new pyhsics engine not the eye candy that you are looking for. So stop whinning and DRIVE! see what you are made off and get on top of the leader board.

It's so obvious they didn't include a lot of things that is going to be in the full game. They didn't want the free download to be to massive.

I'm not whining, just making an observation. You are allowed to make observations, yes? Or no? I will get my DFP out and attepmt to get my name on the leaderboard somewhere, though I doubt it will be at the top!

Honestly, I'm not too fussed about the graphics, I'm just trying to find justification for the length of time I have had to wait for the game. I assumed the development time was spent perfecting the graphics, for now it doesn't seem to be the case, though I am more than happy to eat my own hat if I am found to be in error. Lets hope I am!

 

[Dravonic]

Dirt 2 on the pc, graphically, obliterates any console racer. It's a DX11 pc game man. It is VERY pretty.

I'd rather have GT5 and Forza 3 over Dirt 2 any day, but lets at least be realistic. GT5 isn't really a looker (the cars look really nice but it's lacking in pretty much every other area), it would have been a few years ago but games have moved on. As I said, the cars do look great though, it runs nice and smooth and the graphics are clear.

I guess I sound quite negative but I'm not brand obsessed, I just like racing games. I don't feel that I have to pretend that PD have "dumbed" it down (a ridiculous notion dreamt up so the PD/ GT obsessed don't lose any sleep).

Also I love the use of speech comments when refering to Foza as being a sim. To call Forza an arcade game would be to call the GT series one too.

You see, that's where I believe people get caught in the propaganda. DirectX is nothing but a graphic library. Sure it gets better and has more juicy features each version but a game is not automatically better than the other if one is running on directx 11 and the other is running on 10 or 9 or OpenGL or a custom one.

From what I saw in the dirt demo, cars in GT still hold a significant edge. GT texture resolution is not half bad though dirt is better. Lightning in GT is better. I'd say that the only things GT loose are shadows by a good amount; textures by a little bit; 2D spectators even though some tracks (london, eiger) show 3D spectators of matching quality to dirt's; trees by a long shot; in the end, overall environment quality though not by much. And that's comparing to the PC version of dirt. The overall "feeling" or "look" the graphics have in GT is more real than dirt has either way.

What I'm trying to say is, GT can compete with the best looking racing games on computer nowadays and no console racer can beat it. The closest any console racer got was Forza but still no match. How can people not be pleased with GT graphics is beyond me. There's simply nothing significantly better to overshadow GT in the first place.

I understand what you mean by people being in denial and I agree. I don't think the final game will look significantly better or even any better. I'm saying this demo already looks good enough. It's running in a PS3 at 60FPS (though not very stable) and no one else can come up with anything significantly better even in a PC? That deserves respect.

 

[RetroGiant]

This reminds me soooooooooooo much of peoples reactions to the FM3 demo.

 

[final lap]

Yeh but what about the trailer that was released earlier this year, surely the graphics in the demo aren't from the full game, I mean remember the trailer, it was awesome with the rally car in the corn field and that. The demo physics are great and very fun to drive, though the graphics are maybe not so good but definitely tolerable and could use some improvement. The demo is a great drive though, looking forward to the full release.

 

[Dibbz]

The game is 3 months away from release in Japan and it looked good at TGS. Who knows how long this track has been in development but I'm hopefull it'll be upto the Tokyo R246 track by then.

Even now though the game looks better than most out there.

 

[G.T.Ace]

GT5 isn't really a looker

When i read something like this i cant take you serious, sorry.

EDIT: Oh and by the way, this is directed at everyone who said the spectators dont move: Glasses could help! 👍

 

[tyl0r_r]

When i read something like this i cant take you serious, sorry.

I was just playing it and I agree with you. In fact my replay is going as I type. I'm not a GT zealot and nor do I own a top end gaming PC, my tastes for graphics are based on PS3 with an HDTV in 1080p and having been playing videogames too much for my own good for the past twenty years. GT looks really good. The last two games I completed were Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2, the best lookers on the system probably. GT is a different kind of game entirely but honestly the looks of the game holds up with the best the console has to offer.

 

[hardvibes]

Can you guys confirm that the ON-BOARD cam during replays (like what we saw at gamescom and tgs) was just in the limited TT demo for the press? I dont have it

 

[randomname1]

The graphics are more than enough as they are in this demo. Actually one would be hard pressed to find a better looking sim.

For me is far more important how they upgraded the physics and the sound, or little details like the cockpit movement. Very happy with the demo :-)

I don't see anything wrong with the graphics.
Once again, what do you expect from a 200MB demo?

GT5 has the most detailed car models of any racing game ever made, and Indy looks photorealistic in parts. Plus the fact that PD could pull that off at 60 FPS and with 15 other cars on track is an achievement in and of itself. If jaggies are your only problem, then you're just nitpicking. This might be the best looking racing game so far this generation.

looks fine to me.. realistic, just how i like my racegames.

The graphics are fine for me. It looks like prologue and prologue looks great.
Stop whining about it, you got to remember that this is a 200MB DEMO. So shut up and play.

