Will the ps5 be stong enough to handle 4k 60fps, VR, advanced physics and tire modeling, ray tracing

[GTPVenomZombie]

GTS graphics are good for the ps4 but not for the ps5 cmon guys,just look at the screenshots above where even a low budget game like ACC looks next gen compared to GT7...

You have seen a 3 minute trailer yet you’re jumping to conclusions that this is what we’re going to see in the final product. The GT Sport graphics are beautiful, don’t understand what you’re trying to achieve here. Wait until the game has released, then have your say. Is it that hard to understand? Or do you know something that we don’t?

 

[RacingFan1]

Im not saying something extremely realisting, but something at least decent for an AAA next gen title

Again this isnt decent at all, even some old gen racing games have more defined environements cmon...

Its a beta, many stuff could be improved. Its a quite irrelevant thing to put your focus on anyway.
I want the physics to improve, I want many more added cars and tracks, and honestly I dont care a bit if the grass doesnt look very good

 

[FPV MIC]

GTS graphics are good for the ps4 but not for the ps5 cmon guys,just look at the screenshots above where even a low budget game like ACC looks next gen compared to GT7...

Official ACC screenshots =/= GT 7 YouTube screenshots .

Have a look what YouTube compression does to ACC on PC at 4k.

Now listen to what's been said about YouTube compression at 4k (12.15 mark).

 

[Dave A]

GTS graphics are good for the ps4 but not for the ps5 cmon guys,just look at the screenshots above where even a low budget game like ACC looks next gen compared to GT7...

No because your screenshot comparison is highly flawed. You continually compare the same tow screenshots as evidence one game looks better than the other when that clearly isn't the case. A screen grab from a video vs a static promo shot are not comparable. You have deliberately cherry picked two pictures to support your argument.

Oh look ACC has blurry textures too, look:

Anyone can cherry pic two or more pictures to support thier argument, I can make ACC look like a right dogs dinner if I want to, but I don't have an agenda with that.

GT7 already looks better than ACC's PS4 or XB1 videos and screenshots IMO, especially in motion, and GT7 is not out this month.

 

[Shingo_civic]

No because your screenshot comparison is highly flawed. You continually compare the same tow screenshots as evidence one game looks better than the other when that clearly isn't the case. A screen grab from a video vs a static promo shot are not comparable. You have deliberately cherry picked two pictures to support your argument.

Oh look ACC has blurry textures too, look:

Anyone can cherry pic two or more pictures to support thier argument, I can make ACC look like a right dogs dinner if I want to, but I don't have an agenda with that.

GT7 already looks better than ACC's PS4 or XB1 videos and screenshots IMO, especially in motion, and GT7 is not out this month.

Yeah but those screens of yours the car is moving and there are tons of motion blur while on that screen of gts the camera is nearly static and isn't moving forward or backwards

 

[Dave A]

Yeah but those screens of yours the car is moving and there are tons of motion blur while on that screen of gts the camera is nearly static and isn't moving forward or backwards

When that GT7 pic was taken the camera is moving, you can clearly see it panning in the video that screen grab was taken from, it is also not focused on the trackside.

Like I said, anyone can pick a bad picture of one game and a good picture of another to make their point. I can take a static picture of my garden from my living room and blur the french doors and curtains using nothing more than autofocus.

Those GT7 textures are likely only blurred because of the circumstances of the shot, they will likely not be blurred if you stopped your car facing them in 1st person view. This shot is from more of a distance but you can clearly see the textures are detailed and not blurred:

And before you say "ah but that's a promo shot" so it the shot you provided of ACC, not only that but it's from the PC version, so no wonder all of the settings are turned up to max.

 

[Shingo_civic]

When that GT7 pic was taken the camera is moving, you can clearly see it panning in the video that screen grab was taken from, it is also not focused on the trackside.

Like I said, anyone can pick a bad picture of one game and a good picture of another to make their point. I can take a static picture of my garden from my living room and blur the french doors and curtains using nothing more than autofocus.

Those GT7 textures are likely only blurred because of the circumstances of the shot, they will likely not be blurred if you stopped your car facing them in 1st person view. This shot is from more of a distance but you can clearly see the textures are detailed and not blurred:

And before you say "ah but that's a promo shot" so it the shot you provided of ACC, not only that but it's from the PC version, so no wonder all of the settings are turned up to max.

Yeah but here the texture are very far to see the actual detail, in the shot where the camera is very close you can see how low res and flat they are, also the vegetation it's the same as GT Sprt

 

[Dave A]

Yeah but here the texture are very far to see the actual detail, in the shot where the camera is very close you can see how low res and flat they are, also the vegetation it's the same as GT Sprt

So now you're not claiimng they are not blurry just flat and low res? Which is it? Movement and less focus will blur out and remove detail from anything, in real life or simulated.

