Your thoughts about "standard" vs. "premium"

[Owen.C93]

Cars are the same in photomode, but lighting is better and are the special effects like DOF.

Ingame and in the races they will look much better than GT4.

 

[Strittan]

Thats cool that you think that however with this
I thought you would know 100% sure

Changed my mind just to make you happy, happy?

Just curious. Do you actually think the standard cars look anywhere even close to the premiums?

 

[JDMKING13]

Changed my mind just to make you happy, happy?

Just curious. Do you actually think the standard cars look anywhere even close to the premiums?

Nope just as any other racing game I have played. The premiums are in a league of their own. My gripe was with people saying the standards don't look new gen, but calling NFSS and Forza3 new gen looking cars. That is all cleared up for me know though. I made a joke out of it yesterday with Slip this is not the first 2 differnt type of car in 1 game situation because in FM3 some cars look great while some are messed up. Forza3 still uses models from FM1 which had errors back then and still show up in Forza3.

Taking 800 cars from an almost 5 year old game and just throwing in a next gen game shows no workmanship or professionalism. I really don't think that is the case.

If you consider the fact that there are next gen games with car models that still don't hold up to a 5 year old game like GT4, it shows that they wouldn't have to work hard on them to make a lot of us GT fans happy. The fact that Forza, after 4 games, still can't get the R32 Nissan Skyline right, shows that GT4 cars still look great. I really only want a decent accurate interior for every car. They don't need to be heavily detailed. Just good looking with at least the authentic steering wheel and logo or something like that. I don't care about heavy stitching and glare from the sun.

In my honest opinion, there ought to be much much more than 200+ premium cars seriously. Maybe GT5 is really just a basis for GT6.

So going off by you guys definition of old gen cars I have come to conclusion the 2 racing games I will play have old gen cars that look good and IMO I considers new gen.

 

[Strittan]

Nope just as any other racing game I have played. The premiums are in a league of their own. My gripe was with people saying the standards don't look new gen, but calling NFSS and Forza3 new gen looking cars. That is all cleared up for me know though. I made a joke out of it yesterday with Slip this is not the first 2 differnt type of car in 1 game situation because some cars look great while some are messed up. Forza3 still uses models from FM1 which had errors back then and still show up in Forza3.

Oh, I see. Just because Forza 3 has last gen cars as well we have to think GT4 cars still look great.

What has Forza 3 to do with this in the first place? I thought this thread was GT5 related but I guess I'm wrong then.

I give up...

 

[JDMKING13]

Oh, I see. Just because Forza 3 has last gen cars as well we have to think GT4 cars still look great.

What has Forza 3 to do with this in the first place? I thought this thread was GT5 related but I guess I'm wrong then.

I give up...

Yup your wrong. Again Strittan please tell me where I said "Just because Forza 3 has last gen cars as well we have to think GT4 cars still look great."

Scaff
Nail on head.

We have no specific issue with any picture being used for comparison purposes, as long as that is exactly what they are used for.

Unfortunately almost every time that's done the thread ends up in a FM vs GT argument and takes an age to get back on track. Do a search against this thread using the word 'Forza' to get an idea of how many post you get back and then take a look at they for a very good idea of exactly why the staff have an issue.

As I mentioned above, I have no issue with the use of pictures for valid comparisons at all. However from now on you guys are responsible to keeping it on track, fail to do so and its going to get locked. If that happens (and I hope we can avoid it) and the mess spreads to other threads then those responsible will find 'interesting PM's in their in-boxes.

Regards

Scaff

Many members was saying the Standard cars cant compare to this generation racing games but as usual I guess you miss the part when I explained what was my only gripe.

 

[Spagetti69]

Don't you guys sleep?

 

[Akira AC]

yep they seem to keep up the fight for "la causa"

 

[JDMKING13]

Don't you guys sleep?

SLEEP?.... For what Say what you want man read my post I never try to come at anybody sideways. I respect members and their opinion. As i said before I come on GTP to talk to other passionate GT lovers and have a good time. However when people throw small insulting jabs at me for no reason I have a problem with that just as you would.

