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

[Pseudopod]

not hitting a constant 60fps is not a chosen route. Developers can't magic up more console power, so if weather or lots of ai drag it down nothing can be done.

Yes it is. They can lower the image quality, 3d model details, particle effects and even resolution until they hit 60 in any situation. It is always up to the developers if they want to push the best possible image quality out of the system, or go for a stable 60 fps.

If it is not a chosen route, then how come many action games and fighting games never dip below 60? Were they just really lucky?

 

[GranTurismo guy]

Yes it is. They can lower the image quality, 3d model details, particle effects and even resolution until they hit 60 in any situation. It is always up to the developers if they want to push the best possible image quality out of the system, or go for a stable 60 fps.

If it is not a chosen route, then how come many action games and fighting games never dip below 60? Were they just really lucky?

You just proved my point. You can't hit 60 without reducing other areas.

 

[Pseudopod]

So then they'll just have to reduce other areas then. This is a choice. If they don't hit 60 fps, it's because they didn't value 60 fps high enough. You can still have weather effects and hit 60 fps. Maybe you'll have to settle for weather effects that aren't as impressive as Driveclub's, but that's still a choice the developers can make.

You can't just throw the "hardware limitations" excuse at things every time you make poor decisions. You can't make a game as if you had an Xbox one-2 when you have an xbox one.

 

[GranTurismo guy]

After my initial reaction of disappointment over the weather implementation, I've had time to think and I'm okay with it now. If this replication of rain is as realistic and deep as t10 are saying, then I don't mind if it starts as non dynamic. If it really is like nothing else, then it must start somewhere.

 

[Zer0]

Aquaplaning is not like driving on oil either.

I know. Check your pm.

Without more explanation from @Terronium-12, strangely menacing last words, and the impossible standards required to prove a GT related favourable "claim" or opinion in this section, I'm not going to risk a ban and as I said I retract of everything that could have offend and is not considered by the moderators true.

I'm not going to reply more GT related questions. Things are tense here even if I have tried to be polite don't commenting about the reality check of FM6, considered a "non sense" by many whenever I posted in the past about it. At the end the time always tells.

 

[SimTourist]

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.

So? They have both.

 

[ImaRobot]

I know. Check your pm.

Without more explanation from @Terronium-12, strangely menacing last words, and the impossible standards required to prove a GT related favourable "claim" or opinion in this section, I'm not going to risk a ban and as I said I retract of everything that could have offend and is not considered by the moderators true.

I'm not going to reply more GT related questions. Things are tense here even if I have tried to be polite don't commenting about the reality check of FM6, considered a "non sense" by many whenever I posted in the past about it. At the end the time always tells.

It's not strange at all. You always come in blowing everything off track, make everything a battle thread, and then never back up your claims with actual proof but instead just quote some forum member somewhere said something at one point in time. So stop trying to pretend its something else. There is a whole thread that has has unfavorable post towards T10 so it's ridiculous to even pretend for it to be that way. You're right, time has told your story and antics many times over.

After my initial reaction of disappointment over the weather implementation, I've had time to think and I'm okay with it now. If this replication of rain is as realistic and deep as t10 are saying, then I don't mind if it starts as non dynamic. If it really is like nothing else, then it must start somewhere.

I'm ok with the non-dynamic, I just hope that their is a good selection from te start, or that they continue to release more afterwards.

 

[Minty]

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:

• 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?

I said rarely, not never. Compromises always have to be made, because the game has a limited budget and timeframe for development. Don't get me wrong, I wish they wouldn't be so set on this 2 year schedule because it means they have less time to get something working in the game, and correct those smaller issues.

• True, this was my biggest gripe with the games until they fixed it.
• Again, true. It's annoying and I feel like they could benefit from a higher level of quality control on the few models that do have problems, but time and budget constraints would make having a dedicated modeling team find(some cars are one of a kind and can't be transported to them) and model so many cars might not fit into what they can do.
• That's not an issue with the simulation, but the calculation for the performance rankings that was fixed after Forza 4.
• Drag slicks were in the game, but the implementation of the drag racing itself was weak.
• Lowere LOD was pretty obviously a technical limitation and a compromise that had to be made to keep the game running in 1080p 60fps.
• As above, it saved performance for areas the dev team thought were more important.
• The visual damage was pretty inconsistent in high speed crashes, definitely. But without making the car crumple like Beam.ng they couldn't go too much farther. The mechanical damge is good, but it would be nice to see a tire go flying once in a while.
• Care to find a source for this or explain what you mean? Because I have one that at least says they do simulate it.
• Actually the steering assist still pops up on occasion unless you're using a wheel. It's annoying and I wish they would fix it.
• Got any examples?
• Yeah, that's a mistake, but I'm not sure what it has to do with something being simulated in a simple or complex way.

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.

Thanks for the lesson, only I've already said it should be totally doable for them from a purely lighting standpoint. But that doesn't address the effects of solar radiation on the road surface(the asphalt itself gets stickier as do the tires on it), or literally anything beside the visual aspect of day/night changes. They probably could do the visuals, but there are physical changes that go along with those.

 

[phosphor112]

@phosphor112 - Kind of ironic to say:



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

It was an honest mistake. Way past my normal bed time at that point, but I admit I'm guilty, which is why I didn't edit the original post.

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.

The frame buffer is larger on a deferred engine, but the processing is actually less.

Forward+ allows the use of MSAA because forward rendering does FS (fragment shaders, aka depth, color, stencil values) at the time of pixel rendering. Deferred puts all of that at the very end, after the pixel has been calculated. So in order to use AA for deferred rendering, it has to be after the final FS, making it a post processed anti aliasing. That rules out MSAA.

 

[Zer0]

It's not strange at all. You always come in blowing everything off track, make everything a battle thread, and then never back up your claims with actual proof but instead just quote some forum member somewhere said something at one point in time. So stop trying to pretend its something else. There is a whole thread that has has unfavorable post towards T10 so it's ridiculous to even pretend for it to be that way. You're right, time has told your story and antics many times over.

Kind of ironic knowing how you have contributed (and still try to do it) feeding those discussions with continuos questions and accusations wich ends making you more uncomfortable with what you read. I rarely started a war, are others who can't tolerate a contrary opinion and becomes offended to the point to start grind axes and spit flamebait. As I said, with FM6 you have a reality check that should make you rethink your own post behaviour towards others.

But oh well talk about FM6, I'm not going to give you more replys on this.

 

[Tornado]

I'm not going to reply more GT related questions.

I don't think anyone legitimately believed you were going to do so anyway. This isn't anywhere near the first time you've posted just to say that you can't possibly be expected to defend the statements you made because the moderators are out to get you, so by all means use it once again to bow out of actually backing up anything you said.

considered a "non sense" by many whenever I posted in the past about it.

You mean like posting the fake Greenawalt interview, then blaming everyone else for pointing out it was fake?

Talking about how insurmountable the performance gap between the PS4 and Xbone, then using a Google search with contradictory results to prove it?




Really:

I'm not going to give you more replys on this.

It's too bad we can't always be so lucky.

 

[phosphor112]

I said rarely, not never. Compromises always have to be made, because the game has a limited budget and timeframe for development. Don't get me wrong, I wish they wouldn't be so set on this 2 year schedule because it means they have less time to get something working in the game, and correct those smaller issues.

• True, this was my biggest gripe with the games until they fixed it.
• Again, true. It's annoying and I feel like they could benefit from a higher level of quality control on the few models that do have problems, but time and budget constraints would make having a dedicated modeling team find(some cars are one of a kind and can't be transported to them) and model so many cars might not fit into what they can do.
• That's not an issue with the simulation, but the calculation for the performance rankings that was fixed after Forza 4.
• Drag slicks were in the game, but the implementation of the drag racing itself was weak.
• Lowere LOD was pretty obviously a technical limitation and a compromise that had to be made to keep the game running in 1080p 60fps.
• As above, it saved performance for areas the dev team thought were more important.
• The visual damage was pretty inconsistent in high speed crashes, definitely. But without making the car crumple like Beam.ng they couldn't go too much farther. The mechanical damge is good, but it would be nice to see a tire go flying once in a while.
• Care to find a source for this or explain what you mean? Because I have one that at least says they do simulate it.
  
