*** Turn 10 / Forza Motorsport Studio Tour by Inside Sim Racing

[FuzzyFassbender]

"difference...night and day", "...extreme", "really bad", "abysmal and very jarring at times", "far worse"...

These used to describe the deficiencies in FM5 graphics (cockpit, photo vs racing)? What game are you playing?

I haven't played FM5 for a month, but if I was going to list the top 10 reasons why, graphics would not be one of those 10. With that said, I would take FM5 over any other FM and it's way ahead of any other console racer - my opinion!

I need more simulation features and hardware options for immersion (triple screen, physics based tactile feedback, button boxes, telemetry monitors,...), this is why I am spending all my time on the PC but FM5's lack of some graphical reproduction is not even close to being on my top 10 wishes.

Also, there are two ways to look at my racing games/sims when evaluating, ways they can be improved and things that suck. Glass half full or half empty! Some get pleasure knocking things down - half empty.

 

[UkHardcore23]

"difference...night and day", "...extreme", "really bad", "abysmal and very jarring at times", "far worse"...

These used to describe the deficiencies in FM5 graphics (cockpit, photo vs racing)? What game are you playing?

I haven't played FM5 for a month, but if I was going to list the top 10 reasons why, graphics would not be one of those 10. With that said, I would take FM5 over any other FM and it's way ahead of any other console racer - my opinion!

I need more simulation features and hardware options for immersion (triple screen, physics based tactile feedback, button boxes, telemetry monitors,...), this is why I am spending all my time on the PC but FM5's lack of some graphical reproduction is not even close to being on my top 10 wishes.

Also, there are two ways to look at my racing games/sims when evaluating, ways they can be improved and things that suck. Glass half full or half empty! Some get pleasure knocking things down - half empty.

What other nxt-gen racers do we have? I play Forza 5 everyday you've not played it in a month...Trust me the graphics for a nxt-gen title are poor (have you seen Ryse or Infamous?)...Of course it looks better than racers on 8 and 9 year old consoles.

I honestly thought we'd get Forza 4 photomode cars on track with Forza 5, We barely got any upgrade. When the cars infront are 12ft away they look so poor, When 20ft away they look like cardboard boxes. They need to be 2ft away from your own car for them to look good.

If people dont point out flaws how are T10 ever going to make it better? Right now T10 seem stuck in a little rut im sure they could be doing with help from the community, Just look how PCars is progressing.

 

[Imari]

Also, there are two ways to look at my racing games/sims when evaluating, ways they can be improved and things that suck. Glass half full or half empty! Some get pleasure knocking things down - half empty.

It does sort of depend how much the sucky things suck, though.

Take Shift 2 as an example. Not exactly a sim, but still a game with a lot of things to like, but the horrendous input lag made it very, very difficult to enjoy any of the good bits no matter how hard you try.

On the other hand:

When the cars infront are 12ft away they look so poor, When 20ft away they look like cardboard boxes. They need to be 2ft away from your own car for them to look good.

This is demonstrably not true.

The LOD detail does drop off fairly sharply with distance, but you're MASSIVELY exaggerating how bad it is. Cars are generally ~13ft long. Cars in Forza 5 do not look like cardboard boxes from 2.5 car lengths away.

 

[UkHardcore23]

The LOD detail does drop off fairly sharply with distance, but you're MASSIVELY exaggerating how bad it is. Cars are generally ~13ft long. Cars in Forza 5 do not look like cardboard boxes from 2.5 car lengths away.

Good point my measurements are way off...But you know what im talking about.

 

[Imari]

Good point my measurements are way off...But you know what im talking about.

Not really. Because every game does this, that's how LOD works.

The distances are the critical parameter. If the cars were reduced to ~50 poly blobs after 20ft, that would be cause for concern. If they're ~50 poly blobs at 600ft, there's probably not enough resolution in the screen to tell the difference.

There's also the problem of making sure the different LOD levels "blend" together well, for want of a better word. Not that they actually blend, but that they're similar enough that there's not a visible jump in detail as you move from one level to another. It's not so much about the raw level of detail then, as the difference in detail. If you jump straight from LOD D designed for 600ft to LOD X designed for point blank range, it's going to be obvious. If you step through LOD C, B, and A on the way then you'll notice the change, but you might not notice the steps.

I agree that it's something that could be improved, but I don't find it to be particularly jarring, nor do I find it to be particularly worse than any of the other racing games I play.

