The Project CARS Video Thread

[blowfishrulez]

Back on topic: Dont know if it was posted here yet. A B-Roll cinematic trailer released by WMD member ed3dfx on Feb 10th 2015

 

[veryferry]

View attachment 340177

Those trees

Such a beautyful game deserves better looking trees. Ofcourse, as long asyou drive you probably never notice, but in photomode you sure as hell are.

1994 had those kinda trees too, it's 2015 now

 

[blowfishrulez]

Seriously? You are coming from the GT6 Photomode crowd in here, post a rFactor 1 video displaying a F1 1994 Season Mod from 2012 (!) and you are disappointed by PCars trees?

 

[catamount39]

Those trees

Such a beautyful game deserves better looking trees. Ofcourse, as long asyou drive you probably never notice, but in photomode you sure as hell are.

1994 had those kinda trees too, it's 2015 now

The trees I could give two 🤬 about...it's a stupid 🤬 🤬 tree. Who cares? It's...a...STUPID TREE.

Anyway I do love the damage in this game.

 

[veryferry]

The trees I give no 🤬...it's a stupid 🤬 🤬 tree. Who cares?

Good vocabulary man!
And it's nice and all that you don't care, but I do. Trees are everywhere along the tracks, so in order to have a complete overall good looking game the trees should look good too.

Seriously? You are coming from the GT6 Photomode crowd in here, post a rFactor 1 video displaying a F1 1994 Season Mod from 2012 (!) and you are disappointed by PCars trees?

Uhm...yeah? And the vid illustrates that the way they make trees now is similar to how they were made more than 20(!) years ago; by having to planes with opacitymaps crossed. Like this.

 

[swg]

Good vocabulary man!
And it's nice and all that you don't care, but I do. Trees are everywhere along the tracks, so in order to have a complete overall good looking game the trees should look good too.



Uhm...yeah? And the vid illustrates that the way they make trees now is similar to how they were made more than 20(!) years ago.

And there are reasons for that.
A. it's efficient
B. it's more than good enough
C. no one else cares

If you want individualy rendered branches and leaves with 1080p 60fps in a racing sim then you've got about another 20 years worth of waiting ahead of you.

 

[blowfishrulez]

way they make trees now is similar to how they were made more than 20(!) years ago

You still don't get it do you? The F1 1994 rfactor mod is not from 1994!

Take a look at https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/the-project-cars-photo-pron-thread.303263 to get some inspiration. Why not just wait for PCars to come out and make the best possible use of the Photomode in there?

 

[wowbaggerBR]

Good vocabulary man!
And it's nice and all that you don't care, but I do. Trees are everywhere along the tracks, so in order to have a complete overall good looking game the trees should look good too.



Uhm...yeah? And the vid illustrates that the way they make trees now is similar to how they were made more than 20(!) years ago; by having to planes with opacitymaps crossed. Like this.

LOL, the rFactor mod wasn't made in 94.

pCars trees looks good enough.

 

[swg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFactor

Release dates matter.

 

[veryferry]

You still don't get it do you? The F1 1994 rfactor mod is not from 1994!

Take a look at https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/the-project-cars-photo-pron-thread.303263 to get some inspiration. Why not just wait for PCars to come out and make the best possible use of the Photomode in there?

So you're arguing with me that the technique behind the trees isn't from that era?
Dude...it's an classic technique and it's done by having to planes with opacitymaps crossed. Like this.

And there are reasons for that.
A. it's efficient
B. it's more than good enough
C. no one else cares

If you want individualy rendered branches and leaves with 1080p 60fps in a racing sim then you've got about another 20 years worth of waiting ahead of you.

A. It is, but so is having square wheels. Non-argument.
B. Not for photomode. If you want to create awesome photos ingame, which I do, thees kind of trees are damaging the overall quality of the photo by looking bad while everything else looks awesome.
C. So because two people here disagree NO ONE ELSE cares? Really? I doubt that!

 

[veryferry]

LOL, the rFactor mod wasn't made in 94.

pCars trees looks good enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFactor

Release dates matter.

So, they don't. The technique used matters.
And my bad...I choose the wrong vid. But dont focus too much on the vid, focus more on my point, which is that it's an old, outdated and poor technique

 

[mister dog]

@veryferry for your reference, these are 1994 trees:

 

[veryferry]

You still don't get it do you? The F1 1994 rfactor mod is not from 1994!

Take a look at https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/the-project-cars-photo-pron-thread.303263 to get some inspiration. Why not just wait for PCars to come out and make the best possible use of the Photomode in there?

I know it looks good and all, it all depends on the angle you look at them obviously.
But man...offended much? Geez....

 

[swg]

So you're arguing with me that the technique behind the trees isn't from that era?
Dude...it's an classic technique and it's done by having to planes with opacitymaps crossed. Like this.



A. It is, but so is having square wheels. Non-argument.
B. Not for photomode. If you want to create awesome photos ingame, which I do, thees kind of trees are damaging the overall quality of the photo by looking bad while everything else looks awesome.
C. So because two people here disagree NO ONE ELSE cares? Really? I doubt that!

