Xbox Japan: "Forza 6 includes weather, night racing, 450 cars"

[TrevorPhilips]

Wow! you really proved me wrong with that in depth, well thought out, articulate post!

To achieve aesthetics equal or better to what they have now with dynamic lighting, the ONLY option is Deferred. Foward+ will either run like ****, look like ****, or most probably both whilst calculating the complex lighting required for the standard already set by themselves.... Seriously dude, how hard is that to understand?

I'll try and put it as simply as I can for you

Deferred = high initial performance cost allowing you to add a LOT of geometry and realtime lights (with real time shadows) at low cost.

Forward = Low initial performance cost followed by performance that SCALES UP every time you add more complexity to the scene, yes I understand Forward+ takes steps to sidestep the buffer and mitigate the hit but it's still really inefficient compared (that's without taking into consideration the lack of realtime shadows cast by every light after the main source light, if you want this you're paying though the eyeballs never mind the nose)

So taking them facts, plus the knowledge you already have (but are unwilling to share for some reason) and applying them to a real case scenario, answer me this... Your leaving the pits at Le Mans and you want every garage light, plus your lights, plus any other cars lights and any other lights to effect the scene and everything in it (yep, you guessed it, with realtime shadows good measure) Which engine is getting closer to 60 fps at 1080p?

 

[Gotbeefboy564]

Tried to pre order the ultimate edition at GS but they only had the normal one in their system.

 

[dimassa19]

It looks like they have introduced various parts of the city in one smaller area, but the buildings looks exactly the same.


I never thought i would see this road in a game! Even if it's not the same layout, they did a good job when visiting the city.

View attachment 390996 View attachment 390997

I can imagine the surprise for you!

 

[McLaren]

But it still had dynamic TOD and weather on those limited tracks...
...
On the PS3..

And Test Drive Le Mans 24 Hours was running full 24 hour racing with variable weather & day/night transition on the PS2.

You miss the point like the last person who tried to pip that GT did it last gen when I was referring to GT3's introduction of a wet track in SSR5. That was not dynamic nor did the TOD change. But it was a start.

They have to start somewhere. It's not the ideal time, but it's an effort none the less.

 

[phosphor112]

And Test Drive Le Mans 24 Hours was running full 24 hour racing with variable weather & day/night transition on the PS2.

You miss the point like the last person who tried to pip that GT did it last gen when I was referring to GT3's introduction of a wet track in SSR5. That was not dynamic nor did the TOD change. But it was a start.

They have to start somewhere. It's not the ideal time, but it's an effort none the less.

Once again... it's these examples that prove my point. These aren't technical limitations. I'm saying they CAN do this, but they aren't because they don't want to for some reason.

Instead, we can parade about stuff like this

Oooo! Flying tires!

Instead of putting a lot of time into small details in physics for track side props, why not have the track artists design art for time of day or weather? Instead of using up CPU or GPU cycles for physics props, why not calculate dynamic weather?

But I guess I'm being unreasonable...

 

[Minty]

Instead of putting a lot of time into small details in physics for track side props, why not have the track artists design art for time of day or weather? Instead of using up CPU or GPU cycles for physics props, why not calculate dynamic weather?

But I guess I'm being unreasonable...

Technical limitations do not mean impossible. It means they had to make a call, and decided that realistic tirewalls on all tracks. Technical limitations simply means that they had to choose some features and put others aside.

And less to the point, if you think eliminating those tires would free up enough performance for dynamic weather and lighting, then you are being unreasonable, yeah.

 

[Zelalem]

Once again... it's these examples that prove my point.

They don't prove your point, because the physics and graphics evolved in every forza. I am sure the Xbox One could easily run something on the level of forza 4 with dynamic night and weather, but who would like to play something on a much powerful hardware with graphics of forza 4?

 

[Minty]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there was an interview for Forza 5 where Greenawalt said that track surface temps effected grip, and shaded areas of the track had a different surface temperature than sunny spots*. If this remains true for Forza 6, having dynamic lighting creates a whole new set of calculations to be made.