 

[Speedster911]

"difference...night and day", "...extreme", "really bad", "abysmal and very jarring at times", "far worse"...

These used to describe the deficiencies in FM5 graphics (cockpit, photo vs racing)? What game are you playing?

I haven't played FM5 for a month, but if I was going to list the top 10 reasons why, graphics would not be one of those 10. With that said, I would take FM5 over any other FM and it's way ahead of any other console racer - my opinion!

I need more simulation features and hardware options for immersion (triple screen, physics based tactile feedback, button boxes, telemetry monitors,...), this is why I am spending all my time on the PC but FM5's lack of some graphical reproduction is not even close to being on my top 10 wishes.

Also, there are two ways to look at my racing games/sims when evaluating, ways they can be improved and things that suck. Glass half full or half empty! Some get pleasure knocking things down - half empty.

I believe folks were just expecting too much out of it being next-gen and all. To be quite frank, I don't see any jaggy issues in even FM4. Haven't dissected FM5 as yet.

Besides, isn't FM5 better-looking than even some PC sims?

What other nxt-gen racers do we have? I play Forza 5 everyday you've not played it in a month...Trust me the graphics for a nxt-gen title are poor (have you seen Ryse or Infamous?)...Of course it looks better than racers on 8 and 9 year old consoles.

I honestly thought we'd get Forza 4 photomode cars on track with Forza 5, We barely got any upgrade. When the cars infront are 12ft away they look so poor, When 20ft away they look like cardboard boxes. They need to be 2ft away from your own car for them to look good.

If people dont point out flaws how are T10 ever going to make it better? Right now T10 seem stuck in a little rut im sure they could be doing with help from the community, Just look how PCars is progressing.

Hmm, these are clearly not good indicators. T10 have to confine themselves within the boundaries set by MS while working on their Forza titles. Maybe they didn't have the breathing room they needed. Either that, or the X1 isn't all that powerful, by next gen standards that is.

Scenario number three could be a lack of understanding and experience with developer tools and software. It's a new architecture, so maybe by FM6, things might be pretty much perfect. They ought to.

It does sort of depend how much the sucky things suck, though.

Take Shift 2 as an example. Not exactly a sim, but still a game with a lot of things to like, but the horrendous input lag made it very, very difficult to enjoy any of the good bits no matter how hard you try.

On the other hand:



This is demonstrably not true.

The LOD detail does drop off fairly sharply with distance, but you're MASSIVELY exaggerating how bad it is. Cars are generally ~13ft long. Cars in Forza 5 do not look like cardboard boxes from 2.5 car lengths away.

One of the things that make me sad about Shift 2 to this day! This game could have easily stayed neck to neck with Forza, physics-wise. But the tainted handling and lag just kills the fun, I know. A brilliant title otherwise marred by handling blues.

Not really. Because every game does this, that's how LOD works.

The distances are the critical parameter. If the cars were reduced to ~50 poly blobs after 20ft, that would be cause for concern. If they're ~50 poly blobs at 600ft, there's probably not enough resolution in the screen to tell the difference.

There's also the problem of making sure the different LOD levels "blend" together well, for want of a better word. Not that they actually blend, but that they're similar enough that there's not a visible jump in detail as you move from one level to another. It's not so much about the raw level of detail then, as the difference in detail. If you jump straight from LOD D designed for 600ft to LOD X designed for point blank range, it's going to be obvious. If you step through LOD C, B, and A on the way then you'll notice the change, but you might not notice the steps.

I agree that it's something that could be improved, but I don't find it to be particularly jarring, nor do I find it to be particularly worse than any of the other racing games I play.

Exactly, LOD always has been a bit of a controversy over the years, hasn't it? Console hardware just isn't that beefy, not even on this generation. Compared to a really beefy PC that is. You put in more cashiola, you'll see the results!

Not so with consoles.

 

[UkHardcore23]

Not really. Because every game does this, that's how LOD works.

The distances are the critical parameter. If the cars were reduced to ~50 poly blobs after 20ft, that would be cause for concern. If they're ~50 poly blobs at 600ft, there's probably not enough resolution in the screen to tell the difference.

There's also the problem of making sure the different LOD levels "blend" together well, for want of a better word. Not that they actually blend, but that they're similar enough that there's not a visible jump in detail as you move from one level to another. It's not so much about the raw level of detail then, as the difference in detail. If you jump straight from LOD D designed for 600ft to LOD X designed for point blank range, it's going to be obvious. If you step through LOD C, B, and A on the way then you'll notice the change, but you might not notice the steps.