The graphics are great, the AA has improved, car models look sexy as always, why are people complaining? Besides this is just one track and car. If you dont like it, just stick to forza and stop complaining. Come on now.

Can you people do me a favor please? Find me a racing game that looks better than this demo. Don't limit yourselves to consoles, you can try the PC too.

The amount of Polyphony Digital lovers here astonishes me. To all the people who find it necessary to defend GT till death, grow up.

Anyone with or without a brain should be able to tell Forza 3 looks better than the GT Academy Demo. Just look at the comparisons.

http://www.cynamite.de/_misc/galleries/detail.cfm?pk=2695&fk=131122&opv=gal&page=1&order=&aid=0

Some of you are even going as far to say the GT Academy Demo is the best looking sim across ALL systems. Grow up please. I have nothing but very high expectations from PD. Average graphics for an exclusive racer thats been in development for 5 years is definitely something worth complaining about.

Sorry to put you guys on blast like that but I needed some examples.

 

[killanite]

Anyone with or without a brain should be able to tell Forza 3 looks better than the GT Academy Demo. Just look at the comparisons.

http://www.cynamite.de/_misc/galleries/detail.cfm?pk=2695&fk=131122&opv=gal&page=1&order=&aid=0

That link doesn't help your case at all... I cannot believe how inaccurate the cockpit of the 370z in Forza 3 is.
The only thing that looks better in the Forza 3 screens is the grass.. I don't care about the grass in a racing game, And just because the road is dirtier with skidmarks doesn't mean it looks more realistic. As for the car itself, GT wins those screenshots as well.

 

[Exorcet]

The amount of Polyphony Digital lovers here astonishes me. To all the people who find it necessary to defend GT till death, grow up.

Anyone with or without a brain should be able to tell Forza 3 looks better than the GT Academy Demo. Just look at the comparisons.

http://www.cynamite.de/_misc/galleries/detail.cfm?pk=2695&fk=131122&opv=gal&page=1&order=&aid=0

Some of you are even going as far to say the GT Academy Demo is the best looking sim across ALL systems. Grow up please. I have nothing but very high expectations from PD. Average graphics for an exclusive racer thats been in development for 5 years is definitely something worth complaining about.

Sorry to put you guys on blast like that but I needed some examples.

It might just be because I consider graphics as important as the font style on the legal page of the manual, but GT5 demo and GT5P look pretty much the same. Both look better than Forza 3, and I've played all three games just today on the same HD TV.

While the picky may find some downsides vs GT5P, I think it's crazy to call GT5 demo's graphics bad.

 

[Nauraushaun]

Watch this http://www.taxigamer.com/PlayStatio...e_Trial_Indianapolis_Road_Course_Replay_.html , he didn't change camera or anything, it was all automatic. Maybe because he had the limited press demo?...

I'll try again changing with select but I've already done it dozens of times.

That video won't load for me. I'm telling you, if you're in a replay, and you press X so that you're on the bumper/chase cam (not the fancy movie-style camera), then press the change view button, it'll change to an in-car camera.
It might be R1 for you.

 

[Jay]

Can you guys confirm that the ON-BOARD cam during replays (like what we saw at gamescom and tgs) was just in the limited TT demo for the press? I dont have it

Thats what I was wondering, I haven't seen it yet either.

 

[WolfRacer543]

You see, that's where I believe people get caught in the propaganda. DirectX is nothing but a graphic library. Sure it gets better and has more juicy features each version but a game is not automatically better than the other if one is running on directx 11 and the other is running on 10 or 9 or OpenGL or a custom one.

Saying its Dx11 really just means its using the cutting edge technology. In reality Dx11 is simply a tweaked Dx10, and Dx10 was never a big leap over Dx9 anyway. The only thing it means is its brand new, using the newest tech, and may have an extra particle effect or two over Dx9 games.

 

[FozzyFan116]

Forza 3 has more realistically detailed graphics for the track environments...However, GT5's car models, interior and exterior, simply poop on FM3's...the way the lighting and reflections look on the cars is really spectacular. If you see any of this ANY other way, you're a fanboy of one of these games

 

[code_kev]

"Saying its Dx11 really just means its using the cutting edge technology."

Look, I'm a gigantic nerd, I know this. My point was that it's a pc game with huge production values behind it, pushing the latest tech.

Thing is, they WANT gt5 to be the best looking because they have been waiting for it for so long. You could show them a photo and GT5 and they will tell you the photo is "all wrong", "has more jaggies" and that the "car isn't accurate enough". It's to be expected really. This is all very much like before GT4 came out...

I thought the car models in both looked fantastic, Forza looks better because there is a lot more detail, fancy effects etc that are missing from GT, but there you go, I'm a flopza fanboy etc. I do think the dash in GT looks more realistic (as in close to the real thing) but are spoiled by the stair-case shadows that splash across it.

BTW isn't it funny how if a racing game that is not GT omits anything, it's ridiculed, yet GT has a free pass. "I'm playing a racing game, not a...a...reverse light sim".