 

[Spagetti69]

Glad your having lots of fun.
What's your lastest opinion on cockpit view, in or out.

Edit. Nevermind.

 

[JDMKING13]

Glad your having lots of fun.
What's your lastest opinion on cockpit view, in or out.

Spagett69 I want those cockpit view So damn bad for the standard car. honestly man I really think they are in. I know people are going to call me desperate but who cares. From the last reading on the news page It makes me believe they are in. 👍

 

[Spagetti69]

I want them too. Having a cockpit for them, is the difference for me. I'm not bothered about graphics TBH.

What will define how much I use them, is the view, not the graphics.
Anyway it's off topic, sorry.

 

[Strittan]

1:00 AM isn't that late, is it? Also, I'm waiting for my mom to call as I promised to pick her up at a party.

Yup your wrong. Again Strittan please tell me where I said "Just because Forza 3 has last gen cars as well we have to think GT4 cars still look great."

The fact that Forza, after 4 games, still can't get the R32 Nissan Skyline right, shows that GT4 cars still look great.

There. You forgot to say "in my opinion" or "IMO", lol.

Seriously, just let it go. You think they look current gen, but they aren't. It's no big deal.

 

[JDMKING13]

I want them too. Having a cockpit for them, is the difference for me. I'm not bothered about graphics TBH.

What will define how much I use them, is the view, not the graphics.
Anyway it's off topic, sorry.

I defiantly feel you on that, even though I still will use them I will be so happy if I can drive them in cockpit view though 👍 I dont feel as if your off topic though

 

[JDMKING13]

1:00 AM isn't that late, is it? Also, I'm waiting for my mom to call as I promised to pick her up at a party.



There. You forgot to say "in my opinion" or "IMO", lol.

Seriously, just let it go. You think they look current gen, but they aren't. It's no big deal.

I knew you would be back You are to funny man you said

"What has Forza 3 to do with this in the first place? I thought this thread was GT5 related but I guess I'm wrong then."

Then i showed you that the MOD said FM can be related to this thread

Scaff
Nail on head.

We have no specific issue with any picture being used for comparison purposes, as long as that is exactly what they are used for.

Unfortunately almost every time that's done the thread ends up in a FM vs GT argument and takes an age to get back on track. Do a search against this thread using the word 'Forza' to get an idea of how many post you get back and then take a look at they for a very good idea of exactly why the staff have an issue.

As I mentioned above, I have no issue with the use of pictures for valid comparisons at all. However from now on you guys are responsible to keeping it on track, fail to do so and its going to get locked. If that happens (and I hope we can avoid it) and the mess spreads to other threads then those responsible will find 'interesting PM's in their in-boxes.

Regards

Scaff

Then you quote me on something I never said the bold was there to show you how other members who play FM3 can pick out models thats been jacked up since FM1 on the original xbox.(there has only been 3 Forzas though)

Taking 800 cars from an almost 5 year old game and just throwing in a next gen game shows no workmanship or professionalism. I really don't think that is the case.

If you consider the fact that there are next gen games with car models that still don't hold up to a 5 year old game like GT4, it shows that they wouldn't have to work hard on them to make a lot of us GT fans happy. The fact that Forza, after 4 games, still can't get the R32 Nissan Skyline right, shows that GT4 cars still look great. I really only want a decent accurate interior for every car. They don't need to be heavily detailed. Just good looking with at least the authentic steering wheel and logo or something like that. I don't care about heavy stitching and glare from the sun.

In my honest opinion, there ought to be much much more than 200+ premium cars seriously. Maybe GT5 is really just a basis for GT6.

You are to funny man.