• Actually the steering assist still pops up on occasion unless you're using a wheel. It's annoying and I wish they would fix it.
• Got any examples?
  
• Yeah, that's a mistake, but I'm not sure what it has to do with something being simulated in a simple or complex way.

I'm sure they simulate it to a degree, but they don't do it accurately. Two examples: Damage and going in reverse in a car with massive downforce doesn't cause lift. I'm not sure how it is in FM5 (heck, even in FM4 idk), but I know in FM3 they had that drivetrain bug where you can set your car to go several hundred MPH in reverse and it would stay completely grounded.

As for the other point.

This happens because the environments shadows are applied as a top down shader. The car's is actually "cast" by the sun on the map. So the shadow for the corkscrew at Laguna Seca doesn't properly match the geometry of the actual map. So if you drive your car to the top of the hill, the car will look like it's floating.

If you take a car and have a shadow of a very low object, that object will still cast it's shadow on top of the car instead of where you'd expect it to, on the side or something.

It's easy to take an early day race, or late afternoon race. Get a car with a matte or solid finish (easier to see lighting changes on those paints), and drive your car over shadows and see where they "land" on the car.

Thanks for the lesson, only I've already said it should be totally doable for them from a purely lighting standpoint. But that doesn't address the effects of solar radiation on the road surface(the asphalt itself gets stickier as do the tires on it), or literally anything beside the visual aspect of day/night changes. They probably could do the visuals, but there are physical changes that go along with those.

No problem. I agree though. I can, and only have, made assumptions on how they can do the track temp data. We'll have to see going forward.

 

[ImaRobot]

Kind of ironic knowing how you have contributed (and still try to do it) feeding those discussions with continuos questions and accusations

I'm replying to you, yes. Is that what your saying here? Still, I'm not the one that does this;

blowing everything off track, make everything a battle thread, and then never back up your claims with actual proof but instead just quote some forum member somewhere said something at one point in time

Am I the one that comes to the Forza section just to tell people how PD are doing things right and how T10 are doing things wrong, in all the wrong threads? No, that would be you. Although, I am the one that likes to quote forum members that have absolutely no source on the subject.. oh wait, no, never mind. That's also you.

wich ends making you more uncomfortable with what you read.

Uncomfortable? Since when?

I rarely started a war, are others who can't tolerate a contrary opinion and becomes offended

We can tolerate opinion, and I still am tolerating it, or else I would have just told you to shut up. Instead, I choose to talk to you. Still, it doesn't change the fact that you take every thread off topic that you come across, just to show that you put PD in high regard, even though the faults they have are just as prominent as anything you talk about.

to the point to start grind axes and spit flamebait.

Oh, so you mean like every single post you have in this section of the forum?

As I said, with FM6 you have a reality check that should make you rethink your own post behaviour towards others.

Reality check? for what? I never said that these features are going to be in, instead I always started with wanting and being hopeful, as I've pointed out numerous times before, that I know this gen isn't as big a leap as everyone tinks.

But oh well talk about FM6, I'm not going to give you more replys on this.

You've been saying that for a week now.

I'm sure they simulate it to a degree, but they don't do it accurately. Two examples: Damage and going in reverse in a car with massive downforce doesn't cause lift. I'm not sure how it is in FM5 (heck, even in FM4 idk), but I know in FM3 they had that drivetrain bug where you can set your car to go several hundred MPH in reverse and it would stay completely grounded.

Wait, so everything you are describing about your instances is from prior to Fm4? I'm not even sure how anything is even going to be relevant anymore if you haven't had any experience up to date.

This happens because the environments shadows are applied as a top down shader. The car's is actually "cast" by the sun on the map. So the shadow for the corkscrew at Laguna Seca doesn't properly match the geometry of the actual map. So if you drive your car to the top of the hill, the car will look like it's floating.