(still searching for the source on shaded areas effecting temperature, but I know as far back as 4 overall track surface temp has had an impact(source), which would still make dynamic lighting and weather more complicated.)

 

[phosphor112]

Technical limitations do not mean impossible. It means they had to make a call, and decided that realistic tirewalls on all tracks. Technical limitations simply means that they had to choose some features and put others aside.

No, that is a design decision. A technical limitation is exactly what it is, a limit of the mechanical architecture. You want to examples of design choices? Rolling starts in every campaign race ever. Another? Freaking pointless moon missions. Those are design choices. Leaving those out wouldn't be technical limitations, they would be a design choice.

And less to the point, if you think eliminating those tires would free up enough performance for dynamic weather and lighting, then you are being unreasonable, yeah.

I'm not implying that removing just those props will free up resources. I'm saying stop wasting time on stupid crap like PD does with their games. PD could have reduced resolution. Which would have reduced the CPU time to schedule the draw calls that are run by the GPU. They could have reduced alpha textures like smoke and spray. Granted that stuff looks glorious, but not at 40 fps. Hell, take a play from Turn 10's book. Run the rear view and side mirrors at 30fps. GT5's and 6's runs at the same FPS as the rest of the game.

I am saying Turn 10 can tuuuuurn down crap in other areas, things that DON'T immediately affect gameplay, and instead put it into TOD and weather.. things that DO affect gameplay.

PD isn't the only one that makes stupid game design decisions. These are the same type of complaints I have with GT/PD. Turn 10 is just as culpable as PD.

Is it REAAAAALY so hard to admit something is wrong?

EDIT: I know people loooove graphics, and that's fine, but a sim should be about the simulation and gameplay first. Reasoning why I still put up with the ugly standard cars of GT. The driving of those cars is more important to me than the modeling of an engine inside door trim that I'd never see.

 

[Minty]

No, that is a design decision. A technical limitation is exactly what it is, a limit of the mechanical architecture. You want to examples of design choices? Rolling starts in every campaign race ever. Another? Freaking pointless moon missions. Those are design choices. Leaving those out wouldn't be technical limitations, they would be a design choice.

And neither of those things have anything to do with simulating tire walls on a track. Design decisions and technical limitations aren't the same thing, but design decisions can be influenced by technical limitations, as well as the other way around.

I am saying Turn 10 can tuuuuurn down crap in other areas, things that DON'T immediately affect gameplay, and instead put it into TOD and weather.. things that DO affect gameplay.

PD isn't the only one that makes stupid game design decisions. These are the same type of complaints I have with GT/PD. Turn 10 is just as culpable as PD.

Is it REAAAAALY so hard to admit something is wrong?

EDIT: I know people loooove graphics, and that's fine, but a sim should be about the simulation and gameplay first. Reasoning why I still put up with the ugly standard cars of GT. The driving of those cars is more important to me than the modeling of an engine inside door trim that I'd never see.

It sounds an awful lot like you're getting way too upset that they chose to keep elements that aren't specifically what you want. The game has and always will be about the visual spectacle of racing, there's no changing that, and compromises had to be made in certain areas. If you want a game that's pure simulation with little to nothing else to offer, there are plenty of games out there, in fact, I own 4 of them. It's not that they couldn't make that game, it's that they didn't want to, because those games already exist; they wanted to make an experience that was unique while still offering realistic physics.




Also, expanding on what I said about track temperature:



The simulation of surface temperature might not sound big, consider the fact that a road exposed to direct sunlight can become significantly higher in temperature than the air around it:

(Source)
Granted, the study was more about the effects of surface temperature on air temperature, but it was the best documentation I could find to demonstrate how much solar radiation comes into play.


So suppose they are simulating surface temperatures to such an extreme degree. I would imagine just reducing the temperature by a few percent as the sun goes down isn't the kind of approach they would want to take. When the surface at night could be a whole 15°C(59°F)+ away from the temperature in daylight, there's a little more than "light and dark) to be taken into account.

Sure, I'm only speculating about the potential limitations, but so is everyone claiming there are none.

