The GT5 expectation thread (including preview titles)*

[Acert93]

60 fps without blur, 60fps with motion blur, 30fps with motion blur... Ace, what is your wrongheaded opinion?

While I would prefer 60fps with motion blur (for formerly stated reasons with nice chart object object velocity), depending on how the implimentation is I could take 30fps with quality motion blur over 60fps without. Just take objects on the perephrial areas of the screen--they are moving extremely fast, fast enough that even 60fps cannot convey their speed.

I still think, in general, there is an obsession with "60fps" as a magic number. The typical eye can notice about 72fps, after that it cannot really differentiate *the screen refreshes*. For arguements sake, lets use 60Hz though. So lets segment the animation into 60th segments, so you have 1/60, 2/60, 3/60, 4/60, 5/60, 7/60 etc. The problem is that your eye "accumulates" information, whereas a rendered frame just tosses information up from a specific point.

So using my previous example of a ball, lets say it is in your field of view for five 1/60th segments. The ball is going to be "blurred" during those 5 frames. Ditto a camera with a 1/60th exposure. But in a game that doesn't do some sort of object motion blur based on the velocity, you are going to have the ball show up at 5 distinct point with NO intermediate information.

So 60fps mostly resolves screen refresh issues, but it doesn't resolve object movement issues.

There are limitations to how motion blur can be accomplished with current technology, but I do quite like the effect in a number of racers. And I totally loath Turn10 for argueing that 60fps doesn't require any motion blur at all. GT5 has some nice DOF, which is similar to MB -- so I hope PD goes for 60fps, 1080p, and MB!

 

[Phil]

Just take objects on the perephrial areas of the screen--they are moving extremely fast, fast enough that even 60fps cannot convey their speed.

Seriously, Josh, how many games have you played that run at 60 fps and have objects running across the screen that "not even 60fps can convey"?

I see what you are getting at, and in theory, it sounds plausible. Then again, at 60 fps, the object that you are refering to that is rendered sharp in a game, moves at such a speed that (accoarding to your own words) the typical eye can't notice". So regardless if the drawed object is sharp or not, it's still moves at such a speed across the screen that the typical eye doesn't really notice it anyway. So why blur it if the eye doesn't notice it anyway?

Even further, blur happens automatically, like for example when rendering the road in a typical racer such as GT: The pixels of the road further in front travel less pixels but quicker (more distance) which make them come across as blured. As they come closer, they are less blured and seem sharp, which further enhances the feel of speed. When you're racing in reality, I'm sure you can pretty much see the road close to you sharp as well, regardless how quickly you're driving.

I'm not sure how many games you've played, but in all the 60 fps games I've played, what you are refering to hasn't happened. Not even in GT:HD at 1080p...

 

[one]

LCD ghosting?

 

[tongue_of_colicab]

And I think the same.

Modeling damage takes alot of technology and resources. And I hope it's not implemented just because slack jaws like to drive backwards and see cars smashed up.

In and of itself, damage does not add to the game experience and wish they would put the effort into adding other new features.

Just to clarify: Damage has it's place in a game like Formula One, where the actual racing is well enough represented to make the damage meaningful. IMO, GT has never represented actual racing well enough to need damage modeling.

Damage does add to the game experience I think. GT claims to be a realistic simulation game but what is realistic about being able to smash your Ferrari into a wall at 300kmph and not even scratch the paint? for me that just ruins the game. you could get away with that in the NFS2 days but ever since NFS4 had damage (and that was in 2000) im really botherd by race games that dont have damage.

Even if its not 100% accurate, which is impossible to begin with unless you want to rebuild every nut and bolt, crash every car in real to see what they can take etc, I'd rather have that than no damage at all.

 

[Acert93]

Seriously, Josh, how many games have you played that run at 60 fps and have objects running across the screen that "not even 60fps can convey"?

Most!

I linked to the thread the other day, but actually most fast moving ones will have objects moving across the screen quickly. e.g. The objects on the side of the track. Take a fast straight away, as the objects get closer to you the faster their onscreen velocity becomes (from single digit pixels per frame to handfuls). All the inner frame information is lost. Ditto when you turn: As you approach a hairpin corner and make a tight turn (lets say a turn right). Lets say your FOV is 70 degrees and you make a 90 degree turn in .5 seconds (or 30 frames). On a 720p screen you are going to move nearly 1,650 pixels to the right. Even using an even number of frames transversed, you are looking at 55 pixels of screen advancement per frame (of course a hard turn is more jerky and going to have segments where things move slower and faster during the turn). You could compound this issue if the object in question was moving (e.g. a small S-curve where you are in the first bend and the car ahead of you is in the second bend going the opposite way).