I got over the old gen situation

I don't know Slip Im sorry man. I really don't worry about that stuff Im just learning from you guys. If the game looks good it looks good to me. Do you know If GT5 standard cars have the same poly/texture count as GT4? All i know is the S2000 still has the same error it did in Forza1, It didn't bother me so much the car still look good. I get you know, being direct ports make them automatically last gen So GT5 and FM3 consist of last gen cars that still look good (IMO) Im cool with that. 👍

Alrighty then

 

[II IVORBIGUN II]

SLEEP?.... For what Say what you want man read my post I never try to come at anybody sideways. I respect members and their opinion. As i said before I come on GTP to talk to other passionate GT lovers and have a good time. However when people throw small insulting jabs at me for no reason I have a problem with that just as you would.

Well in my opinion you are a very polite member who shares similiar views to me. Infact I was going to ask if I could send a friend request as I would like to meet you on GT5.

Personally i've given up with this thread. Im content enough with the opinion of those who have actually played GT5 who say "When you play GT5 you realise why it's taken 5yrs".

 

[JDMKING13]

Well in my opinion you are a very polite member who shares similiar views to me. Infact I was going to ask if I could send a friend request as I would like to meet you on GT5.

Personally i've given up with this thread. Im content enough with the opinion of those who have actually played GT5 who say "When you play GT5 you realise why it's taken 5yrs".

No doubt man you can send me that I really cant wait to play with you guys once GT5 comes out. 👍

Im content enough with the opinion of those who have actually played GT5 who say "When you play GT5 you realise why it's taken 5yrs".

Two thumbs up for that statement. 👍 👍

 

[eSZee]

@ Dave SZ




This is why I said IMO. Some feel GT4 looks better than GT5 I respect everyone opinion.

I don't think GT4 looks better than standards. I was agreeing with you, when I said it was fact not opinion.

 

[JDMKING13]

I don't think GT4 looks better than standards. I was agreeing with you, when I said it was fact not opinion.

O ok my bad D. I was not saying it in a bad way towards you, Strittan feels the GT4 car looked better. It made me laugh because I feel just as you, but I know on GTP you cannot state facts as opinion thats why I put the IMO. 👍

 

[Tenacious D]

Maybe I think the Seattle race images with the Camaro look awesome because I raced it and snapped the photos. I do feel a connection with it as if it's a cool event I participated in, and have the images to archive my experience.

But that's not it. I know this drives some of you nutty but I greatly appreciate something that looks better than it should. GT4 Photo Mode images that look to me like they came from an automotive magazine just freak me out. And GT5 is going to bring them to life even more. I really dig the way they look in the trailer. Yeah, my opinion.

I know some of you can't believe we actually like these (perhaps) cockpitless misfits, and act like we're covering our eyes when we come across your posts. Well, I feel like you act like all I'm doing are quoting Jethro Tull lyrics or something. There is some kind of gulf fixed between us which cannot be breached. Maybe when GT5 finally hits, some of us who have been devout doubters will give one a run, and say, "Wow... maybe they aren't so bad after all."

Maybe they are just as bad as you guys have been saying. But from our side of the void, we're seeing things that make us happy, so I think that at least the potential is there for something to feel good about, even if there are no cockpits.

 

[Spagetti69]

Maybe the cockpits are vietnamese quality?

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Nope just as any other racing game I have played. The premiums are in a league of their own. My gripe was with people saying the standards don't look new gen, but calling NFSS and Forza3 new gen looking cars. That is all cleared up for me know though. I made a joke out of it yesterday with Slip this is not the first 2 differnt type of car in 1 game situation because in FM3 some cars look great while some are messed up. Forza3 still uses models from FM1 which had errors back then and still show up in Forza3.

I still don't see how calling cars designed on this generation (for this generation) of gaming systems "current gen" should offend you. What would you call them?

For the purpose of this argument, since I seem to be having a very vague definition of "last gen" attributed to me, I have to ask again, since I never got an answer the first time: the models people are talking about from FM3 that are the same as FM1... are they literally exactly the same? Same poly mesh, same textures?

This gold Vette gives a hint that maybe PD will be updating the textures. At that point, they are no longer complete carryover assets from GT4, in my eyes. They're spruced up, and their meshes still show their age as a last-gen modeling technique, but high-res textures are arguably the easiest, most time-efficient way to get these models to look (fairly) comparative to Premiums in the same game.