 

[McLaren]

Once again... it's these examples that prove my point. These aren't technical limitations. I'm saying they CAN do this, but they aren't because they don't want to for some reason.

Not even in the slightest. Different games, different goals, different features.

Instead of putting a lot of time into small details in physics for track side props, why not have the track artists design art for time of day or weather? Instead of using up CPU or GPU cycles for physics props, why not calculate dynamic weather?

But I guess I'm being unreasonable...

You're assuming T10 could tell a group of guys to stop putting detail into the physics of track side props, and focus that time in designing art for the time of day & weather? As if either of these are actually done by the same folks.

"Johnson, stop working on the prop physics & start working on making the art for the sunlight".

You are being unreasonable in that case.

 

[phosphor112]

And neither of those things have anything to do with simulating tire walls on a track. Design decisions and technical limitations aren't the same thing, but design decisions can be influenced by technical limitations, as well as the other way around.

You're ignoring the principle of this whole thing. The (mis)allocation of resources. You don't have to take examples too literally.

And yes, some design decisions are based on technical limitations.

It sounds an awful lot like you're getting way too upset that they chose to keep elements that aren't specifically what you want.

No. I'm making an observation of the FM franchise and then referencing GT (considering this is "GTPlanet) as examples. I'm not projecting my problems of one franchise to the other. I'm calling stuff like I see it.

The game has and always will be about the visual spectacle of racing, there's no changing that, and compromises had to be made in certain areas.

If it's about the visual spectacle of racing, why focus on the simulation? GRID 2 has a much greater "spectacle" of racing. There are many aspects of racing not touched upon in FM. It's the same logic people use to defend GT's sterility. "It's a driving simulator, not a racing simulator." Also, saying that FM is about the spectacle of racing is your words, not Dan's, which is all about turning car fans into gamers and gamers into car fans (or something like that). Anyway, I'm not going down that rabbit hole of a discussion.

If you want a game that's pure simulation with little to nothing else to offer, there are plenty of games out there, in fact, I own 4 of them. It's not that they couldn't make that game, it's that they didn't want to, because those games already exist; they wanted to make an experience that was unique while still offering realistic physics.

My problem is their claim of making everything super realistic, but skipping out on things that make it, super realistic. Graphics and immediately apparent things are what they seem to care about. Flashing numbers of 100+ surfaces being simulated, or focusing purely on autovista level cars, that sort of thing. Immediate flair. That's my opinion though.

Also, expanding on what I said about track temperature:



The simulation of surface temperature might not sound big, consider the fact that a road exposed to direct sunlight can become significantly higher in temperature than the air around it:View attachment 391122
(Source)
Granted, the study was more about the effects of surface temperature on air temperature, but it was the best documentation I could find to demonstrate how much solar radiation comes into play.


So suppose they are simulating surface temperatures to such an extreme degree. I would imagine just reducing the temperature by a few percent as the sun goes down isn't the kind of approach they would want to take. When the surface at night could be a whole 15°C(59°F)+ away from the temperature in daylight, there's a little more than "light and dark) to be taken into account.

Sure, I'm only speculating about the potential limitations, but so is everyone claiming there are none.

You're assuming that all this stuff is calculated in real time, and not stored as data matrices. You can take multiple sets of variables and interpolate the data in between. Instead of having everything calculate on the fly, it's all pre-calculated.
The funny thing? GT does that with their TOD... That's why some lighting from headlights don't affect certain environmental shadow maps...

Anyway, I'm honestly tired of debating all this.

 

[Minty]

You're ignoring the principle of this whole thing. The (mis)allocation of resources. You don't have to take examples too literally.

It's not a "misallocation" of resources if it serves a purpose in the game. Whether that purpose is immersion, realism, or whatever. Just because the resources aren't being allocated to what you want and only what you want doesn't mean they're being used wrong.

No. I'm making an observation of the FM franchise and then referencing GT (considering this is "GTPlanet) as examples. I'm not projecting my problems of one franchise to the other. I'm calling stuff like I see it.