But most frequently, in a racing game, the objects toward the edge of the screen, especially on a 16:9 aspect display, will be moving across many pixels very quickly. In FM2 I have seen objects move inches and the GPU is giving you none of the inner frame data. When I look at the edges objects do appear to skip, albeit quickly.

It may annoy me, not you. That is fine. Just remember that when you do a 60fps rant and someone says 30fps is sufficient! Motion Blur is just one example where games fall significantly short of mimicking cameras or the eye--but some users won't see a need for it, just as some won't see one for 60fps.

The ball is just a simplified example of a single object. The principle is much broader. How frames are rendered is very different from the eye or a camera captures information. Games capture points in time and render all the information for that singular point in time. Cameras capture all the data for a time segment (all the data for 1/60th of a second).

GPU: Point-in-time (@ 60Hz, 60 distinct points rendered at 1/60th of a second intervals)

Camera: Segment-in-time (@ 60Hz captures, all data during 1/60th time segment)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_blur

When a camera creates an image, that image does not represent a single instant of time. Because of technological constraints or artistic requirements, the image represents the scene over a period of time. As objects in a scene move, an image of that scene must represent an integration of all positions of those objects, as well as the camera's viewpoint, over the period of exposure determined by the shutter speed. In such an image, any object moving with respect to the camera will look blurred or smeared along the direction of relative motion. This smearing may occur on an object that is moving or on a static background if the camera is moving. In a film or television image, this looks natural because the human eye behaves in much the same way.

Games aren't providing all the extra information inner-frame. This is why nAo said that the PGR4 video's weren't rendered realtime: He is spotting inner-frame motion blur that would, traditionally, be composited by taking a larger number of frames (e.g. 360) and compositing them together to 30fps. This would simulate how a camera/eye work and give much higher IQ motion blur than the vector/velocity maps most developers are using.

(accoarding to your own words) the typical eye can't notice".

You misunderstood me there (or I didn't express it right). Your eyes won't see the screen updates. At 60fps (or 70-80ish in reality--60fps is actually below the threshold from a study I read, but people don't complain because it is 30 or 60 for consoles... people should be kevetching for 72Hz... but I digress). And I agree, at 60Hz the screen update issue is largely resolved for most gamers.

My point has been consistant about actual object velocity and inner-frame information, which has very little to do with refresh rate (unless we start seeing displays with hundreds of refreshes a second). Movies at 24Hz can appear smooth for the reason that, although only 24Hz, they capture all the data during a 1 second period.

A game rendered at 60Hz only captures the data at 60 points in time during a 1 second period.

Even further, blur happens automatically, like for example when rendering the road in a typical racer such as GT: The pixels of the road further in front travel less pixels but quicker (more distance) which make them come across as blured.

I don't think I am understanding. Pixels "further in front" -- do you mean like 100M+ down the road? Those do move slower, and will appear more sharp, not more blurred.

As they come closer, they are less blured and seem sharp, which further enhances the feel of speed.

As they get closer they should get blurrier because they are travelling faster and are compensating for the inner-frame information that the renderer / display haven't displayed.

UNLESS you are looking at the ground right in front of you and following a point on the ground with your eyes.

And this would be a classic example of how motion blur DOESN'T work for a game. (Thanks to Farid for pointing this out) Motion Blur would assume you are looking forward or in a specific direction in many situations. This can be a fairly safe assumption in a racing game where, when driving at high speeds, you will mostly be looking down track.

I can understand the desire for no motion blur. The arguement (that Turn10 pushed forward) that 60fps resolves the need for Motion Blur is absolute BS.

I'm not sure how many games you've played, but in all the 60 fps games I've played, what you are refering to hasn't happened. Not even in GT:HD at 1080p...

I am a PC gamer and play almost every game at 60Hz-72Hz (depending on whether the game cap/display cap comes first). On consoles I tend to favor games with stable framerates over a number. Stable 60fps>30fps; but then again I like the effect of motion blur has on making an image look "solid".

Yeah, yeah I still haven't jumped in or whatever Sony's marketing scheme is.

But don't worry about Motion Blur too much. nAo has pointed out that right now we really don't have the ability to do proper motion blur. I have seen a DX10 whitepaper that demonstrated the use of GS to do motion blur though in a more proper way, so this may be something we see in the future.