Yeah, that is a bit weird. I'm wondering though, for all the talk you make about taking to much time on minor features that are unnecessary(I'm not sure why dynamic tire walls is a waste of time, but fixing a shadow that doesn't show correctly some of the time isn't) this just seems a little blown out, no?

So then they'll just have to reduce other areas then. This is a choice. If they don't hit 60 fps, it's because they didn't value 60 fps high enough. You can still have weather effects and hit 60 fps. Maybe you'll have to settle for weather effects that aren't as impressive as Driveclub's, but that's still a choice the developers can make.

I've always wondered what a game would look/feel like if the bare minimum was used just to make sure these features work at 1080p/60fps

 

[Scaff]

I rarely started a war, are others who can't tolerate a contrary opinion and becomes offended to the point to start grind axes and spit flamebait. As I said, with FM6 you have a reality check that should make you rethink your own post behaviour towards others.

Given that you have a track record of making things up, posting flame bait in numerous threads and refusing to answer often reasonable questions before running away I find it utterly asinine that you have the gall to attack others.

Its quite clear that you have little to no interest in holding reasonable discussions with other members and despite the frankly absurd number of chances you have been given, you also have no intention of changing in that regard.

As such you're done here.

 

[TrevorPhilips]

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 am not dancing around anything my friend. The two goals I outlined to achieving dynamic weather and time progression were to, A - Look as good as a Forza Motorsport title should look (I never once stated what resolution, that argument will come up later in this post so bear with me), and B - Play as good as possible, whilst retaining as close to 60 as possible. To not fall into irrelevance within the racing genre. My whole argument was that these dynamics add more to the racing than a solid 60fps.

Now enter you with the claim that Forward+ can achieve 1080p at 60fps and also look as good. Basically look as good and run smoother than Deferred. I'm sorry but that is utter ********. You must see that no? You keep banging on about it fitting through the buffer easier than deferred but fail to mention at half the target FPS I set and also still not as aesthetically pleasing to boot. Ramp that up to these targets I set and you will get a slideshow believe me.

What you will end up with is a game which will look worse and play worse and, luckily as fate has it, you don't have to take my word for it, It's coming in the shape of F1 2015 on July 10th. A full Forward+ rendering engine coming to XB1 at 900p at a framerate closer to 30fps than 60fps with very little going on in terms of dynamic lighting. Even the PS4 version has yet to hit 60fps, even for a second, it averages out between 35-55fps on PS4 and maybe will get to see that shiny number with a little more polish but it's never gonna hold it as much as Pcars does and that game, I'm sure you'd agree, has A LOT more things going on.

Forward+ is a time saving method for T10, it saves rewriting shaders, working on translucent effects and gives you a whole lot of other benefits to save time. That's all it is, no two ways about it, but it's also going to hold them back in the long run. The longer it goes on the further they will lag behind.

Now let's get one last thing straight. This is how I would have gone about things, basically take the hit now to stand me in good stead for the future because the longer it goes on the more work I would be creating for myself. People are entirely entitled to disagree with my approach as they may have other goals for what they would want to achieve, and that's perfectly fine. But to say Forward+ is a better solution and give only one example of a game trying to achieve the targets I set (and it fails significantly on both counts I must add) Is... Well, who is the insane one now?

 

[Zelalem]

You can't just throw the "hardware limitations" excuse at things every time you make poor decisions. You can't make a game as if you had an Xbox one-2 when you have an xbox one.

Trying to run a simulation at rock solid 60FPS all the time isn't a poor decisions in my opinion.

 

[Pseudopod]

That's what I'm saying.

 

[Brend]

Trying to run a simulation at rock solid 60FPS all the time isn't a poor decisions in my opinion.

Pretty sure that's @Pseudopod's point though. 60FPS should always be a priority for T10, it makes the experience that much better than the competition.

 

[Pseudopod]

Nothing gets past @Classic

 

[Brend]

Nothing gets past @Classic

There's a reason the cat in my avatar is always on alert!