In addition to that, I do not think ACC looks nearly as good as that promo pic on PS4, XB1 or will likely do on the vast majorty of PC's. To go any deeper into this pointless (at this time) argument would be just relying on opinion from this point on.

But you simply cannot take a frame from a moving camera mid video and compare it to a static promo shot of a PC game and say tadaa look this one's better. You're deliberately not making it a fair comparison and you're jumping to conclusions (or pormoting an agenda) based on that.

 

[ArR29]

I seriously have no idea why people are upset that GT7 looks identical to GTSport. GT7 is based on Sport's rendering and lighting engine. There's no way in hell they would waste another 2-3 years and start from the scratch and throw away all the assets they've worked on during the development of GTSport. Ffs, GT6 was based on GT3/4 engine that came out during early 2000's. I bet none y'all complain about that. And I love how people made it look GTSport like a bad looking game. Chill the heck out people the game isn't out yet, there's still lot of time for them to improve the visuals.

 

[CoolJetta3]

Is this the "This blade of grass is pixelated, how are they pushing these PS2 graphics upon us" thread? I just want to make sure I'm in the right place

 

[anthonyfa18]

I really hope we get a 100- 120fps mode at 1440p, also I would love to have oil Temperatures and a tire Pressure in the model

 

[phonyk]

It's an interesting question but one that's very hard to answer. Partly because we don't know the hardware specs in detail, specifically how robust the hardware support for realtime raytracing, but also because it depends on what you mean by '4K'. I feel like we're now into a sort of post-resolution world where the screen output is at a fixed pixel ratio, but the way the game is rendered can vary massively. Things like checquerboard rendering, upsampling, dynamic resolution scaling, all produce a 4k image with varying methods of rendering at a lower internal resolution for the sake of performance.

Most 4k PS4 Pro games use some combination of these techniques, and likely you'd see a similar implementation on PS5 where the requirement is for 4k60; that is to say, the game will output at 4k on your TV and it'll hit 60fps more or less locked, but there will likely be a lot of dynamic trickery happening under the hood to deliver it. Things your eyes will likely never register. It's only likely in replay or photography mode that you'll see a true native 4k image.

As for comparing to ACC running on a PC, it's probably best to keep in mind that, at least when it was first released, ACC couldn't hit a stable 4k60 even on a system with a 2080ti and a modern CPU. Yes it's better now, but even then, you won't see a locked 60fps @ 4k on anything lower than a 2080ti if you want all the graphics options maxed. And that's without the promised ray tracing implementation.

So sure, if you want to ask the question, will GT7 look 'better' than literally any other racing game on any platform currently available whilst delivering a level of performance greater than the fastest currently-available gaming PCs worth thousands of pounds, I think the obvious answer is... no.

 

[todally_lit]

about VR, recent articles suggest PS5 will support PSVR (eg. https://www.roadtovr.com/playstation-5-ps5-psvr-2-support-backwards-compatibility/), and since PSVR is dual 1080p, I would think the PS5 should have enough umph to support VR with more than just 2 cars on track. If you ever tried GTS with PSVR, you know that tracks feel completely different - you actually see elevation changes at places like Spa and Redbull Ring. The track is not just a window in front of you. PSVR in combination with ray tracing should be awesome!

To be clear, there is no announcement yet about GT7 and VR, but I would expect that VR is one of the central features that PD is actively developing. It is in Sony's best interest, PD's best interest, and indeed opens up a whole new world - this is consistent with Kaz's vision of making racing accessible to everyone.

For sure, VR development is in its infancy. Eyeball tracking is needed so that higher resolution screens (eg. 4K or 8K) can be used, and render high detail only in the area a person is looking, while areas in peripheral vision can be pretty blurry (1080p or less) without vision feeling fuzzy. Can't wait to race in that environment!

 

[mokalovesoulmat]

>handle 4k 60fps
Yes, even current GT Sport is able to handle 4K 60fps on PS4 Pro. IIRC Kaz is targeting 4K with 240fps on PS5.

>VR
Yes, but they need to make the VR more usable. At the moment with GT Sport and PS4 you only able to use VR for 1v1 racing. I hope they can make it interchangeable with normal modes.

>advanced physics and tire modeling
Tire modeling already provided in partnership with Michelin. But not sure about physics...not because PD cant make it, but what is advanced physics like?

>ray tracing
Yes, PS5 GPU will have ray tracing support. Its not have the dedicated hardware compute unit block like those on RTX cards, but does deliver the same thing.

 

[Iamverylost]

Lol this doesn't look next gen at all...

Even an indie game like ACC have far nicer textures...