Comparing square wheels to alpha mapped tree's is the non argument. Rendering individually unique and fully 3d modeled tree's in real time while simutaneously rendering a field of cars and processing a respectable physics engine is NOT feasible on current hardware (pc or console) hence the use of "efficient" techniques.
If taking pretty pictures of tree's in photo mode is more important to you than how smoothly the sim plays when RACING then you need to buy a nice camera and go outside.

 

[wowbaggerBR]

So, they don't. The technique used matters.
And my bad...I choose the wrong vid. But dont focus too much on the vid, focus more on my point, which is that it's an old, outdated and poor technique

This is Grand Prix 2, a racing simulator released in 94/95:



If you find pCARS trees ugly, it's ok, it's your opinion.

But they look very good when you measure them against all the racing games avaiable.

 

[mister dog]

@wowbaggerBR i tree'd you

 

[veryferry]

Comparing square wheels to alpha mapped tree's is the non argument. Rendering individually unique and fully 3d modeled tree's in real time while simutaneously rendering a field of cars and processing a respectable physics engine is NOT feasible on current hardware (pc or console) hence the use of "efficient" techniques.
If taking pretty pictures in photo mode is more important to you than how smoothly the sim plays when RACING then you need to buy a nice camera and go outside.

Yeah, because crossed planes and fully 3d modeled trees are two only two options.
And what could be done also is having good looking trees in the photomode and there kind of trees during racing.

 

[blowfishrulez]

offended much?

I'm not, though i prefer not to be called 'dude' by you. Your comment was just out of place and unjustified. It's like "i have this georgeous looking supermodel next to me in my bed. But i can't possibly take a photograph of her because her left pinky is not straight"

 

[veryferry]

I'm not, though i prefer not to be called 'dude' by you. Your comment was just out of place and unjustified. It's like "i have this georgeous looking supermodel next to me in my bed. But i can't possibly take a photograph of her because her left pinky is not straight"

If her total body was surrounded by hundreds of those pinkies you'd had a fair comparison.

 

[swg]

Yeah, because crossed planes and fully 3d modeled trees are two only two options.

Name some others that..
a. exist
b. produce the same quality of results with the same rendering load.

 

[UkHardcore23]

Cannot believe people are having a conversation about trees in a Sim forum

 

[veryferry]

Name some others that..
a. exist
b. produce the same quality of results with the same rendering load.

Obviously it will never have the exact same rendering load because to increase detail is to increase rendering load. But that doesn't mean it can't be done without having a bad effect on the gameplay. GTA 5 trees for example look quite good.

But as I said:
And what could be done also is having good looking trees in the photomode and there kind of trees during racing.

 

[veryferry]

Cannot believe people are having a conversation about trees in a Sim forum

People don't seem to easy on other people having different opinions as themselves.
How dare I point out a personal point of critique?

 

[blowfishrulez]

If her total body was surrounded by hundreds of those pinkies you'd had a fair comparison.

Ok, then create a set of thousands of variations of true to life tree assets that have the same polycount. I'm sure every developer will pay you 100k+$ for it. If you don't, don't point your fingers on "20 year old" techniques.

What do you even want to achieve with your post? Agreement? SMS redoing all of their trees? Suggest a game that looks better?

 

[FuriousDemon]

This pic comes to mind, which DrJustice recently posted.

 

[veryferry]

Ok, then create a set of thousands of variations of true to life tree assets that have the same polycount. I'm sure every developer will pay you 100k+$ for it. If you don't, don't point your fingers on "20 year old" techniques.

What do you even want to achieve with your post? Agreement? SMS redoing all of their trees? Suggest a game that looks better?

Whatever man. Seems kinda pointless having this conversation. Especially on this level, which is just ridiculous.
I don't want to achieve anything, I just mentioned something that caught my eye. I'm sorry you feel the urge to make such a big deal out of this.

 

[blowfishrulez]

This pic comes to mind, which DrJustice recently posted.

HAHAHA! That is the best comment to this topic 👍

 

[swg]

Obviously it will never have the exact same rendering load because to increase detail is to increase rendering load. But that doesn't mean it can't be done without having a bad effect on the gameplay. GTA 5 trees for example look quite good.

But as I said:
And what could be done also is having good looking trees in the photomode and there kind of trees during racing.

http://blog-imgs-43.fc2.com/v/e/r/vera1959/VGRBlog20120129000.jpg

What's that I see? Oh yea, it's 2d planes with alpha mapped trees.
If your "opinion" was a reasonable one with any thought behind it ppl might have a little more respect for it.

 

[psychoazubi]

http://blog-imgs-43.fc2.com/v/e/r/vera1959/VGRBlog20120129000.jpg

What's that I see? Oh yea, it's 2d planes with alpha mapped trees.

Oh and look at the flat grass. Isn't that ruining this beautiful shot?

 

[veryferry]

http://blog-imgs-43.fc2.com/v/e/r/vera1959/VGRBlog20120129000.jpg

What's that I see? Oh yea, it's 2d planes with alpha mapped trees.

And your point is...?
I said GTA 5, not GT5.