Your references to GT have nothing to do with anything I've stated. I don't care about GT or whatever it and Forza do or do not have in common, that's not what this thread is about. You're not calling anything like you see it, you're criticizing decisions as objectively poor because they don't specially cater to what you want

If it's about the visual spectacle of racing, why focus on the simulation? GRID 2 has a much greater "spectacle" of racing. There are many aspects of racing not touched upon in FM. It's the same logic people use to defend GT's sterility. "It's a driving simulator, not a racing simulator." Also, saying that FM is about the spectacle of racing is your words, not Dan's, which is all about turning car fans into gamers and gamers into car fans (or something like that). Anyway, I'm not going down that rabbit hole of a discussion.

Does it not occur to you that a game doesn't have to be one or the other? It doesn't have to simulate everything, and it doesn't have to be outright arcade. As I said, there are games that do those things specifically; Forza combines what the creators see as the best elements from both sides of the racing game flavors. Personally, I love what they do and the direction the games are going. If you disagree with certain decisions, that's fine, just don't act like the game is objectively flawed for not prioritizing what you want. Everybody wants something different, and there's a racing game out there for just about every type.

Why focus so much on this specific game if nothing about the series every suggested it would be anything other than what it is now? The way you talk about some of these features it sounds like you expected this to be the next iRacing, rFactor, or Asseto Corsa, when it was pretty clear from the beginning that that wasn't the goal.

My problem is their claim of making everything super realistic, but skipping out on things that make it, super realistic. Graphics and immediately apparent things are what they seem to care about. Flashing numbers of 100+ surfaces being simulated, or focusing purely on autovista level cars, that sort of thing. Immediate flair. That's my opinion though.

Well that's just it. Everything they do implement is realistic(with a primary focus on the physics of driving), and they choose to omit it until they can simulate it in it's entirety. Yeah, it's an approach that results in slower progress, but the progress is more consistent, they can fully flesh out a mechanic before implementing it.

You're assuming that all this stuff is calculated in real time, and not stored as data matrices. You can take multiple sets of variables and interpolate the data in between. Instead of having everything calculate on the fly, it's all pre-calculated.

Right. Except that I just said they probably wouldn't take the simple approach, because they rarely do. If they implemented it, they very well might want to make surface temperature every bit as dynamic as the light that touches it.

So far what I've seen from them is a desire to make everything interact dynamically, to have as little as possible relying on predetermined changes.

The funny thing? GT does that with their TOD... That's why some lighting from headlights don't affect certain environmental shadow maps...

Which is what the T10 team seems to be trying to avoid by making as many parts of the environment interact as dynamically as possible.

 

[willbsn13]

Did a little research into what the other 5 tracks could be for Forza 6.

So far, all of the tracks from FM5 are returning, with Indianapolis getting a ribbon update. This leaves us with 17 environments with 64 layouts (from Badned's list on Forzacentral).

Also announced are Daytona, Rio, Brands Hatch and Watkins Glen. According badned once again, (http://www.forzacentral.com/forum/t...hicle-track-list-wip-updated-june-16th.39908/) Brands Hatch will add two ribbons, Daytona will add two ribbons, Rio will add one ribbon (possible more though, usually the cover tracks have more than one ribbon) and Watkins Glen with two ribbons.

From this, we can see at this stage FM6 has 21 environments, with a minimum of 71 ribbons. So In order to reach the over 100 ribbons that they are claiming (source, from this twitch stream w/Brian Ekberg http://www.twitch.tv/expertzone_xbox/b/669656057) The remaining 5 tracks must have atleast 25ish+ ribbons (30 if we say Rio only has 1 layout, but I assume it will have reverse/short etc). Does this mean would could see the return of a track with a variety of ribbons like Fujimi or Camino Viejo/Iberion/Ladera? It looks more likely now atleast .

 

[Fat Tyre]

I hope Suzuka is thrown there somewhere.

By the way can someone ELI5 what "forward plus" and "deferred" is?

 

[Gotbeefboy564]

So is the ultimate edition online only or will I be able to get it at game stop? Because they didn't have it in their system when I went to pre order it today.