Yet Polyphony’s car models blow those from ACC. Polyphony focuses more on the cars which is the point because it’s a car game not a grass game. Would I take worse car models for better grass? No I wouldn’t. How much time does one spend looking at the grass in car game? Polyphony’s car models have been made so they can be used at 8K resolution so that’s why the grass isn’t that good because Polyphony has focused on making photo realistic cars.

GTS graphics are good for the ps4 but not for the ps5 cmon guys,just look at the screenshots above where even a low budget game like ACC looks next gen compared to GT7...

Why don’t you compare the car models mate? What’s the ****ing problem with having worse grass? Polyphony’s car models blow ACC car models out of the ****ing water. There is no competition there and that’s considering that ACC has like what 40-50 cars whereas GT7 will have probably about 500 launch cars. You can even compare GT sport and ACC models and again no competition. Imagine complaining about the grass in a car game when the cars are so ****ing realistic.

 

[o000o]

I seriously have no idea why people are upset that GT7 looks identical to GTSport. GT7 is based on Sport's rendering and lighting engine. There's no way in hell they would waste another 2-3 years and start from the scratch and throw away all the assets they've worked on during the development of GTSport. Ffs, GT6 was based on GT3/4 engine that came out during early 2000's. I bet none y'all complain about that. And I love how people made it look GTSport like a bad looking game. Chill the heck out people the game isn't out yet, there's still lot of time for them to improve the visuals.

Don't people obviously complain about... GT3/4 part in GT6... the standard cars & tracks lol?

 

[fernandito]

Well we can kinda take it for granted that there will be neither advanced physics and tyre model. About 4k 60fps and VR we'll see

 

[MroczMR]

Why 4k and VR? When PSVR has 1080p? PS5 will easily do VR in 1080p
And i doubt for 4k VR this gen. Even strongest PCs don’t do that. Unless you have pimax vr

 

[snc]

there is no need for native 4k as it's waste of resources and better use modern temporal injection techniques, rt is not very important in racing games as reflections can be good enough represented by cheaper technics but for sure there is much room in improving graphics and physics and ps5 is very capable machine but gt7 is not on new modern engine but it looks more like slightly upgraded gt sport with dynamic day time so no big improvement there but probably date launch sooner than we think

 

[Castrol96]

VR doesn't really need Ray-tracing... It's not much of a difference to standard GT Sport. They can optimize it soo much more without it.

 

[Lux Klonoa]

there is no need for native 4k as it's waste of resources and better use modern temporal injection techniques

Yeeeeaaah, no, gonna have to disagree with you on that. Well, it depends on everyone's eyes, but to me, native is always going to be better than using some cheap upscaling methods that blur the image. GTS just looks a bit blurry to me in-race (especially when cars are in the distance and you can see these weird artifacts around them which I assume to be checkerboard artifacts), compared to a native 4K game like FH4.

 

[Castrol96]

If GT7 is fully playable in 4K with VR with GT Sport graphics that's cool for me.

 

[MroczMR]

If GT7 is fully playable in 4K with VR with GT Sport graphics that's cool for me.

1. Even high end PC VR Headsets don't have 4k displays (only one is Pimax and you need really extreme high end PC for that)
2. Why you need 4k in VR if PS VR headset display have 1080p? And PSVR2(if it exist) will have the same or only slightly better
3. 4k in VR is a far away future. You should expect it from PS6 (maybe) not 5...

Please people manage your expectations.

EDIT: And to be honest Ray Tracing in VR would be awesome (but i doubt it will be in VR Mode). Imagine having real mirrors in cars, and they will reflect everything according to the way you look at it.

 

[Tired Tyres]

1. Even high end PC VR Headsets don't have 4k displays (only one is Pimax and you need really extreme high end PC for that)
2. Why you need 4k in VR if PS VR headset display have 1080p? And PSVR2(if it exist) will have the same or only slightly better
3. 4k in VR is a far away future. You should expect it from PS6 (maybe) not 5...

Please people manage your expectations.

EDIT: And to be honest Ray Tracing in VR would be awesome (but i doubt it will be in VR Mode). Imagine having real mirrors in cars, and they will reflect everything according to the way you look at it.

Because VR on PS4 is 1080. The next gen has to increase the resolution otherwise there is no point in it.

 

[Dave A]

Because VR on PS4 is 1080. The next gen has to increase the resolution otherwise there is no point in it.

GT1 being run at 1080p doesn't look nearly as good as GT3 at 1080p which doesn't look nearly as good as GT Sport at 1080p (see the progress). You can't just increase resolution before the technology is there to handle it.

I would be impressed if the PS5 or XBX can handle 4k VR at a stable FPS. It's certainly not impossible, but it'll be impressive if it happens as the cost of the technology to make that happen is quite high at the moment. To fit that into a console would be a big deal.