So going off by you guys definition of old gen cars I have come to conclusion the 2 racing games I will play have old gen cars that look good and IMO I considers new gen.

My mind boggles how you use the term "new gen". Just because something looks good to you, that's enough criteria? Can I say Super Mario 3 on my Wii is new gen, because I still like how it looks?

I don't really think anybody will argue the Standards are indeed last-gen models. Note what I'm saying isn't that people will all agree they don't look good, or all agree that they do. It's just that, if they're being brought in from GT4, well, that's the very definition of last-gen. And I don't buy Kaz' marketing speak of saying GT4 was probably too advanced for PS2, or GT5 Premiums are in the same position with PS3. If he can run 10+ Premiums on track at a time, with damage, then Premiums are resolutely of this generation (though definitely in the lead for racing games, graphically).

 

[Akira AC]

I still don't see how calling cars designed on this generation (for this generation) of gaming systems "current gen" should offend you. What would you call them?

This gold Vette gives a hint that maybe PD will be updating the textures. At that point, they are no longer complete carryover assets from GT4, in my eyes. They're spruced up, and their meshes still show their age as a last-gen modeling technique, but high-res textures are arguably the easiest, most time-efficient way to get these models to look (fairly) comparative to Premiums in the same game.



My mind boggles how you use the term "new gen". Just because something looks good to you, that's enough criteria? Can I say Super Mario 3 on my Wii is new gen, because I still like how it looks?

Agree 👍

I don't really think anybody will argue the Standards are indeed last-gen models. Note what I'm saying isn't that people will all agree they don't look good, or all agree that they do. It's just that, if they're being brought in from GT4, well, that's the very definition of last-gen.

Yes indeed,and some people think that for example need for street undercover,race driver grid and FM2 are cars from this gen, which they don't because since NFS shift the models has increased the level of detail,area that any other racing game went before and also the introduction of cockpits with highly(only shift)details they gave a point of reference of what we call today as "acceptable model".

And I don't buy Kaz' marketing speak of saying GT4 was probably too advanced for PS2, or GT5 Premiums are in the same position with PS3. If he can run 10+ Premiums on track at a time, with damage, then Premiums are resolutely of this generation (though definitely in the lead for racing games, graphically).

They indeed were far beyond PS2 limits(details,not polygon count)but the problem of not tweaking them is that old models with the same polygon counts and same texturing mapping will look like old gen cars(although some Gran Turismo cars have the same level of quality of some FM2 cars)but for today "standards" they are indeed last models.

 

[dylansan]

The biggest problem with this thread is that people keep saying the phrase "new gen" and "old gen", and then they complain when someone else compares it to Forza or another game. You can't compare it to current generation games without actually looking at some current generation games.

That's why I think everyone should just look at the standard cars without thinking about other games, and decide if they look good, on their own. No need to decide if they're up to par with other games, just see if they look like you could have fun racing with them or taking pictures of them, or whatever you plan to do in the game.

It's like ordering a pizza, and when it comes out, you say "This doesn't look as good as another pizza I once had. That one was really good, so I refuse to eat this." Eventually you'll starve.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

If that Pizza takes 5 years to get delivered, it better be the best damn pizza there has ever been! haha

 

[dylansan]

Let's say the Pizza is just one part of an entire buffet which, as it turns out, is the best damn food you've ever had. Including a much smaller Pizza that actually tastes awesome. But because the other pizza is bad, some people are refusing to pay for the buffet. Sounds a little rude to me...

 

[JDMKING13]

I still don't see how calling cars designed on this generation (for this generation) of gaming systems "current gen" should offend you. What would you call them?

For the purpose of this argument, since I seem to be having a very vague definition of "last gen" attributed to me, I have to ask again, since I never got an answer the first time: the models people are talking about from FM3 that are the same as FM1... are they literally exactly the same? Same poly mesh, same textures?

This gold Vette gives a hint that maybe PD will be updating the textures. At that point, they are no longer complete carryover assets from GT4, in my eyes. They're spruced up, and their meshes still show their age as a last-gen modeling technique, but high-res textures are arguably the easiest, most time-efficient way to get these models to look (fairly) comparative to Premiums in the same game.