I agree that it's something that could be improved, but I don't find it to be particularly jarring, nor do I find it to be particularly worse than any of the other racing games I play.

That's the problem with Forza 5 you notice every single step, I think it's the Kia that has brake light's down the bottom and when you get 6 or 8ft away they just go from not being there to suddenly appearing, Another example is the Corvette GT car, It has 2 very shiny grilles on it, You need to get really close to it for them to appear, Again you notice this alot with shiny exhausts under the car one second it's there and if that car pulls away ever so slightly that exhaust totally disappears...

You say other games do it which is right but i've never noticed it to be so extreme as it is with Forza 5, It's as if they have not made enough models for us not to notice it.

 

[Speedster911]

Hmm... you know I have noticed this on some cars in FM4 too. Not sure about FM3.

Maybe FM5 hasn't been reworked to the level T10 claims. But honestly, are these game-breaking anomalies? I doubt it.

Visuals are important yes. But sounds and physics do way WAY more to immerse you into the simulation experience.

How far away do you sit from the TV by the way? Screen size?

 

[UkHardcore23]

Hmm... you know I have noticed this on some cars in FM4 too. Not sure about FM3.

Maybe FM5 hasn't been reworked to the level T10 claims. But honestly, are these game-breaking anomalies? I doubt it.

Visuals are important yes. But sounds and physics do way WAY more to immerse you into the simulation experience.

How far away do you sit from the TV by the way? Screen size?

Defo not game breaking but for me it does take you out of the immersion.

51" mainly, Cockpit View, Sit about 4ft away.

 

[Imari]

Defo not game breaking but it does take you out of the immersion.

51" mainly, Cockpit View, Sit about 4ft away.

Four feet from a 51" screen? That's...nuts.

Optimal viewing distance is about double that. No wonder you're noticing weird details. That's like putting your nose against your monitor and complaining that you can see pixels, it's not designed for that sort of viewing. Even if your vision is pretty bad, you're way below the normal resolution of the human eye.

For comparison, I'm sitting about 3 feet from a 20" computer monitor. At that distance, one pixel is at around about the limit of the perception of the eye. I can distinguish every detail down to single pixels, but they're as small as they can be while still keeping that perception.

You may want to try moving to a more suitable distance. It sounds dumb, but I hardly think it's fair to criticise a game for not meeting graphical standards it wasn't designed to meet. That's like complaining that fish are crap at climbing trees. View it in the conditions it was designed for, and then see what you think. I suspect you'll find that you still notice the issues, because they are real, but that their impact upon you is far reduced.

Or possibly not, you've probably trained yourself to be so sensitive to them by now that there's no real hope for you being able to play the game without noticing.

 

[UkHardcore23]

Four feet from a 51" screen? That's...nuts.

Optimal viewing distance is about double that. No wonder you're noticing weird details. That's like putting your nose against your monitor and complaining that you can see pixels, it's not designed for that sort of viewing. Even if your vision is pretty bad, you're way below the normal resolution of the human eye.

For comparison, I'm sitting about 3 feet from a 20" computer monitor. At that distance, one pixel is at around about the limit of the perception of the eye. I can distinguish every detail down to single pixels, but they're as small as they can be while still keeping that perception.

You may want to try moving to a more suitable distance. It sounds dumb, but I hardly think it's fair to criticise a game for not meeting graphical standards it wasn't designed to meet. That's like complaining that fish are crap at climbing trees. View it in the conditions it was designed for, and then see what you think. I suspect you'll find that you still notice the issues, because they are real, but that their impact upon you is far reduced.

Or possibly not, you've probably trained yourself to be so sensitive to them by now that there's no real hope for you being able to play the game without noticing.

When playing racing games you need to be sitting at the perfect distance you need to be seeing the full FOV, Why do you think they dont build cockpits with the screens 4-6ft away...All other games i sit around 8ft away.

Check this thread out...Kaz is sitting far too far away for a racing game.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/cant-go-back-to-gt6-after-playing-ac.295392/page-5

If your that far away from that size of screen your putting yourself at a massive disadvantage.

Check out Team VVV on Youtube...He has 3x42" and sits closer than i do. Racing games are different to how you would play other games.

 

[Imari]

Racing games are different to how you would play other games.

No, they're not. If you think they are, you're going to have to explain how. There's additional things to take into consideration with racing games, but a lot of the same things apply to viewing anything and everything.