 

[MroczMR]

Because VR on PS4 is 1080. The next gen has to increase the resolution otherwise there is no point in it.

There is just no chance for 4k VR on next gens mark my word. If they increase resolution for PS VR 2 it will be something which HTC have or Oculus 1200p max.

PS4 had 1080p VR but it has really bare bones VR. It couldn't keep up with performance having the same features as non VR games, so we end up with GT Sport VR mode with 2 cars on track, Dirt Rally with simplified physics (also maximum cars are 4) and Driveclub with ugly graphics and less than 8 cars on track.

PS5 real improvement in VR would be having same game in VR mode as non VR. So if the GT7 will be fully playable in VR mode than I consider this as Huge improvement upon PS4. Even in 1080p

 

[05XR8]

Just bought a 65" 4K Sony tv. I'm half thinking about getting a Pro before the PS5 comes out. GTS from my normal PS4 looks wack.

 

[todally_lit]

There is just no chance for 4k VR on next gens mark my word. If they increase resolution for PS VR 2 it will be something which HTC have or Oculus 1200p max.

The biggest prob I have with current PSVR and even Oculus 1200p VR is the blurryness as you look in the distance. It just feels like you need to get new glasses because you just can't focus on the stuff far away. Cars in the distance look so blurry you can't tell what they are, corner apexes are fuzzy and undefined. Personally I think you do need at least 2X the number of lines of resolution - double 1080 horizontal lines to 2160, and that is 4K. I think you are likely right that 4K will not be practical in the short term.

I personally think eyeball tracking is a must for high resolution VR. I found one piece of data online stating: assuming 100% resolution at eye center, your eye's resolution decreases to 10% at 20 degrees off center (right - at 20 degrees off center you can resolve 1/10 of what you can when looking at the same object dead on). So, you only need high resolution within about a 20 degree angle of where your eye is looking - that's 40 degrees out of, lets say, a 120 degree VR field of view. This corresponds to just 1/9 of the overall screen. If you had eyeball tracking, and a 4K display, I think you could easily display at 1080p for the entire screen, and double the resolution to 2160p in that +/- 20 degrees up/down and left right of where your eyeball is pointed. (to be clear - the whole screen is 2160p, but you take the areas outside the +/-20 degrees and treat a 2x2 pixel square as a single pixel - that is you display the same color on the 4 pixels)

So taking this a bit further - lets say 4K takes 4x the processing power of 1080p (because 4K has 4 times as many pixels as 1080p). If you only had to process the 4x number of pixels in 1/9th of the screen, it would only take 1x -1x/9+ 4x/9 = 1.33x processing power. Yeah - only would require 33% increase in processing power. Now yes, you would now have to predict where the eye is going to look next, and that would take some processing power - but not anywhere near as much as the myriad of calculations done for lighting, color on each pixel.

All this being said - I've no idea of the state of eyeball tracking technology in VR.

 

[traind]

1. Even high end PC VR Headsets don't have 4k displays (only one is Pimax and you need really extreme high end PC for that)
2. Why you need 4k in VR if PS VR headset display have 1080p? And PSVR2(if it exist) will have the same or only slightly better
3. 4k in VR is a far away future. You should expect it from PS6 (maybe) not 5...

Please people manage your expectations.

EDIT: And to be honest Ray Tracing in VR would be awesome (but i doubt it will be in VR Mode). Imagine having real mirrors in cars, and they will reflect everything according to the way you look at it.

Yes, of course you are right!

What some people don't understand is that VR requires lots of frames per second to make the experience tolerable for most people. But VR also requires the device to output double the frames vs. a TV, because you need an image for each eye in VR.

So saying 4k VR at 60fps is essentially like having a 4k game at 120fps on a regular screen. And yes, that is not going to happen anytime soon on console or pc with a game that has any degree of graphical sophistication to it. Maybe if you have two of Nvidia's upcoming 3080ti gpus in your PC at the same time... but that would cost maybe $2500 plus the price of the PC, lol.

 

[MroczMR]

Yes, of course you are right!

What some people don't understand is that VR requires lots of frames per second to make the experience tolerable for most people. But VR also requires the device to output double the frames vs. a TV, because you need an image for each eye in VR.

So saying 4k VR at 60fps is essentially like having a 4k game at 120fps on a regular screen. And yes, that is not going to happen anytime soon on console or pc with a game that has any degree of graphical sophistication to it. Maybe if you have two of Nvidia's upcoming 3080ti gpus in your PC at the same time... but that would cost maybe $2500 plus the price of the PC, lol.

I think this is what Kazunori Yamaguchi meant when he was saying about 120 FPS target. 1080p VR mode in 120FPS would be incredible.