My mind boggles how you use the term "new gen". Just because something looks good to you, that's enough criteria? Can I say Super Mario 3 on my Wii is new gen, because I still like how it looks?

I don't really think anybody will argue the Standards are indeed last-gen models. Note what I'm saying isn't that people will all agree they don't look good, or all agree that they do. It's just that, if they're being brought in from GT4, well, that's the very definition of last-gen. And I don't buy Kaz' marketing speak of saying GT4 was probably too advanced for PS2, or GT5 Premiums are in the same position with PS3. If he can run 10+ Premiums on track at a time, with damage, then Premiums are resolutely of this generation (though definitely in the lead for racing games, graphically).

Dont know what your talking about offend me slip where did I say that please show me. I said i was boggled because you and other members where saying the standard cars are old gen and don't compare(or hold a candle) to new gen games such as FM3 and NFSS. Just as I told you before I don't know man, all I know is the S2000 still has the same modeling error that it had In FM1 on the original Xbox and going off your definition of old gen FM3 consist of old gen cars. You never answered my question though Does GT5 standard cars have the same poly count/textures? So now your confused I guess you missed what i said 2day ago when you where agreeing with me.

I don't know Slip Im sorry man. I really don't worry about that stuff Im just learning from you guys. If the game looks good it looks good to me. Do you know If GT5 standard cars have the same poly/texture count as GT4? All i know is the S2000 still has the same error it did in Forza1, It didn't bother me so much the car still look good. I get you know, being direct ports make them automatically last gen So GT5 and FM3 consist of last gen cars that still look good (IMO) Im cool with that. 👍

Alrighty then

So this is what confuses me in your argument, 1st you tell me that being ports from an old system makes that game old gen this is the case for both FM and GT5. However IN FM3 you want to know if they have the same poly count/textures because if they dont i guess you will considered them new gen ? You also say

This gold Vette gives a hint that maybe PD will be updating the textures. At that point, they are no longer complete carryover assets from GT4, in my eyes.

So If you think PD will be updating the the textures and you ask me if FM3 has the same textures and Poly count as FM1 because if they dont you would considered them new gen why this statement

It's just that, if they're being brought in from GT4[/B], well, that's the very definition of last-gen.

This is the same case for FM those some of their car models are from FM1 so why ask me about the poly/textures?

As i told you before, until you explained to me the definition of old gen I felt any racing game I played was new gen however going off your definition as i said the other day the racing games I play/will play(FM3 GT5) consist of old gen cars that look good to me.

 

[Matti_Dude]

Might as well. Some of us are trying to talk the technical specifics of why we consider the Standards the way we do, but for every post about the actual hard evidence related to that, there's "counter-points" consisting of the equivalent of "lol they look great to me! ".

There are too many people here who don't understand the difference between models, textures, and the lighting engine, or worse, those that think they do. Plus we have people coming in every day or so posting some "new discovery" and essentially hitting the reset button on the topic.

Trying to use facts to prove that the standard cars don't look good is never going to work. As far as i'm concerned I will base my opinion on the pictures and videos I see of the standard cars, and eventually when I play the game, because that is what matters. Sure maybe all of the information about the polygons and textures is pointing towards the standard cars looking bad, but if they look good in the game it doesn't matter what the figures say. Hard evidence is never going to prove that a car does not look good, it will be your own opinion from what you see.

 

[JDMKING13]

Trying to use facts to prove that the standard cars don't look good is never going to work. As far as i'm concerned I will base my opinion on the pictures and videos I see of the standard cars, and eventually when I play the game, because that is what matters. Sure maybe all of the information about the polygons and textures is pointing towards the standard cars looking bad, but if they look good in the game it doesn't matter what the figures say. Hard evidence is never going to prove that a car does not look good, it will be your own opinion from what you see.