 

[Wolfe]

Seems to me like it's taken for granted for games to be burdened with maximum-fidelity visuals that cramp perfectly adequate hardware to the point of trading between framerates and gameplay features. The fact that Turn 10 routinely does this is one of the reasons I've been losing interest in their games.

 

[ImaRobot]

Seems to me like it's taken for granted for games to be burdened with maximum-fidelity visuals that cramp perfectly adequate hardware to the point of trading between framerates and gameplay features. The fact that Turn 10 routinely does this is one of the reasons I've been losing interest in their games.

I enjoy visual fidelity, to an extent. I use these games for their photomodes, just as much as I do anything else to be honest. So it is welcome for me . However, I do understand the complaint though, as its a racing game, not a photomode game.

 

[Brend]

You could have something similar to Forzavista and GT's photo-mode that piles on the after effects but have the gameplay intact. I'd say that would be a good trade-off.

I enjoy visual fidelity, to an extent. I use these games for their photomodes, just as much as I do anything else to be honest. So it is welcome for me . However, I do understand the complaint though, as its a racing game, not a photomode game.

 

[avilab]

Weather and time of day is not dynamic and is limited to certain tracks.

Wow, that's a complete failure for a next-gen title. Even SMS included dynamic weather in PCars on a $3M budget. Godamn, Turn 10, get your act together and don't rush this game until you can give us what we want. Maybe we should call this FM5.1.

 

[Spitty]

Is anyone else sad, that there is a lack of Japanese tracks, like Tsukuba, Suzuka, Motegi...Fujimi?
Imagine Fujimi Kadio at night... the challenge.
And don't tell me they haven't been announced yet, Dan said there will be 10 all new tracks,
that leaves no room for returning favorites. Oh well, I am still excited for the game.

 

[ImaRobot]

Turn 10, get your act together and don't rush this game until you can give us what we want.

Which is exactly what they seem to be doing, no? What you're basically saying is "Hurry up and take your time!"

Is anyone else sad, that there is a lack of Japanese tracks, like Tsukuba, Suzuka, Motegi...Fujimi?
Imagine Fujimi Kadio at night... the challenge.
And don't tell me they haven't been announced yet, Dan said there will be 10 all new tracks,
that leaves no room for returning favorites. Oh well, I am still excited for the game.

It isn't announced yet, so how can you be disappointed that its excluded, if we dont even know it is? Last I heard it was 5 new tracks.

 

[Spitty]

Which is exactly what they seem to be doing, no? What you're basically saying is "Hurry up and take your time!"

It isn't announced yet, so how can you be disappointed that its excluded, if we dont even know it is? Last I heard it was 5 new tracks.

There is an interview where Mr. Greenawalt said there will be all tracks returning from FM5 + 10 all new tracks to the franchise, that leads me to the conclusion, no returning tracks from 4. I'll look it up...

 

[McLaren]

Wow, that's a complete failure for a next-gen title. Even SMS included dynamic weather in PCars on a $3M budget. Godamn, Turn 10, get your act together and don't rush this game until you can give us what we want. Maybe we should call this FM5.1.

SMS also wasn't shooting for a steady frame rate that takes a very noticeable hit when you try to add in 24 opponents in the rain. Maybe they shouldn't have rushed it, either....

There is an interview where Mr. Greenawalt said there will be all tracks returning from FM5 + 10 all new tracks to the franchise, that leads me to the conclusion, no returning tracks from 4. I'll look it up...

There's 26 locations in FM6, but there were 17 locations in FM5; 3 of which were DLC. The math doesn't quite add up there if that's what he said.

 

[TrevorPhilips]

I think that new Rio track ticks all the right boxes of what a fictional track should be. Nice technical and flowing sections, looks like it belongs as a street circuit, pretty big elevation changes and set in a beautiful backdrop. I like it.

 

[Spitty]

@McLaren @ImaRobot
Found it, Team VVV interviewed Greenawalt:



Starts at around 1:10 min.

"26 Environments, including 10 new ones."