 

[Zelalem]

Did a little research into what the other 5 tracks could be for Forza 6.

So far, all of the tracks from FM5 are returning, with Indianapolis getting a ribbon update. This leaves us with 17 environments with 64 layouts (from Badned's list on Forzacentral).

Also announced are Daytona, Rio, Brands Hatch and Watkins Glen. According badned once again, (http://www.forzacentral.com/forum/t...hicle-track-list-wip-updated-june-16th.39908/) Brands Hatch will add two ribbons, Daytona will add two ribbons, Rio will add one ribbon (possible more though, usually the cover tracks have more than one ribbon) and Watkins Glen with two ribbons.

From this, we can see at this stage FM6 has 21 environments, with a minimum of 71 ribbons. So In order to reach the over 100 ribbons that they are claiming (source, from this twitch stream w/Brian Ekberg http://www.twitch.tv/expertzone_xbox/b/669656057) The remaining 5 tracks must have atleast 25ish+ ribbons (30 if we say Rio only has 1 layout, but I assume it will have reverse/short etc). Does this mean would could see the return of a track with a variety of ribbons like Fujimi or Camino Viejo/Iberion/Ladera? It looks more likely now atleast .

Did you include historical versions of a track? Le mans historical layout is confirmed.

 

[phosphor112]

Right. Except that I just said they probably wouldn't take the simple approach, because they rarely do. If they implemented it, they very well might want to make surface temperature every bit as dynamic as the light that touches it.

So far what I've seen from them is a desire to make everything interact dynamically, to have as little as possible relying on predetermined changes.

Which is what the T10 team seems to be trying to avoid by making as many parts of the environment interact as dynamically as possible.

They rarely take the simple approach? Oh come on. You're attempting to appear objective, but you aren't at all.

Let's see what that line translates to in terms of the FM franchise:

• Static TOD
• Static Weather
• Incorrect tracks (Nordschleife wasn't even scanned until 2013ish?)
• Incorrect car models (thanks to outsourcing)
• Terrible drivetrain simulation (how long was AWD an instant win conversion?)
• Drag racing... (Didn't even have drag tires? Couldn't even warm up the tires before the race?
• Lower in-game LODs (car interiors were very reduced in polys during races)
• Lower mirror FPS (Don't get me wrong, I think these last two are good technical choices)
• Pre-baked damage scuffs, scratches. (Head on crash = paint removed on roof??)
• Incorrect aero simulation (have they even said they attempt it yet?)
• Not completely removing driving aids until FM4. (active steering being permanent on wheels)
• Shadows that don't cast correctly ("painted" on top of map)
• Modified/Tuned cars being recorded as "stock"

These are things off the top of my head.

And before you respond about the things they have fixed, think back to your statement. If they didn't take the "simple" approach in the first place, why have they needed to fix them? Why has some of these things taken a decade to fix?

Hope you don't come back moving the goalposts.

Did a little research into what the other 5 tracks could be for Forza 6.

So far, all of the tracks from FM5 are returning, with Indianapolis getting a ribbon update. This leaves us with 17 environments with 64 layouts (from Badned's list on Forzacentral).

Also announced are Daytona, Rio, Brands Hatch and Watkins Glen. According badned once again, (http://www.forzacentral.com/forum/t...hicle-track-list-wip-updated-june-16th.39908/) Brands Hatch will add two ribbons, Daytona will add two ribbons, Rio will add one ribbon (possible more though, usually the cover tracks have more than one ribbon) and Watkins Glen with two ribbons.

From this, we can see at this stage FM6 has 21 environments, with a minimum of 71 ribbons. So In order to reach the over 100 ribbons that they are claiming (source, from this twitch stream w/Brian Ekberg http://www.twitch.tv/expertzone_xbox/b/669656057) The remaining 5 tracks must have atleast 25ish+ ribbons (30 if we say Rio only has 1 layout, but I assume it will have reverse/short etc). Does this mean would could see the return of a track with a variety of ribbons like Fujimi or Camino Viejo/Iberion/Ladera? It looks more likely now atleast .

New Indy track is definitely in. Who knows if they'll keep the old one in though. I'm about 5 minutes from IMS, we know that a crew has gone down there to scan since it's changed. No idea WHO was scanning, but I'm guessing most people that have IMS will rescan it for the new config.

I hope Suzuka is thrown there somewhere.

By the way can someone ELI5 what "forward plus" and "deferred" is?

Idk if I can ELY5, but I'll explain it as simple as possible.

So, there are 3 prominent ways of rendering a scene.
Forward (Old school method).
Forward + (Much newer method)
Deferred.

Forward rendering renders all the vertex shader (points/coordinates), geometry shaders (defines what a shape is using those points), and a fragment shader (defines color, depth, other information) in that respective order. Every object goes through that process for every fragment, every light, etc.

Deferred rendering takes mostly that same approach but instead of doing the fragment shader (FS) at the time of object rendering, it defers it (which is where the name comes from) to the very end of the pipeline. So lighting, shading, depth calculation (FS) is not done until the base image is complete. As a result, throwing in MANY lights is very easy as it's done in only a few buffers at the very end of the pipeline, instead of with every object.

Forward+ is a sort of hybrid approach. It splits up the screen into tiles. Each tile it will calculate what lights are affecting what objects within the tile, it will then do the FS pass on that individual tile. So the "Forward" aspect is there because it renders all the light sources affecting those objects, the + comes from it knows HOW to limit those light calculations. So a light on the other end of the screen, not casting any light on it won't be calculated. Thus, reducing time to render. You can still use thousands of lights like deferred rendering, but it's major downside is accuracy and flexibility in scenes.

 

[ImaRobot]

Just to address a few of your points:

Are you saying that there would be no incorrect car models if they didn't outsource? I'm not really seeing the relevance in that as they can just as easily make the mistake

AWD haven't been the Win all solution since fm2 or 3.

There is drag tires?

And I'm not sure what mean by modified cars showing as stock. I've literally never seen that.

It seem like most of your points come from past iterations, so I'm not exactly sure they would be mentioned. Others I've yet to hear of though

 

[phosphor112]

Just to address a few of your points:

Are you saying that there would be no incorrect car models if they didn't outsource? I'm not really seeing the relevance in that as they can just as easily make the mistake

AWD haven't been the Win all solution since fm2 or 3.

There is drag tires?

And I'm not sure what mean by modified cars showing as stock. I've literally never seen that.

It seem like most of your points come from past iterations, so I'm not exactly sure they would be mentioned. Others I've yet to hear of though

I'm not saying there wouldn't be incorrect models if they didn't outsource. Minty implied they "rarely" take a simple solution. Outsourcing and not checking models is a simple solution. AWD has been "over powered" up until FM4. Even online most preferred AWD drivetrains because of how powerful the acceleration was for those cars.

Sorry I meant to say multiple drag tires. It's just a one type solution and you still can't warm up the tires before the race, which is a drag racing standard.

The modified cars thing as stock is for audio recording. The audio team used to heavily modify the sounds they recorded from cars to make them sound good. Stock cars often sounded "boring." As a result, instead of trying to properly have them represented in their sounds, they would put tuned parts on cars and present those sounds as "stock." This came directly from Mike Caviezel's mouth. There is a GDC(?) video of him talking about sound design and he referenced Forza a lot.

And like I said these issues are just examples of Minty saying that Turn 10 "rarely" goes the simple way. I have provided many examples of that statement being objectively false.

 

[SimTourist]

Wow! you really proved me wrong with that in depth, well thought out, articulate post!

To achieve aesthetics equal or better to what they have now with dynamic lighting, the ONLY option is Deferred. Foward+ will either run like ****, look like ****, or most probably both whilst calculating the complex lighting required for the standard already set by themselves.... Seriously dude, how hard is that to understand?

I'll try and put it as simply as I can for you

Deferred = high initial performance cost allowing you to add a LOT of geometry and realtime lights (with real time shadows) at low cost.

Forward = Low initial performance cost followed by performance that SCALES UP every time you add more complexity to the scene, yes I understand Forward+ takes steps to sidestep the buffer and mitigate the hit but it's still really inefficient compared (that's without taking into consideration the lack of realtime shadows cast by every light after the main source light, if you want this you're paying though the eyeballs never mind the nose)

So taking them facts, plus the knowledge you already have (but are unwilling to share for some reason) and applying them to a real case scenario, answer me this... Your leaving the pits at Le Mans and you want every garage light, plus your lights, plus any other cars lights and any other lights to effect the scene and everything in it (yep, you guessed it, with realtime shadows good measure) Which engine is getting closer to 60 fps at 1080p?

Please show me this magic engine lol. 95% of games with deferred rendering run at Sub1080p on Xbox One because the frame buffers can't fit into 32mb eSRAM. You can dance around all you want, but switching to deferred won't suddenly give you a massive performance boost, but rather lock you out of any possibility of achieving 1080p. PCars is using deferred and had to go 900p.

 

[Scaff]

@phosphor112 - Kind of ironic to say:

Hope you don't come back moving the goalposts.

....and then do exactly that...

Sorry I meant to say multiple drag tires.

 

[hennessey86]

Turn 10 have always said anything that compromises 60fps will not make it into the game, if they could have done dynamic weather and time of day I'm sure it would be in the game. Look at the games that do try and do more than what is possible, they suffer frame rate drops etc. I can pretty much garuntee that polyphony digital are working on a game that will be to much for the PS4, they try and pack to much in and the quality always suffers.

 

[Mitsurugi]

Turn 10 have always said anything that compromises 60fps will not make it into the game, if they could have done dynamic weather and time of day I'm sure it would be in the game. Look at the games that do try and do more than what is possible, they suffer frame rate drops etc. I can pretty much garuntee that polyphony digital are working on a game that will be to much for the PS4, they try and pack to much in and the quality always suffers.

I would like to add the dreaded screen tear/input lag too to the list of technical compromises that a lot of developers end up with in their games. I do hope PD temper their ambition for their next game with what the hardware can actually do. I believe T10 are to be commended to being dogmatic about their 1080px60fps mantra.

 

[Mitsurugi]

Please show me this magic engine lol. 95% of games with deferred rendering run at Sub1080p on Xbox One because the frame buffers can't fit into 32mb eSRAM. You can dance around all you want, but switching to deferred won't suddenly give you a massive performance boost, but rather lock you out of any possibility of achieving 1080p. PCars is using deferred and had to go 900p.

I believe FH2 is using Clustered Forward Plus, and we got 1080px30p with 4xMSSA in an open world racing game, with 20 miles draw distances, full DTOD/Weather and hundreds of real-time lights. Something a lot of folks on other notable forums believed to be impossible on the XB1. FH2 also has one of the cleanest IQ around.

 

[PzR Slim]

I would like to add the dreaded screen tear/input lag too to the list of technical compromises that a lot of developers end up with in their games. I do hope PD temper their ambition for their next game with what the hardware can actually do. I believe T10 are to be commended to being dogmatic about their 1080px60fps mantra.

I agree it's an admirable mantra they hold in regard to 1080p/60fps. However, that doesn't automatically discount dynamic weather and TOD. Yes compromises have to be made to achieve 1080p/60fps but are the dynamic tyres walls as important a factor in racing when compared to dynamic weather and TOD? Obviously not. And I'm not suggesting for a second that getting rid of dynamic tyre walls would free up enough resource to include dynamic weather or TOD. However, how many other design decisions were made that aren't as important as dynamic weather or TOD that collectively are enough of a resource hog that, if removed, would allow dynamic weather or TOD. Once again I'm not suggesting it's definitely the case that removing some other less important 'gimmicks' would make dynamic weather and TOD possible, rather I'm just asking people to see that point of view so we can have a discussion rather than there being two rather entrenched points of view.

It does seem to me that T10 do include a couple of 'stand out' features with each iteration that when it actually comes to it are just gimmicks. Dynamic tyre walls are a perfect example of this, as are massive puddles on the inside of the track, which if happened in the real world would cause a race to be immediately red flagged. I think T10 are car lovers first and racing fans second, which is perfectly fine there is space for both in the gaming landscape but I do wish they would stop banging on about realism when their actions don't necessarily show that's what is most important to them.

One again I will be getting the FM6 ultimate edition. I will be playing it to death and I'm sure it will be a fantastic experience. However, that doesn't stop me from questioning the decision they make. And I'm not saying I'm right just bringing up points for discussion.

 

[SimTourist]

I believe FH2 is using Clustered Forward Plus, and we got 1080px30p with 4xMSSA in an open world racing game, with 20 miles draw distances, full DTOD/Weather and hundreds of real-time lights. Something a lot of folks on other notable forums believed to be impossible on the XB1. FH2 also has one of the cleanest IQ around.

That's the point - it's using forward+ which keeps the frame buffers small enough to keep within 32 megs, with deferred the frame buffer sizes balloon exponentially, easily exceeding 32 megs which is why Xbone is having trouble with 1080p, dropping to 900p means 40% less pixels to process and lower frame buffer sizes.

 

[Mitsurugi]

I agree it's an admirable mantra they hold in regard to 1080p/60fps. However, that doesn't automatically discount dynamic weather and TOD. Yes compromises have to be made to achieve 1080p/60fps but are the dynamic tyres walls as important a factor in racing when compared to dynamic weather and TOD? Obviously not. And I'm not suggesting for a second that getting rid of dynamic tyre walls would free up enough resource to include dynamic weather or TOD. However, how many other design decisions were made that aren't as important as dynamic weather or TOD that collectively are enough of a resource hog that, if removed, would allow dynamic weather or TOD. Once again I'm not suggesting it's definitely the case that removing some other less important 'gimmicks' would make dynamic weather and TOD possible, rather I'm just asking people to see that point of view so we can have a discussion rather than there being two rather entrenched points of view.

It does seem to me that T10 do include a couple of 'stand out' features with each iteration that when it actually comes to it are just gimmicks. Dynamic tyre walls are a perfect example of this, as are massive puddles on the inside of the track, which if happened in the real world would cause a race to be immediately red flagged. I think T10 are car lovers first and racing fans second, which is perfectly fine there is space for both in the gaming landscape but I do wish they would stop banging on about realism when their actions don't necessarily show that's what is most important to them.

One again I will be getting the FM6 ultimate edition. I will be playing it to death and I'm sure it will be a fantastic experience. However, that doesn't stop me from questioning the decision they make. And I'm not saying I'm right just bringing up points for discussion.

These are all fair points. I think personally, I prefer that racing-sim developers have different aim/scope/ambition for their products. Otherwise, we may end up with a lot of racing games offering much the same, with little to differentiate them. For example, I prefer Assetto Corsa physics/handling model to that of pCars(On PC), but they are sufficiently different for me to have both in my collection. The same with Forza/GT series. I like them both for different reasons, but I prefer Forza, for it's physics/handling model.

 

[SimTourist]

Dynamic tyre walls are a perfect example of this

Can't say I agree, mate. To me this is a neat little nextgen feature, I'm so sick and tired of tracks that feel completely static like they're every single object is made out of solid concrete. Forza 5 was particularly bad at this, everything was completely static, trees don't move, crowds are 2D, you've had zero interaction with the environments. This should be left behind, nextgen calls for dynamic worlds. They couldn't find enough performance for dynamic ToD/Weather, but enough to make the tracks a bit more alive. Have you seen the Uncharted 4 E3 demo, that's what I want from new hardware, everything is dynamic and reacts to forces applied to it. This takes a lot of time and effort, but in the end this is what differentiates a new gen from the previous - doing something that wasn't possible before due to technical limitations.
And besides this gen is just kicking into gear and will probably last until 2019 or 2020, plenty of Forzas will come out until then and they'll have to introduce something new with each iteration.

 

[05XR8]

Which I why I would prefer energy spent on pit crews over tyre barriers. thosw scenes of the avatars walking aroind the cara before the start of the race are awesome.