This is how I feel. I appreciate slip in others trying to explain to me the technical side of models, but in the end of they day I just care if they look good on my TV this is the case for the cars on FM3 and Standard cars. Even though technically they are old gen who cares they look good, way better than what i was playing years ago 👍

 

[Griffith500]

Just a quick throwback, since it doesn't seem to have been covered. It's quite technical, but I agree that the end result is more important 👍

I guess I'm Mr Easy to Please or something. Looking at these images and the Standard Car trailer, I'm just as excited to get my hands on these as I am the Premiums. I still think the graphics won't be glaringly different, and replays will be a joy to watch. And I can see I'm going to have to get some more USB drives.

Just for some comparison, here are those Corvettes again.

I thought the Standard Vettes looked kind of blah, until I saw pretty much the same blah-ness in the real thing.

By the way, that Camaro race made me love the American muscle cars all over again. Pretty wild race.

The perceived improvement in the tonality of the bodywork is not necessarily because of improved textures, not in the way it seems folks think it is, at any rate.

What I mean is, since GT3, the majority of the body work is shaded by the lighting engine (remember the smooth, legato changes in car colour in the dealerships?), with incidental shading (e.g. by use of an alpha channel / gray-scale textures, or something) where the lighting system falls down (e.g. occlusion).
Now, GT5's lighting is more sophisticated, and "faithful to the real thing", so more of the shading can be handled by the engine, rather than faked with the textures. I'm talking about production, painted cars here - not race machines, as they've always been a special case, and have more uniform, full-body textures, it seems.

The issue, though, is that the lighting relies on "normal vector" data, either from the triangles themselves (vertex-level) or often stored as a normal map (for per-pixel methods.)
The normal map, as the Wiki-article describes, is often derived from an excessively high-poly model, which is then scaled down for use in-game, and the normal map is used to restore detail (on a per-pixel basis - i.e. in a "pixel shader") lost from the mesh. There are a great many tricks that can be used with normal maps (my favourite being the representation of occlusion effects).


---------

Here's the point of my post: where has this extra lighting detail come from in the standard cars, as running in GT5? Presumably, the normal data has been re-done - based on what, though? Are the standard models of sufficient detail to reproduce high-res effects, like the sharp shading on the bonnet?

I think not. Even looking at GT4 photomode shots, the lighting is smooth and sharp, indicating the use of high-res normal "textures" - presumably exclusively for photomode, in this case. This is best seen on pictures of dirty cars, since the ambient (cube-mapped?) reflections are both low-res and applied only per-vertex. The improvements, then, are almost certainly down to the advanced shaders now being used, probably as a result of more fine-grained shading i.e. pixel-level instead of vertex-level, coupled with the greater number of pixels (and vertices, for premiums.)


[Hypothesis alert.]
What is encouraging, though, is that these high-res normal maps from GT4 could be used at load time to "improve" the model (mesh), too - much in the same way as tesselation algorithms do on current GPUs. Essentially, higher LoDs can be pre-calculated using the "high-res" normal maps at load-time...
Realistically, it'd be somewhere in between 50 and 100k polys, depending on the resolution of the normal map.

Well, that's what I'd do, assuming I could streamline tesselation on the Cell's SPUs (RSX would be far too slow) so as not to impede load-times too much - it's certainly possible for photomode
Either that, or run the models through a batch process to artificially add the detail back into the mesh before putting them on the disc - storage limits allowing.


Higher-res standard meshes won't much change the appearance of the lighting itself (the normal maps are left unchanged), but sharp, "jagged" edges in the mesh should be less evident e.g. in the first pic, the flared lip around the front wheel arch that transitions into the front bumper appears jagged at that point; or the "pinched" peak of the front wings / fenders, visible in both the first and the second shot. Of course, this all assumes the normal-maps are free of distortion and artifacts...

 

[Devedander]

Generally simple geometry with a flat color rendered at higher resolution will usually look better simply becuaes a flat color has no detail loss to speak of at lower resolution so it's not a big deal.

Loot at the vent holes just under the windshield... they do not look improved and still seem blurry.

Oh the other hand look at the premium version posted before... now THAT has some detail.