And in a way that makes us both happy.

 

[betan]

As they get closer they should get blurrier because they are travelling faster and are compensating for the inner-frame information that the renderer / display haven't displayed.

UNLESS you are looking at the ground right in front of you and following a point on the ground with your eyes.

And this would be a classic example of how motion blur DOESN'T work for a game.

Huh? What does focal point have anything to do with motion blur?
Or let me ask this way, you think when a real camera focuses on just the road just in front of the car you won't observe motion blur at all?
I suspect there is a confusion with depth of field blur.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Joshua was talking specifically about your eye tracking a point. The point you're tracking will stay in focus, but the extremities will blur.

 

[betan]

Joshua was talking specifically about your eye tracking a point.

You are right, he is talking about rotating eye to keep a point stationary as opposed to focusing a direction or pixel on screen. But motion blur effect is not done to mimic human eye but a camera which has the exact same behavior on display.

 

[Arwin]

Yeah. Human eyes are really complex. Not only is the peripheral vision a lot more sensitive to movement than the focal point, but there's this thing called a brain which continuously fills in all sorts of gaps.

 

[101998]

Yeah. Human eyes are really complex. Not only is the peripheral vision a lot more sensitive to movement than the focal point, but there's this thing called a brain which continuously fills in all sorts of gaps.

Not to mention the way the mind filters that information. I recently read a study that showed the mind filters information differently based on your emotional state, so two people standing next to each other can see entirely different things.

 

[AlNom]

The argument (that Turn10 pushed forward) that 60fps resolves the need for Motion Blur is absolute BS.

I agree 100%. I find myself putting the viewcam in-game (Forza 2) at the front bumper just so that I get that feeling of speed.

Not to mention the way the mind filters that information. I recently read a study that showed the mind filters information differently based on your emotional state, so two people standing next to each other can see entirely different things.

By any chance, was it a woman and a man standing next to one another?

 

[Phil]

Joshua,

Before I start, just to clarify; I am aware of the problem you are describing - I'm just not sure if I necessarely agree with that what you are refering to, is effectively noticable by the eye in a racing game that runs at a constant 60 fps, unless perhaps if he starts to focus on it.

Lets assume you are right and that what you are describing is noticable.

Is adding motion blur the best solution and worth the trade-off? I don't think so. There's a reason and I think one of your quotes nicely highlights it:

As they get closer they should get blurrier because they are travelling faster and are compensating for the inner-frame information that the renderer / display haven't displayed.

UNLESS you are looking at the ground right in front of you and following a point on the ground with your eyes.

In a game without any motion blur, a player can chose to focus on any object or part of the screen and see it sharp (as all objects are rendered sharp without artifical motionblur). It's something we do when driving in a car as well - sometimes we focus for a split of a second on things other than straight ahead and may get a glimpse of that tree moving past - or that rock on the road that you would have otherwise hit if you hadn't evaded it in time. In a game, those details aren't lost to the player, because at any one point, he can move his eyes across the screen and focus on small details moving past and follow them and see them sharp as he would in real life. The rest of vision that isn't in focus would be blured by his eye naturally, exactly identical to wether his looking into his tv or actually driving his car in real life.

If you have motion blur, the game developer is already making assumptions to where the player is looking. There's no way to know where the player is looking, so the most obvious thing to assume is, his looking straight onto the road and the track and the cars. So what do you blur? You blur everything around you, which I'm sure would work very well given the player looks exactly where the developer has intended by the blur. What if the player wants to follow a object on the road? A tree moving by in the corner? He effectively can't, as the tree will be artifically blured to enhance the sense of motion.

Is this trade-off really worth it? I really doubt it. First of all, all the sharp textures you are drawing in the game are effectively lost to the blur at high speeds for a benefit that may or may not be noticed.

Actually, I still stand firm that in the typicall racing game, 60 fps without motion blur is as good as it gets. The player can focus on anything on screen and see it sharp as he would in real-life and the rest of the screen would be blured naturally by his eye (because he isn't focusing on it). If he plays the game while following the track and other cars on the screen, the occasional object jumping pixels in a sharp corner won't be noticed anyway - because his eye is focused on the track ahead, or ultimately, one part of the screen.

The reason you are noticing those pixel jumps is if anything, because you are focusing on the moving objects on the other side of the screen. At least you can see them sharp. Imagine having motion blur - and perhaps you wouldn't even recognise which object just "blurred across the screen".

If you ask me, I prefer to have the choice where to look and see the things sharp that I want. Having them blurred for me and have me force to look at the part of the screen the developer has intended (or assumed) isn't better either. Then I'd rather have the occasional pixeljumping of objects moving quicker... which dare I say, I think, is quite rare in a realistic racer. How many corners are there that effectively make you turn by over 90° in less than a second?



As a side note: I've been into filming my own progress on road and track with my car using a video camera at 30 fps and it isn't (by far) quick enough to hide objects moving less smooth from one part of the screen to the other. And that's with perfect bluring by the closure speed of the camera which is as good as it gets. Having a 60 fps camera would help, obviously.

Then again, watching footage on tv isn't exactly the same as playing a game that should immerse the player into the game, making him think he's there in that car driving. Watching tv footage (or movies), it's easier to look at what the director has intended. Playing a game and imaging being there, it doesn't quite work. Perhaps that's why IMAX movies are that impressive - you really think you are there and can look at any part of the screen and it's crystal sharp. That's something you can do in games too, regardless how fast in motion you are.

Cheers Phil

PS: I hope the point I've tried to bring across in my last post has now succeeded.

 

[fallguy]

As was talked about on the first page... is there any benefit today in making a Jap account? They have different demos?

 

[Arwin]

I mostly agree with Phil. I don't think motion blur is important at all in a racing game, especially not one like GT. 60fps is the most important thing for me. I actually find me agreeing with Turn10. A sense of speed should come from other things, like seeing and feeling the bumps in the road, good sound, and nice force feedback effects. I also like the option to look left and right of you. One of the things I look forward most to now is a tilt sensor that you can wear on your head, so that you can look into the turns, and the in-game (in cockpit, preferably) camera tracks that movement.

 

[xatnys]

As was talked about on the first page... is there any benefit today in making a Jap account? They have different demos?

These days it's a bit of a mixed bag now that PSN is a little more mature. Demos/content will come out first in certain regions and today this doesn't seem to be limited to Japan i.e. sometimes Europe's or the US's PSN will get a demo first.

I think Japan had GTHD a little before the rest of us?

 

[one]

Some new details about GT5 Prologue from Famitsu:

+ Free demo download begins on Oct 20
+ The release date of GT5P is Dec 13. Download SKU: 4500 yen ($38), Blu-ray SKU: 4980 yen ($42)
+ Currently the progress of GT5P is at 75%, they are building UI for the game. An online race event is planned for the first day of the Tokyo Motor Show (Oct. 24)
+ A masked GT-R appears in the demo. Among new Japanese sports cars exhibited at Tokyo Motor Show, it is the only one playable in the demo on Oct. 20. The front part of this car is masked when you download it on Oct. 20, but it's going to be unveiled on Oct. 24, the first press day of the Tokyo Motor Show, when the real car is announced at the show. It means you can drive this masked version of GT-R only for 4 days, from Oct. 20 to Oct. 23. There are other cars from the show that will be playable after the show begins.
+ A new course Daytona is added with the oval course and the road course. Fuji Speedway is playable too.
+ Online ranking is not available for the demo. In Online Car Dealer, you can buy new cars with the money you earned in offline races, or receive new car info from real car manufacturers. Chat and friend list functions will be downloadable on an unknown date after the release of the retail SKUs on Dec. 13. At this point it's not decided if the London City track is in the retail SKU or becomes a free downloadable content after Dec. 13.
+ Basically additional cars, courses, top menu backgrounds, and other updates are free downloadable contents in GT5P. However GT.TV is not free, it's a video download store for car TV programs around the world.
+ GT5P has a photo mode, photos and replay videos in an album can be shared online with other users. It has no Photo Travel in GT4, you shoot photos on race tracks.

 

[DieH@rd]

+ The release date of GT5P is Dec 13. Download SKU: 4500 yen ($38), Blu-ray SKU: 4980 yen ($42)

Weird. PSN price is almost same as the BD version.

 

[Ben-Nice]

That's expensive for a downloadable game IMO. At least there is a free demo.

 

[wco81]

Same price as Warhawk download.

I'm sure they're going to look at how much Warhawk and Tekken DR Online downloads have fared, in determining the pricing.

How much was GT4 Prologue?

 

[Phil]

In Europe, GT4 Prologue was as much as a greatest-hits title (half price).