The correct thing to do is adjust the FOV to your correct driving position. When that's not possible, with games such as Gran Turismo (*cough*secret menu*cough*), you simply adapt. Driving from a position which is not the optically correct FOV is not ideal as it messes with your depth perception, but sometimes it's needed. It's not the end of the world.

For example, I intentionally drive iRacing with a slightly wider FOV than is optically correct, simply because I find the extra peripheral vision to be more helpful than the distortion is hindering. I have a small screen and I know it, so I've made a compromise. I've learned to judge distances through the distortion.

If you think that having the correct FOV is important, you're right. It is. But I seriously doubt that the price you're paying in being right up against the screen is worth it. You can learn to drive through a warped FOV, and it's not even that difficult. You will find it hard to ignore the graphical issues that result from having your face that close to the screen, as you're noticing.

You have a massive screen. You may have to make a compromise. Because unless you can adjust the FOV like you could in FM4, you're not going to find it possible to have everything correct.

Either you
1. Sit at the optically correct distance with your nose to the screen noticing every graphical twitch.
2. Sit at the correct viewing distance where your FOV is way out.
3. Find a happy medium where neither is strictly correct but they're close enough that you're not troubled by the issues that either one produces.

I feel like you've chosen 1, and are complaining about the side effects that it brings. That's the choice you made, and you either live with the side effects or change your positioning.


Note: VVV is playing on triples. If you're playing on triples, then you by default have the ability to modify the game's FOV. He's modified it to the correct angle for his seating position, or he should have. He's at least 4 feet away from the screen, probably 5 and could be nearly 6. Optimum viewing distance on a 42 is about 5 and a bit feet. Four times the height of the screen is rule of thumb.

Kaz...who knows. But sitting at that distance is not necessarily a disadvantage if his FOV was adjusted correctly. It wouldn't be, because it's Gran Turismo, but it *could* be if it was, say, Assetto Corsa.

 

[UkHardcore23]

4ft away is certainly not right up to the screen my nose is no where near it, My times improve considerably with being 4ft away compared to 8ft. Okay...Just measured and im 5ft 2" away.

I cant see how playing at 8ft away is going to improve the LOD for the cars or the jaggies but i will play this way tonight and report back. 👍

Seems optimum distance for a 50" 1080p is around 6ft so im only slightly closer than what i should be.

 

[Zer0]

Check this thread out...Kaz is sitting far too far away for a racing game.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/threads/cant-go-back-to-gt6-after-playing-ac.295392/page-5

This is the setup he use in his office:

 

[Speedster911]

I knew it was a matter of time before somebody posted that "expert/undisputed viewing distance" graph.

What Imari says speaks a lot of common sense.

UK Hardcore, I understand this is seriously affecting your ability to enjoy the game, but friend, on a 51" screen you are sitting quite close. These are still games that make use of pixels and graphics, as opposed to movies that have much higher fidelity.

Now, if you're watching a Bluray movie, I can understand why you'd want to sit 4 feet away. But with games on a screen size you have, I'd strongly suggest at least 8 to 10 feet away.

Like I said, I game on a 40" screen, and often sit about 12 feet away. I have no problem picking race lines, or judging corners properly. I can read and understand all text just fine, during a race and menus as well.

Sitting so close does give you a very life-like feeling of immersion in driving games. But under the circumstances it would really pay to give heed to Imari's advice. He's practically on the money there.

Happy motoring man. Give it a try for at least a week. Allow yourself to adjust. It ain't that bad.

Your eyes will thank you for it too!

 

[King1982]

Sent it to you a PM/Conversation

On Forza 5 graphics this is what DF has to say...


http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-11-23-digital-foundry-vs-forza-motorsport-5

Now i only race in Cockpit view so checked out the other views and sure enough the jaggies arnt quite as bad. Wonder why that is? You would think it would have less jaggies.

Photomode looks bloody amazing though.

Still better than anything else on console.

 

[UkHardcore23]

This is the setup he use in his office:

Looks amazing...The distance looks spot on also.

Still better than anything else on console.

Totally agree.

 

[FuzzyFassbender]

...
Besides, isn't FM5 better-looking than even some PC sims?
...

Yes. One of my favorites is one of the least impressive graphically - Game Stock Car Extreme, but the AI, physics, FFB, sounds, and sim features make up for it. I "required" top notch graphics until I started to appreciate other factors. And as I have mentioned before, sounds are just as important as graphics.