Watkins Glen - Real vs GT7
- Thread starter emula
- 89 comments
- 19,229 views
- 3,381
- Las Vegas
- dawko-san
- 1,427
- Italy
This. In other racing games the developers simply put random trees in random places or way more trees than the real track and then we have to ear famous videogame analysts (that have no idea about how the real track looks) say that GT trackside is bare and dull compared to the (fake) trackside of that X or Y racing game... Lol
Last edited:
- 981
- Argentina
This is the most important thing to mention when discussing if a game is realistic or not.
Yeah, Forza Motorsport looks beautiful and all that, but it really exaggerates the track details to the point where it's no longer realistic, but a nice photo with Instagram filters. For example the hills of Laguna Seca are bigger compared to the real world, this obviously looks much better, but it's not realistic.
- 10,956
- Canada
Agreed. PD are well known for doing that kind of stuff non of us (other than the hardcores) care about. It is something most would praise them for and drool over, but for me, I couldn't care less because I'm driving/racing most of the time. A track can look beautiful and not to be 100% accurate for me love it. Honestly I'd take that over something that would take ages to model accurately.
One would immediately think I'm complaining because, but this based on my feelings on the matter, and seeing those comparison pics might explain why it takes PD a freakin' eternity to model anything.
- 212
- Urinal2001
I'm not sure everyone here quite appreciates HOW true this is. I was having a conversation with a friend recently about how it feels like graphics have likely hit a plateau at this point, and I brought up the fact that in GT1 we all, including most reviewers, said things along the lines of "if you watch a replay and squint in just the right way, it looks almost real, this CANNOT get any better".
It makes me excited for how gaming will look in another 25 years. Because like I said when firing up the PS1 that I always slightly resented because it wasn't a Sega Dreamcast with Sega Rally (😂🤦😂)... This cannot get any more realistic. Right?
CodeRedR51
Premium
- 55,270
- United States
They even duplicated the skid marks. 😎
- 2,177
- United Kingdom
- breeminator
- breeminator
IMO, once you get to 4k 60fps, it's really frame rate where there's a lot of potential for noticeable improvement rather than resolution. 8k over 4k is a visible difference, but nothing like as noticeable as 120fps over 60fps. The gains from going from 120fps to 240fps and/or 4k to 8k are pretty small (for a driving game like GT7, that is, 240fps can be very noticeable over 120fps for games where things are moving much faster across the screen).
- 458
- Norway
- fairlane305
Picture pretty as can be, if only the car-physics were that realistic..
- 223
- United States
- 1,001
- Poland
I can berly notice 120 vs 60, 240fps must be tremendous waste of computing power (similarly native 8k)
Yes thats true, but since the post its about image/looks, GT have also have bumps but only in specific zones of the tracks..., its not a pure SIM has we all know.
Last edited:
- 2,177
- United Kingdom
- breeminator
- breeminator
In a game like Rocket League, 120 is extremely noticeable vs 60, and 240 is still a noticeable difference vs 120. Where you notice it the most is when objects are in a very different place on the screen from one frame to the next. If you just move the mouse pointer around in circles you can very easily see the difference between 60, 120 and 240. In driving games, you don't notice it all that much when you're just driving down a straight bit of track, you see it most when going round corners, and it makes more difference the faster the car is. I play Wreckfest at 120fps, as my PC can't hold a solid 240 for that game at 1440p, and it's fine, certainly much better than GT7's 60fps, but it's still noticeably less smooth than playing Rocket League at 240. People vary in their ability to discern frame rate differences, so you might just not be very sensitive to it, I've heard of people who claim they can literally see zero difference between 60 and 120, but for most people it's a very big difference.
HyperSpeeder
(Banned)
- 954
- Brazil
Forza and SMS prefer "wow factor" to create tracks. In NFS Shift the Eau Rouge was steeper because it "helped immersion". Valid philosophy as any, but unrealistic, uncomparable to the real thing.
Visually not much difference. Controls feel much more responsive with 120, which gives you illusion of a large visual difference. In reality, once you get used to 60, you don't miss 120. Can't say the same about 30.
From experience with 120, it's noticeable but only when you change back to 60. You notice each frame still leaves a "trail" in 60 fps mode. But it's very small difference compared to 60 vs 30. IMO 4K vs 1080p makes a much bigger difference.
Visually not much difference. Controls feel much more responsive with 120, which gives you illusion of a large visual difference. In reality, once you get used to 60, you don't miss 120. Can't say the same about 30.
Last edited:
Which is the type of detail that really doesn't matter. Without the comparison pictures, how would anyone even know they're accurate? What is gained by them being accurate? Just to say they are? Same for a lot of the tiny details in these images. Hopefully they didn't spend too much time on them. Hopefully it was an automated thing.
Last edited:
- 390
- Germany
Nonsense. The new forza motorsport uses photogrammetry and scans assets on each track.
GT tracks are called out for being more barren, because the tracks in real life have more details.
Last edited:
Yeah, GT Sport is in the past. When the Daiko Tesla video posted, I was one to criticise the lack of track surface detail in the video. The track was barren. When GT7 released, all the details were included. So, that video was definitely an early build(obviously), but no doubt people were a little upset with more of the same since GT Sport.
Put it this way, I’m sure more players are looking at the road surface over trees.
Put it this way, I’m sure more players are looking at the road surface over trees.
HyperSpeeder
(Banned)
- 954
- Brazil
- 390
- Germany
You guys defended GT since GT5 against criticism of GT tracks looking barren. Even the PS5 version of GT7 is missing trackside detail. Take a look at spa. The version is oudated to boot. Whenever I read a racing game looks like real life my footnails crawl upwards. Does your country italy have rotating trees or any of the other problems games like GT7, FM7 and all other racing games released got?
What he pointed out is false. Their goal aligns with GT in replicating RL as far as the hardware of today allows them to.
Last edited:
